Inspectors General: Views on Semiannual Reporting (Letter Report,
08/25/1999, GAO/AIMD-99-203).

The Inspector General Act of 1978 requires each Inspector General to
issue semiannual reports summarizing the results of his or her work and
specifies the types of information that the reports are to contain. The
Act also requires the Inspector General to give the report to the agency
head, who sends the report, with management's response, to the
appropriate congressional committees. This report (1) provides
information on the composition of the semiannual reports and (2)
presents the views of a range of individuals--inspectors general, agency
managers, and congressional staff--on the usefulness of the current
reports and what modifications, if any, should be made to the current
semiannual reporting requirements.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  AIMD-99-203
     TITLE:  Inspectors General: Views on Semiannual Reporting
      DATE:  08/25/1999
   SUBJECT:  Reporting requirements
	     Surveys
	     Information resources management
	     Computer security
	     Congressional/executive relations
	     Inspectors general
	     Internal controls

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  This text was extracted from a PDF file.        **
** Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,      **
** headings, and bullets have not been preserved, and in some   **
** cases heading text has been incorrectly merged into          **
** body text in the adjacent column.  Graphic images have       **
** not been reproduced, but figure captions are included.       **
** Tables are included, but column deliniations have not been   **
** preserved.                                                   **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************

    United States General Accounting Office GAO                Report
    to Congressional Requesters August 1999        INSPECTORS GENERAL
    Views on Semiannual Reporting GAO/AIMD-99-203 United States
    General Accounting Office
    Accounting and Information Washington, D.C. 20548
    Management Division B-282804
    Letter August 25, 1999 The Honorable Dan Burton Chairman Committee
    on Government Reform House of Representatives The Honorable
    Stephen Horn Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Management,
    Information and Technology Committee on Government Reform House of
    Representatives This report responds to your request that we
    review the semiannual reporting requirements contained in the
    Inspector General (IG) Act of 1978, as amended.  The IG Act
    requires each Inspector General to issue semiannual reports
    summarizing the results of his or her work and identifies the type
    of information that the reports are to contain.  The IG Act also
    requires the IG to submit the report to the agency head who
    transmits the report, with management's response, to the
    appropriate congressional committees or subcommittees. Our review
    included 27 IGs who are appointed by the President with Senate
    confirmation.1  Our review also included the 30 IGs at designated
    federal entities (DFE) who are appointed by the agency head.2
    Appendix I lists the presidentially appointed IGs and appendix II
    lists the DFE IGs included in our review. 1The IG Act identifies
    26 of the 27 IGs.  Public Law 101-193 established an IG for the
    Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) who is appointed by the
    President and confirmed by the Senate, but is not subject to the
    IG Act.  Public Law 101-193 contains semiannual reporting
    requirements similar to those in the IG Act. The Office of the IG
    for the CIA did not provide us copies of its semiannual reports,
    but did participate in other parts of our review.  In addition,
    Public Law 105-206 amended the IG Act in 1998 to establish an IG
    for Tax Administration within the Department of the Treasury.  The
    Senate confirmed the IG in April 1999.  At the time of our review,
    the IG had not issued a semiannual report and, therefore, was not
    included in this report. 2Public Law 100-504 separately created an
    IG for the Government Printing Office (GPO).  For purposes of this
    report, we included GPO in the term "designated federal entity"
    because the GPO IG has similar duties and responsibilities as the
    29 DFE IGs. Letter           Page 1
    GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting B-282804 Our objectives
    were to obtain (1) information on the composition of the
    semiannual reports and (2) the views of a range of individuals-
    IGs, agency managers, and congressional staff-on the usefulness of
    the current reports and what modifications, if any, should be made
    to the current semiannual reporting requirements.  To accomplish
    our first objective, we reviewed the September 30, 1997, and March
    31, 1998, semiannual reports for 26 of the 27 presidentially
    appointed IGs and the 30 DFE IGs-a total of 112 reports. These
    were the two most recent semiannual reports available at the time
    we initiated our review.  We did not independently verify the
    information-for example, dollar savings-contained in the
    semiannual reports.  To obtain views on semiannual reporting, we
    (1) held focus groups with the IG or his or her designee and
    agency managers and (2) obtained the views of congressional staff
    through the use of a questionnaire. In planning for the focus
    groups, we requested that each IG and a representative of each
    agency participate.  The agency managers who attended the focus
    groups were in senior-level positions within their agencies.  Many
    of the attendees were their agency's Chief Financial Officer,
    while others served as their agency's Deputy Director for
    Administration, Deputy Executive Director, Controller, and
    Director, Office of Resource Management. To identify appropriate
    congressional staff, we asked each IG to provide us a list of the
    congressional committees, subcommittees, members, and
    congressional staff that are provided a copy of the semiannual
    report. From this information, we developed a list of
    congressional staff to whom the questionnaire was sent. The
    congressional staff who responded represented a cross-section of
    the Senate and House oversight, appropriations, and authorization
    committees.  Prior to sending out the questionnaire, it was
    pretested and revised, as necessary.  Appendix III provides
    further details on our objectives, scope, and methodology.  We
    performed our review from September 1998 through May 1999 in
    accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
    We requested comments on a draft of this report from the 57 IGs
    included in our review and two officials in the Office of
    Management and Budget (OMB): the Deputy Director of OMB and the
    Acting Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management.  The
    Acting Controller provided oral comments on behalf of OMB.  At the
    time we finalized our report, we had received written or oral
    comments from all 57 IGs.  The written responses that contained
    comments on the draft report or provided additional views Letter
    Page 2                                  GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG
    Semiannual Reporting B-282804 on the issue of semiannual reports
    are discussed in the "Agency Comment" section and reprinted in
    appendix VI. Results in Brief    Overall, the semiannual reports
    generally addressed the reporting requirements specified in the IG
    Act, as amended.  Approximately 91 percent of the reports (102 of
    112) addressed all 12 of the required areas. Additionally, we
    found that the semiannual reports discussed governmentwide issues,
    such as information technology, computer security, and the Year
    2000 computer problems, to varying degrees.  Many of the
    semiannual reports by presidentially appointed IGs-38 of 52-
    discussed information technology, but far fewer discussed computer
    security and the Year 2000 computer problem.  In the DFE IG
    semiannual reports we reviewed, 26 of the 60 discussed information
    technology issues, but relatively few discussed computer security
    and the Year 2000 computer problem. Congressional staff, for the
    most part, viewed the semiannual reports as being useful.  They
    noted that the reports were used in preparing for hearings as well
    as providing insight into the activities of the IGs and the
    agencies.  The congressional staff were also generally satisfied
    with the current reporting requirements, including the requirement
    that the report be issued semiannually.  They were of the opinion,
    however, that more emphasis needed to be placed on the systemic
    issues confronting each agency's management and that agency's
    implementation of the IG recommendations. There was a general
    consensus among the IGs and agency managers that the semiannual
    reports should be streamlined.  They generally agreed that the
    reports should focus on the significant issues that need to be
    brought to the attention of the Congress and agency management.
    In this regard, agency managers noted that the current semiannual
    reports are not very useful because they encompass all of the work
    performed over the past 6 months and it is sometimes difficult to
    identify the most significant issues. There was also strong
    sentiment in both groups for the issuance of the IG semiannual
    report to be annually.  However, about half of the DFE IGs wanted
    to retain the current semiannual reporting requirement. OMB and
    the IGs generally agreed with the contents of our report with some
    of the IGs providing additional perspective on semiannual
    reporting. Additionally, other IGs provided technical comments on
    the report, which have been incorporated, as appropriate. Page 3
    GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting B-282804 Background    As
    enacted in 1978, the Inspector General Act of 1978 identified six
    specific areas that were to be discussed in each semiannual
    report.  For example, the semiannual report was to provide a
    description of the significant problems in the agency's programs
    and operations, a summary of matters referred to prosecutive
    authorities and resulting convictions, and a list of each audit
    report completed during the reporting period.  The semiannual
    reports are to be prepared for the periods ending March 31 and
    September 30 of each year and are generally transmitted to the
    Congress within 60 days of the end of the reporting period.
    Although not addressed specifically in the act, the legislative
    history of the act clearly sets forth the purpose of the
    semiannual reports.  For example, House Report 95-584, dated
    August 5, 1977, noted that the IG report should describe
    significant problems, abuses, and deficiencies in agency
    operations and programs disclosed by activities of the offices,
    together with recommendations made for corrective action and an
    evaluation of the progress made in implementing the
    recommendations.  In addition, the IG semiannual reports were to
    be limited to recommendations that the IG regards as particularly
    important, rather than constituting a list of all recommendations
    for corrective action on which adequate management progress is not
    being made. Additional legislative history noted that the "reports
    will ordinarily be transmitted to Congress by the agency head
    without alteration or deletion."  In addition, the legislative
    history pointed out that this requirement was fundamental to the
    IG legislation and provides the foundation of the IG's
    independence. The Inspector General Act amendments of 1988 changed
    the reporting requirements. One of the original reporting
    requirements was modified and six requirements were added.
    Appendix IV lists the 12 specific areas that are to be covered by
    each semiannual report.  The modification and additions were made,
    according to Senate Report 100-150, because "IGs' semi-annual
    reports vary widely in the format and in terms used to describe
    the audit resolution process.  As a result, it is difficult for
    Congress to analyze individual agencies and develop an overall
    picture of the Federal Government's progress against waste, fraud
    and mismanagement." Additionally, Senate Report 100-150 noted that
    the changes in the reporting requirements would require more
    uniform and statistically reliable reports from the IGs and
    require agency heads to provide additional information on the
    progress made in implementing corrective actions. Page 4
    GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting B-282804 Content of the IG
    The following questions and answers discuss the (1) extent to
    which the Semiannual Reports    112 semiannual reports address
    each of the IG Act's 12 reporting requirements and (2) degree to
    which selected governmentwide management issues are addressed. 1.
    To what extent did the semiannual reports we reviewed address the
    12 specific areas required by the Inspector General Act of 1978,
    as amended? Overall, the semiannual reports generally addressed
    the reporting requirements specified in the IG Act, as amended.
    Approximately 91 percent of the reports (102 of 112) addressed all
    12 of the required areas. For the presidential IGs, 85 percent, or
    44 of the 52 reports, addressed the 12 areas.  In the case of the
    DFE IGs, 97 percent, or 58 of the 60 reports, addressed the
    required areas. The following charts provide an overview of the
    extent to which the IG semiannual reports addressed each of the 12
    reporting requirements.  For reporting purposes, we classified the
    reporting requirements into three categories, which are 1.
    requirements to identify significant concerns IGs have with agency
    operations, 2.  requirements to address concerns IGs have with
    actions taken by agency management, such as not providing
    requested information, and 3.  requirements for statistical
    tables. In terms of our overall analysis, a "discussed" response
    means that the semiannual reports contained some information for a
    particular reporting requirement, whereas a "not discussed"
    response means that the semiannual report did not contain
    information related to the particular reporting requirement.  A
    "no information to report" response means that the IG indicated
    that he or she had no information to report for a particular
    reporting requirement. The first category includes the following
    five reporting requirements: 1.  A description of significant
    problems (requirement #1). Page 5
    GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting B-282804 2.  A description
    of the recommendations for corrective action (requirement #2). 3.
    A description of any recommendations for which corrective actions
    are incomplete (requirement #3). 4.  A summarization of matters
    referred to prosecutive authorities (requirement #4). 5.  A
    summarization of significant reports (requirement #7). As shown in
    figure 1 (for the presidential IGs) and figure 2 (for the DFE IGs)
    their respective semiannual reports generally provided information
    for the five reporting requirements. Figure 1:  Reporting
    Requirements That Provide the Presidential IGs the Opportunity to
    Identify Significant Concerns With Agency Operations Number of
    reports Note:  There are 52 presidential reports. Page 6
    GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting B-282804 Figure 2:
    Reporting Requirements That Provide the DFE IGs the Opportunity to
    Identify Significant Concerns With Agency Operations Number of
    reports Note:  There are 60 DFE IG reports. Four of the
    requirements shown in figures 1 and 2 were part of the original
    reporting requirements set forth in the 1978 Act and were aimed at
    identifying significant concerns the IG has with agency
    operations. The second category of requirements addresses concerns
    that the IGs have with actions being taken by agency management.
    This category includes the following four reporting requirements:
    1.  A summary of matters for which the IG determined that there
    has been an unreasonable refusal to provide requested information
    or assistance (requirement #5). 2.  A summarization of each report
    issued in previous reporting periods for which no management
    decision had been made (requirement #10). 3.  A description and
    explanation of the reasons for any significant revised management
    decision (requirement #11). 4.  Information concerning any
    significant management decision with which the IG is in
    disagreement (requirement #12). Page 7
    GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting B-282804 As shown in
    figures 3 and 4, the semiannual reports we reviewed frequently
    provided a "no information to report" response for these four
    reporting requirements. Figure 3:  Reporting Requirements That
    Provide the Presidential IGs the Opportunity to Identify Concerns
    With Actions Taken by Agency Management Number of reports Note:
    There are 52 presidential reports. Page 8
    GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting B-282804 Figure 4:
    Reporting Requirements That Provide the DFE IGs the Opportunity to
    Identify Concerns With Actions Taken by Agency Management Number
    of reports Note:  There are 60 DFE reports. The third category of
    current reporting requirements involves the statistical tables.
    These three requirements (6, 8, and 9) require that monetary
    savings, if applicable, that result from the work performed by the
    IGs be identified.  For requirement 6, the IGs are to prepare an
    overall table showing the total dollar value of (1) questioned
    costs 3 and (2) recommendations that funds be put to better use 4
    for all audit reports issued during the reporting period.
    Further, these reports are to be subdivided by subject matter.
    The IG Act also requires that the semiannual report contain
    separate tables on questioned costs (requirement 8) and funds to
    be put to better use (requirement 9).5  These requirements were
    3House Conference Report 100-1020 defines questioned costs to mean
    those costs questioned by the IG because of  (1) an alleged
    violation of a provision of law, regulation, contract, grant,
    cooperative agreement, or other agreement or document governing
    the expenditure of funds, (2) a finding that, at the time of the
    audit, such cost is not supported by adequate documentation, or
    (3) a finding that the expenditure of funds for the intended
    purpose is unnecessary or unreasonable. 4Recommendations that
    funds be put to better use refers to recommendations made by the
    IG that funds could be used more efficiently if agency management
    "took actions to implement and complete the recommendation
    including (A) reductions in outlays; (B) deobligation of funds
    from programs or operations; (C) withdrawal of interest subsidy
    costs on loans or loan guarantees, insurance, or bonds; (D) cost
    not incurred by implementing recommended improvements related to
    the operations of the establishment, a contractor, or grantee; (E)
    avoidance of unnecessary expenditures noted in preaward reviews of
    contract or grant agreements; or (F) any other savings which are
    specifically identified." Page 9
    GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting B-282804 added to the IG
    Act by the 1988 amendments in an attempt to provide the Congress
    with more uniform and statistically reliable information on the
    federal government's progress against fraud, waste, and abuse. As
    shown in figure 5, virtually all of the presidential IG semiannual
    reports contained dollar amounts for the three reporting
    requirements related to the statistical tables. Figure 5:  Summary
    of Presidential IG Semiannual Reports-Statistical Table
    Requirements Number of reports Note:  There are 52 presidential IG
    reports. The information reported by the DFE IGs was different.
    As shown in figure 6, less than half of the DFE IG reports
    contained dollar amounts, with the majority reporting zeros in the
    tables or stating that the information was not applicable. 5Each
    table is to show the total number of audit reports and the total
    dollar value for audit reports (1) for which no management
    decision had been made by the commencement of the reporting
    period, (2) which were issued during the reporting period, (3) for
    which a management decision had been made during the reporting
    period, and (4) for which no management decision had been made by
    the end of the reporting period. Page 10
    GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting B-282804 Figure 6:
    Summary of DFE IG Semiannual Reports-Statistical Table
    Requirements Number of reports Note:  There are 60 DFE IG reports.
    2.  Besides the reporting requirements specified in the IG Act,
    did the IG semiannual reports discuss governmentwide issues such
    as the results of financial statement audits, information
    technology, the Year 2000 computer problem,6 computer security,
    and their agency's implementation of the Results Act?7 The IG
    semiannual reports discussed these governmentwide issues to
    varying degrees.  As shown in figure 7, about 73 percent of the
    presidential IG semiannual reports (38 of 52) discussed the IGs'
    efforts in the area of information technology.  The Year 2000
    problem and computer security were discussed to a lesser extent.
    Eleven of the 52 reports discussed 6The Year 2000 computer problem
    involves the inability of computer programs at the Year 2000 to
    interpret the correct century from a recorded or calculated date
    having only two digits to indicate the year. 7The Results Act-
    officially known as the Government Performance and Results Act of
    1993-requires that each agency covered by the act develop a
    strategic plan that contains the following elements:  (1) a
    comprehensive mission statement, (2) general goals and objectives
    for all major functions and operations, (3) approaches or
    strategies and the resources needed to achieve the goals and
    objectives, (4) a description of the relationship between the
    goals and objectives and the annual performance goals, (5) an
    identification of key factors external to the agency beyond its
    control that could significantly affect the achievement of the
    goals, and (6) a description of how past program evaluations were
    used to establish revised goals and a schedule for future program
    evaluations. Page 11
    GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting B-282804 computer
    security, whereas the Year 2000 problem was discussed in 19 of the
    52 reports. Figure 7:  Number of Presidential IG Reports That
    Discuss Information on Governmentwide Issues Number of reports
    Note:  There are 52 presidential reports. As shown in figure 8,
    for the DFE IGs, almost half of the semiannual reports (26 of 60)
    discussed information technology issues.  Relatively few reports
    discussed computer security (3 of 60) and the Year 2000 computer
    problem (7 of 60). Page 12
    GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting B-282804 Figure 8:  Number
    of DFE IG Reports That Discuss Information on Governmentwide
    Issues Number of reports Note:  There are 60 DFE IG reports. As
    shown in figure 9, 25 of the presidential IGs discussed the
    results of their respective agency's financial statement audits
    and 16 discussed the Results Act in at least one of the two
    semiannual reports we reviewed for each IG. Figure 9:  Number of
    Presidential IGs That Discuss Financial Statement Audits and the
    Results Act Number of IGs Note:  Reporting related to the
    financial statement audits and the Results Act occurs annually.
    Therefore, if these two areas were discussed in either of the two
    semiannual reports reviewed for each IG, we considered them as
    being addressed.  As a result, the information presented for the
    financial statement audits and Results Act is based upon the
    number of IGs.  We reviewed the semiannual reports for 26
    presidential IGs. Page 13
    GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting B-282804 Not all
    designated federal entities are required to have financial
    statement audits.  We found that 16 of the 30 entities had
    financial statement audits and, as shown in figure 10, 11 of the
    DFE IGs included a discussion of the results within one of the two
    semiannual reports.  In addition, 23 of the 30 DFE IGs' respective
    agencies are required to comply with the Results Act and 9 of the
    23 DFE IGs discussed the Results Act within one of the two
    semiannual reports we reviewed from each IG. Figure 10:  Number of
    DFE IGs That Discuss Financial Statement Audits and the Results
    Act Number of IGs Note: Reporting related to the financial
    statement audits and the Results Act occurs annually. Therefore,
    if these two areas were discussed in either of the two semiannual
    reports reviewed, we considered them as being addressed.  As a
    result, the information presented for the financial statement
    audits and Results Act is based upon the number of IGs-there are
    30 DFE IGs. Views of Congressional  We developed and administered
    a questionnaire to obtain the views of the Staff and Agency
    congressional staff on the usefulness of the semiannual reports.
    We obtained the views of agency managers through focus groups.  In
    total, we Managers on the                  obtained the views of
    47 congressional staff and 29 agency managers. Usefulness of IG
    Semiannual Reports               3.  Do congressional staff and
    agency managers find the information contained in the IGs
    semiannual reports to be useful? From an overall perspective, most
    of the congressional staff responding to our questionnaire
    indicated that the semiannual reports were useful.  On Page 14
    GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting B-282804 the other hand,
    19 of the 29 agency managers told us that the semiannual reports
    were not useful to them.  A primary reason cited was that the
    semiannual reports do not contain any new information. These two
    groups' respective views are discussed in more detail below. Views
    of Congressional Staff In response to the questionnaire, 36 of the
    47 congressional staff indicated that the usefulness of the
    semiannual reports ranged from "moderate" to "a very great
    extent."  The staff indicated that they used the reports primarily
    to stay apprised of what was occurring in the agency (42 of 47)
    and within the IG's office (38 of 47).  Congressional staff also
    noted that the semiannual reports were beneficial in preparing for
    hearings (26 of 47) and as a reference document (26 of 47).  In
    their comments, congressional staff indicated that the reports
    were used to generate ideas for hearings and legislation, view
    issues from a multiagency perspective, and identify Results Act
    and Year 2000 compliance. Views of Agency
    Agency managers were of the opinion that the semiannual reports
    did not Management                          provide any new
    information or perspectives and were too detailed to be of use to
    management.  They noted that the semiannual reports were a recap
    of the previously issued reports that had been commented upon by
    agency management.  Their view was that, as a result, it was
    sometimes difficult to determine which were the most significant
    issues that should be the focus of management's attention.
    Additionally, some of the managers noted that the semiannual
    reports are not very useful in a small agency where only a few
    reports are issued in a 6-month period. Modifications to the
    We also obtained the views of the congressional staff, IGs, and
    agency Current Reporting                   managers on (1) what
    modifications, if any, should be made to the current semiannual
    reporting requirements and (2) how the semiannual reports
    Requirements                        could be improved. 4.  What
    modifications, if any, did the congressional staff, IGs, and
    agency managers believe should be made to the current reporting
    requirements? All three groups indicated a general satisfaction
    with most of the current semiannual reporting requirements, except
    for the requirements related to the statistical tables.  Appendix
    V provides a summary of each group's Page 15
    GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting B-282804 opinion in regard
    to each of the 12 current reporting requirements, including
    suggested modifications. 5.  What suggestions did congressional
    staff, IGs, and agency managers have for improving semiannual
    reports? From an overall perspective, the congressional staff,
    IGs, and agency managers agreed that the primary purpose of
    semiannual reporting is to inform the Congress of the various
    problems confronting each agency. There was also general agreement
    that not all issues need to be discussed in the semiannual report,
    but rather that the semiannual report should focus on significant
    issues that the Congress and agency management need to address.
    Each group did suggest ways in which the semiannual reports could
    be improved.  The views of each group are discussed in more detail
    below. The views presented below are not all inclusive, but rather
    represent the most common views that were provided by each group.
    Views of the Congressional  Although the congressional staff found
    the current reports to be useful and Staff
    were in favor of the current reporting requirements, they offered
    various suggestions as to how they think the reports could be made
    more useful. For instance, 26 of the 47 staff responding to the
    questionnaire were of the opinion that additional emphasis should
    be placed on the "significant issues" facing agency management,
    such as the high-risk areas and the top 10 management issues.
    Second, 20 congressional staff noted that the IG reports should
    provide additional insight into the actions being taken by agency
    management to implement the recommendations made by the IG.
    Additionally, 16 staff noted that the IG reports should discuss
    the systemic problems agency management must resolve. The majority
    of the congressional staff (30 of 47) favored retaining the
    current semiannual reporting requirement.  Only six congressional
    staff favored annual IG reporting. Views of the IGs
    Among the IG community, there was a general consensus that the
    report should be more streamlined.  The IG focus groups made the
    following suggestions. * Twenty-nine IGs suggested that the report
    contain an executive summary that would highlight the results of
    the IG's work. Page 16                                 GAO/AIMD-
    99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting B-282804 * Ten IGs suggested that
    the report provide an overview of the agency, discuss the IG's
    resources, and summarize the activities of the IG.  These
    particular IGs were of the opinion that the report needs to be
    meaningful, brief, and "not padded." * The report should be
    limited to 20 pages and discuss the five most important issues
    within the agency.  Along the same line, others suggested that the
    report should discuss the top 10 management issues affecting the
    agency.  These two comments were supported by 10 IGs. * About two
    thirds of the presidential IGs (17 of 24) were in favor of the
    report being issued annually rather than semiannually.  However,
    about half of the DFE IGs (11 of 24) favored continuing with the
    current semiannual reporting requirement.  These IGs were of the
    opinion that semiannual reporting to the Congress encourages
    agency management to act upon the IG's recommendations in a timely
    manner. There was also some support among the IGs-presidential and
    DFE-that the semiannual report should relate the activities of the
    IG to their respective agency's strategic plan and performance
    plan to focus the IG on the important issues of the agency.  As
    previously discussed, these plans must be prepared by most
    agencies in order to comply with the Results Act. The IGs were
    also of the opinion that their reports should remain distinct from
    any other reporting done by the agency.  They emphasized that
    separate reporting by the IGs was critical in order to maintain
    some degree of leverage in having agency management act upon their
    recommendations. They were also of the opinion that if the IG's
    report were to be combined with a report prepared by the agency
    that the IG's report would "get lost." Views of the Agency
    Like the IGs, for the most part, agency managers were of the
    opinion that Managers                the semiannual report should
    be streamlined.  From an overall perspective, agency managers
    noted that the report should focus more on the significant issues
    that agency management must resolve.  They offered the following
    suggestions to improve the usefulness of the semiannual reporting.
* The report should discuss the top 10 management issues, be in
    the form of a letter, and include management's response. * Less
    significant issues do not need to be included in the semiannual
    report to the Congress, but they should continue to be reported to
    agency management.  The act requires the IG to include significant
    issues in the semiannual report to the Congress, but in the view
    of agency managers the term "significant" has not been clearly
    defined.  As Page 17                                  GAO/AIMD-99-
    203 IG Semiannual Reporting B-282804 a result, the agency managers
    view the current semiannual report as basically all inclusive of
    the work performed by the IG during the 6-month period. * The IG's
    report should discuss systemic problems and identify the course of
    action that should be followed to resolve the problems. * The IG's
    report should discuss the results of the IG's latest peer review.
    Under generally accepted government auditing standards, the IGs
    are to have an external quality control review every 3 years.
    Such reviews are generally performed by an IG in another agency
    and are intended to provide reasonable assurance that established
    policies and procedures and applicable auditing standards are
    being followed. * There was also general consensus among the
    agency managers that the report should be issued annually, rather
    than semiannually. There was also support among the agency
    managers for incorporating the IG's report into the agency's
    Accountability Report.  The Government Management Reform Act of
    1994 authorized OMB to implement a pilot program to streamline and
    consolidate certain statutory financial management and performance
    reports into a single, annual agency Accountability Report.
    However, as discussed above, some of the IGs were opposed to any
    type of consolidated reporting, noting that the IG's report could
    "get lost" if combined with a report prepared by the agency.
    Agency Comments    We received oral comments from OMB and oral or
    written comments from all 57 IGs.  OMB and the IGs generally
    agreed with the contents of the report.  We have incorporated
    their comments as appropriate. We are sending copies of this
    report to Representative Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Minority Member,
    House Committee on Government Reform; Representative Jim Turner,
    Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Government Management,
    Information and Technology, House Committee on Government Reform;
    Senator Fred Thompson, Chairman, and Senator Joseph Liberman,
    Ranking Minority Member, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs;
    and the Honorable Jacob Lew, Director, Office of Management and
    Budget; and the 57 IGs, included in our review.  Copies will be
    made available to others upon request. Page 18
    GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting B-282804 Key contributors
    to this report are listed in appendix VII.  If you have any
    questions concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 512-
    6240. Linda D. Koontz Associate Director, Audit Oversight and
    Liaison Page 19                                  GAO/AIMD-99-203
    IG Semiannual Reporting Contents Letter
    1 Appendix I
    24 Presidentially Appointed Inspectors General Included in Our
    Review Appendix II
    26 Designated Federal Entity Inspectors General Included in Our
    Review Appendix III
    28 Objectives, Scope, and Methodology Appendix IV
    31 Semiannual Reporting Requirement of the Inspector General Act,
    as Amended Page 20    GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting
    Appendix V
    32 Summary of the Views of IGs, Agency Managers, and Congressional
    Staff on the Current Semiannual Reporting Requirements Appendix VI
    33 Comments From the Inspectors General Appendix VII
    48 GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgements Figures
    Figure 1:  Reporting Requirements That Provide the Presidential
    IGs the Opportunity to Identify Significant Concerns With Agency
    Operations
    6 Figure 2:  Reporting Requirements That Provide the DFE IGs the
    Opportunity to Identify Significant Concerns With Agency
    Operations 7 Figure 3:  Reporting Requirements That Provide the
    Presidential IGs the Opportunity to Identify Concerns With Actions
    Taken by Agency Management
    8 Figure 4:  Reporting Requirements That Provide the DFE IGs the
    Opportunity to Identify Concerns With Actions Taken by Agency
    Management 9 Figure 5:  Summary of Presidential IG Semiannual
    Reports-Statistical Table Requirements 10 Figure 6:  Summary of
    DFE IG Semiannual Reports-Statistical Table Requirements 11 Page
    21                               GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual
    Reporting Contents Figure 7:  Number of Presidential IG Reports
    That Discuss Information on Governmentwide Issues
    12 Figure 8:  Number of DFE IG Reports That Discuss Information on
    Governmentwide Issues
    13 Figure 9:  Number of Presidential IGs That Discuss Financial
    Statement Audits and the Results Act
    13 Figure 10:  Number of DFE IGs That Discuss Financial Statement
    Audits and the Results Act
    14 Abbreviations CIA           Central Intelligence Agency DFE
    designated federal entity GPO           Government Printing Office
    IG            inspector general OMB           Office of Management
    and Budget Page 22                                      GAO/AIMD-
    99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Page 23    GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG
    Semiannual Reporting Appendix I Presidentially Appointed
    Inspectors General Included in Our Review
    Appendix I Agency for International Development Central
    Intelligence Agency Corporation for National and Community Service
    Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce Department of
    Defense Department of Education Department of Energy Department of
    Health and Human Services Department of Housing and Urban
    Development Department of the Interior Department of Justice
    Department of Labor Department of State Department of
    Transportation Department of the Treasury Department of Veterans
    Affairs Environmental Protection Agency Federal Deposit Insurance
    Corporation Federal Emergency Management Agency General Services
    Administration Page 24                                  GAO/AIMD-
    99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix I Presidentially Appointed
    Inspectors General Included in Our Review National Aeronautics and
    Space Administration Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of
    Personnel Management Railroad Retirement Board Small Business
    Administration Social Security Administration Page 25
    GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix II Designated
    Federal Entity Inspectors General Included in Our Review
    Appendix I I Amtrak Appalachian Regional Commission Commodity
    Futures Trading Commission Consumer Product Safety Commission
    Corporation for Public Broadcasting Equal Employment Opportunity
    Commission Farm Credit Administration Federal Communications
    Commission Federal Election Commission Federal Housing Finance
    Board Federal Labor Relations Authority Federal Maritime
    Commission Federal Reserve Board Federal Trade Commission
    Government Printing Office Legal Services Corporation National
    Archives and Records Administration National Credit Union
    Administration National Endowment for the Arts National Endowment
    for the Humanities National Labor Relations Board Page 26
    GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix II Designated
    Federal Entity Inspectors General Included in Our Review National
    Science Foundation Panama Canal Commission Peace Corps Pension
    Benefit Guaranty Corporation Securities and Exchange Commission
    Smithsonian Institution Tennessee Valley Authority United States
    International Trade Commission United States Postal Service Page
    27                                  GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual
    Reporting Appendix III Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
    Append Iix I I Our objectives were to obtain (1) information on
    the composition of the semiannual reports and whether the 12
    specific areas identified in the Inspector General Act of 1978, as
    amended, were discussed in the semiannual reports and (2) the
    views of a range of individuals who are familiar with the
    semiannual reports-the IGs, agency managers, and congressional
    staff-on the usefulness of the current reports and what
    modifications, if any, should be made. To accomplish our first
    objective, we reviewed the September 30, 1997, and March 31, 1998,
    semiannual reports issued by 26 presidential and 30 DFE IGs-a
    total of 112 reports.  These were the two most recent semiannual
    reports available at the time we initiated our review.1  We
    compared the 12 areas specifically identified in the act to each
    report to determine if the items were included, or identified by
    the IG as not being applicable.  In those instances in which all
    12 areas were not clearly identified within the semiannual
    reports, we followed up with the respective IG's office to
    ascertain why it was not included.  In most instances, the IG's
    office commented that there was nothing to report.  In those
    cases, we considered the response to be "not applicable"-which we
    have considered as being responsive to the IG Act reporting
    requirements.  In terms of our overall analysis, a "discussed"
    response means the semiannual reports contained some information
    for a particular reporting requirement, whereas, a "not discussed"
    response means the semiannual report did not provide data for a
    reporting requirement.  A "no information to report" response
    means that the IG indicated he or she had no information to report
    for that particular reporting requirement.  We did not
    independently verify the information-for example, dollar savings-
    contained in the semiannual reports. In reviewing these reports,
    we also determined if the semiannual reports addressed selected
    key management issues related to the results of financial
    statement audits, information technology, the Year 2000 computer
    problem, computer security, and their respective agency's
    implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act-
    commonly referred to as the Results Act.  Three of these issues-
    financial statement audits, implementation of the Results Act, and
    information technology-have been the subject of major management
    reform legislation in recent years and as such are of particular
    interest to the Congress.  The remaining two issues- 1The Office
    of the Inspector General for the Central Intelligence Agency did
    not provide us copies of the semiannual reports and therefore, was
    not part of our analysis.  However, the CIA IG did participate in
    our focus groups. Page 28
    GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix III Objectives,
    Scope, and Methodology the Year 2000 problem and computer
    security-have been identified by us as being governmentwide areas
    at high risk2 and are likewise of particular interest to the
    Congress, because such problems could disrupt the continuity of
    key government operations. To accomplish our second objective, we
    held focus groups with the IGs and agency management. In planning
    for the focus groups, we requested that each IG and a
    representative of each agency participate in the meetings. Fifty
    of the IGs or their designees attended the meetings-26
    presidential IGs and 24 DFE IGs.  The 29 agency managers who
    attended the focus group meetings were in senior-level positions
    within their respective agency.  For example, many of the
    attendees were their respective agency's Chief Financial Officer,
    while others served as their agency's Deputy Director for
    Administration, Deputy Executive Director, Controller, or
    Director, Office of Resource Management. We obtained the views of
    the congressional staff through the use of a questionnaire.3  In
    developing the list of congressional staff to whom we sent the
    questionnaire, we asked each IG to list the congressional
    committees, subcommittees, members, and congressional staff that
    are provided a copy of the semiannual report.  Prior to sending
    out the questionnaire, it was pretested and revised as necessary.
    The questionnaire was sent to 232 congressional staff and
    responses were received from 574 staff.  The congressional staff
    that responded represented a cross-section of the Senate and House
    oversight, appropriation, and authorization committees. In regard
    to the purpose and usefulness of the semiannual reports, we asked
    the agency managers and congressional staff their views as users
    of the reports.  Also, we asked each group its respective views on
    the current reporting requirements and what modifications, if any,
    should be considered.  Appendix V summarizes the views of all
    three groups with regard to the current reporting requirements.
    We performed our review 2High-Risk Series:  An Overview (GAO/HR-
    97-1, February 1997). 3Two focus group sessions were held with
    congressional staff.  Since only eight attended, we used a
    questionnaire to obtain a broader spectrum of views. The views
    presented at the focus groups were used to demonstrate how
    congressional staff use the semiannual reports.  The questionnaire
    results were used to quantify information such as the data
    presented in appendix V. 4We received responses from 57
    congressional staff, but 10 indicated that they either do not
    receive the semiannual reports or do not use them. Page 29
    GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix III Objectives,
    Scope, and Methodology from September 1998 through May 1999, in
    accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
    We requested comments on a draft of this report from the 57 IGs
    included in our review and two officials in the Office of
    Management and Budget (OMB): the Deputy Director of OMB and the
    Acting Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management.  The
    Acting Controller provided oral comments on behalf of OMB.  At the
    time we finalized our report, we had received written or oral
    comments from all 57 IGs.  The written responses that contained
    comments on the draft report or provided additional views on the
    issue of semiannual reports are discussed in the "Agency Comment"
    section and reprinted in appendix VI. Page 30
    GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix IV Semiannual
    Reporting Requirement of the Inspector General Act, as Amended
    Appendix I V Sub-section    Section 5(a) reporting requirements 1
    A description of significant problems, abuses and deficiencies
    relating to the administration of programs and operations of such
    establishment disclosed by such activities during the reporting
    period 2              A description of the recommendations for
    corrective action made by the IG during the reporting period with
    respect to significant problems, abuses, or deficiencies
    identified pursuant to subsection 1 3              An
    identification of each significant recommendation described in
    previous semiannual reports on which corrective action has not
    been completed 4              A summary of matters referred to
    prosecutive authorities and the prosecutions and convictions which
    have resulted 5              A summary of each report made to the
    head of the establishment when the IG judges that there has been
    an unreasonable refusal to provide requested information or
    assistance 6              A list, subdivided according to subject
    matter, of each audit report issued by the IG during the reporting
    period and for each audit report, where applicable, the total
    dollar value of questioned costs and the dollar value of
    recommendations that funds be put to better use 7              A
    summary of each particularly significant report 8
    Statistical tables showing the total number of audit reports and
    the total dollar value of questioned costs audit reports a.  for
    which no management decision had been made, b.  which were issued
    during the reporting period, c.  for which a management decision
    was made during the period, and d.  for which no management
    decision had been made by the end of the reporting period 9
    Statistical tables showing the total number of audit reports and
    the dollar value recommendations that funds be put to better use
    by management, for audit reports a.  for which no management
    decision had been made by the commencement of the reporting
    period, b.  which were issued during the reporting period, c.  for
    which a management decision was made during the period, and d.
    for which no management decision had been made by the end of the
    reporting period 10             A summary of each audit report
    issued before the commencement of the reporting period for which
    no management decision has been made by the end of the reporting
    period, an explanation of the reasons such management decision has
    not been made, and a statement concerning the desired timetable
    for achieving a management decision on each such report 11
    A description and explanation of the reasons for any significant
    revised management decision made during the reporting period 12
    Information concerning any significant management decision with
    which the Inspector General disagrees Page 31
    GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix V Summary of the
    Views of IGs, Agency Managers, and Congressional Staff on the
    Current Semiannual Reporting Requirements Appendix V Requirementa
    Keep                                        Delete
    Modifyb IGs      AM      CS Total                IGs         AM
    CS      Total           IGs        AM         CS       Total 14 1
    2 0 3 7 9 8 1 2 0 3 6 4 5 1 5 24 1 1 5 3 8 9 4 1 3 0 4 6 8 4 1 8
    33 6 1 3 3 2 8 1 5 6 1 1 2 5 7 6 1 8 44 0 1 3 3 4 8 7 3 7 2 1 2 5
    5 2 1 2 5 44                 16       30       90
    2        6       1          9             2          3        2
    7 6 28                      7       31       66                10
    11       2        23            10           6        3
    19 7               38       10       34       82                 5
    12       2        19              5          4        2
    11 8 13                      5       27       45                21
    9       6        36            14         10         1
    25 9               13        3       25       41                20
    12       5        37            15           9        3
    27 10              25       15       26       66                14
    7       2        23              9          4        7
    20 11              28       15       27       70                14
    8       2        24              6          3        4
    13 12              41       16       35       92                 5
    5       0        10              2          4        3
    9 Legend: IG--inspector general AM--agency managers CS--
    congressional staff Note:  Not all of the IGs or their designees
    (50), agency managers (29), or congressional staff (47), provided
    their views on each of the current reporting requirements.
    Therefore, the number of responses will not in all cases add to 50
    for the IGs, 29 for the agency managers, or 47 for the
    congressional staff. aSee appendix IV for the specific wording for
    each of the listed reporting requirements. bIn some instances, the
    respondents suggested that the current reporting element be
    modified, but did not provide any specifics.   In other instances,
    it was suggested that the specific words within a given
    requirement be revised or additional explanation provided.  While
    others suggested combining several requirements. Page 32
    GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix VI Comments From
    the Inspectors General
    Appendix VI Note:  GAO comments supplementing those in the report
    text appear at the end of this appendix. See comment 1. Page 33
    GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix VI Comments From
    the Inspectors General See comment 2. Page 34
    GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix VI Comments From
    the Inspectors General See comment 3. See comment 2. See comments
    2 and 4. Page 35                                 GAO/AIMD-99-203
    IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix VI Comments From the Inspectors
    General See comment 5. See comment 6. Page 36
    GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix VI Comments From
    the Inspectors General See comment 7. See comment 8. See comment
    9. Page 37                                 GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG
    Semiannual Reporting Appendix VI Comments From the Inspectors
    General See comment 10. See comment 11. Letter    Page 38
    GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix VI Comments From
    the Inspectors General Page 39
    GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix VI Comments From
    the Inspectors General Page 40
    GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix VI Comments From
    the Inspectors General Page 41
    GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix VI Comments From
    the Inspectors General Page 42
    GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix VI Comments From
    the Inspectors General Page 43
    GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix VI Comments From
    the Inspectors General Page 44
    GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix VI Comments From
    the Inspectors General Page 45
    GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix VI Comments From
    the Inspectors General The following are GAO's comments on the
    Appalachian Regional Commission Inspector General's letter dated
    June 29, 1999, Department of Justice Inspector General's letter
    dated July 15, 1999, Small Business Administration Inspector
    General's letter dated July 20, 1999, and the National Labor
    Relations Board Inspector General's letter dated July 21, 1999.
    GAO Comment    1.  The report, as written, discusses the extent to
    which congressional staff, Inspectors General, and agency
    management believe the semiannual reports are meeting the
    expectations of each respective group.  In regard to the
    appropriate frequency of reporting, there was no consensus among
    the focus group participants on this issue.  The congressional
    staff were generally in favor of retaining the semiannual
    reporting requirement, whereas most of the agency managers favored
    annual reporting.  In regard to the IGs, 17 of 24 presidential IGs
    favored annual reporting; but 11 of 24 DFE IGs favored continuing
    with semiannual reporting.  Finally, the alternative mentioned in
    the comment letter was not among the major points of view
    discussed by the focus group participants. 2.  We have provided
    additional details regarding participation by congressional staff
    and IGs. 3.  We recognize that the Inspector General Act does not
    require the semiannual reports to discuss governmentwide issues.
    Our analysis in this area was a means of characterizing the
    contents of the semiannual reports by identifying the extent to
    which the reports addressed well-known management challenges that
    are facing all agencies across government.  We did not single out
    information technology, the Year 2000 problem, and computer
    security but also included financial statement audits and Results
    Act implementation.  Three of these issues-financial statement
    audits, implementation of the Results Act, and information
    technology-have been the subject of major management reform
    legislation in recent years and as such are of particular interest
    to the Congress. The remaining two-the Year 2000 problem and
    computer security-have been identified by GAO as being
    governmentwide areas at high risk and are likewise of particular
    interest to the Congress, because such problems could disrupt the
    continuity of key government operations.  We have revised the
    report to include our rationale for selecting these issues. 4.  We
    have clarified the report to show that appropriations staff were
    also queried.  The results of the questionnaire sent to
    congressional staff cannot Page 46
    GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix VI Comments From
    the Inspectors General be extrapolated to the universe of staff
    surveyed.  For this reason, the report properly discusses only the
    views of the staff that responded. 5.  As discussed in the report,
    our objective was to summarize the views of a wide range of
    knowledgeable individuals on the semiannual reports and, thus, we
    draw no conclusions.  The report, as written, includes the
    participants' rationale for their views where we were able to
    identify common themes in the focus group discussions.  However,
    we did not specifically attempt to identify the participants'
    rationale for their views on keeping, deleting, or modifying the
    existing reporting requirements. 6.  This report does not discuss
    the full range of IG reporting requirements as this was beyond the
    scope of our work. 7.  The report does not identify the specific
    views of any particular IG, but rather, represents the most common
    views provided by the various focus groups held with the IGs.  In
    that regard, the IG of the National Labor Relations Board
    participated in the focus group sessions while serving as the IG
    at the International Trade Commission. 8.  The terms, as discussed
    in the report, are technically correct and therefore, no changes
    to the report are necessary. 9.  For figures 1 through 6 "not
    applicable" has been changed to "no information to report." 10.
    The use of the term "significant" on pages 9 and 10 describes the
    first reporting requirement of the IG Act which requires a
    discussion of ". . . significant problems, abuses, and
    deficiencies . . ." as further defined in appendix IV.  The tables
    on these pages show the number of semiannual reports which
    contained a discussion of problems that the IGs themselves
    described as "significant."  We made no independent judgements on
    the IGs' designations. 11.  No change to the report is deemed
    necessary. Page 47                                    GAO/AIMD-99-
    203 IG Semiannual Reporting Appendix VII GAO Contacts and Staff
    Acknowledgements Appendix VII GAO Contacts              Darby W.
    Smith, (202) 512-7803 Edith A. Pyles, (202) 512-9582
    Acknowledgements          In addition to those named above,
    Jackson W. Hufnagle, Jeffrey A. Jacobson, Dieter M. Kiefer, and
    RoJeanne L. Liu made key contributions to this report. (911937)
    Letter    Page 48                               GAO/AIMD-99-203 IG
    Semiannual Reporting Ordering Information The first copy of each
    GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each.
    Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a
    check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents,
    when necessary, VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted,
    also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single
    address are discounted 25 percent. Orders by mail: U.S. General
    Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC  20013 or visit:
    Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S.
    General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed
    by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061,
    or TDD (202) 512-2537. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly
    available reports and testimony.  To receive facsimile copies of
    the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call
    (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone.  A recorded menu will
    provide information on how to obtain these lists. For information
    on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET, send an e-mail
    message with "info" in the body to: [email protected] or visit
    GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at: http://www.gao.gov United
    States                       Bulk Rate General Accounting Office
    Postage & Fees Paid Washington, D.C. 20548-0001            GAO
    Permit No. GI00 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300
    Address Correction Requested

*** End of document. ***