-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-02-1074		

TITLE:     Workforce Investment Act: Interim Report on Status of 
Spending and States' Available Funds

DATE:   09/05/2002 
				                                                                         
----------------------------------------------------------------- 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-02-1074

   Report to Congressional Requesters

   United States General Accounting Office

   GAO

   September 2002 WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT

   Interim Report on Status of Spending and States' Available Funds

   GAO- 02- 1074

   Page i GAO- 02- 1074 Workforce Investment Act Letter 1

   Appendix I Overview of Congressional Briefing 4

   Appendix II Nine Selected States 23

   Appendix III List of States that Received Letters from Labor 24

   Related GAO Products 25 Contents

   Page 1 GAO- 02- 1074 Workforce Investment Act

   September 5, 2002 The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy Chairman, Committee on
   Health, Education

   Labor and Pensions United States Senate

   The Honorable Howard P. *Buck* McKeon Chairman, Subcommittee on 21st
   Century Competitiveness Committee on Education and the Workforce House of
   Representatives

   With the enactment of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA), the
   Congress made sweeping changes to federal employment and training
   programs. WIA sought to unify previously fragmented programs and create a
   more comprehensive workforce investment system by bringing together most
   federally funded employment and training services into a single service
   delivery system known as the one- stop center system. In July 2002, most
   states had just completed their second full year of implementation. With a
   program year 2002 1 authorization of about $3.6 billion, WIA serves the
   nation*s adults, dislocated workers, and youth. Twice the administration
   has proposed reducing the program*s budget* proposing a $359 million
   reduction for fiscal year 2002 and $343 million in 2003. In both cases,
   the administration has cited states* large amounts of unexpended funds
   carried over from the prior year. However, state and local workforce
   officials have expressed a need for more funding in light of current
   economic conditions.

   To more fully assess whether the Department of Labor*s spending
   information is a true reflection of states* available funds, you asked us
   to determine (1) whether Labor has accurate information on states* WIA
   spending, (2) what Labor does to determine how states are managing their
   WIA spending, and (3) what affects states* WIA expenditure rates.

   To respond to these questions, we analyzed the most recent available
   spending data from Labor and the 50 states. We also interviewed state
   workforce officials in nine states and local officials in at least one
   area in

   1 A program year begins July 1 and ends June 30.

   United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

   Page 2 GAO- 02- 1074 Workforce Investment Act

   seven of the states, along with officials at Labor headquarters, five
   regions, and four national associations. In selecting the states, we
   focused primarily on those with the larger WIA allocations. These states
   were geographically dispersed, included states with single and multiple
   workforce areas, and represented a range of expenditure rates and
   experience levels in implementing WIA. In selecting local areas, we chose
   from among the largest local areas in the state. We conducted our work
   from April to August 2002 in accordance with generally accepted government
   auditing standards.

   On August 15 and 22, 2002, we briefed your staffs on the results of our
   analysis. This report formally conveys the information provided during
   those briefings.

   In summary, we found that Labor does not have accurate information on
   states* WIA spending due to reporting inconsistencies* all states do not
   report expenditures or commitments in the same way. Lacking accurate
   information on funds that have been committed by the states and local
   areas, Labor overestimates the funds that states have available to spend.
   Even if expenditures are understated, however, Labor*s data show that WIA
   funds are being spent within the authorized 3- year timeframe. In fact, as
   of March 31, 2002, states had spent essentially all of their program year
   1999 funds within the 3 years allowed, and 83 percent of their program
   year 2000 funds in under 2 years.

   To determine how states manage their spending, Labor has established its
   own spending benchmarks, using them to assess whether states are on track
   with their spending, to target technical assistance, and to formulate
   budget requests. However, some state officials told us they did not
   understand why Labor assessed spending based on these annual benchmarks
   when states had three years in which to spend their funds. Moreover, the
   benchmarks were often not communicated to the states. In addition, some
   state officials remained confused by some of the financial reporting
   requirements because Labor*s guidance and assistance has not been clear
   and definitive.

   Several factors affect when expenditures occur or are reported. State
   officials told us that cumbersome processes to get approval to spend
   funds, lengthy contract procurement procedures, and untimely billing by
   key services providers, especially community colleges, all delayed the
   timing of expenditures, sometimes by as much as 3 to 8 months.
   Fluctuations in funding levels also affected many states* and local areas*
   willingness to commit funds for the long term and inhibited their ability
   to

   Page 3 GAO- 02- 1074 Workforce Investment Act

   plan comprehensive workforce investment systems. Finally, funds held by
   the state for statewide activities and for responding to mass layoffs and
   plant closings are often spent at a slower rate, causing overall
   expenditures to appear lower. To overcome some of these factors, some
   states and local areas are implementing such strategies as frequent
   monitoring and recapturing of unspent funds from one local area to
   another, requiring expedited billing as part of contract specifications,
   and initiating the procurement process before the receipt of funds so that
   contracts are in place by the time funds become available.

   In conclusion, it appears that states are spending their funds within the
   timeframe allowed under WIA * in fact, nationwide, many states are
   spending far faster than the 3 years the law allows. Because Labor lacks
   reliable data on obligations, it uses expenditure data to gauge budgetary
   need. In doing so, Labor fails to take into account longer term
   commitments made to customers and service providers, and underestimates
   budgetary need. In addition, states we visited told us that they want to
   spend their funds wisely and manage spending judiciously, and they are
   seeking help and guidance from Labor.

   We provided a draft of this briefing to officials at Labor for their
   technical review and incorporated their comments where appropriate.

   We are sending copies of this report to relevant congressional committees
   and other interested parties and will make copies available to others upon
   request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO
   Web site at http:// www. gao. gov. If you or your staff have any questions
   about this report, please contact me or Dianne Blank at (202) 512- 7215.
   Meeta Sharma, Kim Reniero, Rebecca Woiwode, Bill Keller, and Patrick
   DiBattista also made key contributions to this report.

   Sigurd R. Nilsen Director, Education, Workforce,

   and Income Security Issues

   Appendix I: Overview of Congressional Briefing

   Page 4 GAO- 02- 1074 Workforce Investment Act

   Appendix I: Overview of Congressional Briefing

   1

   Spending under the Workforce Investment Act

   Briefing for Staff of Senator Kennedy, Chairman Senate Committee on
   Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

   and Representative McKeon, Chairman Subcommittee on 21 st Century
   Competitiveness House Committee on Education and the Workforce

   August 15 and 22, 2002

   Appendix I: Overview of Congressional Briefing

   Page 5 GAO- 02- 1074 Workforce Investment Act

   2

   Key Questions

   * Does the Department of Labor have accurate information on states*
   Workforce Investment Act (WIA) spending?

    What does Labor do to determine how states are managing their WIA
   spending?

    What affects states* WIA expenditure rates?

   Appendix I: Overview of Congressional Briefing

   Page 6 GAO- 02- 1074 Workforce Investment Act

   3

   Scope and Methodology

    We analyzed the most recent available spending data from Labor and the
   states, as well as other relevant financial documents and reports.

    We interviewed state workforce officials in nine states and local
   officials in at least one area in seven of these states. We also
   interviewed officials at Labor headquarters, five of its regional offices,
   and four national associations.

    In selecting states, we focused primarily on those with larger WIA
   allocations, collectively representing 51 percent of the nationwide
   allocation for program year 2000 (see app. I). These states were
   geographically dispersed, included states with single and multiple
   workforce areas, and represented a range of expenditure rates and
   experience levels in implementing WIA. In selecting local areas, we chose
   from among the largest local areas in the state.

    This review was conducted in accordance with generally accepted
   government auditing standards.

   Appendix I: Overview of Congressional Briefing

   Page 7 GAO- 02- 1074 Workforce Investment Act

   4

   Summary of Results

    Labor lacks accurate information on states* WIA spending and obligations
   due to reporting inconsistencies. Lacking such comprehensive information,
   Labor overestimates the amount states have available to spend. Yet,
   Labor*s expenditure data shows that WIA funds are being spent within
   authorized timeframes* 96 percent spent in under 3 years and 83 percent
   spent in less than 2 years.

    Labor has established its own benchmarks to determine whether states are
   managing their spending, to formulate budget requests, and to target
   assistance efforts, but has not universally shared those targets with
   states. States want more guidance and technical assistance.

    States and localities reported similar factors that affect when
   expenditures occur and are reported, including lengthy contract
   procurement and delayed provider billing, and slower spending at the state
   level. In addition, fluctuating funding levels affect their willingness to
   make longterm commitments and inhibit their ability to do long- range
   planning.

   Appendix I: Overview of Congressional Briefing

   Page 8 GAO- 02- 1074 Workforce Investment Act

   5

   Background -- Key Provisions of WIA

    Enacted in 1998, states were required to implement major provisions of
   WIA by July 1, 2000. Six states began implementation in July 1999.

    Mandated that most federally funded employment and training services be
   delivered through a one- stop system overseen by new state and local
   workforce investment boards having broad flexibility.

    Authorized three funding streams: adults, dislocated workers, and youth,
   most of which are allocated to local areas. States reserve up to15 percent
   from each funding stream for statewide activities and up to 25 percent
   from dislocated worker funds for rapid response activities* funds to
   address plant closures and mass layoffs.

    Overall, WIA funds are allocated from Labor to states and from states to
   local areas that then use the funds for goods and services.

    Limits local funds for administration to no more than 10 percent of the
   allocation.

    Localities have 2 years and states have 3 years to spend their funds.

   Appendix I: Overview of Congressional Briefing

   Page 9 GAO- 02- 1074 Workforce Investment Act

   6 Congress

   appropriates funds

   3/ 4 of adult, dislocated worker funds

   available 1/ 4 of adult,

   dislocated worker funds

   available All youth

   funds available

   Oct. 1 (start of

   fiscal year* covers

   Oct. 1 to Sept. 30) Oct. 1

   (start of new fiscal

   year and new appropriation) July 1

   (start of program year* covers

   July 1 to June 30) Apr. 1 Background -- Annual Funding Cycle

   Funds are made available to states at 3 separate times during the year
   Labor notifies

   states of allocation

   Feb.-- Mar.

   Appendix I: Overview of Congressional Briefing

   Page 10 GAO- 02- 1074 Workforce Investment Act

   7

   Background -- Reporting Requirements

    Because both adult and dislocated worker funds are provided from two
   separate appropriations, for each program year, Labor requires states to
   report financial information by funding category and by the year in which
   funds are appropriated, totaling 11 reports each quarter:

    Statewide Activities for the 15 percent reserve (two reports)

    Statewide Rapid Response (two reports)

    Local Adult Programs (two reports)

    Local Dislocated Worker Programs (two reports)

    Local Administration (10 percent cap) (two reports)

    Local Youth Programs (one report)( all funds allocated in a single year)

   Appendix I: Overview of Congressional Briefing

   Page 11 GAO- 02- 1074 Workforce Investment Act

   8

   Background -- Labor*s Definitions of Financial Terms

   In its guidance to states, Labor has defined certain financial terms:

    Expenditures: actual cash disbursements or outlays.

    Accruals: amounts owed for goods and services that have been received
   but for which cash has not yet been disbursed. For example, an accrual
   would occur if a job seeker completed a training class but the training
   provider had not yet been paid.

   WIA requires expenditures to be reported on an accrual basis.

    Unliquidated Obligations: 1 obligations incurred, but for which an
   outlay has not yet been recorded; should include unliquidated obligations
   to subgrantees and contractors. For example, an unliquidated obligation
   would be incurred when the state or local area enters into a contract with
   a service provider for training but training has not yet been completed or
   the service provider paid.

   1 Note that throughout the briefing, we refer to unliquidated obligations
   as obligations.

   Appendix I: Overview of Congressional Briefing

   Page 12 GAO- 02- 1074 Workforce Investment Act

   9

   Labor*s Financial Data Are Inaccurate Due to Reporting Inconsistencies

    WIA requires that states include accruals as expenditures, but a few
   states report only cash outlays.

    Excluding accruals may affect expenditures only in the short term.
   Eventually accruals result in cash outlays for goods and services.
   However, if it takes a long time for this to occur, expenditures for a
   given year will be understated.

    WIA requires that states report obligations without specifying whether
   this includes local commitments. As a result, states report obligations
   inconsistently.

    All nine states we contacted collect local obligations information:

    four report local obligations to Labor.

    five do not report local obligations to Labor.

    Because Labor*s data on obligations do not consistently reflect local
   commitments, Labor relies on expenditure data to estimate states*
   available funds.

   Appendix I: Overview of Congressional Briefing

   Page 13 GAO- 02- 1074 Workforce Investment Act

   10

   Labor Overstates Available Funds by Considering Only Expenditures and Not
   Obligations

   For three of the four states that reported local obligations, the amount
   of available funds is much less when local obligations are considered
   along with expenditures. For the fourth state, Vermont, obligations and
   expenditures were very similar, with about 26 percent of program year 2001
   funds available.

   Percentage of PY2001 Allocation Available, as of 3/ 31/ 02 85

   66 61 48

   32 3 0 20

   40 60

   80 100

   New York California Washington Percent

   Available (based on expenditures) Available (based on expenditures and
   obligations)

   Appendix I: Overview of Congressional Briefing

   Page 14 GAO- 02- 1074 Workforce Investment Act

   11

   0 10

   20 30

   40 50

   60 First year spending Second year spending Even if Understated, Labor*s
   Data Show Spending

   Is on Track Given 3- Year Window

   Labor*s data show most states likely to spend funds within the allowed
   three years:

    Program year 1999 funds are 96 percent expended over 2 years, 9 months
   (not shown).

    Program year 2000 funds are 83 percent expended over 1 year, 9 months
   (55% in 1 st year, 28% in 2 nd ).

   Expenditure Rates by Year Spent, as of 3/ 31/ 02 38 (9 months) 34

   (9 months) 28 (9 months) 55

   (12 months) Percentage of program year allocation

   PY2000 PY2001 17

   (3 months)

   Note: PY2000 first year spending covers the 12- month period July 1, 2000
   to June 30, 2001, and second year spending covers 9- month period July 1,
   2001 to March 31, 2002 (latest available data from Labor). PY2001 first
   year spending covers 9- month period July 1, 2001 to March 31, 2002
   (latest available data from Labor). a Second year spending for PY2001 has
   just begun.

   a

   Appendix I: Overview of Congressional Briefing

   Page 15 GAO- 02- 1074 Workforce Investment Act

   12

   Labor Uses Benchmarks to Determine How States Are Managing WIA Spending

    Labor establishes an annual national expenditure rate benchmark for
   states* in program year 2001, the benchmark was set at 69 percent of all
   available funds.

    The purposes of Labor*s benchmarks are to

    formulate next year*s budget request.

    identify states needing monitoring and additional guidance

    The benchmarks are rarely communicated to states causing frustration
   when Labor identifies them as underspending without specifying what goal
   is to be achieved.

   Appendix I: Overview of Congressional Briefing

   Page 16 GAO- 02- 1074 Workforce Investment Act

   13

   Labor Has Established Monitoring Protocols for WIA Spending

    Labor began monitoring states* spending in April 2001.

    Regional offices were required to contact states that fell below the
   benchmarks, review their expenditures, identify causes of underspending,
   help develop a corrective action plan, and submit monthly progress reports
   to Labor*s headquarters.

    Four regional offices that we contacted have conducted monitoring site
   visits to states with low expenditure rates.

    Twenty- six states have received monitoring letters (see app. II):

    Three of these states received letters because they were below
   benchmarks.

    The remaining 23 states received letters as part of ongoing regional
   communications on spending, no matter what their spending levels were.

   Appendix I: Overview of Congressional Briefing

   Page 17 GAO- 02- 1074 Workforce Investment Act

   14

   Labor Provides Additional Guidance to States, but States Remain Concerned
   about Reporting

    Financial reporting guidance and technical assistance efforts vary by
   regional office-- one office issued a guidance memo, another conducted
   training workshops.

    Some state and local area officials remain concerned about reporting
   requirements.

    State officials find it burdensome to submit 11 quarterly reports and
   say it strains their administrative cost caps.

    Labor*s definition of obligations is unclear* it does not specify
   whether states should collect and report local- level obligations.

    State and local officials told us they would like a better definition of
   obligations, better guidance and technical assistance, and systematic
   sharing of promising practices on how to effectively manage WIA spending.

   Appendix I: Overview of Congressional Briefing

   Page 18 GAO- 02- 1074 Workforce Investment Act

   15

   Expenditure Processes May Delay Reporting of Spending

    Internal processes for obtaining approval to spend funds can be
   lengthy-- ranging from 2 weeks to 8 months.

    Contracting for services causes delays in expenditures.

    Procurement process is complex, often involves many layers of review.

    States and localities may rely on performance- based contracts where
   some portion of expenditures are incurred when performance goals are met.

    Some key service providers, particularly public institutions like
   community colleges, bill late* sometimes 3- 8 months after providing
   services.

   Appendix I: Overview of Congressional Briefing

   Page 19 GAO- 02- 1074 Workforce Investment Act

   16

   Availability of Funds and Implementation Issues Affect Overall WIA
   Spending

    Funding levels often fluctuate due to budget decisions and funding
   formulas.

    States and localities are less willing to commit funds for long- term
   training and education.

    Funding fluctuations hinder the ability to plan comprehensive workforce
   investment systems.

    WIA*s emphasis on referrals to other one- stop partners* programs may
   result in non- WIA funds being spent first.

    In the early stages of implementation, expenditures may have been lower
   because many one- stop centers were not fully up and running.

   Appendix I: Overview of Congressional Briefing

   Page 20 GAO- 02- 1074 Workforce Investment Act

   17

   Slower Spending of Statewide Funds Also Affects Overall Expenditures

   States are spending their statewide funds at about half the rate of local
   funds, in part because some of these funds are used to provide end- of-
   year incentive grants to local areas or are held to enable response to
   mass layoffs or plant closures.

   WIA PY2001 Expenditure Rates over 9 Months by Funding Category, as of 3/
   31/ 02

   23 18

   42 39 37

   0 10

   20 30

   40 50

   Statewide 15% Rapid response Adult Youth Dislocated workers Percentage of
   2001 funds

   Statewide funds Local funds

   Appendix I: Overview of Congressional Briefing

   Page 21 GAO- 02- 1074 Workforce Investment Act

   18

   Some States and Localities Use Strategies to Mitigate Factors and Better
   Manage Spending

    Florida and Texas actively monitor expenditures and obligations based on
   stricter criteria than those under WIA. For example, Florida recaptures
   and redistributes funds twice a year based on expenditures.

    Florida requires expedited school billing as part of the contract.
   Vermont pays the tuition up front rather than at the end of training.

    Chicago begins the contract procurement process prior to the receipt of
   funds so that contracts are in place by the time funds become available.

   Appendix I: Overview of Congressional Briefing

   Page 22 GAO- 02- 1074 Workforce Investment Act

   19

   Concluding Observations

    Labor lacks accurate financial information upon which to base WIA
   funding decisions. Inconsistencies in the way obligations are reported
   cause Labor to consider only expenditures when estimating states*
   available funds.

    When obligations are not considered, commitments made by states and
   localities for these funds are not included and Labor*s estimate of
   available funds is overstated.

    Even with the data limitations, Labor*s data show that states will
   easily spend their allocation within the 3- years allowed* most of it
   within the first 2 years.

    To improve the accuracy of financial reporting and enhance the way they
   manage their funds, states seek more help from Labor* in the form of
   better definitions, better guidance and technical assistance, and the
   systematic sharing of effective management strategies.

   Appendix I: Overview of Congressional Briefing

   Page 23 GAO- 02- 1074 Workforce Investment Act

   Appendix I: Overview of Congressional Briefing Appendix II: Nine Selected
   States

   20

   Nine Selected States $1, 628 (51%) a Total

   70 (2) Washington 6 (less than 1) Vermont

   246 (8) Texas 113 (4) Ohio

   305 (10) New York 117 (4) Illinois

   119 (4) Florida 22 (1) Colorado

   $630 (20%) California

   Program year 2000 WIA allocation, in millions (percentage of nationwide

   allocation) State

   a Percentages do not add to 51 due to rounding.

   Appendix III: List of States that Received Letters from Labor

   Page 24 GAO- 02- 1074 Workforce Investment Act

   Appendix III: List of States that Received Letters from Labor

   21

   List of States That Received Letters from Labor

    Alaska

    Arizona

    California

    Connecticut

    Hawaii

    Idaho

    Illinois

    Indiana

    Iowa

    Kansas

    Maine

    Massachusetts

    Michigan

    Minnesota

    Missouri

    Nebraska

    Nevada

    New Hampshire Labor sent the following states letters that reviewed
   expenditure rates

   and, if appropriate, suggested areas for corrective action:

    New York a

    Ohio a

    Oregon

    Puerto Rico a

    Rhode Island

    Vermont

    Washington

    Wisconsin a These states received letters because they fell below
   Labor*s spending benchmarks and were required to submit corrective action
   plans.

   Related GAO Products Page 25 GAO- 02- 1074 Workforce Investment Act

   Workforce Investment Act: States and Localities Increasingly Coordinate
   Services for TANF Clients, but Better Information Needed on Effective
   Approaches. GAO- 02- 696. Washington, D. C.: July 3, 2002.

   Workforce Investment Act: Coordination of TANF Services Through OneStops
   Has Increased Despite Challenges. GAO- 02- 739T. Washington, D. C.: May
   16, 2002.

   Workforce Investment Act: Youth Provisions Promote New Service Strategies,
   but Additional Guidance Would Enhance Program Development. GAO- 02- 413.
   Washington, D. C.: Apr. 5, 2002.

   Workforce Investment Act: Coordination between TANF Programs and One- Stop
   Centers Is Increasing, but Challenges Remain. GAO- 02- 500T. Washington,
   D. C.: Mar. 12, 2002.

   Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and Revised Funding Formula
   Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program. GAO- 02- 274. Washington, D. C.:
   Feb. 11, 2002.

   Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance Measures to
   Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA*s Effectiveness.

   GAO- 02- 275. Washington, D. C.: Feb. 1, 2002.

   Workforce Investment Act: New Requirements Create Need for More Guidance.
   GAO- 02- 94T. Washington, D. C.: Oct. 4, 2001.

   Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance Needed to Address Concerns Over
   New Requirements. GAO- 02- 72. Washington, D. C.: Oct. 4, 2001. Related
   GAO Products

   (130139)

   The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists
   to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to
   help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government
   for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates
   federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and
   other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and
   funding decisions. GAO*s commitment to good government is reflected in its
   core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

   The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
   is through the Internet. GAO*s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts
   and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
   archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
   you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
   documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

   Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
   correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as *Today*s Reports,* on its
   Web site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files.
   To have GAO e- mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov
   and select *Subscribe to daily E- mail alert for newly released products*
   under the GAO Reports heading.

   The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
   each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
   Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
   copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
   be sent to:

   U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D. C.
   20548

   To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202)
   512- 6061

   Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail:
   fraudnet@ gao. gov Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202)
   512- 7470

   Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512- 4800 U.
   S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D. C.
   20548 GAO*s Mission

   Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

   Order by Mail or Phone To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal
   Programs

   Public Affairs
*** End of document. ***