Military Recruiting: DOD Needs to Establish Objectives and
Measures to Better Evaluate Advertising's Effectiveness
(19-SEP-03, GAO-03-1005).
The Department of Defense (DOD) must convince more than 200,000
people each year to join the military. To assist in recruiting,
the military services advertise on television, on radio, and in
print and participate in other promotional activities. In the
late 1990s, some of the services missed their overall recruiting
goals. In response, DOD added recruiting resources by increasing
its advertising, number of recruiters, and financial incentives.
By fiscal year 2003, DOD's total recruiting budget was
approaching $4 billion annually. At the request of Congress, GAO
determined the changes in DOD's advertising programs and funding
trends since the late 1990s and assessed the adequacy of measures
used by DOD to evaluate the effectiveness of its advertising. GAO
recommends that DOD set clear, measurable advertising
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-03-1005
ACCNO: A08507
TITLE: Military Recruiting: DOD Needs to Establish Objectives
and Measures to Better Evaluate Advertising's Effectiveness
DATE: 09/19/2003
SUBJECT: Advertising
Budget outlays
Enlisted personnel
Military enlistment
Military forces
Military recruiting
Performance measures
Program goals or objectives
******************************************************************
** 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-03-1005
Report to the Senate and House Committees on Armed Services
United States General Accounting Office
GAO
September 2003 MILITARY RECRUITING
DOD Needs to Establish Objectives and Measures to Better Evaluate
Advertising's Effectiveness
GAO- 03- 1005
Since the late 1990s, DOD has revamped its recruiting advertising programs
and nearly doubled the funding for recruiting advertising. The military
services have revised many of their advertising campaigns and focused on
complementing traditional advertising, such as by increasing the use of
the Internet, and participating in more promotional activities, such as
sports car racing events. DOD*s total advertising funding increased 98
percent in constant dollars from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year
2003* from $299 million to $592 million. The advertising cost per enlisted
recruit has nearly tripled and is now almost $1,900. The military services
agree that the revised
strategies and increased investments have energized their advertising
campaigns and better positioned them to recruit in an increasingly
competitive marketplace. Today, almost all of the active and reserve
components are meeting their overall recruiting goals in terms of the
quality and quantity of new recruits.
DOD does not have clear program objectives and adequate outcome measures
to evaluate the effectiveness of its advertising as part of its overall
recruiting effort. Thus, DOD cannot show that its increased advertising
efforts have been a key reason for its overall recruiting success.
Isolating the impact of advertising on recruiting efforts is inherently
difficult because joining the military is a profound life decision.
Moreover, DOD has not consistently tracked key information, such as public
awareness of military recruiting advertising and the willingness of young
adults to join the military. Such data could be used to help evaluate the
effectiveness of advertising. Without sufficient information on
advertising*s effectiveness, DOD cannot determine the return on its
advertising funding or make fact- based choices on how its overall
recruiting investments should be allocated.
DOD*s Total Recruiting Advertising Funding for Fiscal Years 1998 to 2003
a In- year estimate.
The Department of Defense (DOD) must convince more than 200,000 people
each year to join the
military. To assist in recruiting, the military services advertise on
television, on radio, and in print and participate in other
promotional activities. In the late 1990s, some of the services missed
their overall recruiting goals. In response, DOD added recruiting
resources by increasing its
advertising, number of recruiters, and financial incentives. By fiscal
year 2003, DOD*s total recruiting budget was approaching $4 billion
annually. At the request of Congress, GAO determined the changes in DOD*s
advertising programs and funding trends since the late 1990s and assessed
the adequacy of measures
used by DOD to evaluate the effectiveness of its advertising. GAO
recommends that DOD set clear, measurable advertising
objectives; develop outcome measures to evaluate advertising programs*
performance; and use these measures to monitor advertising*s performance
and make choices on recruiting
investments. In its comments on this report, DOD concurred with the
recommendations and stated that it will develop a DOD advertising
strategic framework to provide overall direction.
www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? GAO- 03- 1005. To view the full product,
including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For more
information, contact Derek B. Stewart at (202) 512- 5559 or stewartd@ gao.
gov. Highlights of GAO- 03- 1005, a report to the
Senate and House Committees on Armed Services September 2003
MILITARY RECRUITING
DOD Needs to Establish Objectives and Measures to Better Evaluate
Advertising's Effectiveness
Page i GAO- 03- 1005 Military Recruiting Letter 1 Results in Brief 2
Background 4 DOD Has Revised Advertising Programs and Increased Funding 6
DOD Does Not Adequately Measure Advertising*s Effectiveness 14 Conclusions
20 Recommendations for Executive Action 21 Agency Comments and Our
Evaluation 22 Appendix I Scope and Methodology 24
Appendix II Comments from the Department of Defense 26
Related GAO Products 31
Tables
Table 1: DOD*s Advertising Campaign Slogans, Program Descriptions, and
Examples of Key Changes 7 Table 2: Summary of DOD*s Recruiting Advertising
Funding 14 Figures
Figure 1: Army- Sponsored Sports Racing Car 9 Figure 2: Total DOD
Recruiting Advertising Funding for Fiscal Years 1998 to 2003 10 Figure 3:
Total Recruiting Investment per Enlisted Recruit for Fiscal Years 1990 to
2003 12 Figure 4: The Use of Advertising throughout the Recruiting Process
18 Contents
Page ii GAO- 03- 1005 Military Recruiting Abbreviations
DOD Department of Defense GAO General Accounting Office GPRA Government
Performance and Results Act
This is a work of the U. S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
Page 1 GAO- 03- 1005 Military Recruiting
September 19, 2003 The Honorable John W. Warner Chairman The Honorable
Carl Levin Ranking Minority Member Committee on Armed Services United
States Senate
The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter Chairman The Honorable Ike Skelton Ranking
Minority Member Committee on Armed Services House of Representatives
To meet its human capital needs, the Department of Defense (DOD) must
convince about 200,000 people each year* the majority of them recent high
school graduates* to join the military. To assist in this recruiting
effort, the military services advertise on television, on radio, in print,
and on the Internet; sponsor sports teams; and participate in other
promotional activities. Such advertising is designed primarily to raise
awareness of the military as a career option and help recruiters meet
their goals for new recruits. During the exceptionally strong U. S.
economy of the late 1990s, most of the services missed their overall
recruiting goals. In response, DOD put additional resources into
recruiting by increasing
advertising, the number of recruiters, and various incentives, such as
enlistment bonuses. By fiscal year 2003, DOD*s total recruiting budget was
approaching $4 billion annually.
The Senate Committee on Armed Services directed that we examine DOD*s
growing investments in military recruitment advertising. 1 As agreed with
your committees, the objectives of this report were to (1) determine the
changes in DOD*s advertising programs and funding trends since the late
1990s and (2) assess the adequacy of the measures used by DOD to evaluate
the effectiveness of its advertising. In March 2003, we provided your
committees with an interim briefing that described the trends in
1 S. Rep. 107- 151, at 300 (2002).
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO- 03- 1005 Military Recruiting
advertising funding requests since fiscal year 2000 and DOD*s
justifications for those requests.
This report updates the information discussed in the interim briefing and
provides our analysis of the other issues in your request. To determine
the changes in DOD*s advertising programs and funding trends since the
late
1990s, we reviewed the changes in the services* advertising programs,
DOD*s and the services* congressional justification books, and DOD funding
data. To assess the adequacy of DOD*s outcome measures, we used
established management guidance provided in the Government Performance and
Results Act 2 (GPRA) and in Office of Management and Budget guidance. Our
scope included DOD*s active duty services, reserve components, and joint
advertising program. We conducted our review from October 2002 through
July 2003 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. (See appendix I for more detailed information on our scope and
methodology.)
Since the late 1990s, DOD has revamped its recruiting advertising programs
and nearly doubled the funding devoted to recruiting advertising. The
active duty military services, except for the Marine Corps, substantially
revised their advertising campaigns and selected new advertising agencies
as contractors. Long- time and well- recognized advertising slogans such
as the Army*s *Be All You Can Be* were abandoned in favor of campaigns
designed to better appeal to today*s young adults. The military services
agree that these revised strategies and increased investments have
energized their advertising campaigns and better positioned them to
recruit young adults in an increasingly competitive marketplace. Today,
almost all of the active and reserve components report that they are
meeting their overall recruiting goals, both in terms of the quality and
quantity of recruits. To better reach today*s young adults, the services
have focused on complementing traditional advertising by increasing
funding for events marketing, public relations, and the Internet. The
expenditures for paid television, which
remains the single largest advertising cost, and other national media have
declined as a percentage of total advertising funding. DOD*s total
advertising funding increased 98 percent from fiscal year 1998 through
fiscal year 2003* from $299 million to $592 million. 3 Today, DOD is
2 Pub. L. No. 103- 62, Aug. 3, 1993. 3 All dollars are in constant fiscal
year 2003 dollars unless otherwise indicated. Results in Brief
Page 3 GAO- 03- 1005 Military Recruiting
spending $1, 900 in advertising per enlisted recruit, which is almost
three times as much as it did in fiscal year 1990. The increases in
funding have not been evenly distributed across DOD*s advertising
programs. The size of each service*s advertising programs varies greatly.
The Army has the
largest advertising programs; its active and reserve components account
for nearly half of the total advertising funding.
DOD does not have adequate outcome measures to evaluate the effectiveness
of its advertising as part of its overall recruiting effort. Thus, DOD
cannot show that its increased advertising efforts have been a key reason
for its overall recruiting success. Evaluating advertising*s effectiveness
requires that DOD establish clear program objectives and outcome measures.
DOD has not established such objectives and outcome measures for two
reasons. First, isolating the impact of advertising on recruiting efforts
is inherently difficult because joining the military is a profound life
decision influenced by many factors, including the opportunities available
in college or in the job market. Second, even though DOD has developed
recruiting goals to ensure that it meets its
human capital needs, these goals do not directly relate to or measure the
effectiveness of advertising. Owing to the absence of program objectives
and outcome measures, DOD has not consistently tracked key
information, such as public awareness of military recruiting advertising
and changes in the willingness of young adults to join the military. Such
information could be used to help evaluate the effectiveness of
advertising. In our 2000 report, we recommended that DOD and the services
assess the relative success of their recruiting strategies, including how
the services can create the most cost- effective mix of recruiters,
enlistment bonuses, college incentives, advertising, and other recruiting
tools. 4 Although DOD acknowledges the need for such information, current
DOD guidance does not require the measurement of outcomes or reports on
advertising*s effectiveness. Without sufficient information on
advertising*s effectiveness, DOD cannot determine the return on its
advertising funding or make fact- based choices on how its overall
recruiting investments should be allocated.
We are making recommendations to DOD to improve its guidance to better
evaluate recruiting advertising*s effectiveness. We are recommending that
4 U. S. General Accounting Office, Military Personnel: Services Need to
Assess Efforts to
Meet Recruiting Goals and Cut Attrition, GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 146 (Washington,
D. C.: June 23, 2000).
Page 4 GAO- 03- 1005 Military Recruiting
DOD set clear, measurable advertising objectives for its advertising
programs and develop outcome measures to evaluate the performance of its
advertising programs. We are also recommending that DOD use these outcome
measures to monitor its advertising programs* performance and make fact-
based choices about advertising funding as part of the overall recruiting
investment.
In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with all of our
recommendations. DOD stated in its comments that it will implement the
recommendations by developing a DOD advertising strategic framework to
provide overall direction for its advertising programs and by conducting
research initiatives intended to advance the measurement of the
performance of recruiting and advertising.
Most of the military services* active and reserve components faced
recruiting difficulties during the strong economic climate of the late
1990s. As a result, the services stepped up their recruiting to ensure
that they would have enough recruits to fill their ranks. Recruiting
efforts focus on three initiatives. First, a *sales force* of more than
15,000 recruiters, who are mostly located in the United States, recruit
from the local population. Second, these recruiters have financial and
other incentives that they can use to convince young adults to consider a
military career. Such incentives
include enlistment bonuses and college benefits. Finally, the services use
advertising to raise the public*s awareness of the military and help the
sales force of recruiters reach the target recruiting population and
generate potential leads for recruiters. This advertising can include
television and radio commercials, Internet and printed advertisements, and
special events.
DOD believes that advertising is increasingly critical to its recruiting
effort because convincing young adults to join the military is becoming
more difficult. In 2001, over 70 percent of polled young adults said that
they probably or definitely would not join the military, compared with 57
percent in 1976. 5 The number of veterans is declining, which means that
fewer young adults have influencers* a relative, coach, or teacher* who
have past military experience. Compounding these difficulties,
5 J. G. Bachman, L. D. Johnston, and P. M. O*Malley, Monitoring the
Future: Questionnaire Responses from the Nation*s High School Seniors (Ann
Arbor, Mich.: Institute for Social Research, 2001). Background
Page 5 GAO- 03- 1005 Military Recruiting
proportionally more high school graduates are attending college. Finally,
the perception that service in the military is arduous* and possibly
dangerous* can inhibit recruiting efforts. DOD believes that these factors
together make the military an increasingly harder sell as a career choice
and life- style option for young adults.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense is responsible for establishing
policy and providing oversight for the military recruiting and advertising
programs of the active and reserve components. Within the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness is
responsible for developing, reviewing, and analyzing recruiting policy,
plans, and resource levels. The office provides policy oversight for
advertising programs and coordinates them through the Joint Marketing and
Advertising Committee. DOD*s strategic plan for military personnel human
resources emphasizes the need to recruit, motivate, and retain adequate
and diverse numbers of quality recruits. 6 DOD*s recruiting and
advertising programs are not centrally managed. All
of the active components and some of the reserve components manage their
separate advertising programs and work closely with their own contracted
advertising agencies. 7 DOD and the services believe that this
decentralized approach better differentiates between the service *brands*
(i. e., Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines). The Joint Advertising, Market
Research, and Studies program, which is funded separately by DOD, exists
to address common DOD requirements, such as conducting market research and
obtaining and distributing lists of potential leads. The joint program has
developed a DOD- wide advertising campaign to target the
adult influencers of potential recruits, but this program had not been
fully implemented at the time of our review.
6 Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness,
Military Personnel Human Resources Strategic Plan (Washington, D. C.: Aug.
2002). 7 The Navy and Naval Reserve have separate advertising programs;
however, their recruiting programs were recently reorganized under one
commander.
Page 6 GAO- 03- 1005 Military Recruiting
After most of the services experienced recruiting shortfalls in the late
1990s, DOD reviewed its advertising programs and identified opportunities
for improvement. The services, except the Marine Corps, substantially
revised their advertising campaigns and slogans and contracted with new
advertising agencies. The services told us that their revised campaigns
place them in a better position to recruit today*s young adults.
Currently, almost all of the services and reserve components are achieving
their recruiting goals, and advertising funding has almost doubled since
fiscal year 1998. The increases in funding have not been used to buy more
national media, such as television commercials. Rather, the funding
increases are being directed to other types of advertising, such as
special events marketing and the Internet, that are intended to better
reach
today*s young adults. Advertising funding for DOD increased from $299
million in fiscal year 1998 to $592 million in fiscal year 2003, an
increase of 98 percent. 8 Recruiting shortfalls in the late 1990s led to
an examination and revision of
DOD*s advertising programs. The Army, Navy, and Air Force missed their
recruiting quantity goals, while some of the reserve components fell short
of both their quantity and quality goals. 9 Following these recruiting
shortfalls, Congress asked the Secretary of Defense to review DOD*s
advertising programs and make recommendations for improvements. 10 DOD has
revamped its advertising programs. The active- duty services,
except for the Marine Corps, substantially revised their advertising
campaigns and selected new advertising agencies as their contractors. They
produced new advertising strategies and campaigns, complete with new
slogans and revised television, print, and radio advertisements, along
with new brand images defined by distinct logos, colors, and music. The
services, in conjunction with their advertising agencies, conducted new
8 These amounts are in fiscal year 2003 constant dollars using DOD*s
Operation and Maintenance funding deflators. In nominal dollars, DOD*s
advertising funding increased from $271 million in fiscal year 1998 to
$592 million in fiscal year 2003* an increase of 118 percent. 9 *Quantity*
is the total number of recruits needed in a given fiscal year. *Quality*
is the achievement of high school diplomas and adequate scores on the
Armed Forces Qualification Test. 10 Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense (Force Management Policy), A New Focus for Military Advertising
and Market Research (Washington, D. C.: March 2000) and Rand
Corporation, A Report on the Audit of the Armed Services Recruitment
Advertising
(Santa Monica, Calif.: 2002). DOD Has Revised
Advertising Programs and Increased Funding
Military Services Have Revised Their Advertising Campaigns to Better
Attract Today*s Young Adults
Page 7 GAO- 03- 1005 Military Recruiting
research on young adults* their primary target market. During this period,
the joint program developed an advertising campaign to target influencers
of prospective recruits, as recommended in DOD*s review.
In addition to their overall campaigns, all of the services have
specialized campaigns to target diverse segments of the young adult
population. For instance, the Navy created a Web site, called El Navy,
which is designed to better communicate with the Hispanic market, and the
Army has specifically tailored radio advertisements to reach the African
American market. The services also incorporated a greater variety of
public relations and promotional activities, such as participating in job
fairs and sponsoring sports car racing teams, as an integral part of their
advertising programs. As shown in table 1, there are essentially nine
advertising programs that are managed separately by the military services,
reserve components, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Table 1: DOD*s Advertising Campaign Slogans, Program Descriptions, and
Examples of Key Changes Components
Current campaign slogans (year established) Program descriptions and
examples of key changes
Army, Army Reserve An Army of One (2001) Army National Guard You Can
(1997) Army and Army Reserve combined programs.
Army National Guard program independently managed.
Largest active and reserve recruiting mission and advertising budget.
New advertising campaigns and contractors. Advertises in all national
media venues.
Engages in promotional events, such as sports car racing sponsorship,
high school sports, and video games.
Initiated on- line recruiting. Navy Accelerate Your Life (2001) Naval
Reserve Stay Strong (2001)
Separate advertising programs for Navy and Naval Reserve (reorganized
recruiting under one commander).
Second largest active duty recruiting mission. New advertising
campaigns and contractors. Advertises in all major media. Air Force
Cross into the Blue (2001) Air Force Reserve Above and Beyond (1998) Air
National Guard Fuel Your Future (1999)
Three independent advertising programs.
Third largest active duty recruiting mission.
New advertising campaigns and contractors. Active Air Force
emphasizing promotional activities and events, such as traveling
recruiting trucks and sports car racing.
Initiated a national television campaign for the active Air Force.
Increased use of Internet recruiting across the active and reserve
components.
Page 8 GAO- 03- 1005 Military Recruiting
Components Current campaign slogans
(year established) Program descriptions and examples of key changes
Marine Corps, Marine Corps Reserve Marines, The Few, The Proud
(1986)
Marine Corps and Marine Corps reserve integrated programs.
Smallest recruiting mission of the services.
Marine Corps brand image not changed for 30 years and same advertising
contractor for 56 years.
Emphasis on television, especially sports programming. Joint Program
Today*s Military* See It for What It Really Is (2003)
Developed advertising campaign to target influencers of prospective
recruits that includes magazine advertisements, use of Web site, and
television public service announcements.
New advertising contractor.
Conducts market research and studies for DOD*s advertising programs.
Provides other support for DOD*s advertising programs. Source: DOD.
The active services told us that they are pleased with their new
advertising campaigns and agencies, and they believe that the revised and
betterfunded campaigns have placed them in a more competitive position to
recruit young adults. The sluggish U. S. economy has also narrowed
employment options and is considered to be an important factor in easing
the recruiting challenge. Today, all of the active services are meeting or
exceeding their overall recruiting goals. Most of the reserve components
are also achieving their recruiting goals. As of June 2003, the Army
National Guard was falling short of its recruiting goals because of
extensive overseas deployments and the implementation of stop loss
(restrictions on leaving the military). Army National Guard officials
stated that they expect to meet their goals by the end of fiscal year
2003. Some reserve officers expressed concerns about the negative impact
of the recent high deployment rates on future recruiting. The services,
especially the reserve components, continue to face challenges in
recruiting
individuals with some types of specific training or skills, such as
medical, legal, and construction, and they have developed some specialized
advertising campaigns targeted to recruit them.
Since fiscal year 1998, the services have changed how they allocate
advertising funding, according to the figures provided by DOD. Grouped
into three broad categories, advertising funding includes: (1) events
marketing, public affairs and public relations, Internet, and other; (2)
national media; and (3) direct mail and miscellaneous recruiting support.
One of the categories* events marketing, public affairs and public
relations, Internet, and other* has shown the greatest increase as a
percentage of the total budget, nearly tripling from around 10 percent in
fiscal year 1998 to 29 percent in fiscal year 2003. This increase was used
Page 9 GAO- 03- 1005 Military Recruiting
partly to create and produce new advertising campaigns and strategies.
Service officials told us that event marketing and public relations
activities provide recruiters with greater opportunities to interact with
potential recruits and supplement their national media campaigns and other
methods of advertising. One example is the Army*s sponsorship of a sports
racing car. (See fig. 1.) Internet and Web- site recruiting have also
increased significantly from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2003.
All of the active military services have increased the amount of
advertising on the Internet and have used interactive Web sites to
complement their traditional recruiting and advertising methods.
Figure 1: Army- Sponsored Sports Racing Car
The expenditures for the national media category, which includes paid
television, radio, and magazine advertisements, have remained relatively
constant. This means that this category*s proportion of the growing total
advertising budgets has actually declined. Specifically, expenditures for
the national media in fiscal year 1998 were more than half of the
advertising budget; currently, it represents about 40 percent. Television
advertising* which offers tremendous reach to target audiences* dominates
this category. Television advertising has remained the single largest
advertising expenditure: paid television is still about a quarter of the
total advertising budget for all of the military components.
Page 10 GAO- 03- 1005 Military Recruiting
DOD*s advertising funding has nearly doubled in the years since 1998 and
most of these increases occurred in the earlier years. (See fig. 2.) Total
advertising funding for all of the services increased 98 percent, from
$299
million in fiscal year 1998 to $592 million in fiscal year 2003. 11 The
total DOD advertising budget request to Congress for fiscal year 2004 was
$592.8 million.
Figure 2: Total DOD Recruiting Advertising Funding for Fiscal Years 1998
to 2003
Note: The funding amounts were taken from DOD*s and the services*
congressional budget justification books (adjusted to account for
inflation). a In- year estimate.
Since fiscal year 1998, DOD*s advertising funding, which is included in
DOD*s operation and maintenance appropriations, has increased at a
significantly higher rate than the total of all of DOD*s operation and
maintenance funding. DOD officials cite media inflation as one reason for
increased advertising funding. Inflation for some types of media,
especially for television commercials, has been higher than general
inflation.
However, this is not the reason for all of the increases in advertising
funding during this period because not all of the advertising funding is
used for media advertising. For example, only about a quarter of
11 In nominal dollars, DOD*s total recruiting advertising funding for
fiscal years 1998- 2002, consecutively, was $271 million, $379 million,
$450 million, $501 million, and $595 million. DOD Has Significantly
Increased Funding for
Advertising
Page 11 GAO- 03- 1005 Military Recruiting
advertising funds are currently spent to buy time to run television
commercials.
Growing advertising costs are only part of a rapidly increasing total
investment in recruiting. The rising advertising and overall recruiting
costs can be seen in the investment per enlisted recruit* an important
bottomline measure that shows the amount of money spent to enlist each
recruit. Today, the services are spending almost three times as much on
advertising per recruit than in fiscal year 1990. We examined data
collected by DOD from the services, and it showed that the total
advertising investment per enlisted recruit rose from approximately $640
to $1,900 between fiscal year 1990 and fiscal year 2003. As a proportion
of the total recruiting investment, advertising has increased from 8
percent in fiscal year 1990 to 14 percent in fiscal year 2003. Bonuses and
incentives to enlist have also increased substantially during this same
period. The total recruiting investment per recruit increased almost 65
percent, from approximately $8,100 in fiscal year 1990 to $13,300 in
fiscal year 2003. Very steep growth occurred between fiscal year 1998 and
fiscal year 2002. This
is shown in figure 3.
Page 12 GAO- 03- 1005 Military Recruiting
Figure 3: Total Recruiting Investment per Enlisted Recruit for Fiscal
Years 1990 to 2003
The increases are not evenly distributed across the services* advertising
programs. (See table 2.) The Army has the largest advertising budget, and
the Army active and reserve components account for nearly half (about
$295 million) of the total advertising funding. The Marine Corps, at just
under $50 million, has the smallest advertising budget. The Air Force has
experienced the most significant increase in funding, in part owing to the
creation of its first national television campaign. The Navy*s advertising
funding has also increased, but this is primarily due to the addition of
costs related to the Blue Angels 12 and a program to test recruiting
kiosks at public locations.
12 The Blue Angels, the Navy*s flight demonstration team, performs at air
shows and special events. The recruiting advertising budget funds the
operation and maintenance costs related to the team.
Page 13 GAO- 03- 1005 Military Recruiting
DOD*s Joint Advertising, Market Research, and Studies Program is
responsible for (1) providing market research and studies for recruiting
and (2) developing an advertising campaign to target adult influencers,
such as parents, coaches, and career counselors. Currently, the joint
program is conducting market research and studies and providing other
support for the services* advertising programs, such as purchasing lists
of high school students and recent graduates for use in mailing
advertisements. In addition, the program is implementing a limited print
advertising campaign targeting influencers in fiscal year 2003.
The joint advertising campaign has not had consistent funding. Program
managers told us that the current funding level is insufficient to fully
implement the influencer advertising campaign they have developed. In past
years, DOD cut funding for the joint advertising program because of
concerns that the program office was not adequately executing its
advertising budget. For fiscal year 2003, Congress provided the joint
advertising program with less funding than DOD requested, and DOD
subsequently reallocated part of the remaining joint advertising funding
to a program that it considered a higher priority.
Page 14 GAO- 03- 1005 Military Recruiting
Table 2: Summary of DOD*s Recruiting Advertising Funding Constant fiscal
year 2003 dollars in millions Components 1998 (actual)
2003 (in- year estimate)
Percentage change
Army $113.7 $196.9 73 Army Reserve 17.0 50.2 196 Army National Guard a
23.2 48.2 108 Navy 75.7 107 41 Naval Reserve 2.4 7. 4 208 Air Force 18.3
90.5 395 Air Force Reserve 4.6 13.5 193 Air National Guard a 4.4 5. 8 31
Marine Corps 29.8 46.5 56 Marine Corps Reserve 3.0 2. 9 -3 Joint Program
6.8 22.9 b 237
Totals $298.9 $591.8 98
Source: DOD. Note: The funding amounts were taken from DOD*s and the
services* congressional budget justification books (adjusted to account
for inflation). a The advertising funding for the Army National Guard and
the Air National Guard is for both recruiting
and retention. These figures do not include the funding for recruiting and
retention advertising done by the states and territories. b DOD
subsequently reallocated part of this funding. DOD does not have adequate
outcome measures to evaluate the
effectiveness of its advertising as part of its overall recruiting effort.
Effective program management requires the establishment of clear
objectives and outcome measures to evaluate the program, and DOD has
established neither. This has been a long- standing problem for DOD
primarily because measuring the impact of advertising is inherently
difficult, especially for a major life decision such as joining the
military. Owing to the absence of established advertising objectives and
outcome measures, DOD has not consistently collected and disseminated key
information that would allow it to better assess advertising*s
contribution to achieving recruiting goals. This information would include
public awareness of military recruiting advertising and the willingness of
young adults to join the military. Rather, the services report outcome
measures that focus on achieving overall recruiting goals instead of
isolating the specific contribution of advertising. Without adequate
information and DOD Does Not
Adequately Measure Advertising*s Effectiveness
Page 15 GAO- 03- 1005 Military Recruiting
outcome measures, the Office of the Secretary of Defense cannot
satisfactorily review the services* advertising budget justifications nor
can it determine the return on their advertising dollars as part of their
overall recruiting investment.
The Secretary of Defense is required by law to enhance the effectiveness
of DOD*s recruitment programs through an aggressive program of advertising
and market research targeted at prospective recruits and those who may
influence them. 13 DOD guidance requires the services, by active and
reserve components, to report their resource inputs* how much they are
spending on advertising. 14 DOD guidance also requires the services to
report on overall recruiting outcomes 15 *their recruit quantity and
quality. However, the guidance does not require active and reserve
components to report information specifically about the advertising
programs* recruiting effectiveness.
Effective program management requires the establishment of clearly defined
objectives and outcome measures to evaluate programs. The Government
Performance and Results Act was intended to help federal program managers
enhance the effectiveness of their programs. 16 It requires agencies to
establish strategic plans for program activities that include, among other
things, a mission statement covering major functions and operations,
outcome- related goals and objectives, and a description of how these
goals and objectives are to be achieved. GPRA shifted the focus of
accountability for federal programs from inputs, such as staffing and
resource levels, to outcomes. This requires agencies to measure the
outcomes of their programs and to summarize the findings of program
evaluations in their performance reports. The Office of Management and
Budget*s guidance implementing GPRA requires agencies to establish
13 10 U. S. C. S: 503. 14 DOD Instruction 1304.8, Military Procurement
Resources Report, May 28, 1991. 15 DOD Instruction 7730.56, Monthly Report
of Personnel Statistics, September 15, 1975. 16 Pub. L. No. 103- 62, Aug.
3, 1993. Effective Management
Requires Clear Program Objectives and Outcome Measures
Page 16 GAO- 03- 1005 Military Recruiting
meaningful program objectives and identify outcome measures that compare
actual program results with established program objectives. 17 DOD does
not have adequate information to measure the effectiveness of
its advertising as part of the overall recruiting effort. Measuring
advertising*s effectiveness has been a long- standing problem, partly
because it is inherently difficult to measure the impact that advertising
has on recruiting. DOD has not established advertising program objectives
and it lacks adequate outcome measures of the impact that advertising
programs have on recruiting. Outcome measures are used to evaluate how
closely a program*s achievements are aligned with program objectives, and
to assess whether advertising is achieving its intended outcome. DOD
currently requires the services and reserve components to report on inputs
and outcomes related to overall recruiting. These measures are important
in assessing DOD*s overall recruiting success; however, they do not assess
advertising*s contribution to the recruiting process.
In our 2000 report, we noted that the services do not know which of their
recruiting initiatives* advertising, recruiters, or bonuses* work best. 18
This prevented DOD from being able to effectively allocate its recruiting
investment among the multiple recruiting resources. We recommended that
DOD and the services assess the relative success of their recruiting
strategies, including how the services can create the most cost- effective
mix of recruiters, enlistment bonuses, college incentives, advertising,
and other recruiting tools. In comments on that report, DOD stated that it
intended to develop a joint- service model that would allow trade- off
analyses to determine the relative cost- effectiveness of the various
recruiting resources. This has not been done, and the current DOD cost
performance trade- off model does not support analyses across the
services* budgets.
Similarly, a 2002 Office of Management and Budget assessment, known as the
Program Assessment Rating Tool, found that DOD*s recruiting program had
met its goal of enlisting adequate numbers of recruits; however, since
there were no measures of program efficiency, the overall
17 Office of Management and Budget, Preparation and Submission of
Strategic Plans, Annual Performance Plans, and Annual Program Performance
Reports, Circular No. A- 11, Part 6, June 2002. 18 GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 146.
Lack of Adequate Outcome
Measures Limits DOD*s Ability to Effectively Allocate Its Recruiting
Investments
Measuring Advertising*s Effectiveness Is a Longstanding and Difficult
Problem
Page 17 GAO- 03- 1005 Military Recruiting
rating for the recruiting program was only *moderately effective.* In its
assessment, the Office of Management and Budget noted the inability of the
recruiting program to assess the impact of individual resources, such as
advertising and recruiters. The services continually adjust the mix of
funding between advertising and other recruiting resources to accomplish
their program goals. They have generally increased spending on
advertising, added recruiters, and increased or added bonuses at the same
time, making it impossible to determine the relative value of each of
these initiatives. Other studies have reached similar conclusions. In
2000, a review of DOD*s advertising programs resulted in a recommendation
that they be evaluated for program effectiveness. 19 More recently, the
National Academy of Sciences also cited the need to evaluate advertising*s
direct influence on actual enlistments. 20 The academy is now doing
additional work on evaluating DOD*s advertising and recruiting.
The lack of adequate information is partly attributable to the inherent
difficulty in measuring advertising*s affect on recruiting. Measuring
advertising*s effectiveness is a challenge for all businesses, according
to advertising experts. Private- sector organizations cannot attribute
increases in sales directly to advertising because there are many other
factors influencing the sale of products, such as quality, price, and the
availability of similar products. Many factors impact recruiting as well,
such as employment and educational opportunities, making it especially
difficult to isolate and measure the effectiveness of advertising.
Enlisting
in a military service is a profound life decision. Typically, an
enlistment is at least a 4- year commitment and can be the start of a long
military career.
Another complicating factor in measuring advertising*s effectiveness is
that it consists of different types and is employed differently throughout
the recruiting process to attract and enlist potential recruits. Figure 4
displays the recruiting process and demonstrates the role of advertising
while a young adult may be considering enlisting in the military.
19 Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management Policy),
A New Focus for Military Advertising and Market Research (March 2000). 20
National Research Council, Attitudes, Aptitudes, and Aspirations of
American Youth: Implications for Military Recruitment (Washington, D. C.:
The National Academies Press, 2003).
Page 18 GAO- 03- 1005 Military Recruiting
Figure 4: The Use of Advertising throughout the Recruiting Process
As the figure shows, the use of multiple types of advertising at various
stages in the recruiting continuum makes it difficult to assess the
effectiveness of specific types of advertising. A single recruit may be
exposed to some or all of these advertising types. Traditional advertising
in the national media, such as television and magazines, is intended to
disseminate information designed to influence consumer activity in the
marketplace. The services typically use such national media to make young
people aware of a military service, the career options available in a
service, and other opportunities the services have to offer them. Direct
mail, special events, and the services* Web sites are utilized to provide
more detailed information about the services and the opportunities
available for persons who enlist. These marketing resources give people
the opportunity to let a recruiter know they are possibly interested in
enlisting in a service.
Another contributing factor to the absence of advertising objectives and
outcome measures is the lack of DOD- wide guidance. Officials from the
Office of the Secretary of Defense view their role as overseeing the
decentralized programs managed by the individual services and reserve
components. They scrutinize the quality and quantity of recruits and
gather data about the uses of advertising funds. However, they told us
they were reluctant to be more prescriptive because of a concern about
appearing to micromanage the successful recruiting programs of the active
DOD Lacks Guidance Establishing Advertising
Programs* Objectives and Outcome Measures
Page 19 GAO- 03- 1005 Military Recruiting
and reserve components. On the basis of our work, their sensitivity is
warranted. The active and reserve components tend to guard their
independence, seeking to maintain their *brand* and arguing that the
current decentralized structure allows them to be more responsive to their
individual needs. The Office of the Secretary of Defense seeks to
coordinate the active and reserve components* activities through joint
committees and to centralize research that can be utilized by all.
Defining exactly what to measure may be difficult, but it is not
impossible. DOD and the services, as well as their contracted advertising
agencies, generally agree that there are at least two key advertising
outcomes that should be measured: (1) the awareness of recruiting
advertising and (2) the willingness or *propensity* to consider joining
the military. However, this is not clearly stated in any program guidance.
Current DOD guidance requires only that the services provide information
on funding for advertising, the quality and quantity of recruits, and the
allocation of resources to the various advertising categories. 21 Although
this information is valuable* in fact, critical* it is not sufficient to
evaluate and isolate the effectiveness of the services* advertising
programs.
DOD*s efforts thus far to measure the awareness of recruiting advertising
and willingness to join the military have met with problems. Inconsistent
funding for the Joint Advertising, Market Research, and Studies program
has hampered consistent collection of this information. DOD has sponsored
an advertising tracking study designed to monitor the awareness of
individual service campaigns since 2001. However, officials from the Army,
Navy, and Marine Corps told us that they do not regularly
use the research provided by this study. According to program officials,
there were numerous problems with the advertising tracking study. 22 DOD
is implementing changes to the study that are intended to improve its
usefulness to all of the active and reserve components. In the absence of
reliable and timely advertising tracking, the Army implemented its own
tracking study, and the Air Force is currently planning an experimental
study to assess the effectiveness of its national television advertising
campaign, according to program managers. To monitor the willingness to
21 DOD Instruction 1304.8, Military Procurement Resources Report, May 28,
1991; and DOD Instruction 7730.56, Monthly Report of Personnel Statistics,
September 15, 1975. 22 The advertising agency contracted by DOD*s joint
program also identified several problems, including (1) having an
extremely large sample size, (2) voluminous data but poor analysis, and
(3) poor training for the services in using the data.
Page 20 GAO- 03- 1005 Military Recruiting
join the military, DOD sponsors youth and adult polls, which are designed
to track changes in attitudes and young adults* aspirations. These polls
replaced the Youth Attitude Tracking Survey, which had been in place for a
number of years and provided long- term trend data about the propensity of
young adults to consider the military. The services expressed concern that
the current polls ask questions that are significantly different from
those asked in the prior survey, which makes the analysis of trends
difficult. DOD officials also pointed to research indicating that
advertising is a costeffective recruiting investment when compared with
other recruiting initiatives. For example, a report that was done for DOD
found that it was less expensive to enlist a recruit through increased
investments in advertising than through increased investments in military
pay for new recruits in the Army and Navy. 23 Similarly, a study for DOD
analyzed the marginal cost of different recruiting initiatives and
concluded that, under certain conditions, it was more cost- effective to
invest additional funds in advertising than in military pay for recruits
or recruiters. 24 DOD officials told us that these reports, which used
data from the 1980s and early 1990s, provide the best research available
on the topic. However, the situation has changed dramatically in recent
years. DOD has altered its advertising and recruiting strategies and is
spending much more on advertising. Advertising itself is also changing and
is more fragmented with an expanding array of television channels and
other media. Finally, media inflation, which has increased faster than
general inflation even in the sluggish economy, has lessened buying power.
Funding devoted to advertising has increased considerably since fiscal
year 1998. Although the military services are now generally meeting their
overall recruiting goals, the question of whether the significant
increases in advertising budgets were a main contributor to the services*
recruiting successes remains open. During the same period, DOD also
greatly increased funding for bonuses and other incentives to enlist
recruits. At
23 John Warner, Curtis Simon, and Deborah Payne, Enlistment Supply in the
1990s: A Study of the Navy College Fund and Other Enlistment Incentive
Programs, Defense Manpower Data Center, report No. 2000- 015 (April 2001),
p. 45.
24 Jim Dertouzos and Steven Garber, Is Military Advertising Effective? An
Estimation Methodology and Applications to Recruiting in the 1980s and 90s
(Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corporation, 2003). Conclusions
Page 21 GAO- 03- 1005 Military Recruiting
the same time, the U. S. economy slowed dramatically, narrowing the other
employment options available to young people. These factors make it
difficult to disentangle the effects of the internal DOD investments made
in recruiting from the changes in the external recruiting environment.
Even though the effect of advertising is inherently difficult to measure,
this issue needs to be addressed. This is crucial because DOD is now
spending nearly $592 million annually on recruiting advertising, or about
$1,900 per enlisted recruit. In addition, the total funding for all of
DOD*s recruiting efforts is now almost $4 billion.
DOD needs better advertising outcome measures to allow it to oversee and
manage the advertising investment as part of its overall recruiting
effort. DOD and the services have an understandable focus on the most
important program outcome* to ensure that the military has enough quality
recruits to fill its ranks. Judged by this short- term measure, the
recruiting programs are successful. But now that DOD is meeting its
recruiting goals, should it reduce advertising funding or continue at its
current funding levels? DOD believes that continued investments in
advertising are critical to keeping awareness up in the young adult
population and combating the declining propensity among today*s young
adults to join the military. However, DOD has neither stated these goals
clearly in its guidance, nor consistently gathered information to ensure
that these objectives are being met. Now that it is meeting its recruiting
goals, DOD needs to turn its attention to program effectiveness and
efficiency to ensure that the active and reserve components are getting
the best return on their recruiting and advertising investments.
To improve DOD*s ability to adequately measure the impact of its
advertising programs on its recruiting mission, we recommend that the
Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel
and Readiness to issue guidance that would (1) set clear, measurable
objectives for DOD*s advertising programs; (2) develop outcome measures
for each of DOD*s advertising programs that clearly link advertising
program performance with these objectives; and (3) use these outcome
measures to monitor the advertising programs* performance and make fact-
based choices about advertising funding as part of the overall recruiting
investment in the future. Recommendations for
Executive Action
Page 22 GAO- 03- 1005 Military Recruiting
DOD concurred with all of our recommendations. In commenting on this
report, DOD stated that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness, in concert with the services, will develop an
advertising strategic framework to provide overall direction for DOD*s
advertising programs. The framework, with associated outcome measures,
would allow the office to monitor advertising results regularly and make
fact- based decisions at a strategic level. It would provide an
overarching structure within which each service would develop its own
advertising program strategy, program objectives, and outcome measures.
The framework would also direct the activities of the DOD joint program to
ensure support to the services. DOD also commented that current research
has not advanced to the point where models exist that adequately account
for the many factors that affect recruiting as well as for the differences
in the services. DOD stated that it will address this research gap through
several initiatives intended to advance the measurement of the performance
of recruiting and advertising. The National Academy of Sciences is
currently developing an evaluation framework for recruiting and
advertising and expects to publish a report in early 2004.
DOD*s comments are provided in their entirety in appendix II. DOD
officials also provided technical comments that we have incorporated as
appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to interested
congressional
committees; the Secretaries of Defense, the Army, the Navy, and the Air
Force; and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. We will send copies to
other interested parties upon request. In addition, the report will be
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http:// www. gao. gov.
Agency Comments
and Our Evaluation
Page 23 GAO- 03- 1005 Military Recruiting
Please contact me at (202) 512- 5559 if you or your staffs have any
questions regarding this report. Key contributors to this report were John
Pendleton, Lori Atkinson, Nancy Benco, Kurt Burgeson, Alan Byroade, Chris
Currie, LaTonya Gist, Jim McGaughey, Charles Perdue, Barry Shillito, and
John Smale.
Derek B. Stewart Director, Defense Capabilities and Management
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 24 GAO- 03- 1005 Military
Recruiting
To describe the changes in the Department of Defense*s (DOD) advertising
programs and advertising funding trends since the late 1990s, we reviewed
advertising exhibits in the operation and maintenance congressional
justification books as well as budget information provided by the Office
of the Secretary of Defense. Since our objective was to look at broad
funding trends, we did not reconcile these requested amounts with actual
obligations or expenditures by the active and reserve components. We
interviewed active and reserve component officials to understand program
changes since the late 1990s. We obtained recruiting mission goals and
actual accessions back to fiscal year 1990 from the Office of the
Secretary of Defense and the services. We obtained information on the
quality of
accessions of each of the active and reserve components back to fiscal
year 1990, as well as the investment per active enlisted accession back to
fiscal year 1990. We reviewed information from the Defense Human
Resources Activity and the Joint Marketing and Advertising Committee for
discussions of advertising programs. The services provided additional
information regarding the types of advertising media they use. To assess
the adequacy of the measures used by DOD to evaluate the
effectiveness of advertising, we reviewed information on outcome measures
used to evaluate the effectiveness of advertising provided by each of the
active and reserve components; the advertising agencies that are their
contractors; and the DOD Joint Advertising, Market Research, and Studies
program. We spoke with the advertising contractors to learn what measures
of effectiveness they are aware of and use. We also reviewed the
requirements for establishing program objectives and outcome measures in
the Government Performance and Results Act and in Office of Management and
Budget guidance.
We interviewed DOD and advertising officials from each of the active and
reserve components, as well as representatives from the services*
advertising agencies. We also reviewed their programs, procedures, and
oversight activities. These interviews were conducted with officials in
the
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness;
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller/ Chief Financial
Officer); Defense Human Resources Activity, Joint Advertising, Market
Research, and Studies Office; Army Accessions Command, Fort Knox,
Kentucky; Air Force Recruiting Service, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas;
Navy Recruiting Command, Millington, Tennessee; Marine Corps
Recruiting Command, Quantico Marine Corps Base, Virginia; Army National
Guard Recruiting and Retention Command, Arlington, Virginia; Naval Reserve
Command, New Orleans, Louisiana; Air Force Reserve Command, Robins Air
Force Base, Georgia; and the Air National Guard Appendix I: Scope and
Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 25 GAO- 03- 1005 Military
Recruiting
Office of Recruiting and Retention, Arlington, Virginia. We also
interviewed officials at the contracted advertising agencies for the joint
program, the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Air Force. We
reviewed reports on recruiting and advertising from DOD, the Congressional
Research Service, the private sector, and others. We obtained recruiting
advertising budget and funding data for types of advertising from the
Office of the Secretary of Defense. We reviewed, but did not verify, the
accuracy of the data provided by DOD.
We conducted our review from October 2002 through July 2003 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense
Page 26 GAO- 03- 1005 Military Recruiting
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense
Page 27 GAO- 03- 1005 Military Recruiting
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense
Page 28 GAO- 03- 1005 Military Recruiting
Note: Page numbers in the draft report may differ from those in this
report.
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense
Page 29 GAO- 03- 1005 Military Recruiting
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense
Page 30 GAO- 03- 1005 Military Recruiting
Related GAO Products Page 31 GAO- 03- 1005 Military Recruiting
Program Evaluation: Strategies for Assessing How Information Dissemination
Contributes to Agency Goals. GAO- 02- 923. Washington, D. C.: September
30, 2002.
Military Personnel: Services Need to Assess Efforts to Meet Recruiting
Goals and Cut Attrition. GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 146. Washington, D. C.: June 23,
2000.
Military Personnel: First- Term Recruiting and Attrition Continue to
Require Focused Attention. GAO/ T- NSIAD- 00- 102. Washington, D. C.:
February 24, 2000.
Military Recruiting: DOD Could Improve Its Recruiter Selection and
Incentive Systems. GAO/ NSIAD- 98- 58. Washington, D. C.: January 30,
1998. Military Personnel: High Aggregate Personnel Levels Maintained
Throughout Drawdown. GAO/ NSIAD- 95- 97. Washington, D. C.: June 2, 1995.
Military Recruiting: More Innovative Approaches Needed. GAO/ NSIAD95- 22.
Washington, D. C.: December 22, 1994.
Military Downsizing: Balancing Accessions and Losses Is Key to Shaping the
Future Force. GAO/ NSIAD- 93- 241. Washington, D. C.: September 30, 1993.
Related GAO Products
(350274)
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and 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 e- mail alerts* under the *Order GAO Products* 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. ***