DOD Personnel: Documentation of the Army's Civilian		 
Workforce-Planning Model Needed to Enhance Credibility		 
(22-AUG-03, GAO-03-1046).					 
                                                                 
Between fiscal years 1989 and 2002, the Department of Defense	 
(DOD) reduced its civilian workforce by about 38 percent, with	 
little attention to shaping or specifically sizing this workforce
for the future. As a result, the civilian workforce is imbalanced
in terms of the shape, skills, and experience needed by the	 
department. DOD is taking steps to transform its civilian	 
workforce. To assist with this transformation, the department is 
considering adopting an Army workforce-planning model, known as  
the Civilian Forecasting System (CIVFORS), which the Army uses to
forecast its civilian workforce needs. Other federal agencies are
also considering adopting this model. GAO was asked to review the
adequacy of the steps the Army has taken to ensure the		 
credibility of the model.					 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-1046					        
    ACCNO:   A08179						        
  TITLE:     DOD Personnel: Documentation of the Army's Civilian      
Workforce-Planning Model Needed to Enhance Credibility		 
     DATE:   08/22/2003 
  SUBJECT:   Civilian employees 				 
	     Computer modeling					 
	     Data collection					 
	     Data integrity					 
	     Labor force					 
	     Management information systems			 
	     Personnel management				 
	     Projections					 
	     Reductions in force				 
	     Documentation					 
	     Army Civilian Forecasting System			 

******************************************************************
** 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-03-1046

a

GAO United States General Accounting Office

Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Readiness,
Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives

August 2003 DOD PERSONNEL Documentation of the Army*s Civilian Workforce-
Planning Model Needed to Enhance Credibility

GAO- 03- 1046

The Army has taken adequate steps to ensure that the historical personnel
data used in the model are sufficiently reliable and that the information
technology structure adequately and appropriately supports the model. For
example, the Army has established adequate control measures (e. g., edit
checks, expert review, etc.) to ensure that the historical data that goes
into the model are sufficiently reliable. Moreover, it has taken adequate
steps to ensure that the information technology support structure (i. e.,
the software and hardware used to interface with and house the model)
would enable continuity of operations, functionality, and system
modification and operations.

However, the Army has not demonstrated that it has taken adequate steps to
ensure that the model*s forecasting capability provides the basis for
making accurate forecasts of the Army*s civilian workforce. The Army*s
original certification of CIVFORS in 1987 was based on a formal documented
verification and validation of the model structure that has not been
formally updated since that time even though the Army has undertaken
several model improvements. According to the Army*s CIVFORS program
manager, the Army has taken several steps, to include an independent
review, peer reviews, and a comparison of forecasted data to actual data.
However, documentation of these steps is incomplete and, therefore, does
not provide adequate evidence to demonstrate the credibility of the
forecast results. Without adequate documentation, the Army cannot show
that it has taken sufficient steps to ensure the model*s credibility in
terms of its forecasting capability; consequently, there exists a risk
that the forecasts it produces may be

inaccurate or misleading. Furthermore, without documentation of CIVFORS*s
forecasting capability, it may be difficult for DOD and other federal
organizations to accurately determine its suitability for their use.
Between fiscal years 1989 and 2002,

the Department of Defense (DOD) reduced its civilian workforce by about 38
percent, with little attention to shaping or specifically sizing this
workforce for the future. As a result, the civilian workforce is
imbalanced in terms of the shape, skills, and experience needed by the
department. DOD is taking steps to transform its civilian workforce. To
assist with this transformation, the department is considering adopting an
Army

workforce- planning model, known as the Civilian Forecasting System
(CIVFORS), which the Army uses to forecast its civilian workforce needs.
Other federal agencies are also considering adopting this model. GAO was
asked to review the adequacy of the steps the Army has taken to ensure the
credibility of the model. To assure the reliability of Army civilian
workforce projections and

the appropriateness of the model for use DOD- wide and by other federal
agencies, we recommend

that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of the Army to
appropriately document the

forecasting capability of the model. Although DOD stated, in written
comments on a draft of this report, it did not concur with GAO*s
recommendation, the Army is taking actions that, in effect,

implement it.

www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? GAO- 03- 1046. To view the full product,
including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For more
information, contact Derek Stewart, 202- 512- 5559, stewartd@ gao. gov.
Highlights of GAO- 03- 1046, a report to the

Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Readiness, Committee on Armed
Services, House of Representatives

August 2003

DOD PERSONNEL

Documentation of the Army's Civilian Workforce- Planning Model Needed to
Enhance Credibility

Page i GAO- 03- 1046 DOD Personnel Letter 1 Results in Brief 2 Background
3 Civilian Workforce- Planning Model*s Data Reliability and

Information Technology Structure Are Adequate, but Forecasting Ability Not
Fully Established 4 Conclusions 8 Recommendation for Executive Action 8
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 8 Scope and Methodology 9 Appendix I
Comments from the Department of Defense 11

Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 13

Abbreviations

CIVFORS Civilian Forecasting System DOD Department of Defense WASS
Workforce Analysis Support System Contents

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- 1046 DOD Personnel

August 22, 2003 The Honorable Solomon P. Ortiz Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Readiness Committee on Armed Services House of
Representatives

Dear Mr. Ortiz: Between fiscal years 1989 and 2002, the Department of
Defense (DOD) reduced its civilian workforce from 1,075,437 to 670,166*
about a 38 percent reduction* with little attention to shaping or
specifically sizing this workforce for the future. As a result, the
civilian workforce is imbalanced in terms of the shape, skills, and
experience needed by the department. DOD plans to downsize its civilian
workforce by an additional 55,000 through fiscal year 2007. In addition,
in April 2003, DOD submitted a proposal to Congress that would authorize
DOD to establish a National Security Personnel System to transform its
current civilian personnel system. 1 DOD is also exploring the feasibility
of placing hundreds of thousands of civilians into essentially nonmilitary
jobs that are currently performed by uniformed personnel. To assist in
determining its future workforce, DOD will need reliable workforce
planning tools, such as workforce projection models. According to DOD
guidance, a model used to provide data for decision making should be
accredited-- that is, the model should be officially certified as
acceptable for use for a specific purpose.

In a February 2003 testimony, the Chief of Staff of the Army stated that
the Army has begun to transform its civilian personnel system. To assist
with this transformation, the Army is using its workforce- planning model,
known as the Civilian Forecasting System (CIVFORS), which forecasts future
civilian workforce needs. 2 The Army is working closely with the

1 The system is proposed in the Transformation for the 21st Century Act of
2003. The act also proposes other wide- ranging changes, affecting
civilian personnel pay and performance management, collective bargaining,
rightsizing, and other human capital areas.

2 The Civilian Forecasting System was adapted from an Army military
forecasting model for civilian use in 1987.

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

Page 2 GAO- 03- 1046 DOD Personnel

Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Office of Personnel Management
to demonstrate the applicability of the model for use DODwide and in other
federal agencies. According to Army guidance (Army Regulation 5- 11 and
Department of the Army Pamphlet 5- 11), verification is one of the steps
needed to ensure a model*s suitability to perform its

intended purpose. The verification process evaluates the extent to which a
model has been developed using sound and established software engineering
techniques, and it establishes whether the computer code correctly
performs the intended functions. Army guidance also states that assessment
of the correctness and forecasting capability is required.

In this report, we reviewed the adequacy of the steps the Army has taken
to ensure the credibility of the model. In March 2003, we briefed your
staff on our preliminary findings. To determine the Army*s efforts to
ensure the credibility of its model, we interviewed and obtained pertinent
documentation from the Army*s CIVFORS program manager. We also reviewed
DOD and Army guidance relevant to the management of Army models and
interviewed DOD officials to discuss their plans to adopt CIVFORS. We
conducted our review from September 2002 to June 2003. More detailed
information on our scope and methodology appears at the end of this
report.

The Army*s steps were adequate to ensure that the historical personnel
data used in the model are sufficiently reliable and that the information
technology support structure 3 adequately and appropriately supports the
model, but the Army has not documented its steps to ensure the credibility
of the model*s forecasting capability. The Army has established adequate
control measures (e. g., edit checks, expert review, etc.) to ensure that
the historical data that goes into the model are sufficiently reliable.
Moreover, it has taken adequate steps to ensure that the information
technology

support structure would enable continuity of operations, functionality,
and system modification and operations. However, the Army has not
documented that it has taken adequate steps to ensure that the model*s
structure (including its forecasting capability and the appropriateness of
its assumptions) provides the basis for making accurate forecasts of the
Army*s civilian workforce. The Army*s original certification of CIVFORS in
1987 was based on a formal documented verification and validation of the
model structure that has not been formally updated since that time, even

3 The software and hardware used to interface with and house the model.
Results in Brief

Page 3 GAO- 03- 1046 DOD Personnel

though the Army has undertaken several model improvements. According to
the Army*s CIVFORS program manager, the Army has taken several steps, to
include an independent review, peer reviews, and a comparison of
forecasted data to actual data. However, documentation of these steps is
incomplete and, therefore, does not provide adequate evidence to
demonstrate the credibility of the forecast results. Without adequate
documentation, the Army cannot show that it has taken sufficient steps to
ensure the credibility of the model*s forecasting capability;
consequently, there exists a risk that the forecasts it produces may be
inaccurate or

misleading. Furthermore, without documentation of CIVFORS*s forecasting
capability, it may be difficult for DOD and other federal organizations to
accurately determine its suitability for their use.

We are recommending that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of
the Army to appropriately document the Army*s forecasting capability of
the civilian workforce- planning model. Although DOD stated, in written
comments on a draft of this report, it did not concur with our
recommendation, the Army is taking actions that, in effect, implement it.

According to an Army Human Resource official, the Army uses the workforce-
planning model* CIVFORS* for human resources management. CIVFORS is a
collection of software programs that anticipate future impacts on the
workforce so that management can plan for changes instead of reacting to
them. The model is used to evaluate a

number of critical areas in civilian workforce planning, including
projected recruitment of personnel, impact of organizational realignments,
and changes in workforce trends (such as aging, retention, and projected

personnel shortfalls). It is a life- cycle modeling and projection tool
that models the most significant events that describe the life- cycle path
of personnel, which includes accessions, promotions, reassignments,
retirements, and voluntary and involuntary separations over a 7- year
period.

Verification and validation of models are important steps to building
credible models because they provide the foundation for the accreditation
process to ensure the suitability of the models for their intended
purposes, as stated in Army guidance, Management of Army Models and
Background

Page 4 GAO- 03- 1046 DOD Personnel

Simulations. 4 The verification process evaluates the extent to which a
model has been developed using sound and established software engineering
techniques, and it establishes whether the model*s computer code correctly
performs the intended functions. Model verification includes data
verification, model documentation, and testing of the information
technology structure that supports the model; model verification is
contained in such documents as the programmer*s manual, installation*s
manual, user*s guide, analyst*s manual, and trainer*s manual. According to
Army guidance, assessment of the correctness and forecasting capability of
the model is also required, and it should be performed by a subject matter
expert independent from the model developer; however, the developer is
expected to conduct in- house verification and testing to assist in the
overall model development process. Validation is the process of
determining the extent to which the model adequately represents the real
world.

The Army has taken steps to ensure the reliability of the historical
personnel data used by the model and the adequacy of its information
technology structure used to support the model, but it has not provided
documentation that it has sufficiently tested and reviewed the most
critical aspect of the model* its forecasting capability and the
appropriateness of its assumptions. As a result, the forecasting
credibility of the current version of the model is not sufficiently
validated or documented. Without proper documentation of the abilities of
the model, there is a risk that the forecasts it produces may be
inaccurate or misleading and the suitability for use by other
organizations may be difficult to determine.

The Army*s review of the historical personnel data used to provide
information for workforce planning was adequate to show that the data are
sufficiently reliable for use in the workforce model. Data regarding

personnel (such as date hired, education, age, grade level, and
occupational series) are taken from the Army*s Workforce Analysis

4 Headquarters, Department of the Army, Management of Army Models and
Simulations, Army Regulation 5- 11 (Washington, D. C., July 10, 1997).
This regulation prescribes policy and guidance and assigns
responsibilities for the management of Army models and simulations,
including development and maintenance. Civilian WorkforcePlanning Model*s
Data

Reliability and Information Technology Structure Are Adequate, but
Forecasting Ability Not Fully Established

Historical Personnel Data Reliability Is Adequate

Page 5 GAO- 03- 1046 DOD Personnel

Support System (WASS). 5 CIVFORS uses the most recent 5 years of
historical data to forecast the civilian workforce planning needs during
the next 7 years. According to Army guidance, to ensure that data are
sufficiently reliable for use in the Army model, support documents should
contain information

about the overall characteristics of the database. Furthermore, the
documents should show the intended range of appropriate uses for the model
as well as constraints on its use. They should also include concise
statements of the condition of the database for the purpose of indicating
its stability. The Army provided most, but not all, of the documents
referred to in Army guidance; we believe that the documents provided are
key ones and are adequate to show that WASS data are sufficiently reliable

for use in CIVFORS. In addition, the Army program manager for the CIVFORS
workforce- planning model stated that the workforce data are checked by
reviewing the arithmetic in the numerical algorithms to verify that there
is no unexplained change in the size of the civilian personnel workforce
contained in the database. Further, edit checks include matching social
security numbers for personnel from one time period to another to account
for actual personnel and personnel transactions processed. In addition,
CIVFORS has automated checks for inappropriate numbers or characters. Such
steps help to assure that the data contained in WASS accurately and
completely reflect critical personnel aspects and transactions.

The Army*s procedures for validating the information technology support
structure (the software and hardware used to interface with and house the
model) were also sufficient. For example, the Army (1) adequately
documented the information technology structure to allow for continuity of
operations, (2) tested its functionality, and (3) provided expertise for
system modification and operation. Procedures used by the Army include
documenting the model*s system description and hardware and software
requirements, providing system and user manuals, planning for
configuration management, 6 and conducting functionality tests to help

5 WASS enables analysis of data on Army civilians from 1974 to the
present. It has analysis capabilities that range from frequency
distribution to trend analysis. 6 Configuration management is the control
and documentation of changes made to system

hardware, software, and documentation throughout the development and
operational life of the system. Information Technology Structure Is
Adequate

Page 6 GAO- 03- 1046 DOD Personnel

ensure the system*s usability and operability over time and to demonstrate
the adequacy of the information technology structure to support use of the
workforce model.

The Army*s documentation cannot show that the forecasting ability of
CIVFORS has been adequately evaluated and, therefore, we cannot fully
assess the credibility of the model. According to Army guidance,
validation is the process of determining the extent to which a model
adequately represents the real world. According to the Army program
manager, over a 7- year period, CIVFORS forecasts the anticipated impacts
on the workforce based on the most significant events in the life- cycle
path of personnel (to include accessions, promotions, reassignments,
retirements, voluntary separations, and involuntary separations). Army
guidance states that an independent, peer, and subject matter expert
review of the model should be conducted. The Army guidance also suggests
generally accepted methods, such as conducting a careful line- by- line
examination of the model design and computer code and algorithms. The
Army*s program manager said this had been done for the original
certification of CIVFORS in 1987. However, no formal document of the
reviews has been prepared in the years since, even though the Army has
undertaken several model improvements, such as (1) an expanded scope to
include more dimensions in the modeling process; (2) a more integrated,
streamlined process that involves fewer steps; and (3) greater
flexibility, achieved by generalizing the formulas and parameters.

In addition, there is insufficient documentation regarding tests
performed, since 1987, in which CIVFORS*s forecasts for prior years are
compared against equivalent historical data (called an *out of sample*
test) to measure the model*s forecasting capability. Such testing, which
is one method to validate a model*s forecasting capability, would involve
using the first 5 of the last 7 years of historical data to forecast the 2
subsequent years. The forecasts for the last 2 years could then be
compared to the actual historical data. The Army, however, performed tests
comparing patterns of forecasts against historical data (called *in
sample* tests), showing that forecasts reflect the same patterns as the
historical data used to develop them for a sample of three Army major
commands. However,

the draft document that was provided to us was inadequate to fully assess
the sampling used by the Army and the value of the tests.

Finally, the Army could not provide adequate documentation of an
independent or peer review of the model. The Army*s CIVFORS program
manager stated that the major commands served as peer reviewers by Model*s
Forecasting Ability

Is Not Fully Established

Page 7 GAO- 03- 1046 DOD Personnel

conducting a comparison of their workforce data to WASS and CIVFORS
workforce data. We believe that such assessments by users provide
important information but do not constitute a peer review as defined in
Army guidance. Also, the results of these assessments were not available
for us to review. The program manager also stated that an independent
subject matter expert reviewed the functional design and the code in 1999,
but a formal report of the activities performed and the specific changes
or modifications implemented during the review were not produced.

Documentation has often not been a priority for several reasons. According
to the Army*s CIVFORS program manager, lack of documentation is primarily
due to limited funding, which was spent on

implementing changes to CIVFORS and WASS rather than on the production of
formal documents. Further, a shortage of staff (only one staff person* the
program manager) and loss of documents during the attack on the Pentagon
on September 11, 2001, also affected the amount of documentation the Army
could provide us. The program manager also stated that some documentation
was not needed because CIVFORS*s design is predicated on proven methods in
other Army active- duty, military manpower forecasting models. In
addition, the program manager stated that the Army and contractors have
primarily been adapting technology

(upgrading from mainframe to personal computer to Web- based) to improve
model functionality rather than creating new technology. However, without
proper documentation of the abilities of the model, there exists a risk
that the forecasts it produces may be inaccurate or misleading.
Consequently, decisions about future workforce requirements may be
questionable, and planning for the size, shape, and experience level of
the future workforce may not adequately meet the Army*s needs.

These issues may extend beyond the Army. In April 2002, DOD published a
strategic plan for civilian personnel, which includes a goal to obtain
management systems to support workforce planning. According to a DOD
official responsible for civilian workforce planning tools, components
within DOD have been requesting a modeling tool to assist them with
civilian workforce planning. As a result, DOD has decided to test the
Army*s civilian forecasting model. In October 2002, DOD purchased
hardware, installed modified software, and provided training to a small
number of personnel. Recently, DOD obtained a historical database of
civilian personnel data from the Defense Management Data Center and
provided the database to the contractor to load into the model. Two
agencies have volunteered to test the model: the Defense Logistics Agency
and the Washington Headquarters Service. DOD is working to develop a test
for these organizations using their own civilian personnel data to test

Page 8 GAO- 03- 1046 DOD Personnel

the model. At the end of the testing period, DOD will assess the model to
obtain a better understanding of its logic and determine whether or not it
should be implemented departmentwide.

As DOD continues to transform and downsize its civilian workforce, it is
imperative that the department properly shape and size the workforce. One
tool that could assist in this effort is CIVFORS* the Army*s workforce
planning model. However, proper documentation of the verification and
validation of CIVFORS is needed before expanding its use. The Army has

taken adequate steps to ensure that the historical personnel data used in
the model are sufficiently reliable and the information technology
structure appropriately supports the model; however, it has not fully
documented that it has taken adequate steps to demonstrate the credibility
of the model*s forecasting capability. Further, a model should be fully
scrutinized before each new application because a change in purpose,
passage of time, or input data may invalidate some aspects of the existing
model. Without sufficient documentation to demonstrate that adequate steps
have been taken to ensure the credibility of the model*s forecasting
capabilities, decisions about the Army*s future civilian workforce may be
based on questionable data and other potential users cannot determine with
certainty the model*s suitability for their use.

To assure the reliability of Army civilian workforce projections, as well
as the appropriateness of the model for use DOD- wide and by other federal
agencies, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary
of the Army to appropriately document the Army*s forecasting capability of
the model.

Although DOD stated, in written comments on a draft of this report, that
it did not concur with our recommendation, the Army is taking actions
that, in effect, implement it. DOD*s written comments are contained in

appendix I. Regarding our recommendation that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of the Army to appropriately document the Army*s
forecasting capability of the model, DOD stated that the Army recognizes
the need to fully document its verification and validation efforts.
Further, DOD stated the staff of the Assistant Secretary of the Army,
Manpower and Reserve Affairs, has begun developing a verification and
validation plan to enable outside parties to assess the suitability and
adaptability of the model for Conclusions

Recommendation for Executive Action

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

Page 9 GAO- 03- 1046 DOD Personnel

their organizational use. This verification and validation process is
scheduled for completion in September 2003. However, during our review,
DOD did not provide information about the full scope of this verification
and validation effort. We believe that as the Army undertakes its
verification and validation effort, it should clearly document, as we
recommended, its assumptions, procedures, and the results so that future
users can replicate the tests to appropriately establish the model*s
validity for their purposes.

DOD also did not concur with our finding that the forecasting ability of
the model has not been fully established. DOD stated that the ultimate
test of a system is performance and that CIVFORS has been consistently
generating Army projections with high standards of accuracy. We did not
independently evaluate the model*s accuracy. As our report makes clear,
our basic point is that the model*s forecasting ability has not been
documented in accordance with Army guidance. We continue to believe that
without adequate documentation, the Army cannot show that it has taken
sufficient steps to ensure the model*s credibility in terms of its
forecasting capability. DOD also provided technical comments, which we
incorporated where appropriate.

We did not independently evaluate the model or the application of the
steps; rather, we reviewed the adequacy of the steps that the Army program
manager stated were taken to ensure the credibility of the model. To
determine the adequacy of the steps the Army has taken to ensure the

credibility of its civilian workforce- forecasting model, we discussed
CIVFORS with the Army*s CIVFORS program manager in the Army G- 1 office,
Civilian Personnel Policy Directorate, who has overall responsibility for
the workforce analysis and the forecasting system. In addition, Army
contractor officials who are responsible for providing technical,
analytic, and management support to operate, maintain, and enhance the
planning tool and model participated in several of our discussions with
the program manager. We reviewed the following CIVFORS*s documents
regarding the information technology support structure: the Configuration
Management Manual, the System*s Specifications, the Design/ Subsystem
Documentation, the Operator*s Manual, and the User*s Manual. In addition,
we reviewed the 1987 and draft 2002 test analysis report on the Civilian
Forecasting System and other documentation provided by the Army to obtain
information on how the model operates according to model assumptions. We
also reviewed the DOD Defense Modeling and Simulation Office guidance on
verification and validation of models, the Army regulation and pamphlet
pertaining to the Scope and

Methodology

Page 10 GAO- 03- 1046 DOD Personnel

management of Army models and simulations, and other literature regarding
model credibility. We also interviewed DOD officials in the Civilian
Personnel Management Service responsible for developing plans to adopt the
Army*s workforce forecasting model to discuss the status of their efforts.

We conducted our review from September 2002 to June 2003 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees, the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness, and the Secretary of the Army. We will also 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 at (202) 512- 5559. Key contributors to this report are listed in
appendix II. Sincerely yours,

Derek B. Stewart Director, Defense Capabilities

and Management

Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Defense

Page 11 GAO- 03- 1046 DOD Personnel

Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Defense

Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Defense

Page 12 GAO- 03- 1046 DOD Personnel

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

Page 13 GAO- 03- 1046 DOD Personnel

Christine Fossett (202) 512- 2956 In addition to the name above, David
Dornisch, Barbara Johnson, Barbara Joyce, John Smale, Dale Wineholt, and
Susan Woodward made significant contributions to this report. Appendix II:
GAO Contact and Staff

Acknowledgments GAO Contact Acknowledgments

(350385)

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. ***