Monitoring and Oversight of Federal Funds Awarded to Bridgeport,
Connecticut (26-NOV-03, GAO-04-230R).
In 2001 and 2002, federal prosecutors indicted the Mayor of
Bridgeport, Connecticut, and a dozen conspirators on charges of
racketeering, extortion, mail fraud, and tax evasion. In March
2003, the mayor was found guilty on 16 counts, and most of the
others indicted have pleaded guilty. While the indictment did not
refer to any misuse of federal funds, some of the corrupt
activities were associated with projects that had received some
federal funding in the past. This corruption has raised concerns
about the adequacy of monitoring and oversight of the more than
$82 million in federal funds Bridgeport has received in recent
years. Congress asked us to examine federally funded programs
operated by the city of Bridgeport and determine whether and to
what extent the respective federal agencies, including program
officials and Offices of Inspector General, have heightened
program monitoring and oversight in light of the corruption.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-04-230R
ACCNO: A08946
TITLE: Monitoring and Oversight of Federal Funds Awarded to
Bridgeport, Connecticut
DATE: 11/26/2003
SUBJECT: Federal funds
Fraud
Investigations by federal agencies
Mail fraud
Tax evasion
White collar crime
Monitoring
Corruption
Bridgeport (CT)
Community Oriented Policing Services
Program
Community Development Block Grant
******************************************************************
** 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-04-230R
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548
November 26, 2003
The Honorable Tom Davis
Chairman
The Honorable Christopher Shays
Vice-Chairman
Committee on Government Reform
House of Representatives
Subject: Monitoring and Oversight of Federal Funds Awarded to Bridgeport,
Connecticut
In 2001 and 2002, federal prosecutors indicted the Mayor of Bridgeport,
Connecticut, and a dozen conspirators on charges of racketeering,
extortion, mail fraud, and tax evasion. In March 2003, the mayor was found
guilty on 16 counts, and most of the others indicted have pleaded guilty.
While the indictment did not refer to any misuse of federal funds, some of
the corrupt activities were associated with projects that had received
some federal funding in the past. This corruption has raised concerns
about the adequacy of monitoring and oversight of the more than $82
million in federal funds Bridgeport has received in recent years.
You asked us to examine federally funded programs operated by the city of
Bridgeport and determine whether and to what extent the respective federal
agencies, including program officials and Offices of Inspector General,
have heightened program monitoring and oversight in light of the
corruption. To respond to your request, we interviewed program and
Inspector General officials from six federal agencies that provided about
95 percent of federal funds to Bridgeport in fiscal year 2002 to identify
their general monitoring and oversight mechanisms as well as any
monitoring activities specific to Bridgeport.1 We also obtained and
reviewed annual Single Audit Act audit reports for Bridgeport for fiscal
years 1998 through 2002, as well as agency and Inspector General audit and
monitoring reports on federally funded programs in Bridgeport.2 In
addition, we reviewed the indictment and verdict and met with officials
from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) regarding the corruption
investigation. We performed our work between June and October 2003 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
1 The six federal agencies are the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Departments of Agriculture, Education, Housing and Urban Development,
Justice, and Transportation. 2 The Single Audit Act (31 U.S.C. 7501 et
seq) requires state and local governments that expend more than a
threshold amount in a fiscal year to have either a single audit or a
program-specific audit conducted and to forward the audit report to the
Federal Audit Clearinghouse for distribution to each federal agency
responsible for programs for which the audit report identifies a finding.
GAO-04-230R Bridgeport, Connecticut
Results in Brief
The six federal agencies that provided funds to Bridgeport generally have
not heightened monitoring and oversight activities in response to the
Bridgeport corruption, but rather have continued to oversee program
funding through routine, generally risk-based monitoring and oversight
activities. These activities include the review of Single Audit Act audit
reports and other reports required of fund recipients, comprehensive
program reviews, field visits to grantees, and assessments of state
oversight in cases where federal funds are provided to localities through
states. In recent years, these types of monitoring and oversight
activities in Bridgeport have not revealed misuse of federal funds.
Further, according to a senior FBI agent who participated in the
Bridgeport corruption investigation, the FBI did not identify any internal
control weaknesses on the part of federal agencies as the basis for the
corruption and concluded that the corruption was caused by corrupt
individuals in the local area.
Background
During 2002, the federal government provided Bridgeport with more than $82
million in funding. Six federal agencies provided about 95 percent of
federal funds to the city. The Departments of Agriculture (USDA),
Education, Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Justice (DOJ), and
Transportation (DOT), as well as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
awarded these funds for over 20 different programs. For example, HUD
provided funds to Bridgeport for its Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) and affordable housing programs; DOJ awarded funds for its
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program; and DOT provided
funds through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for the development
of the Bridgeport Intermodal Transportation Center. See enclosure I for
information about each of the federal programs that provided funds to
Bridgeport.
Funding for these programs does not always go directly to the city, and
much of it flows through the states, which have responsibility for passing
it to the local level. For example, USDA reimburses the states for its
child nutrition programs, and the states, in turn, reimburse schools at
the local level. Also, not all programs identify the city as the recipient
of the grants. For example, the Bridgeport Housing Authority is an entity
separate from the city of Bridgeport, and HUD's Public Housing program
funds do not flow through the city but go directly to the Housing
Authority.
Federal agencies use a variety of mechanisms to support their monitoring
and oversight activities. The Single Audit Act is intended to, among other
things, promote sound financial management, including effective internal
controls, with respect to federal awards administered by state and local
governments and nonprofit organizations. Under OMB Circular A-133, Audits
of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations, those entities
that spend $300,000 or more in federal awards during the fiscal year are
required to have a single or
Page 2 GAO-04-23OR Bridgeport, Connecticut
3
program-specific audit conducted for that year. The circular also notes
that the entities are required to (1) maintain internal controls for
federal programs, (2) comply with laws, regulations, and the provisions of
contracts or grant agreements, (3) prepare appropriate financial
statements, (4) ensure that the required single audits are properly
performed and submitted when due, and (5) follow up and take corrective
actions on audit findings. In addition to reviewing Single Audit Act audit
reports, agencies may visit grantee sites, conduct risk-based grant
reviews of local program operations, review national program operations,
assess monitoring efforts at the state level, and/or conduct
investigations and reviews initiated through fraud hotlines and other
complaints or leads. High funding levels, inexperienced grantees, grantees
with a history of performance problems, and a variety of other factors,
including known instances of corruption, are elements of risk that might
lead to increased scrutiny through risk-based approaches.
Federal Agencies Have Not Heightened Monitoring and Oversight Activities
in Response to Corruption
In general, federal agencies have not heightened monitoring and oversight
activities in light of the Bridgeport corruption. Rather, agencies
continue to monitor program funding as they have in the past, as part of
routine, risk-based monitoring and oversight. This type of monitoring and
oversight in Bridgeport in recent years has not revealed misuse of federal
funds. Further, the corruption investigation did not identify weaknesses
in federal controls.
Agencies Have Continued to Conduct Routine, Risk-Based Monitoring and
Oversight
While federal agencies have not heightened monitoring and oversight
activities in light of the Bridgeport corruption, several risk-based grant
reviews of Bridgeport's program operations have been conducted in recent
years, particularly by HUD. However, according to HUD officials, without a
lead or information from a concerned citizen or whistle-blower, routine
risk-based reviews would not necessarily identify the kinds of fraud that
occurred as part of the Bridgeport corruption, even if it had involved
federal funds.
o In August 2000, HUD's Connecticut State Office reviewed Bridgeport's
CDBG and Emergency Shelter Grant programs. The city of Bridgeport was
found to be in compliance with the financial administrative and
record-keeping requirements applicable to HUD-funded grants. HUD raised
only one concern, observing that eight storm doors called for in
rehabilitation specifications had not been installed.
3 In the June 27, 2003, Federal Register, OMB issued final revisions to
Circular A-133 that raise the threshold for coverage from $300,000 to
$500,000 in annual federal spending. These revisions generally apply to
fiscal years ending after December 31, 2003.
Page 3 GAO-04-23OR Bridgeport, Connecticut
o In May 2002, HUD's Connecticut State Office reviewed Bridgeport's
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) program. The program
was found to be in compliance in all the regulatory and performance areas
that were monitored. For example, all individuals met HUD's definition of
homeless prior to acceptance into the program, case files were well
organized, and units appeared to be clean and adequately maintained.
o In May 2002, HUD's Connecticut State Office reviewed Bridgeport's CDBG
program. The review found that assisted entities had provided public
service benefits, that performance reports and financial documentation
appeared to be accurate and timely, and that selected activities were
found to be eligible. This review also found that Bridgeport had not
collected and submitted interest earned on two revolving loan accounts for
rehabilitation and other activities and that there was a lack of progress
with regard to the implementation of some CDBG rehabilitation activities.
In addition, the following reviews were initiated as a result of leads
external to HUD's Inspector General. HUD's Inspector General might not
have conducted this work without the leads. For example:
o In 2000, in response to a citizen's complaint, HUD's Inspector General
examined the Bridgeport Housing Authority and concluded that it was not
operated in an efficient, effective, and economical manner and did not
always comply with HUD regulations-including a failure to meet the time
schedule on a court-ordered directive to replace 1,063 low-income housing
units. According to HUD officials, most of the concerns identified in the
Inspector General's Bridgeport Housing Authority report have been or are
being addressed.
o In May 2003, partly based on information from HUD's Connecticut State
Office that Bridgeport's HOME Investment Partnership program was suffering
from poor management, HUD's Inspector General reported on Bridgeport's
HOME program, finding that the city could not provide adequate support for
$989,929 in HOME program funds.
In addition to HUD, other federal agencies have reviewed Bridgeport's
program operations:
o DOT hires engineering firms to perform project management oversight,
including oversight of the development of the Bridgeport Intermodal
Transportation Center. This oversight includes periodic site visits and
the review of monthly reports. DOT has been monitoring this project since
its inception in 1999.
o As part of the Bridgeport corruption investigation, DOT's Inspector
General, working with the FBI, Internal Revenue Service, Defense Criminal
Investigative Service, and FTA, investigated $104,000 in DOT grant funds
used
Page 4 GAO-04-23OR Bridgeport, Connecticut
for the removal and disposal of contaminated soil, allegedly from the
construction site of a municipal hockey arena, parking garage, and the
Intermodal Transportation Center. The soil was actually from sites in
Norwalk, Connecticut, and New York City. The parties charged in this
investigation have pleaded guilty and agreed to pay $104,000 in
restitution.
o In commenting on our draft report, DOT noted that when the Greater
Bridgeport Transit District was chosen to be the grantee for Bridgeport's
Intermodal Transportation Center, FTA initiated a review of an
architecture and engineering procurement under this grant. FTA found that
the appropriate procurement procedures had not been followed, and the
review resulted in the cancellation of the procurement. In addition, after
collaboration between the Connecticut Department of Transportation and
FTA, the city of Bridgeport was chosen to be the new grantee. The Greater
Bridgeport Transit District was subsequently dissolved and the Greater
Bridgeport Transit Authority was established.
o DOJ's Inspector General reviewed Bridgeport's COPS program in 2000
based on routine risk-based audit plans and found that the city generally
performed at an acceptable level but had failed to submit some monitoring
reports and had submitted many other reports late.
o In light of the corruption, DOJ's Weed and Seed Program changed the
grant manager fiscal agent from the city of Bridgeport to the Office of
Law Enforcement (the police department).
The Bridgeport Investigation Did Not Identify Weaknesses in Federal
Controls
As part of its Bridgeport investigation, the FBI contacted officials from
HUD, DOT, and EPA but did not identify any internal control weaknesses on
the part of federal agencies, concluding that the Bridgeport corruption
was not a result of poor internal controls. Instead, the FBI reported that
the corruption was a result of some corrupt individuals in the local area.
According to the FBI, fraud was committed, but there was no indication
that the fraud was a result of a lack of proper internal controls at the
federal level.
In addition, the indictment resulting from the investigation did not refer
to any misuse of federal funds. Rather, it stated that the mayor and
others committed illegal acts, a few of which were associated with
projects that had received some federal funding in the past. For example,
the indictment charged the following:
o The mayor and his associates wrongfully collected a payment from a
private company in exchange for awarding the company a contract to operate
and manage Bridgeport's waste water treatment facilities. (This charge
resulted in a "guilty" verdict.) According to EPA officials, this facility
was constructed in the 1970s or 1980s with financial assistance from EPA.
Page 5 GAO-04-23OR Bridgeport, Connecticut
o The mayor agreed to select a specific private company to develop
vacant tracts of land in Bridgeport, including the site of the former
Father Panik Village public housing complex, in return for payments to be
made from the company when the land was developed. (This charge resulted
in a "guilty" verdict.) In 1990, the Bridgeport Housing Authority was
directed by the United States District Court of Connecticut to replace all
units demolished in the Father Panik Village public housing complex; HUD
provided $89 million for this replacement.4
o The mayor and his associates solicited and agreed to accept money and
other items for awarding contracts to private companies for the design and
construction of a minor league baseball stadium and hockey arena. (This
charge was dismissed.) Prior to construction, in 1998, EPA provided
$200,000 in Brownfields program funds to assess the extent of soil and
water contamination on this site. Also, DOT provided over $5 million to
help construct the site's parking garage, which is also used for
Bridgeport's Intermodal Transportation Center.5
Agency Comments
We provided a draft of this report to USDA, Education, EPA, HUD, DOJ, and
DOT for their review and comment. These agencies generally agreed with our
findings. They provided some additional information on their monitoring
activities in Bridgeport as well as some technical comments that are
reflected in the letter as appropriate.
EPA noted that it has recently completed a 2-day desk review of
Bridgeport's Brownfields grant. This review was conducted after our draft
was sent to agencies for comment.
In addition, DOT noted that, in light of the corruption, FTA has scheduled
a financial management oversight review of Bridgeport to provide assurance
that new accounting procedures implemented by the city will provide the
necessary control over federal transportation funds.
4 When first built, Father Panik Village had a total of 1,239 units within
46 buildings on a 40-acre tract on the east side of Bridgeport. Two
buildings were later torn down, reducing the overall facility to 1,063
units. In the 1970s, the complex began to fall into disrepair, and in the
1980s became known as one of the nation's most poorly managed public
housing facilities. Residents complained about the conditions at the
complex and filed suit against HUD and the Bridgeport Housing Authority. A
settlement was negotiated in 1990, and Father Panik Village was to be
totally demolished and replaced by 818 units of new housing around the
city, plus an additional 245 project-based Section 8 units. (Section 8
allows very low-income families to choose and lease or purchase safe,
decent, and affordable privately owned housing.) 5 As noted previously,
the DOT Inspector General concluded that $104,000 of this amount was used
fraudulently, and the agency has taken steps to retrieve the funds.
Page 6 GAO-04-23OR Bridgeport, Connecticut
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of USDA,
Education, HUD, DOJ, and DOT, and to the Administrator of EPA. The report
is also available at no cost on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions, please contact me at (202)
512-6878 or at [email protected]. Major contributors to this report were Andy
Finkel and Eric Diamant.
David G. Wood Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment
Enclosure
Page 7 GAO-04-23OR Bridgeport, Connecticut
Enclosure I
Use of Funds Provided by Six Federal Agencies in Bridgeport, Connecticut (by
fiscal year)
Total Federal Awards Expended in 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Bridgeport, Connecticut (dollars in
millions) $69.22 $73.06 $92.20 $82.32 $82.35a
Department of Agriculture
Program Purpose 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Assist states,
through cash grants
and food donations,
in making the school
lunch program
National School available to
Lunch Program schoolchildren and
to encourage the
domestic consumption
of nutritious
agricultural
commodities. 4.61 4.30 5.93 6.19 6.78
Assist states,
through cash grants
School Breakfast and food donations,
Program in providing a
nutritious nonprofit
breakfast service
for schoolchildren. 1.04 1.04 1.32 1.26 1.50
Assist states in
conducting nonprofit
food service
programs for
Summer Food low-income children
Service Program during summer months
for Children and at other
approved times, when
schools are out of
session or closed
for vacation. 0.49 0.48 0.52 0.50 0.44
Help states provide
to low-income
pregnant,
breastfeeding, and
postpartum women,
infants, and
children up to age
five, determined to
be at nutritional
risk, at no cost,
Special supplemental
Supplemental nutritious foods,
Nutrition Program nutrition education,
for Women, and referrals to
Infants, and health care
Children (WIC) providers. 0.81 0.76 0.74 0.74 0.75
Other Agriculture
programs 0.49 0.49 0.47 0.53 0.58
Improve diets of
low-income
Food Stampsb households by
increasing their
food purchasing
ability. 1.9 2.2 2.3 2.5
Department of Education
Help local education
agencies and schools
improve the teaching
Title I Grants to and learning of
Local Education children failing, or
Agencies most at-risk of
failing, to meet
challenging state
academic standards. 8.71 9.87 11.10 9.88 11.75
Enable rural and
inner city public
elementary and
secondary schools to
plan, implement, or
21st Century expand projects that
Community benefit the
Learning Centers educational, health,
social service,
cultural, and
recreational needs
of their
communities. 0 0.63 1.70 3.28 4.23
Other Education
programs 3.64 4.16 4.58 6.19 7.98
Environmental Protection Agency
Empower states,
communities, and
other stakeholders
in economic
redevelopment to
prevent, assess,
safely clean up, and
sustainably reuse
brownfields (sites
Brownfields that have actual or
Pilots/Grants and perceived
Demonstrations c contamination and a
potential for
redevelopment or
reuse).
(Bridgeport's
Brownfield grants
generally are for
environmental
assessment
activities.) 0.20 0 0 0.20 0
Other EPA
programs 0 0 0 0 0.03
Page 8 GAO-04-23OR Bridgeport, Connecticut
Enclosure I
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Develop viable urban
communities by providing
decent housing, a
suitable living
environment, and
expanding economic
opportunities,
principally for persons
of low and moderate
income. Each activity
funded must benefit low-
Community and moderate-income
Development Block families, aid in the
Grants prevention or elimination
of slums or blight, or
meet other community
development needs having
a particular urgency
because existing
conditions pose a serious
and immediate threat to
the health or welfare of
the community where other
financial resources are
not available. 6.01 4.64 6.79 5.89 5.65
Expand the supply of
affordable housing,
particularly rental
housing, for low- and
very lowincome Americans;
strengthen the abilities
of and local governments
to design and implement
strategies for achieving
adequate supplies of
HOME Investment decent, affordable
Partnership housing; provide
financial and technical
assistance to
participating
jurisdictions; extend and
strengthen partnerships
among all levels of
government and the
private sector in the
production and operation
of affordable housing. 2.07 0.99 0.88 1.50 1.33
Improve the quality of
emergency shelters and
transitional housing for
the homeless, make
Emergency Shelter available additional
Grants shelters, meet the costs
of operating shelters,
provide essential social
services to homeless
individuals, and help
prevent homelessness. 0.11 0.13 0.22 0.12 0.10
Provide states and
localities with resources
and incentives to devise
Housing long-term comprehensive
Opportunities for strategies for meeting
People with AIDS the housing needs of
persons with AIDS, or
related diseases, and
their families. 0 0.12 0.37 0.50 0.45
Other HUD
programs 2.64 3.73 4.78 6.51 0.73
Provide and operate
cost-effective, decent,
Public Housing safe and affordable
programs dwellings for lower
(Bridgeport income families through
Housing an authorized local
Authority) public housing agency. 33.14 33.54 29.31 32.53 32.13d
Department of Justice
Help units of local
Local Law government reduce crime
Enforcement Block and improve public
Grant safety. Funds may be used
for one or more of seven
program purpose areas. 0.17 0.36 0.65 0.33 0.15
Help to increase police
presence and improve
cooperative efforts
between law enforcement
agencies and members of
the community, expand
Community community policing
Oriented Policing efforts through the use
Services (COPS) of technology and other
innovative strategies,
increase security and
reduce violence in
schools, address crime
and disorder problems,
and otherwise enhance
public safety. 0.90 2.25 1.40 0.38 0.36
Prevent and reduce the
impact of family and
community violence on
young children (primarily
from birth to six years
of age) by helping
communities to expand
Safe Start existing partnerships
between service providers
(such as law enforcement,
mental health, health,
early childhood
education, and others) to
create a comprehensive
service delivery system. 0 0 0 0.24 0.30
Page 9 GAO-04-23OR Bridgeport, Connecticut
Enclosure I
Combat violent crime, drug
use, and gang activity in
high-crime neighborhoods.
"Weed out" violence and
drug activity in
high-crime neighborhoods
Executive Office for and then "seed" the sites
Weed and Seed with a range of crime and
drug prevention programs,
human service resources,
and neighborhood
restoration activities to
prevent crime from
recurring. 0.14 0.15 0.03 0.07 0.04
Other Justice
programs 0.18 0.29 0.37 0.52 0.29
Department of Transportation
Assist state
transportation agencies in
planning and developing an
integrated, interconnected
transportation system
important to interstate
commerce and travel by
constructing and
Federal Aid Highway rehabilitating the
Program (through the National Highway System,
Federal Highway improve all public roads
Administration) except those functionally
classified as local,
provide aid for the repair
of federal-aid roads
following disasters,
foster safe highway
design, and replace or
rehabilitate deficient or
obsolete bridges. 1.72 0.56 0.45 0.21 0.01
Improve the speed and ease
of transfer between
transportation modes in
downtown Bridgeport by
colocating facilities and
providing seamless
Bridgeport Intermodal connections where
Transportation Center possible, and support
(through the Federal economic development and
Transit land use initiatives in
Administration)e the city. 0 0.99 15.62 0 1.85
Assist sponsors, owners,
or operators of public-use
airports in the
development of a
Airport Improvement nationwide system of
Program (through the airports adequate to meet
Federal Aviation the needs of civil
Administration) aeronautics. 0.55 0.05 0.05 0.10 0
Source: GAO analysis of data from Single Audit Act audit reports, Catalog
of Federal Domestic Assistance, and agency program and Inspector General
officials.
Note: These tables present federal awards expended in Bridgeport as
reported in Single Audit Act audit reports and reflect funding provided by
the Environmental Protection Agency and the Departments of Agriculture,
Education, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, and Transportation.
(The Departments of Commerce, Interior, Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Treasury, as well as the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the
Corporation for National Community Service, also provide funds to
Bridgeport. These agencies provided approximately $2.4 million to
Bridgeport in 2002, or about 5 percent of the total federal funds that
were provided to Bridgeport in that year.)
aThe total for 2002 includes an approximation for funds provided to the
Bridgeport Housing Authority using the average funds provided from 1998
through 2001.
bFood Stamp Program funding as reported by the Department of Agriculture.
cBrownfields Pilots/Grants and Demonstrations funding as reported by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
dThe figure for 2002 is an approximation for funds provided to the
Bridgeport Housing Authority using the average funds provided from 1998
through 2001.
eIntermodal Transportation Center funding as reported by the Department of
Transportation. In 2003, DOT provided an additional $8 million in grant
funds for the final design and construction of the Bridgeport Intermodal
Center's bus terminal.
(250147)
Page 10 GAO-04-23OR Bridgeport, Connecticut
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.
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm
of
GAO's Mission 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 full-
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
text 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 email this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and
select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order GAO Products"
heading.
Order by Mail or Phone 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
To Report Fraud, Contact: Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: [email protected]
Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470
Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***