Emergency Preparedness: Federal Funds for First Responders	 
(13-MAY-04, GAO-04-788T).					 
                                                                 
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, highlighted the	 
critical role first responders play at the state and local level 
when a disaster or emergency strikes. In fiscal years 2002 and	 
2003, Congress appropriated approximately $13.9 billion for	 
domestic preparedness. A large portion of these funds were for	 
the nation's first responders to enhance their ability to address
future emergencies, including potential terrorist attacks. These 
funds are primarily to assist with planning, equipment purchases,
training and exercises, and administrative costs. They are	 
available to first responders mainly through the State Homeland  
Security Grant Programs and Urban Area Security Initiative	 
grants. Both programs are administered through the Department of 
Homeland Security's Office for Domestic Preparedness. In this	 
testimony, GAO addressed the need to balance expeditious	 
distribution of first responder funds to states and localities	 
with accountability for effective use of those funds and	 
summarized major findings related to funding distribution delays 
and delays involving funds received by local governments, as	 
presented in reports issued by the Department of Homeland	 
Security Office of Inspector General and the House Select	 
Committee on Homeland Security. The testimony incorporated	 
supporting evidence on first-responder funding issues based on	 
ongoing GAO work in selected states.				 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-04-788T					        
    ACCNO:   A10051						        
  TITLE:     Emergency Preparedness: Federal Funds for First	      
Responders							 
     DATE:   05/13/2004 
  SUBJECT:   Counterterrorism					 
	     Emergency preparedness				 
	     Federal aid to states				 
	     Federal funds					 
	     Financial analysis 				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Terrorism						 
	     Homeland security					 

******************************************************************
** 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-04-788T

United States General Accounting Office

GAO	Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Building and Emergency Management, House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 12:00 p.m. EDT EMERGENCY

Thursday, May 13, 2004

PREPAREDNESS

                       Federal Funds for First Responders

Statement of William O. Jenkins, Jr., Director Homeland Security and Justice
Issues

GAO-04-788T

Highlights of GAO-04-788T, a report to Subcommittee on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, House Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, highlighted the critical role
first responders play at the state and local level when a disaster or
emergency strikes. In fiscal years 2002 and 2003, Congress appropriated
approximately $13.9 billion for domestic preparedness. A large portion of
these funds were for the nation's first responders to enhance their
ability to address future emergencies, including potential terrorist
attacks. These funds are primarily to assist with planning, equipment
purchases, training and exercises, and administrative costs. They are
available to first responders mainly through the State Homeland Security
Grant Programs and Urban Area Security Initiative grants. Both programs
are administered through the Department of Homeland Security's Office for
Domestic Preparedness.

In this testimony, GAO addressed the need to balance expeditious
distribution of first responder funds to states and localities with
accountability for effective use of those funds and summarized major
findings related to funding distribution delays and delays involving funds
received by local governments, as presented in reports issued by the
Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General and the House
Select Committee on Homeland Security. The testimony incorporated
supporting evidence on firstresponder funding issues based on ongoing GAO
work in selected states.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-788T.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Wiiliam O. Jenkins, Jr. at
(202) 512-8777 or [email protected].

May 13, 2004

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

Federal Funds for First Responders

The reports of the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector
General (OIG) and the House Select Committee on Homeland Security examined
the distribution of funds to states and localities. Both reports found
that although there have been delays in getting federal first-responder
funds to local governments and first-responder agencies, the grant
management requirements, procedures, and processes of the Office for
Domestic Preparedness (ODP) were not the principal cause. According to the
OIG's report, in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, ODP reduced the time required
to provide on-line grant application guidance to states, process grant
applications, and make grant awards. For example, for fiscal year 2002
grants, it took 292 days, on average, from the time the grant legislation
was enacted to the awarding of grants to states. For fiscal year 2003
grants, the total cycle was reduced to 77 days, on average.

According to the reports, most states met deadlines for subgranting
firstresponder funds to local jurisdictions. The fiscal year 2003 State
Homeland Security Grant Programs and Urban Area Security Initiative
required states to transfer 80 percent of first-responder grant funds to
local jurisdictions within 45 days of the funds being awarded by ODP. Most
states met that deadline by counting funds as transferred when states
agreed to allocate a specific amount of the grant to a local jurisdiction,
the OIG's report found. The House Select Committee staff concurred. And in
the three states GAO examined, states certified they had allocated funds
to local jurisdictions within the 45-day period.

Delays in allocating grant funds to first responder agencies are
frequently due to local legal and procedural requirements, the OIG's
report found. State and local governments sometimes delayed delivery of
fiscal year 2002 grant funds, for example, because governing and political
bodies within the states and local jurisdictions had to approve and accept
the grant funds. GAO's work indicated a similar finding. In one state GAO
reviewed, roughly four months elapsed from the date the city was notified
that grant funds were available to the date when the city council voted to
accept the funds.

Both reports GAO reviewed found that state and local procurement processes
have, in some cases, been affected by delays resulting from specific
procurement requirements. While some states purchase firstresponder
equipment centrally for all jurisdictions, in some instances, those
purchases are made locally and procurement may be delayed by competitive
bidding rules, among other things.

It is important to note that those who manage homeland security grants to
states and local governments must balance two sometimes competing goals:
(1) getting funds to states and localities expeditiously and (2) assuring
that there is appropriate planning and accountability for the effective
use of the funds.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss federal funding for first
responders. The events of September 11, 2001, spotlighted the critical
role that the nation's first responders play in responding to and
mitigating the effects of a terrorist attack. In fiscal years 2002 and
2003, Congress appropriated nearly $13.9 billion for domestic preparedness
programs. The largest sources of federal funds for first responders were
the State Homeland Security Grant Programs (in fiscal year 2002 called the
State Domestic Preparedness Program), distributed to states1 using a
formula that provides each state a base amount plus additional funds based
on population, and the Urban Area Security Initiative Grants, distributed
to selected urban areas based on such factors as population density,
critical infrastructure, and potential threats. These monies were
generally available for planning, equipment, exercises, training, and
administrative costs.

My statement provides:

o  A brief discussion of some basic issues associated with using first
responder funds effectively.

o  The major findings reported recently by the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General2 (OIG) and the House Select
Committee on Homeland Security3 (House Select Committee) on the reasons
for delays in distributing first responder funds to local governments and
delays in using those funds once received.

o  Some examples from our work in three states that support the findings
in these two reports. Our work to date has provided no information that
would contradict the major findings of these two reports.

GAO is currently conducting several reviews related to first responder
grants. One of these reviews, to be published within the next few weeks,
addresses issues of coordinated planning and the use of federal grant

Scope and	

                                 Methodology 	

1Funds are also distributed to the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and
the four territories.

2Department of Homeland Security: Office of Inspector General, An Audit of
Distributing and Spending "First Responder" Grant Funds, OIG-04-15
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2004).

3House Select Committee On Homeland Security, An Analysis of First
Responder Grant Funding, (Washington, D.C.: April 2004).

funds for first responders in the National Capitol Region, which
encompasses the District of Columbia and 11 surrounding jurisdictions.
Another effort is focused on intergovernmental efforts to manage fiscal
year 2002 and 2003 grants administered by the Office for Domestic
Preparedness (ODP) within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Because much of our work in this area is ongoing and our findings remain
preliminary, my testimony today will focus principally on the major
findings of the reports on preparedness funding issued by the DHS OIG and
the House Select Committee, supplemented by some examples from our work in
four selected locations in three states. Our analysis focused on three ODP
grant programs: the State Domestic Preparedness Grant Program of fiscal
year 2002, with $315,440,000 in appropriations, and the fiscal year 2003
State Homeland Security Grant Programs, Parts I and II, with
appropriations of $566,295,000 and $1,500,000,000, respectively. The
purpose of this work was to document the flow of selected fiscal year 2002
and 2003 grant monies from ODP to local governments and the time required
to complete each step in the process. In doing this work, we met with
state and local officials in each state and obtained and reviewed federal,
state, and local documentation. We did this work between December 2003 and
February 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.

Background In recent months, the Conference of Mayors, members of
Congress, and others have expressed understandable concerns about delays
in the process by which congressional appropriations for first responders
reach the local fire fighter, police officer, or other first responder.
The reports by DHS OIG and the House Select Committee examined the
distribution of homeland security grant funding to states and local
governments to understand what obstacles-if any-prevent the expeditious
flow of grant funding from the federal government to state and local
governments.

In March 2003, ODP was moved from the Department of Justice to the DHS. In
fiscal years 2002 and 2003, ODP managed about $3.5 billion under 16
separate grant programs. Generally, states and local grant recipients
could use these funds for some combination of training, new equipment,
exercise planning and execution, general planning efforts, and
administration. The largest of these grants were the State Homeland
Security Grant Programs and the Urban Area Security Initiative grants. In
both grant programs, states may retain 20 percent of total state grant
funding but must distribute the remaining 80 percent to local governments
within the state.

  Issues Associated With Using First Responder Funds Effectively

Before discussing some of the issues that have been raised about the
distribution of federal grant funds to first responders, I would like
briefly to discuss some basic issues associated with using those funds
effectively.

A key goal of first responder funding should be developing and maintaining
the capacity and ability of first responders to respond effectively to and
mitigate incidents that require the coordinated actions of first
responders. These incidents encompass a wide range of possibilities,
including daily auto accidents, truck spills, and fires; major natural
disasters such as floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes; or a terrorist
attack that involves thousands of injuries. Effectively responding to such
incidents requires well-planned, well-coordinated efforts by all
participants. Major events, such as natural disasters or terrorist
attacks, may require the coordinated response of first responders from
multiple jurisdictions within a region, throughout a state or among
states. Thus, it follows that developing a coordinated plan for such
events should generally involve participants from the multiple
jurisdictions that would be involved in responding to the event. However,
a major challenge in administering first responder grants is balancing two
goals: (1) minimizing the time it takes to distribute grant funds to state
and local first responders and (2) ensuring appropriate planning and
accountability for effective use of the funds.

In fiscal years 2002 and 2003, at least 16 federal grants were available
for first responders, each with somewhat different requirements.
Previously, we have noted that substantial problems occur when state and
local governments attempt to identify, obtain, and use the fragmented
grants-inaid system to meet their needs.4 Such a proliferation of programs
leads to administrative complexities that can confuse state and local
grant recipients. Congress is aware of the challenges facing grantees and
is considering several bills that would restructure first responder
grants.

4See U.S. General Accounting Office, Homeland Security: Reforming Federal
Grants to Better Meet Outstanding Needs, GAO-03-1146T (Washington, D.C.:
Sept. 3, 2003).

  Basic Steps in Distributing State Homeland Security Grant Funds

Much of the concern about delays in distributing federal grant funds to
local first responders has involved the State Homeland Security grants
which are distributed to states on the basis of a formula. Each state
received 0.75 percent of the total grant appropriation, with the remaining
funds distributed according to state population.

There are a number of sequential steps common to the distribution of ODP
State Homeland Security Grants from ODP to the states and from the states
to local governments. They include the following:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Congress appropriates funds.

ODP issues grant guidance to states.

State submits application, including spending plans, to ODP.

ODP makes award to states noting any special conditions that must be
cleared before the funds can be used.

State meets and ODP lifts special conditions, if applicable.

State subgrants at least 80 percent of its funds to local governments.

Local governments purchase equipment directly or through the state.

Local governments submit receipts to the state for reimbursement.

State draws down grant funds to reimburse local governments.

The total time required to complete these steps is dependent upon ODP
requirements and state and local laws, requirements, regulations, and
procedures. Generally, the DHS OIG report and the report of the House
Select Committee on Homeland Security found similar causes of delays in
getting funds to local governments and first responder agencies. These
included delays in completing state and local planning requirements and
budgets; legal requirements for the procedures to be used by local
governments in accepting state grant allocations; the need to establish
procedures for the use of the funds, such as authority to buy equipment
and receive reimbursement later; and procurement requirements, such as
bidding procedures. Generally, neither the IG report nor the House Select

  ODP Grant Awards to the States

Committee report found that the delays were principally due to ODP's grant
management procedures and processes.

Both the DHS OIG report and the House Select Committee report found that
ODP's grant applicant process was not a major factor in delaying the
distribution of funds to states. The DHS OIG found that in fiscal years
2002 and 2003, ODP reduced the time it took to make on-line grant
application guidance and applications available to states, process grant
applications, and award the grants to states after applications were
submitted. The DHS OIG found that the total number of days from grant
legislation enacted to award of grants to states declined from on average
292 days for fiscal year 2002 grants to on average 77 days for fiscal year
2003 grants. For the three states we examined, we found that the time
between the enactment of the appropriation and ODP's award of the grant to
these states declined from 8 months in fiscal year 2002 to 3 months for
fiscal year 2003 State Homeland Security Grant Program, Part I, and 2
months for fiscal year 2003 State Homeland Security Grant Program, Part
II.

One factor that did delay the states' ability to use ODP grant funds was
the imposition of special conditions. In fiscal years 2002 and 2003, ODP
imposed special conditions for the state homeland security formula grants
if the state had failed to adequately complete one of the requirements of
the grant application. For example, in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, to
receive funding states had to submit detailed budget worksheets to
identify how grant funds would be used for equipment, training, and
exercises. To accelerate the grant distribution process, ODP would award
funds to states that had not completed the budget detail worksheets, with
the special condition that states and locals would be essentially unable
to use the funds until the required budgets were submitted and approved.
Thus, the time it took to lift the special conditions was largely
dependent upon the time it took state and local governments to submit the
required documentation. States could not begin to draw down on the grant
funds until the special conditions were met. In one state we reviewed, ODP
notified the state of the special conditions on May 28, 2003, and the
conditions were removed on August 6, 2003, after the state had met those
conditions. In another state, ODP notified the state of the special
conditions on September 13, 2002, and the conditions were removed on March
18, 2003.

ODP imposed special conditions on both the fiscal year 2002 State Domestic
Preparedness Grant Program and the fiscal year 2003 State

  State Awards to Local Governments

Homeland Security Grant Program, Part I, but not on the State Homeland
Security Grant Program, Part II.

After ODP makes its initial award, the state must subgrant at least 80
percent of its grant award to local units of government. In fiscal year
2003, the states had to certify to ODP within 45 days that they had made
these subgrants.5 The subgrant entities and procedures can vary with each
state, making it hard to generalize about this phase of the distribution
process. In our work, we found that some states subgranted the funds to
the county level, while another subgranted to regional task forces
composed of several counties. Subgrantees also varied in their procedures
to distribute funds to local governments. Some subgrantees managed the
grant process themselves, while others chose to pass funds further down,
to a county or city within the jurisdictional area.

    Most States Met Deadline for Subgranting Funds But Some Local Jurisdictions
    Were Not Prepared to Spend Funds

As reported by the DHS OIG, Congress adopted appropriation language for
the fiscal year 2003 State Homeland Security Grant, Part II, that required
states to transfer 80 percent of first responder grant funds to local
jurisdictions within 45 days of the funds being awarded by ODP. This
requirement was included in the appropriation bill to ensure that states
pass funds down to local jurisdictions quickly, and ODP incorporated this
requirement into its grant application guidance. However, according to the
DHS OIG report, this action had a limited effect because most states met
the 45-day deadline by counting funds as transferred when the states
agreed to allocate a specific amount of the grant to a local jurisdiction,
even if the state had not determined how the funds would be spent or when
contracts for goods and services would be let. Additionally, many states
and local jurisdictions delayed spending of prior year grant funds in
order to meet the fiscal year 2003 requirement. The House Select Committee
staff also reported that nearly all states met this 45-day requirement
with respect to 2003 funding as of February 2004, but noted that this may
not reflect the actual availability of funds for expenditures by local
jurisdictions. The committee report cited the example of Seattle,
Washington. While it had been awarded $30 million in May 2003, Seattle
received authorization to spend these funds only shortly before the April
2004 release of the committee's report. In the three states we examined,

5For fiscal year 2004 grants, states were allowed 60 days.

we also found that states had certified they had allocated funds to local
jurisdictions within the required 45-day period.

    Various Local Legal and Procedural Requirements Took Time

According to the DHS OIG, state and local governments were sometimes
responsible for delaying the delivery of fiscal year 2002 grant funds to
first responders because various governing and political bodies within the
states and local jurisdictions had to approve and accept the grant funds.
Six out of the 10 states included in the DHS OIG's sample reported that
their own state's review and approval process was one of the top three
reasons that the funds had not been spent by the time the report was
published. For example, one of three states for which data were available
took 22 days to accept ODP's award and 51 days to award a subgrant to one
of its local jurisdictions; the local jurisdiction did not accept the
grant for another 92 days. Another state took 25 days to accept ODP's
grant award and up to 161 days to award the funds to its local
jurisdictions. Local jurisdictions then took up to 50 days to accept the
awards.

Our work showed similar results. One city was notified on July 17, 2003
that grant funds were available for use, but the city council did not vote
to accept the funds until November 7, 2003.

The House Select Committee reported that, in over half of the states they
reviewed, local jurisdictions had not submitted detailed spending plans to
the states prior to the time the states had transferred grant funds to
them. Specifically, they found that often times, even though a reasonable
estimate of the available award amount was available months earlier, many
local jurisdictions waited to initiate their planning efforts until they
were officially notified of their grant awards. Because ODP imposed
special conditions in some grant years, these local jurisdictions,
therefore, could not begin to draw down funds until they provided the
detailed budget documentation, outlining how the funds would be spent, as
required by ODP.

For the fiscal year 2002 statewide homeland security grants, local
jurisdictions and state agencies were required to prepare, submit, and
receive approval of detailed budget work sheets that specifically
accounted for all grant funds provided. This specific detailing of items
included not only individual equipment items traditionally accounted for
as long-term capital equipment, but also all other items ordinarily
recorded in accounting records as consumable items, such as disposable
plastic gloves, that usually need not be accounted for individually.
Preparing this

detailed budget information took time on the part of local jurisdictions
to prepare and for the states and ODP to review and approve.

Since the first round of fiscal year 2003 state homeland security grants,
ODP has not linked the submission and approval of detailed budget
information to the release of grant funds. ODP required the submission and
approval of the same detailed budget worksheets for the fiscal year 2003
statewide grants, but did not condition the release of funds on their
submission and approval. For the fiscal year 2004 grants, ODP still
requires the submission of detailed budget work sheets by local
jurisdictions to the state, but not to ODP, for its approval.

The DHS OIG also found that there were numerous reasons for delays in
spending grant funds. Some were unavoidable and others they found to be
remediable. In general, the DHS OIG found identifying the highest priority
for spending grant funds to be a difficult task. Most states the DHS OIG
visited were not satisfied with the needs analysis that they had done
prior to September 11, 2001. Some states took the time to update their
homeland security strategies, and one state delayed fiscal year 2002 grant
spending until it had completed a new strategy using ODP's fiscal year
2003 needs assessment tool. The DHS OIG also found little consistency in
how the states manage the grant process. The states used various methods
for identifying and prioritizing needs and allocating grant funds. States
may rely on the work of regional task forces, statewide committees, county
governments, mutual aid groups, or local fire and police organizations to
identify and prioritize grant spending.

Both the DHS OIG report and House Select Committee report noted that state
and local procurements have, in some cases, been affected by delays
resulting from specific procurement requirements. Some states purchase
equipment centrally for all jurisdictions, while others sub-grant funds to
local jurisdictions that make their own purchases. In these latter
instances, local procurement regulations can affect the issuance of
equipment purchase orders. The House Select Committee report discussed how
state and local procurement processes and regulations could slow the
expenditure of grant funds. For example, in Kentucky, an effort was taken
to organize bidding processes for localities and to provide them with
preapproved equipment and services lists. However, state and local laws
require competitive bidding for any purchases above $20,000, a requirement
that can delay actual procurements. Moreover, if bids had been requested
for a proposal and those bid specifications were not met, then the bidding
process must start over again. As Kentucky's Emergency Managing Director
explained, "There is a process and procedure that must

Conclusion

be gone through before localities can actually spend the funds, and the
state has not identified funds that are exempt from these local rules of
procedure that are in place."

In one of the jurisdictions for which we obtained documentation, we also
found that procurement regulations may require that funds be available
prior to the issuance of equipment purchase orders. This requirement took
from June 18, 2003 to September 4, 2003 before purchase orders could be
issued. In the individual jurisdictions in the three states for which we
obtained documentation we also found that some apparent delays in
obligating grant funds resulted from the time normally required by local
jurisdictions to purchase and contract for items, to prepare requests for
proposals, evaluate them once received, and have purchase orders approved
by legal departments and governing councils and boards. In one case, the
time between the city controller's release of funds to the issuance of the
first purchase order was about 3 months, from September 4, 2003, to
December 15, 2003.

The reports by the DHS OIG and by the Select Committee, as well as the
preliminary work we have undertaken, support the conclusion that local
first responders may not have anticipated the natural delays that should
have been expected in the complex process of distributing dramatically
increased funding through multiple governmental levels while maintaining
procedures to ensure proper standards of accountability at each level. The
evidence available suggests that the process is becoming more efficient
and that all levels of government are discovering and institutionalizing
ways to streamline the grant distribution system. These increased
efficiencies, however, will not continue to occur unless federal, state,
and local government each continue to examine their processes for ways to
expedite funding for the equipment and training needed by the nation's
first responders. At the same time, it is important that the quest for
speed in distributing funds does not hamper the planning and
accountability needed to ensure that the funds are spent on the basis of a
comprehensive, well-coordinated plan to provide first responders with the
equipment, skills, and training needed to be able to respond quickly and
effectively to a range of emergencies, including, where appropriate, major
natural disasters and terrorist attacks.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer
any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may have.

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.

  GAO's Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

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.

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

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800

Public Affairs U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***