Workforce Investment Act: Labor Should Consider Alternative
Approaches to Implement New Performance and Reporting
Requirements (27-MAY-05, GAO-05-539).
In a period of significant budget constraints, it is more vital
than ever for federal programs to have good performance
information. The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 took a
significant step in that direction by introducing greater
accountability for employment and training programs than prior
programs. WIA established performance measures to look at a broad
array of participant outcomes such as job placement and
retention, earnings, skill gains, and customer satisfaction. WIA
also required 17 programs, funded by four different agencies, to
centralize service delivery through a one-stop center system.
More recently, as part of efforts to link program performance to
the budget, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) introduced
common performance measures--similar to some of the WIA
measures--for most federally funded job training programs that
share similar goals. The U.S. Department of Labor's (Labor)
Employment and Training Administration (ETA) further defined the
common measures for all programs it oversees and proposed a new,
standardized reporting format, known as the ETA Management
Information and Longitudinal Evaluation (EMILE) reporting system
to facilitate reporting them. However, state workforce agencies
and others raised substantial concerns about the timing and scope
of the EMILE reporting system. Despite delaying EMILE, Labor
recently took steps to move ahead with reporting changes for the
common measures, requiring states to implement these changes by
July 1, 2005. Given the importance of these issues and their
potential impact on the quality of the performance data, Congress
asked us to examine (1) states' concerns about implementing
Labor's proposed EMILE reporting system and (2) the effect that
the implementation of common measures and other new reporting
changes might have on states' ability to collect data and report
on WIA's performance.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-05-539
ACCNO: A25321
TITLE: Workforce Investment Act: Labor Should Consider
Alternative Approaches to Implement New Performance and Reporting
Requirements
DATE: 05/27/2005
SUBJECT: Data collection
Employment assistance programs
Federal/state relations
Performance measures
Program evaluation
Reporting requirements
Surveys
******************************************************************
** 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-05-539
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO
Report to Congressional Requesters
May 2005
WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT
Labor Should Consider Alternative Approaches to Implement New Performance and
Reporting Requirements
GAO-05-539
Contents
Letter 1
Appendix I Briefing Slides
Appendix II Additional State Survey Data
Appendix III Comments from the Department of Labor 54 GAO Response 57
Appendix IV GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO's Related Products
Tables
Table 1: Which States Have IT Systems that Collect Information on the WIA
Title I-B Programs and also Currently Capture Program Information for
Other U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL) Employment and Training
Administration Programs?
Table 2: Which States Have IT Systems that Collect Information on the WIA
Title I-B Programs and also Currently Capture Program Information for
Other One-Stop Partner Programs?
Table 3: Status of Statewide Systems to Collect Unique Identifiers For All
Jobseekers and Employers Who Use the One-Stop System
Table 4: From the time your state first began implementing changes to the
IT system under WIA, about how long did it take your state to fully
implement the IT system changes that were necessary to meet the federal
requirements for the quarterly reports, annual report, and WIASRD
(Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data)?
Table 5: Compared to the effort your state invested in the transition from
the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) to WIA, how
38
42 46
48
much effort do you anticipate investing in implementing
EMILE, as proposed? 50 Table 6: About how long do you estimate it will
take your state to
fully implement the necessary changes for EMILE, as
proporsed, once Labor's requirements are final? 52
Abbreviations
EMILE ETA Management Information and Longitudinal Evaluation
ETA Employment and Training Administration
IT information technology
WIA Workforce Investment Act
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548
May 27, 2005
The Honorable Michael B. Enzi
Chairman
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
United States Senate
The Honorable Patty Murray
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
United States Senate
In a period of significant budget constraints, it is more vital than ever
for
federal programs to have good performance information. The Workforce
Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 took a significant step in that direction by
introducing greater accountability for employment and training programs
than prior programs. WIA established performance measures to look at a
broad array of participant outcomes such as job placement and retention,
earnings, skill gains, and customer satisfaction. WIA also required 17
programs, funded by four different agencies, to centralize service
delivery
through a one-stop center system. More recently, as part of efforts to
link
program performance to the budget, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) introduced common performance measures-similar to some of
the WIA measures-for most federally funded job training programs that
share similar goals. The U.S. Department of Labor's (Labor) Employment
and Training Administration (ETA) further defined the common measures
for all programs it oversees and proposed a new, standardized reporting
format, known as the ETA Management Information and Longitudinal
Evaluation (EMILE) reporting system to facilitate reporting them.
However, state workforce agencies and others raised substantial concerns
about the timing and scope of the EMILE reporting system. Despite
delaying EMILE, Labor recently took steps to move ahead with reporting
changes for the common measures, requiring states to implement these
changes by July 1, 2005.
Given the importance of these issues and their potential impact on the
quality of the performance data, you asked us to examine (1) states'
concerns about implementing Labor's proposed EMILE reporting system
and (2) the effect that the implementation of common measures and other
new reporting changes might have on states' ability to collect data and
report on WIA's performance.
To address these issues, we conducted a Web-based survey and received
responses from 48 of the 50 states. We did not include Washington, D.C.
and U.S. territories in our survey. In addition, we visited New York, West
Virginia, California, Texas, and Wyoming, and two local areas in each
state. We selected these states because they represent a range of
information technology (IT) systems-statewide comprehensive systems versus
local systems with a state reporting function, include single and multiple
workforce areas, and are geographically diverse. To learn more about
proposed reporting changes, we met with U.S. Department of Labor officials
and reviewed legislation, federal guidance, and other documents relevant
to WIA's reporting system. We also reviewed the official responses of six
associations and 38 states to the July 2004 Federal Register Notice that
introduced the EMILE reporting system. We conducted our work from June
2004 through April 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
On April 21, 2005, we provided a briefing on the results of our work to
your staff. This report formally conveys the information provided during
that briefing, which is contained in appendix I. We also provided some
additional state survey data in appendix II.
In summary, we found that while many states supported streamlined
reporting, 36 states indicated that implementing the EMILE system, as
proposed, would be very burdensome. Most states indicated that launching
EMILE would require as much or more effort than was required of them to
meet WIA reporting requirements in 2000. Labor has underestimated the
magnitude and type of changes EMILE would require and the resources states
would need in order to implement it. Labor developed EMILE with limited
consultation with state officials.
While the use of the common measures could increase the comparability of
outcome information across programs and provide a more complete picture of
the one-stop system, states will face challenges in making the required
changes. For example, states will be required to track all jobseekers who
receive services at one-stop centers, although it is unclear how many
states and local areas are prepared to do so. In addition, one of the
common measures will replace the current WIA earnings measure for
dislocated workers, which may be a disincentive for serving this
population. Moreover, states have very little time to make the necessary
changes before they must begin data collection and reporting using the new
requirements. While Labor publicized its plans to adopt the common
measures, states were notified only in late February that Labor planned to
implement changes on July 1, 2005, and final guidance was not issued until
April 15, 2005.
In conclusion, Labor's initiatives to introduce common measures and a
comprehensive reporting system could foster program integration and
provide a better picture of WIA's reach, but Labor underestimated the
cost, time, and effort required of states to make such changes. Ongoing
consultation with states and pilot testing may have enhanced Labor's
effort to move forward with EMILE. Labor has not provided guidance in a
timely manner for states to implement the changes related to the common
measures. Rushed implementation could negatively affect data quality and
compromise the potential benefits of proposed changes. While some states
have the capacity to collect and report data on all jobseekers, many
others do not, and states and local areas need enough time to fully meet
these requirements. Moreover, unless Labor ensures that states collect the
data in a consistent manner, the information will not be comparable across
states.
To ensure states' ability to implement proposed reporting system changes,
we recommend that Labor consider alternative approaches to reach the goals
of EMILE and perform an assessment that considers the costs and benefits.
To help states and local areas develop the capacity to track all
jobseekers who use one-stop services in a consistent manner, Labor should
use the first year as a test phase and work with states to identify
promising practices in collecting and reporting this data, and provide
technical assistance to states that do not have this capacity.
We provided officials at the Department of Labor an opportunity to comment
on a draft of this report. Labor agreed with our recommendation that it
work with states in identifying promising practices to ensure that states
and local areas track all jobseekers in a consistent manner. Labor did not
respond to our recommendation that it consider alternative approaches to
reach the goals of EMILE. In addition, Labor raised concerns about some of
the material in the report. We believe these concerns do not require
changes to the material. Labor's comments and a more detailed discussion
of our response are in appendix III. Labor also provided technical
comments, which we have incorporated in our report, as appropriate.
We will send copies of this report to relevant congressional committees,
the Secretary of Labor, and other interested parties. We will also make
copies available to others upon request. The report will be available at
no
charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
A list of related GAO products is included at the end of this report. If
you
or members of your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-7215 or Dianne Blank at (202) 512-5654. You may
also reach us by e-mail at [email protected] or [email protected]. Other
contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix IV.
Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues
Appendix II: Additional State Survey Data
Table 1: Which States Have IT Systems that Collect Information on the WIA
Title I-B Programs and also Currently Capture Program Information for
Other U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL) Employment and Training
Administration Programs?
Page 38 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act
Employment Trade Veterans' National Service Adjustment Employment Unemployment Emergency State (Wagner-Peyser) Assistance Training Insurance Grants Job Alaska o Alabama o Arkansas o o o California o Colorado o o o o Connecticut o o Delaware o o o o Florida o o o Georgia o o o o Hawaii o o o o Iowa o Idaho o Illinois o o Indiana o Kansas o o o o o o Kentucky o o o o o Louisiana o o o Massachusetts o o o o Maine o o o o o Michigan o o o Minnesota o Missouri o o o Mississippi o Montana North o North o o o Nebraska o o New o New o o o o New o o o o
and Name Program Program Corps Carolina Dakota Hampshire Jersey Mexico
Senior Employment
and
Community training Employment Responsible
for
migrant and Reintegration H-1B
Welfare-to-Work Service and Training of Technical
for
grant-funded Employment seasonal Native Youthful Skills Total
farm Training ETA
workers Americans Offender Grants
program program Grants Programs
o 2
o o 3
o 4
o 2
o o o o 8
o 3
o 5
3 o o 6
o 5
o 2
o 2
o 3
1
o o o o 10
o 6
o 4
o o 6 o o 7
o 4 1
o 4 1 0
o o 3
o 4
2 o o 3 o o 6
4
Employment Trade Veterans' National Service Adjustment Employment and
Unemployment Emergency State Name (Wagner-Peyser) Assistance Training
Program Insurance Program Grants Job Corps
Nevada o o o o o
New York o o o o o
Ohio o o
Oklahoma o o o o
Oregon o
Pennsylvania o o o
Rhode Island o o o o
South Carolina o
South Dakota o o o o
Tennessee o o o o
Texas o o o
Utah o o o o o
Virginia o
Vermont o o
Washington o o o o o
Wisconsin o o o o o
West Virginia o o o o o
Wyoming o o o
Senior Employment Responsible H-1B
and
Welfare-to- community training Employment reintegration technical
for
migrant and
work service and training of youthful skills Total
grant-funded employment seasonal for Native offender training ETA
farm
program program workers Americans grants grants programs
o 6
o 6
2
o 5
1
o 4
o 5
1
o 5
4 o o 5 5
1
2
o o 7
o o 7
o o 7
o o 5
Source: GAO state survey.
Table 2: Which States Have IT Systems that Collect Information on the WIA
Title I-B Programs and also Currently Capture Program Information for
Other One-Stop Partner Programs?
Vocational Vocational Rehabilitation Adult Education Education (Perkins
State Name program and Literacy Act)
Alaska
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Colorado o o o
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Iowa
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas o o o
Kentucky
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Maine o
Michigan o
Minnesota
Missouri
Mississippi
Montana
North Carolina
North Dakota
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey o
New Mexico
Temporary
Community HUD-administered Assistance Food Stamp
Services employment and for Needy Employment Other Total
Block One-stop Partner
Grant Families and Partners
training Training Programs
0
0
0
0 o o o 6
o o 2 0
0
0
o 1
0
0
0
0 o o o o 7 0
o 1
0
1
o o 3
o o 2
o o o 3
0
0
0
o 1 0 0
o o o 4 0
Vocational Adult Rehabilitation Education and Vocational Education State
Name program Literacy (Perkins Act)
Nevada
New York Ohio Oklahoma
Oregon Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina o o o
South Dakota
Tennessee o
Texas
Utah Virginia
Vermont
Washington o o o
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Wyoming
Community HUD- Temporary
services administered Assistance Food Stamp Other
block employment for Needy Employment One-Stop
grant and training Families and training Partners
0
0
o 1
o 1
0
o 1
0 o o o o 8 0
o 2
o o o 3
o o o 3 0
0
o 5
o 1
0
0
Source: GAO state survey.
Table 3: Status of Statewide Systems to Collect Unique Identifiers For All
Jobseekers and Employers Who Use the One-Stop System
State has a statewide State has a statewide
system to collect unique system to collect unique
identifiers for all jobseekers identifiers for all
employers
State Name who use the one-stop system who use the one-stop
system
Alaska o o
Alabama o
Arkansas o o
California
Colorado o o
Connecticut o o
Delaware o o
Florida
Georgia Indiana
Hawaii o o
Iowa o
Idaho o
Illinois o o
Kansas o o
Kentucky o o
Louisiana o o
Massachusetts o o
Maine o o
Michigan
Minnesota o
Missouri o o
Mississippi
Montana
North Carolina o o
North Dakota
Nebraska o o
New Hampshire
New Jersey o o
New Mexico o
Nevada o o
New York o o
State has a statewide State has a statewide
system to collect unique system to collect unique
identifiers for all identifiers for all
jobseekers employers
State Name who use the one-stop system who use the one-stop
system
Ohio o
Oklahoma o o
Oregon o
Pennsylvania o o
Rhode Island o o
South Carolina
South Dakota o o
Tennessee o o
Texas West Virginia
Utah o o
Virginia o o
Vermont o o
Washington o
Wisconsin o o
Wyoming o o
Source: GAO.
Table 4: From the time your state first began implementing changes to the
IT system under WIA, about how long did it take your state to fully
implement the IT system changes that were necessary to meet the federal
requirements for the quarterly reports, annual report, and WIASRD
(Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data)?
More than Less than 6 6 months to 1 year to 2 More than 2 More than months
1 year years years to 3 years 3 years No response
Alabama o Alaska o
Arkansas o California o
Colorado o
Connecticut o
Delaware o
Florida o
Georgia o
Hawaii o
Idaho o
Illinois o
Indiana o Iowa o Kansas o
Kentucky o
Page 48 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act
Louisiana o Maine o Massachusetts o Michigan o Minnesota o Mississippi o Missouri o Montana o Nebraska o Nevada o New o New o New o New o North o North o
Hampshire Jersey Mexico York Carolina Dakota
More than Less than 6 6 months to 1 year to 2 More than 2 More than months
1 year years years to 3 years 3 years No response
Ohio o
Oklahoma o Oregon o Pennsylvania o Rhode Island o
South Carolina o
South Dakota o
Tennessee o
Texas o
Utah o Vermont o
Virginia o
Washington o
West Virginia o
Wisconsin o
Wyoming o
Source: GAO.
Table 5: Compared to the effort your state invested in the transition from
the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) to WIA, how much effort do you
anticipate investing in implementing EMILE, as proposed?
Somewhat Much less Much greater greater effort About the same Somewhat
less effort for effort for EMILE for EMILE effort effort for EMILE EMILE
No response
Alabama o
Alaska o Arkansas o California o Colorado o Connecticut o Delaware o
Florida o
Georgia o
Hawaii o
Idaho o Illinois o Indiana o Iowa o Kansas o Kentucky o
Page 50 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act
Louisiana o Maine o Massachusetts o Michigan o Minnesota o Mississippi o Missouri o Montana o Nebraska o Nevada o New o New o New o New o North o North o o
Hampshire Jersey Mexico York Carolina Dakota Ohio
Somewhat Much less Much greater greater effort About the same Somewhat
less effort for effort for EMILE for EMILE effort effort for EMILE EMILE
No response
Oklahoma o Oregon o Pennsylvania o Rhode Island o
South Carolina o
South Dakota o
Tennessee o Texas o Utah o Vermont o
Virginia o Washington o
West Virginia o
Wisconsin o
Wyoming o
Source: GAO.
Table 6: About how long do you estimate it will take your state to fully
implement the necessary changes for EMILE, as proposed, once Labor's
requirements are final?
Less than 6 6 months to More than 1 More than 2 More than months 1 year
year to 2 years years to 3 years 3 years No response
Alabama o
Alaska o Arkansas o
California o
Colorado o Connecticut o
Delaware o Florida o
Georgia o
Hawaii o
Idaho o
Illinois o
Indiana o
Iowa o Kansas o Kentucky o
Page 52 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act
Louisiana o Maine o Massachusetts o Michigan o Minnesota o Mississippi o Missouri o Montana o Nebraska o Nevada o New o New o New o New o North o North o Ohio o o
Hampshire Jersey Mexico York Carolina Dakota Oklahoma
Less than 6 6 months to More than 1 More than 2 More than months 1 year
year to 2 years years to 3 years 3 years No response
Oregon o
Pennsylvania o
Rhode Island o
South Carolina o South Dakota o
Tennessee o
Texas o
Utah o
Vermont o
Virginia o Washington o
West Virginia o
Wisconsin o
Wyoming o
Source: GAO.
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Labor
GAO Response
Labor agreed with our recommendation that it work with states in
identifying promising practices to ensure that states and local areas
track all jobseekers in a consistent manner. Labor did not respond to our
recommendation that it consider alternative approaches to reach the goals
of EMILE. However, Labor took issue with several statements throughout the
briefing materials.
Labor disagreed with our finding that it developed EMILE with limited
consultation with states. Labor said it engaged in significant outreach
efforts such as holding information sessions and participating in several
conferences and online sessions to explain the proposed reporting system.
Labor also identified over 160 comments it received to the July 16, 2004
Federal Register Notice. However, the large number of concerns raised by
the 38 states that responded to the notice suggests that the dialogue was
insufficient to resolve concerns in the early development of the proposed
EMILE reporting system. We continue to believe that Labor's efforts to
implement a system such as EMILE could be enhanced by alternative
approaches such as ongoing consultation, testing, and implementing changes
in phases.
Labor expressed concern that we did not clearly distinguish EMILE from the
common measures, stating that, in their view, these are separate and
independent actions. Yet, in the Federal Register Notice on EMILE, Labor
clearly linked implementation of the common measures with EMILE, stating
that the common measures would become effective with reporting system
changes and EMILE would help standardize data collection by using the
definitions of the common measures.
Labor disagreed with our finding that it had not provided guidance in a
timely manner, noting that the initial guidance on common measures was
issued in December 2003. Yet the detailed instructions on reporting
changes were not issued until a March 29, 2005 Federal Register Notice. In
addition, states will need to provide some information not currently
required or uniformly collected. As we discussed in our briefing
materials, states told us that they would need time to make changes such
as preparing new guidance and training local staff on reporting
modifications. We continue to believe that rushed implementation without
adequate time for states to retool may lead to data quality errors.
In addition, Labor states that its reporting change to collect data on
onestop customers who use self-services is a critical first step in
addressing prior GAO concerns. We agree that collecting this information
and the concepts of EMILE and the common measures are consistent with the
type
of comprehensive performance management system we have recommended for WIA
and the one-stop system.
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contacts
Staff Acknowledgments
Dianne Blank, Assistant Director (202) 512-5654 Laura Heald,
Analyst-in-Charge (202) 512-8701
Melinda Cordero, Adam Roye, and Leslie Sarapu made significant
contributions to all phases of the effort. Carolyn Boyce made significant
contributions in the design and administration of the surveys. In
addition, Jessica Botsford provided legal support, Avrum Ashery and Muriel
Coley provided graphic design assistance, and Linda Lambert and Eric Trout
also provided key technical assistance.
GAO's Related Products
Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed Strategies
to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help. GAO-04-657.
Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004.
Workforce Investment Act: Labor Actions Can Help States Improve Quality of
Performance Outcome Data and Delivery of Youth Services. GAO-04-308.
Washington, D.C.: February 23, 2004.
Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to
Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and Information
Sharing Is Needed. GAO-03-725. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003.
Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Funding and Performance
Measures for Major Programs. GAO-03-589. Washington, D.C.: April 18, 2003.
Workforce Training: Employed Worker Programs Focus on Business Needs, but
Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access for Some Workers.
GAO-03-353. Washington, D.C.: February 14, 2003.
Older Workers: Employment Assistance Focuses on Subsidized Jobs and Job
Search, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access to Other
Services. GAO-03-350. Washington, D.C.: January 24, 2003.
Performance and Accountability Series. Major Management Challenges and
Program Risks: Department of Labor. GAO-03-106. Washington, D.C.: January
2003.
Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and Revised Funding Formula
Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program. GAO-02-274. Washington, D.C.:
February 11, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance Measures to
Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA's Effectiveness. GAO-02-275.
Washington, D.C.: February 1, 2002.
GAO's Mission
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The Government Accountability 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 GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have
GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
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. Government Accountability 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:
Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400Congressional U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street
NW, Room 7125 Relations Washington, D.C. 20548
Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
*** End of document. ***