U.S. Postal Service: Agencies Distribute Fund-raising Stamp	 
Proceeds and Improve Reporting (30-OCT-07, GAO-08-45).		 
                                                                 
As required by Congress, the U.S. Postal Service (Service) has	 
issued three fundraising stamps--also called semipostals--which  
are sold at a higher price than First-Class stamps, with the	 
difference distributed to designated federal agencies for	 
specific causes. The proceeds from the three stamps are to fund  
breast cancer research, assistance to families of emergency	 
relief personnel killed or permanently disabled in the terrorist 
attacks of September 11, and services to children exposed to	 
domestic violence. Of the three stamps, the Breast Cancer	 
Research stamp is the only semipostal currently being sold. GAO  
has issued three prior reports on semipostals. To provide	 
Congress updated information, GAO examined (1) the amount of	 
money that has been raised through the sale of semipostals, and  
(2) how the designated federal agencies have used the proceeds	 
and reported the results.					 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-45						        
    ACCNO:   A77832						        
  TITLE:     U.S. Postal Service: Agencies Distribute Fund-raising    
Stamp Proceeds and Improve Reporting				 
     DATE:   10/30/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Federal funds					 
	     Funds management					 
	     Grant administration				 
	     Grants						 
	     Postal service					 
	     Accountability					 
	     Postage stamps					 
	     USPS Breast Cancer Research Semipostal		 
	     Program						 
                                                                 

******************************************************************
** 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-08-45

   

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. 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. 

Report to Congressional Subcommittees: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

October 2007: 

U.S. Postal Service: 

Agencies Distribute Fund-raising Stamp Proceeds and Improve Reporting: 

Fund-raising Stamps: 

Fundraising Stamps: 

GAO-08-45: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-45, a report to the Senate Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs and House Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

As required by Congress, the U.S. Postal Service (Service) has issued 
three fundraising stampsï¿½also called semipostalsï¿½which are sold at a 
higher price than First-Class stamps, with the difference distributed 
to designated federal agencies for specific causes. The proceeds from 
the three stamps are to fund breast cancer research, assistance to 
families of emergency relief personnel killed or permanently disabled 
in the terrorist attacks of September 11, and services to children 
exposed to domestic violence. Of the three stamps, the Breast Cancer 
Research stamp is the only semipostal currently being sold. 

GAO has issued three prior reports on semipostals. To provide Congress 
updated information, GAO examined (1) the amount of money that has been 
raised through the sale of semipostals, and (2) how the designated 
federal agencies have used the proceeds and reported the results. 

What GAO Found: 

As of June 2007, more than $68 million has been raised through 
semipostal sales. Of the three semipostals, the Breast Cancer Research 
stamp had proceeds totaling approximately $54.6 million, the Heroes of 
2001 stamp had proceeds totaling about $10.6 million, and the Stop 
Family Violence stamp had proceeds totaling about $3.2 million. The 
authorized sale period for each semipostal affected the funds raised. 
In discussions with relevant agencies, advocacy groups and fund-raising 
organizations, several factors were identified that affected semipostal 
sales. These factors include public awareness about the charitable 
cause that a stamp represents, the stampï¿½s design, and confusion about 
how the proceeds will be used. 

All four of the designated federal agencies have distributed proceeds 
from their respective semipostals. Both the Department of Defense (DOD) 
and NIH continue to award grants and fund programs for research with 
proceeds from the Breast Cancer Research stamp, and have added new 
programs to distribute the proceeds. The Administration for Children 
(ACF) within HHS used the proceeds from the Stop Family Violence stamp 
to award nine grants to programs that support children who have been 
exposed to domestic violence. Also, the Federal Emergency Management 
Administration (FEMA) recently distributed the last of the proceeds 
from the Heroes of 2001 stamp to the families of emergency relief 
personnel who were either killed or permanently disabled while serving 
in the line of duty in connection with the terrorist attacks of 
September 11, 2001. In September 2005, GAO recommended that the 
designated federal agencies annually report to Congress on their use of 
semipostal proceeds. DOD and ACF have submitted reports to Congress, 
and FEMA plans to report in the near future. NIH does not plan to 
prepare a report for Congress, but offers information on NIHï¿½s use of 
Breast Cancer Research stamp proceeds on its public website. But, NIHï¿½s 
website did not provide detailed information on proceeds received, how 
proceeds were used and related achievements. 

Figure: Fund-raising Stamps: Proceeds Distributed to Designated 
Agencies: 

This figure is an image of three stamps whose proceeds will be given to 
designated agencies. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: The U.S. Postal Service. 

[End of figure] 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO is reaffirming one of its prior recommendations that HHS annually 
report to Congress on the NIHï¿½s use of Breast Cancer Research stamp 
proceeds. The Service, ACF, DOD, NIH and FEMA did not provide overall 
comments but they did provide technical comments, which were 
incorporated as appropriate. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.GAO-08-45]. For more information, contact 
Katherine A. Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or [email protected]. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Semipostals Have Collectively Raised Over $68 Million, but the Breast 
Cancer Research Semipostal Has Raised the Most: 

Designated Agencies Have Distributed Semipostal Proceeds, but Only DOD 
and ACF Have Reported Their Use of the Proceeds to Congress: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Postal Service Semipostal Costs Recovered: 

Appendix III: NIH Breast Cancer Research Awards Funded with Breast 
Cancer Research Stamp Proceeds: 

Insight Awards: 

Exceptional Opportunities in Breast Cancer Research: 

TAILORx: 

NCI Breast Pre-Malignancy Program: 

Appendix IV: DOD Breast Cancer Research Awards Funded with Breast 
Cancer Research Stamp Proceeds: 

Appendix V: ACF Awards Funded with Stop Family Violence Stamp Proceeds: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Comparison of Historical First-Class Postage Rates with Breast 
Cancer Research Stamp Postage Rates and Related Differential Revenue 
Percentages: 

Table 2: Comparison of Historical First-Class Postage Rates with Heroes 
of 2001 Postage Rates and Related Differential Revenue Percentages: 

Table 3: Comparison of Historical First-Class Postage Rates with Stop 
Family Violence Stamp Postage Rates and Related Differential Revenue 
Percentages: 

Table 4: NIH and DOD Grants and Awards Funded with Breast Cancer 
Research Stamp Proceeds: 

Table 5: Select Research Findings from DOD and NIH Grants and Awards 
Funded with Breast Cancer Research Stamp Proceeds: 

Table 6: ACF Grants Awarded Using Stop Family Violence Stamp Proceeds: 

Table 7: FEMA's Distribution of Heroes of 2001 Stamp Proceeds: 

Table 8: Applicants and Recipients of Heroes of 2001 Stamp Proceeds: 

Table 9: Number of Applicants and Recipients in Each Emergency Relief 
Category: 

Table 10: Agencies, Advocacy Groups, and Organizations That GAO 
Consulted for Their Opinions and Experiences with the Semipostals: 

Table 11: Semipostal Costs Incurred and Recovered by the Service, 
through June 30, 2007: 

Table 12: Breast Cancer Research Stamp Costs Incurred and Recovered by 
the Service from Inception through June 30, 2007: 

Table 13: Heroes of 2001 Semipostal Costs Incurred and Recovered by the 
Service from Inception through Final Disbursement on May 2, 2005: 

Table 14: Stop Family Violence Semipostal Costs Incurred and Recovered 
by the Service from Inception through Final Disbursement on May 1, 
2007: 

Table 15: Insight Awards to Stamp Out Breast Cancer Funded with 
Proceeds from Breast Cancer Research Stamp Sales: 

Table 16: Exceptional Opportunities in Breast Cancer Research Funded 
with Proceeds from the Breast Cancer Research Stamp: 

Table 17: Breast Pre-Malignancy Awards: 

Table 18: Idea Awards for Breast Cancer Research Funded with Breast 
Cancer Research Stamp Proceeds: 

Table 19: Synergistic Idea Awards for Breast Cancer Research Funded 
with Breast Cancer Research Stamp Proceeds: 

Table 20: ACF Grants Funded with Stop Family Violence Stamp Proceeds: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Number of Semipostals Sold Quarterly, in Millions, through 
June 30, 2007: 

Figure 2: Breast Cancer Research, Heroes of 2001, and Stop Family 
Violence Stamps: 

Abbreviations: 

ACF: Administration for Children and Families: 

BBB: Better Business Bureau: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

EMS: Emergency Medical Services: 

FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency: 

FVSPA: Family Violence Prevention and Services Act: 

HHS: Health and Human Services: 

NCI: National Cancer Institute: 

NIH: National Institutes of Health: 

TAILORx: Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

Washington, DC 20548: 

October 30, 2007: 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Tom Coburn: 
Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management Government: 
Information, Federal Services, and International Security Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Danny K. Davis: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Kenny Marchant: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of 
Columbia Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

In this country, a woman is reportedly diagnosed with breast cancer 
every three minutes, and the disease claims another life every 13 
minutes. Breast cancer is the most common nonskin cancer and the second 
leading cause of cancer-related deaths in women. Each year, about $8.1 
billion is spent in the United States to treat this disease. In light 
of these statistics, finding a cure for breast cancer is vitally 
important. In fiscal year 2007, federal agencies reportedly spent an 
estimated $1.4 billion on breast cancer research.[Footnote 1] To 
supplement these federal funds, Congress passed legislation to 
establish the Breast Cancer Research stamp, called a "semipostal" or 
fund-raising stamp, to heighten public awareness of the disease and 
give the public an opportunity to participate directly in raising funds 
for breast cancer research. A semipostal is a First-Class postage stamp 
that is sold at a premium over the postage value to provide funding for 
a designated charitable cause. The semipostal proceeds are transferred 
from the U.S. Postal Service (Service) to designated federal agencies 
that administer the funds.[Footnote 2] 

Since 1998, Congress has required the Service to issue the nation's 
first three fund-raising stamps--the Breast Cancer Research stamp, the 
Heroes of 2001 stamp, and the Stop Family Violence stamp. First, the 
Breast Cancer Research stamp, which was issued in 1998, funds breast 
cancer research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the 
Department of Defense (DOD). Second, the Heroes of 2001 stamp was 
issued in 2002 (sold through 2004) to assist the families of emergency 
relief personnel who were either killed or permanently disabled while 
serving in the line of duty in connection with the terrorist attacks of 
September 11, 2001. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 
administers this program. Third, the Stop Family Violence stamp was 
issued in 2003 (sold through 2006) to fund domestic violence prevention 
programs at the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) within 
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).[Footnote 3] 

This report, a follow-up to our September 2005 report on fund-raising 
stamps, examines (1) the amount of money which has been raised through 
the sale of the semipostals and (2) how the designated federal agencies 
have used the proceeds and reported the results.[Footnote 4] 

In conducting this review, we obtained sales and cost data from the 
Service for each of the three semipostals and gathered additional 
information from federal officials, fund-raising experts, and advocacy 
groups about each of the semipostals and the related charitable causes. 
We interviewed officials from the Service and the designated federal 
agencies that received semipostal proceeds. In addition, we gathered 
and examined agency documents related to the semipostal programs. We 
also interviewed experts from fund-raising organizations, such as the 
Association of Fundraising Professionals, the American Red Cross, and 
the Better Business Bureau's (BBB) Wise Giving Alliance, about factors 
that influence fund-raising efforts for different charitable causes. We 
consulted key national advocacy groups affiliated with breast cancer, 
emergency personnel affected by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 
and domestic violence prevention for their opinions about and 
experiences with the semipostals. As a part of our review, we assessed 
the reliability of the data needed for this engagement and determined 
that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We conducted 
our review from June 2007 through September 2007 according to generally 
accepted government auditing standards. A more detailed discussion of 
our scope and methodology is included in appendix I. We requested 
comments on a draft of this report from the Service, ACF, DOD, FEMA, 
HHS, and NIH. 

Results in Brief: 

Semipostals have raised over $68 million as of June 30, 2007. 
Individually, the Breast Cancer Research stamp raised approximately 
$54.6 million, the Heroes of 2001 stamp about $10.6 million, and the 
Stop Family Violence stamp over $3 million. Differences in the amount 
of funds raised by each semipostal can be attributed, in part, to the 
varying sales periods for each stamp. For example, the Breast Cancer 
Research stamp--the only semipostal that is currently on sale--has sold 
for the past 9 years while the sales period for the Heroes of 2001 and 
Stop Family Violence stamps has been just over 3 years or less. 
However, notwithstanding varying lengths in sales periods, the Breast 
Cancer Research stamp generally outsold the other two semipostals. In 
addition, the number of semipostals sold has varied equally as much as 
the amount of funds raised has varied (see fig. 1). Also, based on 
discussions we had with various agencies and organizations involved, 
public awareness about the charitable cause the stamp represents, the 
stamp's design, and confusion about how the proceeds will be used are 
all factors that affected semipostal sales. 

Figure 1: Number of Semipostals Sold Quarterly, in Millions, through 
June 30, 2007: 

This figure is a line chart showing the number of semipostals sold 
quarterly, in millions, through June 30, 2007. The X axis is the fiscal 
quarter, and the Y axis represents semipostals. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Postal Service data. 

Note: Q refers to fiscal quarter. Q1 runs from October through 
December, Q2 is from January through March, Q3 is from April through 
June, and Q4 is from July through September. 

[End of figure] 

All four of the designated federal agencies have distributed proceeds 
from their respective semipostals, but only DOD and ACF have reported 
on the use of the proceeds. Both DOD and NIH continue to award grants 
for breast cancer research using proceeds from the Breast Cancer 
Research stamp and have added new programs to distribute the funds. 
NIH, which had used Breast Cancer Research stamp proceeds to fund the 
Insight Awards and Exceptional Opportunities programs, now uses the 
proceeds for the Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment 
(TAILORx) and the Breast Pre-Malignancy Program. These new programs are 
more focused on particular areas of research than the previous 
programs, which covered a broad range of breast cancer research issues. 
DOD recently started awarding grants under its Synergistic Idea Awards 
program, in addition to the Idea Awards program, which had been used 
since 1999 to distribute the stamp's proceeds. The Synergistic Idea 
Awards program is similar to the Idea Awards program in that it 
supports innovative breast cancer research but differs in that it 
requires two independent researchers to work synergistically on a 
breast cancer research project. ACF awarded nine grants in fiscal year 
2005 using proceeds from the Stop Family Violence stamp. These grants 
were awarded to programs that support children who have been exposed to 
domestic violence. Finally, FEMA recently distributed the last of the 
proceeds from the Heroes of 2001 stamp to the families of emergency 
relief personnel who were either killed or permanently disabled while 
serving in the line of duty in connection with the terrorist attacks of 
September 11, 2001. FEMA determined that 1,377 applicants met the 
program's eligibility requirements and each recipient received an equal 
portion of the stamp's proceeds. In our 2005 report, we recommended 
that the designated federal agencies report annually to Congress on 
their use of semipostal proceeds. Of the four designated agencies, DOD 
and ACF have reported on their use of semipostal proceeds to Congress. 
FEMA plans to report in the near future on its use of Heroes of 2001 
stamp proceeds. NIH does not plan to prepare a report for Congress but 
offers information on the use of Breast Cancer Research stamp proceeds 
on its public website. We found that NIH's website did provide useful 
overview information about NIH's use of Breast Cancer Research stamp 
proceeds. However, NIH's website did not provide detailed information 
on the amount of proceeds received to date, how these proceeds were 
used and any related accomplishments that were achieved. 

While we are not making any new recommendations in this report, we 
reaffirm our prior recommendation aimed at ensuring greater 
accountability for the Breast Cancer Research stamp.[Footnote 5] In our 
September 2005 report, we recommended that the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services annually report to the congressional committees with 
jurisdiction over the Service on the use of Breast Cancer Research 
stamp proceeds. We provided a draft of this report to the Service and 
designated agencies for review and comment. The Service and designated 
agencies did not offer overall comments on the draft report. These 
organizations did provide technical comments, which we incorporated 
where appropriate. 

Background: 

To date, three stamps have been issued in the nation's semipostal 
program: the Breast Cancer Research, Heroes of 2001, and Stop Family 
Violence stamps. Semipostals are stamps sold at a premium above the 
First-Class postage rate; the net premium amount supports a designated 
cause. The semipostal proceeds are transferred from the Service to the 
designated federal agencies. The three semipostals were authorized 
through separate congressional acts relating to each stamp. The Stamp 
Out Breast Cancer Act required that the Service issue the Breast Cancer 
Research stamp. The Heroes of 2001 and Stop Family Violence stamps were 
mandated by Congress in the 9/11 Heroes Stamp Act of 2001 and the Stamp 
Out Domestic Violence Act of 2001, respectively.[Footnote 6] Figure 2 
illustrates the three semipostals. 

Figure 2: Breast Cancer Research, Heroes of 2001, and Stop Family 
Violence Stamps: 

This figure is a picture of three stamps: breast cancer research, 
heroes of 2001 (9-11), and stop family violence. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: The U.S. Postal Service. 

[End of figure] 

The sales period for the three semipostals has varied. Initially, the 
Breast Cancer Research stamp was authorized for 2 years in 1998. Since 
then, it has been reauthorized four times and there are currently 
proposals in Congress to further extend the sales period for either two 
or four additional years beyond the current expiration date of December 
31, 2007. The Breast Cancer Research stamp raises money for breast 
cancer research programs supported by NIH and DOD, with NIH receiving 
70 percent of the funds available and DOD receiving the remaining 30 
percent. The Heroes of 2001 stamp was offered for sale from June 7, 
2002, to December 31, 2004, and funds raised were transferred to FEMA 
to assist the families of emergency relief personnel who were killed or 
permanently disabled in the line of duty in connection with the 
terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001. The 
Stop Family Violence stamp was offered for sale from October 8, 2003, 
to December 31, 2006. Proceeds from the Stop Family Violence stamp were 
transferred to ACF for domestic violence prevention programs. Between 
October 8, 2003, and December 31, 2004--a period of just over 1 year-- 
the three semipostals were on sale simultaneously. Currently, however, 
the Breast Cancer Research stamp is the only semipostal still being 
sold. 

Previously, we reported that the Breast Cancer Research stamp has been 
an effective fund-raiser and that funds raised through sales of the 
stamp had contributed to key insights and approaches for the treatment 
of breast cancer. Most of the key stakeholders we spoke with and, 
according to a survey we conducted in 2003, members of the public 
viewed the stamp as an appropriate way to raise funds for a nonpostal 
purpose. With some concerns, however, about the Service's 
identification and recovery of costs associated with carrying out the 
act, we recommended that the Service reexamine and, as necessary, 
revise its Breast Cancer Research stamp cost recovery regulations. The 
Service implemented our recommendation by revising its regulations. We 
also suggested that Congress consider establishing annual reporting 
requirements for NIH and DOD. In addition, we recommended that the 
Secretaries of Defense, Homeland Security, and Health and Human 
Services annually issue reports to the Congressional committees with 
jurisdiction over the Service and that these reports, among other 
things, should include information on the amount of funding received 
from semipostal sales and accounting for how the funds were allocated 
or otherwise used. 

Semipostals Have Collectively Raised Over $68 Million, but the Breast 
Cancer Research Semipostal Has Raised the Most: 

As of June 30, 2007, more than $68 million has been raised through the 
sale of semipostals. The amounts raised and the number of stamps sold 
has varied among the three semipostals. Also, based on our discussions 
with various agencies, organizations, advocacy groups, and fund-raising 
experts, we identified a number of factors that affected semipostal 
sales, including public awareness, stamp design, and confusion about 
how the proceeds will be used. 

Breast Cancer Research Stamp: 

The Breast Cancer Research stamp has raised about $54.6 million, which 
dwarfs the funds raised by the other semipostals. Of the funds raised, 
the Service transferred a total of $38.2 million and $16.4 million to 
NIH and DOD, respectively, for breast cancer research. Similarly, among 
the semipostals, the Breast Cancer Research stamp had the highest level 
of sales with 777.8 million stamps sold as of June 30, 2007. One 
explanation for the higher Breast Cancer Research stamp sales is the 
length of time that each stamp was sold. The Breast Cancer Research 
stamp--the only semipostal still on sale today--has sold for the past 9 
years while the Heroes of 2001 and the Stop Family Violence stamps sold 
for 2.5 and just over 3 years, respectively. Although Breast Cancer 
Research stamp sales have fluctuated since the semipostal's issuance in 
1998, sales have been relatively high over time compared to the other 
semipostals (see fig. 1). For example, sales of the Breast Cancer 
Research stamp have averaged nearly 22 million semipostals per quarter 
since issuance. 

Several factors affected Breast Cancer Research stamp sales to date. As 
we reported in 2005, public awareness about the fund-raising causes 
represented by the semipostals--or an issue often in the public eye-- 
affected sales levels.[Footnote 7] For example, an official from Susan 
G. Komen for the Cure told us that, with one in eight women being 
affected by breast cancer, the subject is always in the public 
spotlight. Likewise, an official from the American Cancer Society told 
us that public awareness of breast cancer, coupled with the outreach 
efforts of several organizations, such as the Avon Foundation's breast 
cancer fund-raising events, increased Breast Cancer Research stamp 
sales. 

Another factor that could affect Breast Cancer Research stamp sales is 
the stamp's recent price increase. In May 2007, the price of the Breast 
Cancer Research stamp increased from 45 cents to 55 cents. This marks 
the first time that this stamp's price has increased by as much as 10 
cents (see table 1). The Service's Governors established the new price 
in January 2007[Footnote 8]--with knowledge that the Service had 
proposed an increase of the First-Class postage rate from 39 cents to 
42 cents.[Footnote 9] By law, the Governors are required to set postage 
rates for the Breast Cancer Research stamp. The price must be an amount 
evenly divisible by five and at least 15 percent more than the First- 
Class postage rate. The Service refers to this difference in price as 
the differential revenue.[Footnote 10] 

The Governors decided on a 10-cent price increase because the 
differential revenue of 34 percent, according to the Service, was 
historically in line with past differential revenue amounts. For 
example, in March 2002, when First-Class postage was 34 cents and the 
Breast Cancer Research stamp was 45 cents, the differential revenue was 
32 percent, and this, according to Service officials, did not 
negatively impact Breast Cancer Research stamp sales. However, an 
increase to 50 cents would have yielded a differential revenue of 22 
percent--also in line with past amounts (see table 1). In addition, 
Service officials told us that when the decision was being made as to 
whether the Breast Cancer Research stamp price should be 50 cents or 55 
cents, the Governors agreed with postal management that 55 cents would 
be more appropriate. The Service believes that an increase to 55 cents 
would not deter customers who were passionate and supportive of the 
cause. With the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act effectively 
allowing annual postage rate increases not to exceed the annual change 
in the Consumer Price Index, several years could pass with possible 
increases in the First-Class postage rate.[Footnote 11] Under this 
scenario, setting the Breast Cancer Research stamp price at 55 cents 
will allow for greater price stability in the event Congress further 
extends the stamp's sales period beyond 2007. 

Table 1: Comparison of Historical First-Class Postage Rates with Breast 
Cancer Research Stamp Postage Rates and Related Differential Revenue 
Percentages: 

Date: As of June 1, 1998; 
First-Class postage rate: .32; 
Breast Cancer Research stamp postage rate: .40; 
Rate difference / differential revenue percentage: .08/25. 

Date: January 10, 1999 change in First-Class postage; 
First-Class postage rate: .33; 
Breast Cancer Research stamp postage rate: .40; 
Rate difference / differential revenue percentage: .07/21. 

Date: January 7, 2001 change in First-Class postage; 
First-Class postage rate: .34; 
Breast Cancer Research stamp postage rate: .40; 
Rate difference / differential revenue percentage: .06/18. 

Date: March 23, 2002 change in BCRS postage; 
First-Class postage rate: .34; 
Breast Cancer Research stamp postage rate: .45; 
Rate difference / differential revenue percentage: .11/32. 

Date: June 30, 2002 change in First-Class postage; 
First-Class postage rate: .37; 
Breast Cancer Research stamp postage rate: .45; 
Rate difference / differential revenue percentage: .08/22. 

Date: January 8, 2006 change in First-Class postage; 
First-Class postage rate: .39; 
Breast Cancer Research stamp postage rate: .45; 
Rate difference / differential revenue percentage: .06/15. 

Date: May 14, 2007 changes in First-Class postage and BCRS postage; 
First-Class postage rate: .41; 
Breast Cancer Research stamp postage rate: .55; 
Rate difference / differential revenue percentage: .14/34. 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Postal Service data. 

[End of table] 

With only a few months passing since this increase, we were unable to 
determine what impact, if any, this increase had on sales. However, 
fund-raising experts that we spoke with generally agreed that consumers 
with an affinity--or positive response--toward the Breast Cancer 
Research stamp would most likely continue to purchase the stamp. For 
example, breast cancer survivors and consumers with close family 
members who have battled the disease will probably continue to purchase 
the stamp, despite the 10-cent-price increase, to support breast cancer 
research. Likewise, one fund-raising expert from the BBB Wise Giving 
Alliance told us that, even with the 10-cent price increase, the Breast 
Cancer Research stamp price is still relatively low. According to this 
official, doubling the price, on the other hand, would probably 
negatively impact sales, but it is difficult to determine at which 
point an increase in price will negatively affect sales for any given 
item. Two of the three advocacy groups that we spoke with and that are 
affiliated with breast cancer said they could not say what impact, if 
any, the price increase may have on Breast Cancer Research stamp sales, 
while the third group believed a decline in sales would result. 

Heroes of 2001 Stamp: 

During its sales period, a total of 132.9 million Heroes of 2001 stamps 
were sold. From the stamp sales, the Service transferred about $10.6 
million to FEMA for distribution to the families of emergency relief 
personnel who were either killed or permanently disabled while serving 
in the line of duty in connection with the terrorist attacks of 
September 11, 2001. Sales of the Heroes of 2001 stamp were initially 
high after June 2002 when it went on sale, and over 50 percent of the 
stamp's sale (see fig. 1) occurred in the two-quarters following 
issuance. However, shortly thereafter, sales began to decline. In our 
2005 report, we attributed this decline to the stamp's inability to 
maintain steady sales over time--or lack of staying power. Sales of the 
Heroes of 2001 stamp reflected the dramatic emotional spike typically 
associated with episodic events, such as a disaster, with fund-raising 
efforts building quickly and then declining as events begin to retreat 
from the public spotlight. In contrast, ongoing causes, such as finding 
a cure for breast cancer, are more likely to maintain staying power 
overtime, according to fund-raising experts. While the postage rate for 
the Heroes of 2001 stamp did not change during its sales period, the 
postage rate for a First-Class stamp did increase--also causing the 
differential revenue percentage to decline. Table 2 illustrates these 
changes. 

Table 2: Comparison of Historical First-Class Postage Rates with Heroes 
of 2001 Postage Rates and Related Differential Revenue Percentages: 

Date: June 7, 2002 (beginning of sales period for the Heroes of 2001 
stamp); 
First-Class postage rate: .34; 
Heroes of 2001 stamp postage rate: .45; 
Rate difference / differential revenue percentage: .11/32. 

Date: June 30, 2002 change in First-Class postage; 
First-Class postage rate: .37; 
Heroes of 2001 stamp postage rate: .45; 
Rate difference / differential revenue percentage: .08/22. 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Postal Service data. 

Note: The sales period for the Heroes of 2001 Stamp ranged from June 7, 
2002 to December 31, 2004. No changes in postage rates occurred for 
First-Class postage or the Heroes of 2001 stamp between June 30, 2002, 
and December 31, 2004. 

[End of table] 

Stop Family Violence Stamp: 

The Service sold 45.4 million Stop Family Violence stamps during its 
sales period--the lowest sales of the three semipostals. Similar to the 
sales patterns for the Heroes of 2001 stamp, sales for the Stop Family 
Violence stamp were highest during the initial two quarters following 
issuance (see fig. 1) and then declined. Sales fell from 6.6 million 
sold in the first quarter of fiscal year 2004--when the sales period 
began--to 2.8 million sold in the first quarter of fiscal year 2007-- 
when the sales period ended. The Stop Family Violence stamp raised 
about $3.2 million, which the Service transferred to ACF to fund 
domestic violence prevention programs. 

This review reconfirmed our previous findings regarding the factors 
that likely affected Stop Family Violence semipostal sales. In 2005, we 
reported that factors such as stamp design, confusion about how the 
proceeds would be used, and limited advertising were factors that 
likely affected sales. For this review, four of the five advocacy 
groups we spoke with about the Stop Family Violence stamp told us that 
the stamp's design--an image of a crying child--played a key role in 
low stamp sales (see fig. 2). Several advocacy group officials 
commented that as a result, postal customers were not likely to use the 
stamp on wedding invitations or holiday mail. At least two officials 
told us that the Service should have consulted with the domestic 
violence community before selecting the stamp's final design. One 
official told us that in so doing, the Service would have immediately 
learned that a different design would have been more appropriate. 
Another advocacy group official told us that because domestic violence 
is an emotionally charged issue, a softer image was needed for the 
stamp to have been more effective. This official suggested, for 
example, that a purple ribbon--often associated with domestic violence, 
would have been a more appropriate design. 

In contrast, the Service felt that the design of the Stop Family 
Violence stamp was not a key factor in the stamp's lower sales. The 
Service noted that there are few subjects that will garner the same 
level of support as the Breast Cancer Research stamp. The Service also 
noted that it rarely consults with advocacy groups regarding the stamp 
design because it is difficult to gain consensus. 

In 2005, we also reported that support may be further enhanced if the 
semipostal or available marketing information clearly indicated how the 
proceeds will be used.[Footnote 12] During this review, three of the 
five advocacy groups affiliated with preventing domestic violence told 
us that confusion about how proceeds would be used also affected stamp 
sales. One advocacy group specifically described this confusion as 
concern in the domestic violence community that proceeds from the Stop 
Family Violence stamp might go to children's programs in general--and 
not specifically to enhance services for children exposed to domestic 
violence. According to officials from this advocacy group and another, 
had it been known early on how the proceeds would be used, the domestic 
violence community would have given the stamp its full support and 
would have been more likely to advertise it. Both of these efforts 
could have resulted in higher Stop Family Violence stamp sales--as, 
according to the American Red Cross and the BBB Wise Giving Alliance 
officials, advocacy groups are the most useful tool for getting the 
word out about charitable causes and fund-raising efforts. 

In addition, we reported in 2005 that, comparatively speaking, a 
limited amount of advertising was performed to promote sales of the 
Stop Family Violence stamp. The Breast Cancer Research and Heroes of 
2001 stamps had extensive Service advertising campaigns, as the Service 
spent nearly $900,000 to advertise the Breast Cancer Research stamp and 
over $1.1 million for the Heroes of 2001 stamp. However, due to an 
overall reduction in the Service's budget, since 2003 advertising for 
all stamps, including semipostals, were limited to in-store 
messaging.[Footnote 13] Consequently, when the Stop Family Violence 
stamp was issued, the Service had established a policy that all costs 
incurred for advertising semipostals would be recovered from the 
semipostal's proceeds. As a result, the advertising costs incurred for 
this stamp were deducted from its proceeds. 

When the Service met with ACF before the Stop Family Violence stamp was 
issued, the Service proposed spending $1.5 million or more on an 
advertising campaign to be funded by future Stop Family Violence stamp 
proceeds. Because of the uncertainty about how much money would be 
raised through sales of the stamp, ACF decided not to pursue the 
proposed advertising campaign. Instead, the Service and ACF looked to 
the advocacy groups to promote the semipostal. However, as discussed 
above, uncertainty about how the proceeds would be used was one reason 
why the domestic violence community did not fully support the 
semipostal. Through May 1, 2007, the Service spent about $78,000 to 
advertise the Stop Family Violence stamp, and about $77,000 was 
recovered from the stamp's proceeds.[Footnote 14] The postage rate for 
the Stop Family Violence stamp did not change during its sales period, 
but the postage rate for a First-Class stamp did increase--causing the 
differential revenue percentage to decline. Table 3 illustrates these 
changes. 

Table 3: Comparison of Historical First-Class Postage Rates with Stop 
Family Violence Stamp Postage Rates and Related Differential Revenue 
Percentages: 

Date: October 8, 2003 (beginning of sales period for the Stop Family 
Violence stamp); 
First-Class postage rate: .37; 
Stop Family Violence stamp postage rate: .45; 
Rate difference/ differential revenue percentage: .08/22. 

Date: January 8, 2006 change in First-Class postage; 
First-Class postage rate: .39; 
Stop Family Violence stamp postage rate: .45; 
Rate difference/ differential revenue percentage: .06/15. 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Postal Service data. 

Note: The sales period for the Stop Family Violence stamp ranged from 
October 8, 2003, to December 31, 2006. No changes in postage rates 
occurred for First-Class postage or the Stop Family Violence stamp 
between January 8, 2006, and December 31, 2006. 

[End of table] 

Designated Agencies Have Distributed Semipostal Proceeds, but Only DOD 
and ACF Have Reported Their Use of the Proceeds to Congress: 

All of the designated federal agencies have distributed proceeds from 
the sale of semipostals to their respective causes. Both NIH and DOD 
have started to use proceeds from the sale of the Breast Cancer 
Research stamp to fund new programs. ACF has used proceeds from the 
Stop Family Violence stamp to award nine grants under a program that 
provides funds to organizations that deliver services to children who 
have been exposed to domestic violence. Finally, FEMA has recently 
distributed the remaining proceeds from the Heroes of 2001 stamp to the 
families of emergency relief personnel who were either killed or 
permanently disabled while serving in the line of duty in connection 
with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Of the four 
designated agencies, only DOD and ACF have submitted to Congress a GAO- 
recommended report on the agency's use of semipostal proceeds. 

Breast Cancer Research Stamp Proceeds Used to Fund New Programs at NIH 
and DOD: 

Proceeds from the sale of the Breast Cancer Research stamp fund breast 
cancer research grants and programs supported by NIH and DOD. NIH, 
which began receiving proceeds from the Breast Cancer Research stamp in 
1998, has distributed its share of the proceeds through four different 
programs. Initially, NIH used the proceeds to award high-risk research 
grants through the Insight Awards to Stamp Out Breast Cancer 
initiative. This program was administered by the National Cancer 
Institute (NCI). In 2003, NIH created the Exceptional Opportunities in 
Breast Cancer Research initiative, which grants stamp proceeds to more 
traditional, well-established research projects that would not have 
been otherwise funded. In 2006, NIH started using Breast Cancer 
Research stamp proceeds for the Trial Assigning Individualized Options 
for Treatment (TAILORx) and the Breast Pre-Malignancy Program. TAILORx 
is designed to determine which patients with early stage breast cancer 
are most likely to benefit from chemotherapy and, therefore, to reduce 
the use of chemotherapy in patients that are unlikely to benefit. The 
Breast Pre-Malignancy Program is an NCI-wide program in breast cancer 
research that includes the areas of prevention, etiology, biology, 
diagnosis and molecular epidemiology. This program was created in the 
fall of 2005 when NCI leaders recommended that the Breast Cancer 
Research stamp proceeds be used to fund a program addressing multiple 
aspects of breast cancer pre-malignancy. They hoped that linking NCI's 
research programs with research programs underway at universities, 
medical schools, hospitals, and research institutions, would create a 
collaborative and integrated program that would result in new 
discoveries and interventions. 

As previously discussed, NIH received approximately $38 million from 
the Service from the sale of the Breast Cancer Research stamp. Of this 
amount, NIH has spent nearly $26 million and has set aside an 
additional $8 million to cover the remainder of the Exceptional 
Opportunities in Breast Cancer Research initiative and the Breast Pre- 
Malignancy program. NIH has not yet determined whether it will use the 
remaining $4 million for an existing or new breast cancer research 
program. NIH has not used any of the stamp proceeds to manage these 
programs; and as a result, the proceeds available for breast cancer 
research were not reduced. 

DOD also began receiving Breast Cancer Research stamp proceeds in 1998. 
Initially, DOD's share of the proceeds from the Breast Cancer research 
stamp funded grants under its Idea Awards Program, which funds 
innovative approaches to breast cancer research. In 2007, DOD began 
using stamp proceeds to fund Synergistic Idea Awards. This program, 
which is designed to promote new ideas and collaborations, is similar 
to the Idea Awards Program in that it funds innovative, high-risk, high-
reward breast cancer research but differs in that it requires two 
researchers to work synergistically on a research project. Both 
programs are administered by the Office of the Congressionally Directed 
Medical Research Programs, which is part of U.S. Army Medical Research 
and Materiel Command. DOD received approximately $16.4 million from the 
Service from the sale of the Breast Cancer Research Stamp. DOD has 
spent its share of the stamp's proceeds for grants, except for 
approximately $608,000, or about 4 percent, which has been used for 
overhead costs related to managing the grants. Table 4 contains 
information about these grants, including the size and number of grants 
awarded. 

Table 4: NIH and DOD Grants and Awards Funded with Breast Cancer 
Research Stamp Proceeds: 

Agency: NIH; 
Grant: Insight Awards to Stamp Out Breast Cancer: (2000- 2002); 
Grant mission: Fund high-risk exploration by scientists employed 
outside the federal government who conduct research at their own 
institutions. Awarded for a 2-year period; 
Number of grants awarded and amounts: Awarded 87 Insight Awards 
totaling about $9.4 million; 
Grant selection and evaluation: Program announcements are released 
through the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts and NCI's website. Grant 
applications undergo two levels of peer review that evaluate scientific 
and technical merit. 
Grants are monitored annually and are given a final review at their 
conclusion. Criteria used to measure progress include publications and 
patent filings. 

Agency: NIH; 
Grant: Exceptional Opportunities in Breast Cancer Research: (2003-
2007); 
Grant mission: Funds well-established research that would not have been 
funded otherwise. Awarded for a maximum of 4 years; 
Number of grants awarded and amounts: As of the end of fiscal year 
2006, NIH awarded 31 Exceptional Opportunities Awards totaling nearly 
$10.8 million; 
Grant selection and evaluation: Same process as described above for 
Insight Awards. 

Agency: NIH; 
Grant: Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment (TAILORx): 
2006-present); 
Grant mission: Funds a trial designed to determine which breast cancer 
patients are most likely benefit from chemotherapy; 
Number of grants awarded and amounts: As of the end of fiscal year 
2006, $4,500,000 given to the trial to offset the costs of testing; 
Grant selection and evaluation: The funds were provided to Genomic 
Health, Inc. by means of a sole source purchase order. This laboratory 
developed the diagnostic test and is the only one that performs the 
test, therefore, no competition was held. The funds have been 
obligated, but the laboratory must submit a monthly voucher to be 
reimbursed for the tests it performed during that month. 

Agency: NIH; 
Grant: Breast Pre-Malignancy Program: (2006-present); 
Grant mission: Funds an integrated program in breast cancer research 
that includes the areas of prevention, etiology, biology, diagnosis and 
molecular epidemiology; 
Number of grants awarded and amounts: Awarded 6 grants in fiscal year 
2006 for a total of $853,000 and funded projects in NCI laboratories 
totaling $371,000; 
Grant selection and evaluation: The Breast Pre-Malignancy Steering 
Committee provides oversight for the program. It consists of 
representatives from each NCI division and office that supports or 
manages studies, grants, or contracts in the Breast Pre-Malignancy 
Program. The committee monitors the progress of research initiatives, 
identifies areas for collaboration and coordination, keeps aware of 
science related to breast pre-malignancy, and provides recommendations 
for furthering breast pre-malignancy research. 

Agency: DOD; 
Grant: Idea Awards: (1999-2006); 
Grant mission: Funds innovative high-risk/high-return research; 
Number of grants awarded and amounts: As of September 2007, DOD granted 
36 Idea Awards totaling about $14.6 million; 
Grant selection and evaluation: Program announcements are posted 
online. Applications undergo two tiers of review. The first tier is 
peer review that evaluates technical and scientific merit. The second 
tier is programmatic review that compares applications to each other; 
Grants are monitored annually. Criteria used to measure progress 
include publications, presentations, patents, and products. 

Agency: DOD; 
Grant: Synergistic Idea Awards: (Started in 2007); 
Grant mission: Bring together two scientists in a collaborative effort 
to conduct innovative breast cancer research. Grants are available for 
up to $500,000 for a maximum 2-year period; 
Number of grants awarded and amounts: In fiscal year 2007, DOD awarded 
3 grants using Breast Cancer research stamp proceeds totaling over $1.2 
million; 
Grant selection and evaluation: Same process as described above for the 
Idea Awards. 

Source: NIH and DOD. 

[End of table] 

Grants awarded under the NIH Insight Awards and Exceptional 
Opportunities programs and DOD Idea Awards program have resulted in 
significant accomplishments in breast cancer research, according to 
agency officials. The TAILORx and Breast Pre-Malignancy programs first 
received funding in 2006 and, according to NIH, it is too soon to 
identify major accomplishments from these initiatives. Table 5 provides 
some examples of research findings from DOD's Idea Awards and NIH's 
Insight Awards and Exceptional Opportunities programs that were funded 
with proceeds from the Breast Cancer Research stamp. 

Table 5: Select Research Findings from DOD and NIH Grants and Awards 
Funded with Breast Cancer Research Stamp Proceeds: 

Grant program (agency): Insight Awards (NIH); 
Principal investigator and institution: Robert Weinberg, Ph.D: 
Whitehead Institute for Biomedical research; 
Research finding: This is early research into the role the breast 
cancer microenvironment plays in the development of breast cancer 
progression. It has led to a holistic approach to the study of the 
mammary tumor and its environment and has provided new opportunities 
and targets for intervention. 

Grant program (agency): Insight Awards (NIH); 
Principal investigator and institution: David Krag, M.D: 
University of Vermont; 
Research finding: This grant developed a number of innovative 
approached and techniques to isolate and identify cancer cells from the 
peripheral blood of cancer patients. These screening peptides could 
potentially be used to target therapeutics to these rare cells and 
perhaps treat metastases. 

Grant program (agency): Exceptional Opportunities (NIH); 
Principal investigator and institution: Susan Neuhausen, Ph.D: 
University of California; 
Research finding: This research is focused on individuals with a 
specific genetic mutation. The researchers are using a database that 
contains both genetic and environmental data to further define the 
breast and ovarian cancer risk for this group of individuals, with a 
focus on the insulin-like growth factor signaling pathway. This work 
has led to many insights into breast cancer risks. 

Grant program (agency): Exceptional Opportunities (NIH); 
Principal investigator and institution: William M. Lee: University of 
Pennsylvania; 
Research finding: This grant studies the mechanisms of why some tumors 
are rejected while others persist under the same conditions. It 
specifically focuses on the growth of blood vessels in tumors. Treating 
cancers by targeting their blood vessels (i.e., using antivascular 
agents) is based on sound scientific rationale and has been shown to be 
highly effective against transplanted tumors in mice. Results of human 
clinical trials of antivascular agents have been less promising, 
however. This grant supports research investigating the reasons for 
that discrepancy. 

Grant program (agency): Idea Awards (DOD); 
Principal investigator and institution: Archibald Perkins, Ph.D: Yale 
University; 
Research finding: This research involves using new techniques to 
identify novel genes involved in cancer. Investigators have identified 
many genes not previously shown to be associated with mammary 
tumorigenesis. This work may help with the prognosis of some breast 
cancers. 

Grant program (agency): Idea Awards (DOD); 
Principal investigator and institution: Todd Giorgio, Ph.D: Vanderbilt 
University; 
Research finding: This project has made progress in synthesizing 
different types of nanoparticles for use in the early detection and 
treatment of breast cancer. This study suggests that the use of 
nanoparticles and nanocrystals could be utilized as a future 
inexpensive method of screening for breast cancer activity, as well as 
a mechanism to improve breast cancer imaging and treatment delivery. 

Source: NIH and DOD. 

[End of table] 

ACF Uses Stop Family Violence Stamp Proceeds for Grant Program: 

ACF is using the proceeds from the Stop Family Violence stamp to fund a 
discretionary grant program called Demonstration of Enhanced Services 
to Children and Youth Who Have Been Exposed to Domestic Violence that 
supports children who have been exposed to domestic violence. This 
grant program is administered under the Family Violence Prevention and 
Services Act Program (FVPSA). Stop Family Violence stamp proceeds have 
temporarily increased FVPSA's budget for discretionary grants from $2.4 
million per year to approximately $3.5 million per year. This grant 
program was created to increase the availability of child-centered 
services, develop and test new interventions and identify promising 
practices, and to expand the capacity of domestic violence shelters and 
community programs to effectively serve children exposed to violence. 
Some of the eligible activities covered under the grant program 
including providing services to children exposed to domestic violence, 
developing processes to ensure confidentiality of information shared by 
adult victims of domestic violence and their children, providing 
training to service providers, and developing educational materials for 
delivering intervention and prevention services to children who have 
been exposed to domestic violence. 

The Service distributed about $3.2 million in stamp proceeds to ACF 
from May 2004 to May 2007. In June 2005, ACF published the grant 
opportunity announcement. ACF received sixty-five applications and 
selected nine applicants to receive three-year grants. In fiscal years 
2005 and 2006, each grantee received approximately $130,000 per year. 
In fiscal year 2007, ACF distributed about $96,000 to each of the 
grantees, to expend the balance of stamp proceeds. ACF is distributing 
all stamp proceeds under the grants program. ACF has absorbed the costs 
of managing the grant program by managing the program with existing 
staff. Also, ACF has funded the peer review of grant applications and 
supported an annual training and technical assistance meeting for grant 
recipients. Table 6 provides information about grants awarded by ACF 
with Stop Family Violence stamp proceeds. 

Table 6: ACF Grants Awarded Using Stop Family Violence Stamp Proceeds: 

Agency: ACF; 
Grant: Demonstration of Enhanced Services to Children and Youth Who 
Have Been Exposed to Domestic Violence; 
Grant mission: To provide enhanced services and support to children and 
youth exposed to domestic violence in order to mitigate the impact of 
that exposure and increase the opportunity of these children and youth 
to lead healthy, nonviolent, and safe lives as adults; 
Number of grants and amounts: ACF awarded 9 grants for a period of 3 
years. In fiscal years 2005 and 2006, each recipient received $130,000. 
In fiscal year 2007, each recipient received about $96,000; 
Grant selection and evaluation: Grant announcements are released 
through ACF's website and [hyperlink, http://www.grants.gov], an online 
repository of federal grant opportunities managed by HHS. 
Grant applications are evaluated on a weighted set of criteria made 
available to applicants in the program announcement. 
Grantees are monitored semiannually through required progress and 
financial reports and are given a final review once the grant project 
is completed. 
Grantees are required to state how they will determine the extent to 
which the project has achieved its stated objectives and the extent to 
which accomplishments can be attributed to the project. 

Source: ACF. 

[End of table] 

The projects funded by this grant program are still underway, and ACF 
has not yet evaluated its accomplishments. According to ACF, several 
grantees are evaluating the effectiveness of their efforts and have 
reported significant progress in achieving their project goals. For 
example, one goal is to expand the capacity of domestic violence 
prevention programs to address the needs of children and families in 
and out of emergency shelters. Another goal is to develop and enhance 
community-based interventions for children exposed to domestic violence 
whose parents have not sought the services of a domestic violence 
prevention program. During the final year of program funding, ACF plans 
to initiate an effort to identify, describe, and disseminate promising 
practices that emerge from the projects. 

FEMA Recently Distributed Proceeds from Heroes of 2001 Stamp: 

FEMA has received over $10.5 million from Heroes of 2001 stamp proceeds 
for distribution to the families of emergency relief personnel who were 
either killed or permanently disabled while serving in the line of duty 
in connection with the terrorist attacks against the United States on 
September 11, 2001. The Service transferred the proceeds to FEMA in six 
disbursements from November 2002 to May 2005. Once all of the proceeds 
were received, FEMA published an Interim Rule in the Federal Register 
in July 26, 2005, that established the program to be used to distribute 
the stamp proceeds. This rule established that the funds would be 
distributed equally among all of those deemed eligible. A notice 
announcing the application period for the program was published in 
December 2005, and FEMA accepted applications from December 2, 2005, 
until April 3, 2006. The first payment of funds was distributed to 
eligible applicants in November 2006 and FEMA made the final payments 
in August 2007. Because the total amount available and the number of 
eligible recipients was unknown, FEMA decided to wait until the end of 
the Heroes of 2001 stamp sales period before finalizing this program 
and beginning the process of identifying recipients. Table 7 provides 
information about FEMA's distribution of Heroes of 2001 stamp proceeds. 

Table 7: FEMA's Distribution of Heroes of 2001 Stamp Proceeds: 

Agency: FEMA (program managed by the US. Fire Administration); 
Grant: Assistance Program Under the 9/11 Heroes Stamp Act of 2001; 
Grant mission: To benefit the families of emergency relief personnel 
who were killed or permanently disabled while serving in the line of 
duty in connection with the terrorist attacks against the United States 
on September 11, 2001; 
Number of grants and amounts: FEMA awarded Heroes of 2001 proceeds to 
1,377 applicants who met the eligibility requirements. Each recipient 
received $7,672.53; 
Grant selection and evaluation: Applications were available from FEMA 
upon request. They could also be downloaded from FEMA's website; 
Eligible recipients included those who have been permanently physically 
disabled in the line of duty, and personal representatives of emergency 
relief personnel who were killed and in the line of duty, while serving 
at the World Trade Center, Pentagon, or Shanksville, PA, site in 
connection with the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. 

Source: FEMA. 

[End of table] 

FEMA conducted outreach efforts prior to and early into the application 
process to inform potential applicants about the program and its 
requirements. These efforts included face to face briefings with 
relevant New York City area emergency relief agencies and their labor 
unions, as well as discussions with emergency relief agencies in 
Shanksville, PA, and areas surrounding the Pentagon. Broadcast e-mails 
were forwarded to all of the urban search and rescue teams that 
assisted at the locations of the attacks. In addition, agency and union 
newsletters and other media in the New York City area carried stories 
regarding the availability of the program and how to apply. 

Specifically, as it related to assisting families of deceased emergency 
relief workers, the New York City Police Department, New York City Fire 
Department, and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey all 
cooperated and coordinated with FEMA by providing special assistance 
and directly notifying the families of the deceased about how to avail 
themselves of the program. In addition, these agencies assisted 
applicants by completing the appropriate sections of the applications, 
as required. However, assisting the large number of applicants in 
preparing their paperwork placed an unexpected burden on these 
agencies, according to FEMA and officials from these agencies. When we 
discussed the process for distributing the stamp proceeds with FEMA and 
these agencies, all officials agreed that the process was collaborative 
and successful. According to officials from the emergency relief 
agencies, the application process required an extensive amount of work, 
but ultimately grant recipients were grateful to receive the funds and 
generally were not concerned about the length of time it took FEMA to 
disburse the stamp proceeds. 

FEMA received a total of 1,945 applications and determined that 1,377 
applicants were eligible to receive funds. To apply for Heroes of 2001 
stamp proceeds, victims or their families had to complete the 
application and submit supporting documentation. This documentation had 
to demonstrate that the individual was present at an eligible site-- 
World Trade Center, Pentagon, or Shanksville, PA--during the 96 hour 
period required for eligibility and confirming that the individual was 
deceased or living with a permanent physical disability as a result of 
the attacks.[Footnote 15] Examples of documents used to ascertain 
eligibility included, among other things, death certificates, worker 
compensation agency decisions, Social Security Administration 
disability documents, and affidavits from employers and co-workers. 
Once FEMA received the application and required documentation, a staff 
attorney and the project manager reviewed the applicant's file. If they 
agreed that all elements necessary to qualify for the grant were 
clearly present and documented, they recommended the application for 
approval on a consent agenda for the next meeting of the Heroes Stamp 
Review Panel, which consisted of staff from FEMA, the National Fire 
Academy, and the Emergency Management Institute. The remaining 
applications were reviewed and evaluated individually by the Heroes 
Stamp Review Panel. Applicants who were determined to be ineligible 
through this process were allowed an opportunity to appeal the 
decision. 

Even though FEMA conducted outreach efforts in metropolitan Washington, 
D.C., and Shanksville, PA, no applications were received from these 
areas. All of the applicants and recipients were emergency relief 
workers from the attacks in New York. A large majority of applicants 
and recipients were emergency relief personnel that are permanently 
disabled as a result of serving in the line of duty in connection with 
the terrorist attacks. Table 8 provides additional information about 
the recipients of stamp proceeds. 

Table 8: Applicants and Recipients of Heroes of 2001 Stamp Proceeds: 

Category: Emergency relief personnel who were permanently disabled in 
the attacks; 
Number of applicants: 1,527; 
Number of recipients: 972. 

Category: Families of emergency relief personnel who were killed in the 
attacks; 
Number of applicants: 418; 
Number of recipients: 405. 

Category: Total; 
Number of applicants: 1,945; 
Number of recipients: 1,377. 

Source: FEMA. 

[End of table] 

The majority of recipients of Heroes of 2001 stamp proceeds were 
firefighters involved in rescue efforts related to the terrorist 
attacks. The firefighters included members of the New York City Fire 
Department, volunteer firefighters from other fire departments in the 
area, and members of urban search and rescue teams. Other recipients 
included law enforcement, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), and other 
safety personnel who were involved in the rescue efforts. Table 9 below 
lists the number of applicants and recipients in each of these 
categories. 

Table 9: Number of Applicants and Recipients in Each Emergency Relief 
Category: 

Emergency relief category: Fire[A]; 
Number of applicants: 1,506; 
Number of recipients: 1,164. 

Emergency relief category: Law enforcement[B]; 
Number of applicants: 328; 
Number of recipients: 152. 

Emergency relief category: EMS[C]; 
Number of applicants: 62; 
Number of recipients: 34. 

Emergency relief category: Other[D]; 
Number of applicants: 49; 
Number of recipients: 27. 

Emergency relief category: Total; 
Number of applicants: 1,945; 
Number of recipients: 1,377. 

Source: FEMA. 

[A] Includes FDNY firefighters, volunteers firefighters from other fire 
departments, and members of urban search and rescue teams. 

[B] Includes those from NYPD, the NY/NJ Port Authority, FBI, Secret 
Service, other NYS and NYC law enforcement agencies, and police 
departments and sheriff offices from the NYC area. 

[C] Includes EMS personnel from FDN,Y as well as other NYC agencies, 
and EMS personnel from NYC area hospitals. 

[D] Includes safety personnel from the World Trade Center who were 
responsible for emergency duties in the WTC and remained in the 
structures performing other duties and others who performed eligible 
emergency relief duties. 

[End of table] 

FEMA distributed the entire amount of the stamp's proceeds to the 1,377 
eligible recipients. FEMA decided to distribute an equal portion of the 
proceeds to each eligible recipient and each one received 
$7,672.53.[Footnote 16] It was initially unclear how many of the 
applicants would be deemed eligible to receive the stamp proceeds, so 
FEMA distributed the proceeds using a three-stage approach. This 
allowed some of the funds to be distributed to the recipients while the 
remaining eligibility decisions and appeals processes were still in 
progress. 

According to FEMA, several factors contributed to the length of time it 
took to distribute the funds. First, FEMA decided that each recipient 
would receive an equal amount of the proceeds, which meant that all of 
the recipients had to be identified and all appeals had to be completed 
before the final dollar amount of each award could be determined. 
Second, the majority of the applicants and recipients were permanently 
disabled as a result of the serving in the line of duty in connection 
with the terrorist attacks. Some of these disabilities did not surface 
until well after the attacks, and the process to determine which 
applicants met the criteria was complicated. For example, if a 
firefighter claimed eligibility based on suffering from respiratory 
disease, it could be difficult to prove that their injuries resulted 
from involvement in the rescue efforts following the terrorist attacks 
and not from his entire firefighting career. Third, verification of 
these injuries required extensive paperwork, which had to be completed, 
in part, by the emergency relief agencies with the use of existing 
personnel. According to officials from some of these agencies, it took 
considerable effort to complete the paperwork. When these agencies 
became backlogged, FEMA allowed applicants to submit partial paperwork, 
as long as all required documentation was received by the deadline. 

Although the enabling legislation authorized the Service to recover 
administrative and related costs for selling the stamp, FEMA was not 
authorized to recover its administrative costs for the actual operation 
of the program to distribute the proceeds. FEMA estimates that it cost 
about $383,000 to administer the program. This sum includes the salary 
and benefits of U.S. Fire Administration staff responsible for the day 
to day management of the program,[Footnote 17] postage, travel costs, 
setting up a toll free hotline, and supplies. 

Some Agencies Report on Use of Stamp Proceeds: 

In our 2005 report, we recommended that the designated agencies issue 
reports to Congress on their use of semipostal proceeds. Program 
reporting is important because it ensures accountability and provides 
information to Congress and other interested parties regarding the use 
of proceeds. The designated agencies have varied in their response to 
our recommendation. DOD issued a report to Congress in July 2007 on its 
use of proceeds from the Breast Cancer Research stamp and plans to 
report annually as part of its report on Congressionally Directed 
Medical Research Programs. In addition, DOD provides information about 
the use of Breast Cancer Research stamp proceeds through information 
papers and its website. ACF prepared a report on its use of proceeds 
from the Stop Family Violence stamp and issued it to Congress in August 
2007. The report includes information on the use of the proceeds and 
the related accomplishments achieved to date. Since 2007 is the final 
year for funding the grant program that uses Stop Family Violence stamp 
proceeds, the grantees will be preparing reports on the effectiveness 
of their efforts and the lessons learned. Using these reports, ACF 
anticipates preparing a final report for Congress on the grant program 
for release in 2009. FEMA plans to issue a report on its distribution 
of Heroes of 2001 stamp proceeds in the fall of 2007. NIH does not have 
any plans to report to Congress on its use of proceeds from the Breast 
Cancer Research stamp, but NIH officials noted that information on the 
breast cancer stamp is available to the public on its website and, 
occasionally, through the NCI newsletter. We found that NIH's website 
and NCI newsletter do provide useful overview information about NIH's 
use of Breast Cancer Research stamp proceeds. However, NIH's website 
did not provide detailed information on the amount of proceeds received 
to date, how the proceeds were used and any related accomplishments 
resulting from the use of these proceeds. 

While we are not making any new recommendations in this report, we 
reaffirm our prior recommendation aimed at ensuring greater 
accountability and greater support for the Breast Cancer Research 
stamp. Specifically, in our September 2005 report, we recommended that 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services submit to the congressional 
committees with jurisdiction over the Service annual reports on the 
amount of funding received from the Breast Cancer Research stamp, how 
these funds were used, and accomplishments achieved with these funds. 

Agency Comments: 

We provided a draft of this report to the Service, ACF, DOD, FEMA, HHS, 
and NIH for review and comment. These organizations did not offer 
overall comments on the draft report. They provided technical comments, 
which we incorporated where appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to Senators Dianne Feinstein and 
Kay Bailey Hutchison and Representatives Joe Baca and Wm. Lacy Clay 
because of their interest in the Breast Cancer Research stamp; Senators 
Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charles E. Schumer because of their interest 
in the Heroes of 2001 stamp; the Postmaster General; the Chairman of 
the Postal Regulatory Commission; and other interested parties. We will 
make copies available to others upon request. This report will also be 
available on our Web site at no charge at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 
512-2834 or [email protected]. Contact points for our Offices of 
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 
page of this report. Key contributors to this report included Gerald P. 
Barnes, Assistant Director; Jennifer Clayborne; Colin Fallon; Kathleen 
Gilhooly; Brandon Haller; Josh Ormond; and Stephanie Purcell. 

Signed by: 

Katherine A. Siggerud: 

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

To determine the amount of money raised through the sale of the 
semipostals, we analyzed semipostal sales data that the U.S. Postal 
Service (Service) provided to us. These data included the amount of 
quarterly stamp sales and the amount of proceeds that the Service 
transferred to the four federal agencies designated for each 
semipostal. We also interviewed officials from the designated federal 
agencies to confirm the amount of proceeds each received from the 
Service. The four designated federal agencies are the National 
Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Department of Defense (DOD) for the 
Breast Cancer Research semipostal; the Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS) for the Heroes of 2001 semipostal; and the Administration for 
Children and Families (ACF) within the Department of Health and Human 
Services for the Stop Family Violence semipostal. In addition, we 
obtained stakeholders' views on what factors affected semipostal sales. 
For example, we spoke with Service officials; professional fund-raising 
organizations; and national advocacy groups affiliated with breast 
cancer, emergency relief personnel affected by the terrorist attacks of 
September 11, and domestic violence. Also, we interviewed Dr. Ernie 
Bodai, who is credited with conceiving the idea for the Breast Cancer 
Research stamp, and Ms. Betsy Mullen, who lobbied Congress for the 
stamp along with Dr. Bodai. Table 10 identifies the stakeholders whom 
we spoke with. To determine the reliability of the data we received, we 
obtained and reviewed specific information on the Service's data 
collection and processing system. We determined that the data were 
sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report. 

Table 10: Agencies, Advocacy Groups, and Organizations That GAO 
Consulted for Their Opinions and Experiences with the Semipostals: 

Breast Cancer Research stamp; 
Organizations interviewed: The American Cancer Society; 
Organizations interviewed: The National Breast Cancer Coalition; 
Organizations interviewed: The National Institutes of Health, National 
Cancer Institute;  
Organizations interviewed: Susan G. Komen for the Cure; 
Organizations interviewed: U.S. Department of Defense, Army Medical 
Research and Materiel Command. 

Heroes of 2001 stamp; 
Organizations interviewed: The New York City Fire Department, Family 
Assistance Unit; 
Organizations interviewed: The New York City Fire Department, Bureau of 
Legal Affairs;  
Organizations interviewed: The Port Authority of New York and New 
Jersey; 
Organizations interviewed: The Uniformed Firefighters Association of 
Greater New York; 
Organizations interviewed: Stop Family Violence stamp: U.S. Department 
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

Stop Family Violence stamp; 
Organizations interviewed: The Family Violence Prevention Fund; 
Organizations interviewed: The National Coalition Against Domestic 
Violence; 
Organizations interviewed: The National Domestic Violence Hotline; 
Organizations interviewed: The National Network to End Domestic 
Violence; 
Organizations interviewed: The National Resource Center on Domestic 
Violence; 
Organizations interviewed: U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services, Administration for Children and Families. 

Fund-raising organizations; 
Organizations interviewed: The Association of Fundraising 
Professionals; 
Organizations interviewed: The American Red Cross; 
Organizations interviewed: The Better Business Bureau, Wise Giving 
Alliance. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

To determine how the designated federal agencies have used semipostal 
proceeds and reported results, we interviewed key officials from each 
agency that receives these funds. These agencies included the National 
Cancer Institute within NIH, the U.S. Army Medical Research and 
Materiel Command within DOD, the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
within DHS, and ACF. In addition, we obtained and reviewed agency 
documentation pertaining to grant programs funded with semipostal 
proceeds, including grant program development, purpose and goals, award 
and program guidelines, the number and amounts of awards, reporting 
requirements, and grant outcomes. 

Finally, to describe the monetary and other resources expended by the 
Service in operating and administering the semipostal program, we 
obtained and analyzed the Serviceï¿½s data on costs of administering 
semipostals as well as what costs the Service has recovered. We also 
discussed the design of the semipostals, advertising, and postage rate 
increases with officials in the Serviceï¿½s Office of Stamp Services. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Postal Service Semipostal Costs Recovered: 

According to the Postal Service (Service), cost items recoverable from 
the funds raised by semipostals include, but are not limited to, 
packaging costs in excess of those for comparable stamps, printing 
costs for flyers or special receipts, costs of changes to equipment, 
costs of developing and executing marketing and promotional plans in 
excess of those for comparable stamps, and other costs that would not 
normally have been incurred for comparable stamps.[Footnote 18] 
Specifically, the Service has identified 13 cost categories that it 
uses to track semipostal costs.[Footnote 19] These categories include 
the following: 

* stamp design, 

* stamp production and printing, 

* shipping and distribution, 

* training, 

* selling stamps, 

* withdrawing stamps from sale, 

* destroying unsold stamps, 

* advertising, 

* packaging stamps, 

* printing flyers and special receipts, 

* equipment changes, 

* developing and executing marketing and promotional plans, and: 

* other costs (legal, market research, and consulting). 

Costs reported by the Service totaled nearly $18.2 million through June 
30, 2007 (see table 11). Costs for the Breast Cancer Research stamp 
accounted for $12.7 million of this amount. The Service determined that 
about $1.9 million of the total costs related to the three stamps 
represented costs that were attributable specifically to the 
semipostals, would not have been incurred for comparable stamps, and 
therefore, needed to be recovered. The recovered amounts varied from 
$1.2 million for the Breast Cancer Research stamp to just over $200,000 
for the Stop Family Violence stamp. The Service reported that the 
majority of costs incurred by the semipostals were covered by the First-
Class postage rate, and not recovered from the proceeds. Table 11 
describes the semipostal costs incurred and recovered by the Service. 

Table 11: Semipostal Costs Incurred and Recovered by the Service, 
through June 30, 2007: 

Semipostal: Breast Cancer Research; 
Total costs incurred by the Service: $12,711,700; 
Costs recovered by First-Class postage rate: $11,534,734; 
Costs recovered from semipostal proceeds: $1,176,966. 

Semipostal: Heroes of 2001; 
Total costs incurred by the Service: 4,340,406; 
Costs recovered by First-Class postage rate: 3,816,799; 
Costs recovered from semipostal proceeds: 523,607. 

Semipostal: Stop Family Violence; 
Total costs incurred by the Service: 1,095,466; 
Costs recovered by First-Class postage rate: 871,736; 
Costs recovered from semipostal proceeds: 223,730. 

Semipostal: Total; 
Total costs incurred by the Service: $18, 147,572; 
Costs recovered by First-Class postage rate: $16,223,269; 
Costs recovered from semipostal proceeds: $1,924,303. 

Source: U.S. Postal Service. 

[End of table] 

The specific costs recovered from surcharge revenue varied by amount 
and type of expenditure for each semipostal (see tables 12 to 14, which 
show costs for each semipostal).[Footnote 20] As we explained in our 
September 2005 report, one of the differences is advertising. The 
Breast Cancer Research and Heroes of 2001 stamp incurred advertising 
costs of about $1 million, but when they were issued, the Service had a 
budget to advertise stamps. Because advertising costs would be incurred 
for comparable stamps, the Service did not recover these costs. When 
the Stop Family Violence stamp was issued, the Service had, among other 
things, eliminated all stamp advertising except for in-store messaging, 
as previously discussed. Subsequently, the Service established a policy 
that all costs incurred for advertising semipostals would be recovered 
from the semipostal's surcharge revenue. Therefore, the advertising 
costs incurred for this stamp were deducted from the surcharge revenue. 

Table 12: Breast Cancer Research Stamp Costs Incurred and Recovered by 
the Service from Inception through June 30, 2007: 

Cost item: Stamp design (including market research); 
Cost: $40,000; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $40,000; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0. 

Cost item: Stamp production and printing; 
Cost: 5,673,108; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 5,673,108; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0. 

Cost item: Shipping and distribution[A]; 
Cost: 18,930; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 18,930; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0. 

Cost item: Training; 
Cost: 612,000; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 612,000; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0. 

Cost item: Selling stamps (including employee salaries and 
benefits)[B]; 
Cost: 0; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0. 

Cost item: Withdrawing stamp from sale; 
Cost: 166,440; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 166,440. 

Cost item: Destroying unsold stamps; 
Cost: 0; 
Cost covered by First- Class postage rate: 0; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0. 

Cost item: Advertising; 
Cost: 888,000; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 888,000; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0. 

Cost item: Packaging stamps; 
Cost: 3,510,496; 
Cost covered by First- Class postage rate: 3,219,696; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 290,800. 

Cost item: Printing flyers and special receipts[C]; 
Cost: 238,000; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 238,000. 

Cost item: Equipment changes; 
Cost: 359,000; 
Cost covered by First- Class postage rate: 176,000; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 183,000. 

Cost item: Developing and executing marketing and promotional plans 
(NYC kick-off event); 
Cost: 1,006,000; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 851,000; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 155,000. 

Cost item: Other costs; 
Cost: 0; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0. 

Cost item: Other costs: Legal; 
Cost: 22,000; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 22,000. 

Cost item: Other costs: Market research; 
Cost: 56,000; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 56,000; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0. 

Cost item: Other costs: Consulting; 
Cost: 8,000; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 8,000. 

Cost item: Other costs: Field promotion events > $3,000; 
Cost: 113,726; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 113,726. 

Total; 
Cost: $12,711,700; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $11,534,734; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $1,176,966. 

Source: U.S. Postal Service. 

[A] The process of distributing the Breast Cancer Research stamps would 
not normally differ from those incurred for comparable stamps. 
Therefore, after reviewing the costs associated with shipping and 
distribution of the Breast Cancer Research stamp, there are no material 
differences or specific additional expenses as a result of providing 
the Breast Cancer Research stamp to postal units, and, therefore, the 
Postal Service does not withhold distribution costs from the surcharge 
revenue. The Postal Service does not track shipping and distribution 
costs by stamp issue. 

[B] The Postal Service does not have a system in place to track these 
costs, and, because the Breast Cancer Research stamps are a small 
percentage of total stamp sales, it would be extraordinarily difficult 
and costly to attempt to study, analyze and measure these costs in a 
live environment. Moreover, existing data indicate that there is no 
material difference in the costs for selling semipostal and other 
stamps at the retail window. 

[C] Receipts used initially were a different format than the standard 
postal receipt, and the cost was recovered. Receipts now used are a 
standard form available for general use. The printing cost is no longer 
specific to the Breast Cancer Research stamp, and costs are not 
recovered. 

[End of table] 

Table 13: Heroes of 2001 Semipostal Costs Incurred and Recovered by the 
Service from Inception through Final Disbursement on May 2, 2005: 

Cost item: Stamp design (including market research); 
Cost: $44,250; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $44,250; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0. 

Cost item: Stamp production and printing; 
Cost: 1,565,435; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 1,565,435; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0. 

Cost item: Shipping and distribution[A]; 
Cost: 0; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0. 

Cost item: Training; 
Cost: 0; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0. 

Cost item: Selling stamps (including employee salaries and 
benefits)[B]; 
Cost: 0; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0. 

Cost item: Withdrawing stamp from sale[C]; 
Cost: 0; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0. 

Cost item: Destroying unsold stamps[D]; 
Cost: 0; 
Cost covered by First- Class postage rate: 0; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0. 

Cost item: Advertising; 
Cost: 1,258,249; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 1,074,211; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 184,038. 

Cost item: Packaging stamps; 
Cost: 1,288,758; 
Cost covered by First- Class postage rate: 995,857; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 292,901. 

Cost item: Printing flyers and special receipts; 
Cost: 0; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0. 

Cost item: Equipment changes; 
Cost: 0; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0. 

Cost item: Developing and executing marketing and promotional plans 
(NYC kick-off event); 
Cost: 137,046; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 137,046; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0. 

Cost item: Other costs; 
Cost: 0; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0. 

Cost item: Other costs: Legal; 
Cost: 0; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0. 

Cost item: Other costs: Market research; 
Cost: 0; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0. 

Cost item: Other costs: Consulting; 
Cost: 0; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0. 

Cost item: Other costs: Field promotion events > $3,000; 
Cost: 46,668; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 46,668. 

Total; 
Cost: $4,340,406; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $3,816,799; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $523,607. 

Source: U.S. Postal Service. 

[A] The process of distributing the Heroes stamps would not normally 
differ from those incurred for comparable stamps. Therefore, after 
reviewing the costs associated with shipping and distribution of the 
Heroes stamp, there are no material differences or specific additional 
expenses as a result of providing the Heroes stamp to postal units and, 
therefore the Postal Service does not withhold distribution costs from 
the surcharge revenue. The Postal Service does not track shipping and 
distribution costs by stamp issue. 

[B] The Postal Service does not have a system in place to track these 
costs, and, because the Heroes stamps are a small percentage of total 
stamp sales, it would be extraordinarily difficult and costly to 
attempt to study, analyze and measure these costs in a live 
environment. Moreover, existing data indicate that there is no material 
difference in the costs for selling semipostal and other stamps at the 
retail window. 

[C] Cost of tracking exceeds the cost of withdrawing stamps from sale. 

[D] Destruction costs are not independently tracked. 

[End of table] 

Table 14: Stop Family Violence Semipostal Costs Incurred and Recovered 
by the Service from Inception through Final Disbursement on May 1, 
2007: 

Cost item: Stamp design (including market research); 
Cost: $39,750; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $39,750; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0. 

Cost item: Stamp production and printing; 
Cost: 353,633; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 353,633; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0. 

Cost item: Shipping and distribution[A]; 
Cost: 0; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0. 

Cost item: Training; 
Cost: 0; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0. 

Cost item: Selling stamps (including employee salaries and 
benefits)[B]; 
Cost: 0; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0. 

Cost item: Withdrawing stamp from sale[C]; 
Cost: 0; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0. 

Cost item: Destroying unsold stamps[D]; 
Cost: 0; 
Cost covered by First- Class postage rate: 0; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0. 

Cost item: Advertising; 
Cost: 78,307; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 1,342; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 76,965. 

Cost item: Packaging stamps; 
Cost: 617,011; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 477,011; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 140,000. 

Cost item: Printing flyers and special receipts; 
Cost: 0; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0. 

Cost item: Equipment changes; 
Cost: 0; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0. 

Cost item: Developing and executing marketing and promotional plans 
(Colorado kick-off event and White House ceremony); 
Cost: 0; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0. 

Cost item: Other costs (specify); 
Cost: 0; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0. 

Cost item: Other costs (specify): Legal; 
Cost: 0; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0. 

Cost item: Other costs (specify): Market research; 
Cost: 0; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0. 

Cost item: Other costs (specify): Consulting; 
Cost: 0; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0. 

Cost item: Other costs (specify): Field promotion events > $3,000; 
Cost: 6,765; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 6,765. 

Total; 
Cost: $1,095,466; 
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $871,736; 
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $223,730. 

Source: U.S. Postal Service. 

[A] The process of distributing the Stop Family Violence stamps would 
not normally differ from those incurred for comparable stamps. 
Therefore, after reviewing the costs associated with shipping and 
distribution of the Stop Family Violence stamp, there are no material 
differences or specific additional expenses as a result of providing 
the Stop Family Violence stamp to postal units, and, therefore, the 
Postal Service does not withhold distribution costs from the surcharge 
revenue. The Postal Service does not track shipping and distribution 
costs by stamp issue. 

[B] The Postal Service does not have a system in place to track these 
costs, and, because the Stop Family Violence stamps are a small 
percentage of total stamp sales, it would be extraordinarily difficult 
and costly to attempt to study, analyze and measure these costs in a 
live environment. Moreover, existing data indicate that there is no 
material difference in the costs for selling semipostal and other 
stamps at the retail window. 

[C] Cost of tracking exceeds the cost of withdrawing stamps from sale. 

[D] Destruction costs are not independently tracked. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: NIH Breast Cancer Research Awards Funded with Breast 
Cancer Research Stamp Proceeds: 

In November 1998, NIH began receiving Breast Cancer Research stamp 
proceeds from the Postal Service. Since then, NIH has distributed the 
proceeds--totaling nearly $31 million--through four different 
mechanisms. Initially, proceeds from the stamp were used to award 87 
grants under the Insight Awards to Stamp out Breast Cancer initiative. 
Since 2003, NIH used the proceeds to award 31 grants under the 
Exceptional Opportunities in Breast Cancer Research initiative. In 
recent years, the agency has used its share of the proceeds to fund the 
Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment (TAILORx) and the 
Breast Pre-Malignancy Program. Grants awarded under each program are 
listed below. 

Insight Awards: 

The Insight Awards were designed to fund high-risk exploration by 
scientists who are employed outside the federal government and who 
conduct breast cancer research at their institutions. Since fiscal year 
2000, NCI distributed 87 Insight Awards totaling about $9.4 million. 
Most of the awards were for 2-year periods. Table 15 provides 
information about each Insight Award funded with Breast Cancer Research 
stamp proceeds, including the fiscal year of the award, sponsoring 
institution, principal investigator, research area, and the amount of 
the award. 

Table 15: Insight Awards to Stamp Out Breast Cancer Funded with 
Proceeds from Breast Cancer Research Stamp Sales: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: NIH. 

[End of table] 

Exceptional Opportunities in Breast Cancer Research: 

The Exceptional Opportunities in Breast Cancer Research were designed 
to advance breast cancer research by funding high-quality, peer- 
reviewed, breast cancer grant applications that are outside the current 
funding ability of NCI. In total, NCI awarded 31 Exceptional 
Opportunities Awards totaling nearly $10.8 million. Each grant is for a 
maximum of four years. Table 16 provides information about each 
Exceptional Opportunities award, including the fiscal year of the 
award, sponsoring institution, principal investigator, research area, 
and amount of the award. 

Table 16: Exceptional Opportunities in Breast Cancer Research Funded 
with Proceeds from the Breast Cancer Research Stamp: 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Institution: Columbia University Health Sciences; 
Principal investigator: Harlap; 
Research area: Prevention; 
Amount: $616,010. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Institution: Johns Hopkins University; 
Principal investigator: Ouwerkerk; 
Research area: Diagnosis; 
Amount: 154,852. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Institution: Northwestern University; 
Principal investigator: Huang; 
Research area: Diagnosis/Biology; 
Amount: 389,482. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Institution: St Vincent's Institute of Medical Research; 
Principal investigator: Price; 
Research area: Biology/ treatment; 
Amount: 108,000. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Institution: University of California, Irvine; 
Principal investigator: Neuhausen; 
Research area: Biology/prevention; 
Amount: 545,271. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Institution: University of Pennsylvania; 
Principal investigator: Lee; 
Research area: Treatment/biology; 
Amount: 198,759. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Institution: University of Pittsburgh; 
Principal investigator: Wiener; 
Research area: Diagnosis; 
Amount: 405,009. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Institution: University of Texas Medical Branch Galveston; 
Principal investigator: Lu; 
Research area: Prevention/ biology; 
Amount: 532,409. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Institution: University of Toronto; 
Principal investigator: Vogel; 
Research area: Biology/treatment; 
Amount: 81,000. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Institution: University of Wisconsin, Madison; 
Principal investigator: Schuler; 
Research area: Biology/treatment; 
Amount: 268,791. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Institution: Columbia University Health Sciences; 
Principal investigator: Harlap; 
Research area: Prevention; 
Amount: 604,299. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Institution: Johns Hopkins University; 
Principal investigator: Ouwerkerk; 
Research area: Diagnosis; 
Amount: 157,176. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Institution: Northwestern University; 
Principal investigator: Huang; 
Research area: Diagnosis/biology; 
Amount: 389,522. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Institution: St Vincent's Institute of Medical Research; 
Principal investigator: Price; 
Research area: Biology/ treatment; 
Amount: 108,000. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Institution: University of California, Irvine; 
Principal investigator: Neuhausen; 
Research area: Biology/prevention; 
Amount: 545,576. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Institution: University of Pennsylvania; 
Principal investigator: Lee; 
Research area: Treatment/biology; 
Amount: 198,759. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Institution: University of Pittsburgh; 
Principal investigator: Wiener; 
Research area: Diagnosis; 
Amount: 410,688. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Institution: University of Texas Medical Branch Galveston; 
Principal investigator: Lu; 
Research area: Prevention/ biology; 
Amount: 566,037. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Institution: University of Toronto; 
Principal investigator: Vogel; 
Research area: Biology/treatment; 
Amount: 81,000. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Institution: University of Wisconsin, Madison; 
Principal investigator: Schuler; 
Research area: Biology/treatment; 
Amount: 254,625. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Institution: Columbia University Health Sciences; 
Principal investigator: Harlap; 
Research area: Prevention; 
Amount: 600,585. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Institution: Northwestern University; 
Principal investigator: Huang; 
Research area: Diagnosis/biology; 
Amount: 401,655. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Institution: University of California, Irvine; 
Principal investigator: Neuhausen; 
Research area: Biology/prevention; 
Amount: 561,474. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Institution: University of Pennsylvania; 
Principal investigator: Lee; 
Research area: Treatment/biology; 
Amount: 198,759. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Institution: University of Pittsburgh; 
Principal investigator: Wiener; 
Research area: Diagnosis; 
Amount: 423,007. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Institution: University of Texas Medical Branch Galveston; 
Principal investigator: Lu; 
Research area: Prevention/ Biology; 
Amount: 550,147. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Institution: University of Wisconsin, Madison; 
Principal investigator: Schuler; 
Research area: Biology/Treatment; 
Amount: 254,625. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Institution: University of California; 
Principal investigator: Neuhausen; 
Research area: Biology/Prevention; 
Amount: 561,838. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Institution: University of Pennsylvania; 
Principal investigator: Lee; 
Research area: Treatment/Biology; 
Amount: 194,088. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Institution: University of Pittsburgh; 
Principal investigator: Wiener; 
Research area: Diagnosis; 
Amount: 404,520. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Institution: University of Texas Medical Branch Galveston; 
Principal investigator: Lu; 
Research area: Prevention/ Biology; 
Amount: $24,291. 

Total; 
Institution: [Empty]; 
Principal investigator: [Empty]; 
Research area: [Empty]; 
Amount: $10,790,254. 

Source: NIH. 

[End of table] 

TAILORx: 

In 2006, NIH began funding the Trial Assigning Individualized Options 
for Treatment (TAILORx) with proceeds from the Breast Cancer Research 
stamp. The trial is designed to determine which patients with early 
stage breast cancer would be more likely to benefit from chemotherapy 
and, therefore, reduce the use of chemotherapy in those patients who 
are unlikely to benefit. TAILORx seeks to incorporate a molecular 
profiling test (a technique that examines many genes simultaneously) 
into clinical decision making and, thus, spare women unnecessary 
treatment if chemotherapy is not likely to be of substantial benefit to 
them. The goal of TAILORx is to determine the most effective current 
approach to cancer treatment, with the fewest side effects, for women 
with early-stage breast cancer by using a validated diagnostic test 
developed by Genomic Health, Inc. in collaboration with the National 
Surgical Breast and Bowel Project, a network of cancer research 
professionals. The test is provided free to all patients that meet the 
eligibility requirements for the study. 

In fiscal year 2006, NIH awarded $4,500,000 to Genomic Health, Inc. to 
offset the costs of testing. As of the middle of May, 2007 there were 
1,459 patients who were preregistered and had their tumors tested. The 
number of patients to be tested during the trial is unknown, but NIH 
anticipates that it will range from approximately 6,000 to 10,000, 
depending on the preliminary results of the trial. 

NCI Breast Pre-Malignancy Program: 

The NCI Breast Pre-Malignancy Program represents a comprehensive 
program in breast cancer pre-malignancy research that includes the 
areas of prevention, etiology, biology, diagnosis, and molecular 
epidemiology. In fiscal year 2006, NCI awarded 6 grants under the 
program for a total of $853,000 and funded research projects at NCI 
totaling $371,000. The Breast Pre-Malignancy Program began in the fall 
of 2005 when NCI leadership recommended that stamp funds be used to 
address multiple aspects of breast cancer around a unifying theme-- 
breast pre-malignancy. In addition, they recommended that the program 
be supported via NCI-wide programs, which support federal researchers 
located on the NIH campuses in Bethesda and Frederick, Maryland, and 
extramural research programs, which support research underway in 
universities, medical schools, hospitals, and research institutions 
across the country. This provided an opportunity to create a 
collaborative and integrated scientific program across NCI divisions 
and centers and to synergistically reach new discoveries and 
interventions. The NCI Breast Pre-Malignancy Program consists of six 
research components supporting research on pre-malignant lesions, 
cancer prevention techniques, and methods for detecting breast cancer 
or pre-cancers earlier. The program involves work on breast cancer stem 
cells, pathways, the microenvironment, molecular target identification 
(biomarkers), imaging, drug recovery, and prevention and translational 
research. Table 17 provides information about each Breast Pre- 
Malignancy award, including the fiscal year of the award, sponsoring 
institution, principal investigator, and amount of the award. 

Table 17: Breast Pre-Malignancy Awards: 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Institution: Baylor College of Medicine; 
Principal investigator: Osborne; 
Amount: $249,838. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Institution: Dartmouth College; 
Principal investigator: Carney; 
Amount: 101,546. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Institution: Group Health Cooperative; 
Principal investigator: Buist; 
Amount: 114,226. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Institution: Group Health Cooperative; 
Principal investigator: Miglioretti; 
Amount: 217,296. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Institution: NCI-Wide Program; 
Principal investigator: (blank); 
Amount: 371,398. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Institution: North Carolina University; 
Principal investigator: Yankaskas; 
Amount: 90,514. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Institution: NSABP Foundation Inc; 
Principal investigator: Wolmark; 
Amount: 80,000. 

Fiscal year: Total; 
Institution: [Empty]; 
Principal investigator: [Empty]; 
Amount: $1,224,818. 

Source: NIH. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: DOD Breast Cancer Research Awards Funded with Breast 
Cancer Research Stamp Proceeds: 

As of September 2007, DOD has awarded 39 breast cancer research grants 
totaling about $15.8 million using proceeds from the Breast Cancer 
Research stamp. From 1999 to 2006, DOD applied Breast Cancer Research 
stamp proceeds to its Idea Awards, which are funded under the Breast 
Cancer Research Program. These grants focus on innovative approaches to 
breast cancer research and cover research areas, such as genetics, 
biology, imaging, epidemiology, immunology, and therapy. In 2007, DOD 
started using Breast Cancer Research stamp proceeds to fund the 
Synergistic Idea Awards. These awards support innovative, high-risk, 
high-rewards breast cancer research collaborations between two 
independent researchers. Grant proposals must demonstrate the 
synergistic aspects of the collaboration. According to DOD officials, 
about $608,000 of the transferred funds had been used for overhead 
costs related to managing the grants. Table 18 provides information 
about each Idea Award funded with Breast Cancer Research stamps 
proceeds, including the fiscal year of the award, sponsoring 
institution, principal investigator, research area, and the amount of 
the award. 

Table 18: Idea Awards for Breast Cancer Research Funded with Breast 
Cancer Research Stamp Proceeds: 

Fiscal year: 1999; 
Institution: Garvan Institute; 
Principal investigator: Daly; 
Research area: cell biology; 
Amount: $283,649. 

Fiscal year: 1999; 
Institution: Scripps Institute[A]; 
Principal investigator: Deuel; 
Research area: molecular biology; 
Amount: 5,000. 

Fiscal year: 1999; 
Institution: University of California, Davis; 
Principal investigator: Heyer; 
Research area: molecular biology; 
Amount: 111,444. 

Fiscal year: 1999; 
Institution: Garvan Institute; 
Principal investigator: Musgrove; 
Research area: cell biology; 
Amount: 222,652. 

Fiscal year: 1999; 
Institution: University of Arkansas; 
Principal investigator: Shah; 
Research area: cell biology; 
Amount: 279,000. 

Fiscal year: 1999; 
Institution: Texas A&M University; 
Principal investigator: Wang; 
Research area: Imaging; 
Amount: 317,510. 

Fiscal year: 1999; 
Institution: University of Texas, Southwest Medical Center; 
Principal investigator: White; 
Research area: molecular biology; 
Amount: 334,094. 

Fiscal year: 1999; 
Institution: Tel Aviv University; 
Principal investigator: Wreschner; 
Research area: cell biology; 
Amount: 225,000. 

Fiscal year: 2000; 
Institution: Burnham Institute; 
Principal investigator: Adamson; 
Research area: cell biology; 
Amount: 578,183. 

Fiscal year: 2000; 
Institution: University of Arizona; 
Principal investigator: Akporiaye; 
Research area: Immunology; 
Amount: 454,500. 

Fiscal year: 2000; 
Institution: University of Toronto; 
Principal investigator: Penn; 
Research area: molecular biology; 
Amount: $296,142. 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
Institution: Vanderbilt University; 
Principal investigator: Cai; 
Research area: epidemiology/genetics; 
Amount: 560,144. 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
Institution: University of California, Davis; 
Principal investigator: Carraway; 
Research area: cell biology; 
Amount: 427,225. 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
Institution: University of Texas, Southwest Medical Center; 
Principal investigator: Chaudhary; 
Research area: cell biology; 
Amount: 312,434. 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
Institution: Purdue University; 
Principal investigator: Geahlen; 
Research area: cell biology; 
Amount: 425,425. 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
Institution: St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center; 
Principal investigator: Rosner; 
Research area: cell biology; 
Amount: 454,181. 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Institution: University of South Florida; 
Principal investigator: Dou; 
Research area: therapy; 
Amount: 491,999. 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Institution: Fox Chase Cancer Center; 
Principal investigator: Godwin; 
Research area: genetics; 
Amount: 504,000. 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Institution: Yale University; 
Principal investigator: Perkins; 
Research area: genetics; 
Amount: 490,500. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Institution: Yale University; 
Principal investigator: Chung; 
Research area: diagnostics; 
Amount: 490,447. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Institution: International Agency for Cancer Research; 
Principal investigator: Kaaks; 
Research area: epidemiology/ genetics; 
Amount: 367,639. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Institution: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; 
Principal investigator: Yaswen; 
Research area: molecular biology; 
Amount: 508,790. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Institution: University of California, San Francisco; 
Principal investigator: Ziv; 
Research area: epidemiology/ genetics; 
Amount: 767,171. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Institution: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; 
Principal investigator: Bissell; 
Research area: cell biology; 
Amount: 386,569. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Institution: Northern California Cancer Center; 
Principal investigator: Clarke; 
Research area: epidemiology/genetics; 
Amount: 588,738. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Institution: Vanderbilt University; 
Principal investigator: Giorgio; 
Research area: diagnosis; 
Amount: 453,000. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Institution: University of Pennsylvania; 
Principal investigator: Lemmon; 
Research area: therapy; 
Amount: 475,500. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Institution: University of Alabama at Birmingham; 
Principal investigator: Chaudhuri; 
Research area: cell biology; 
Amount: 436,500. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Institution: Cornell University, Weill Medical College; 
Principal investigator: Huang; 
Research area: pharmacology; 
Amount: 483,600. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Institution: Ohio State University; 
Principal investigator: Liu; 
Research area: genetics; 
Amount: 448,500. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Institution: Stanford University; 
Principal investigator: Rao; 
Research area: genetics; 
Amount: 468,000. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Institution: Duke University Medical Center; 
Principal investigator: Devi; 
Research area: immunotherapy; 
Amount: 155,085. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Institution: University of Southern California; 
Principal investigator: Lee; 
Research area: hormone regulation; 
Amount: 489,000. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Institution: Baylor College of Medicine; 
Principal investigator: Li; 
Research area: hormone receptors; 
Amount: 438,455. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Institution: Albany College of Pharmacy; 
Principal investigator: Mousa; 
Research area: chemotherapy; 
Amount: 377,620. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Institution: University of Virginia; 
Principal investigator: Rastinejad; 
Research area: hormone receptors; 
Amount: 454,500. 

Total; 
Institution: [Empty]; 
Principal investigator: [Empty]; 
Research area: [Empty]; 
Amount: $14,562,196. 

Source: U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, DOD. 

[A] This award was only partially funded by Breast Cancer Research 
stamp proceeds. Total funding for this award was $404,176. The majority 
of the funding came from DOD's Breast Cancer Research Program. 

[End of table] 

Table 19 provides information about the Synergistic Idea Awards funded 
with proceeds from the stamp, including the fiscal year of the award, 
sponsoring institution, principal investigator, research area, and the 
amount of the award. 

Table 19: Synergistic Idea Awards for Breast Cancer Research Funded 
with Breast Cancer Research Stamp Proceeds: 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Institution: Tufts University; 
Principal investigator: Kuperwasser; 
Research area: Metabolism; 
Amount: $817,500. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Institution: Massachusetts General Hospital; 
Principal investigator: Kelly; 
Research area: Genetics/imaging; 
Amount: 244,450[A]. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Institution: Brown University; 
Principal investigator: Gerbi; 
Research area: Genetics; 
Amount: 155,550[B]. 

Total; 
Institution: [Empty]; 
Principal investigator: [Empty]; 
Research area: [Empty]; 
Amount: $1,217,500. 

Source: U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, DOD. 

[A] This award was partially funded using Breast Cancer Research stamp 
proceeds. The total award amount is $687,397. The remaining amount was 
funded from DOD's fiscal year 2006 Breast Cancer Research Program 
funds. 

[B] This award was partially funded using Breast Cancer Research stamp 
proceeds. The total award amount is $787,325. The remaining amount was 
funded from DOD's fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007 Breast Cancer 
Research Program funds. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: ACF Awards Funded with Stop Family Violence Stamp Proceeds: 

As of June 2007, ACF awarded approximately $2.3 million of the proceeds 
from the Stop Family Violence stamp under the Demonstration of Enhanced 
Services to Children and Youth Who Have Been Exposed to Domestic 
Violence grants program. These grants support efforts to identify, 
design, and test approaches for providing enhanced and direct service 
for the children of abused parents being served in prevention programs 
or to develop an expanded capacity to work within community 
collaborations and systems responding to children exposed to domestic 
violence. In fiscal years 2005 and 2006, ACF awarded nine grantees 
approximately $130,000 each year. In fiscal year 2007, the final year 
of the program, ACF awarded about $96,000 to each grantee, to expend 
the balance of the Stop Family Violence stamp proceeds. Table 20 
contains information about each grant funded with Stop Family Violence 
stamp proceeds, including the name of the grantee, the location of the 
organization, and total amount awarded. 

Table 20: ACF Grants Funded with Stop Family Violence Stamp Proceeds: 

Grantee: Department of Human Services; 
Location: Lansing, MI; 
Amount: $353,948. 

Grantee: District of Columbia Department of Human Services; 
Location: Washington, D.C; 
Amount: 355,648. 

Grantee: East Bay Community Foundation; 
Location: Oakland, CA; 
Amount: 355,170. 

Grantee: New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence; 
Location: Albany, NY; 
Amount: 355,648. 

Grantee: Oklahoma Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual 
Assault; 
Location: Oklahoma City, OK; 
Amount: 355,648. 

Grantee: Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence; 
Location: Harrisburg, PA; 
Amount: 355,648. 

Grantee: Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance; 
Location: Richmond, VA; 
Amount: 353,760. 

Grantee: Womenspace, Inc; 
Location: Eugene, OR; 
Amount: 355,648. 

Grantee: Women's Crisis and Family Outreach Center; 
Location: Castle Rock, CO; 
Amount: 355,648. 

Total; 
Location: [Empty]; 
Amount: $3,196,766. 

Source: Administration for Children and Families, HHS. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] The $1.4 billion comprises funding from the National Institutes of 
Health (and that agency's National Cancer Institute) and the Department 
of Defense for breast cancer research only. 

[2] Prior to transferring the proceeds to agencies, the Service is to 
deduct its costs attributable to the semipostals that would not 
normally be incurred for comparable stamps. 

[3] The Stamp Out Breast Cancer Act (Pub.L. No. 105-41), August 13, 
1997, required that the Service issue a Breast Cancer Research stamp. 
The 9/11 Heroes Stamp Act of 2001 and the Stamp Out Domestic Violence 
Act of 2001 mandated that the Service issue semipostals for these 
causes. Both the Heroes of 2001 and Stop Family Violence stamps were 
authorized as part of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2002 (Pub.L. No. 107-67). 

[4] GAO, U.S. Postal Service: Factors Affecting Fund-Raising Stamp 
Sales Suggest Lessons Learned, GAO-05-953 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 
2005). GAO issued reports on the Breast Cancer Research stamp in 2000 
and 2003, in response to reporting requirements in Pub. L. No. 105-41 
and Pub. L. No. 106-253. GAO, Breast Cancer Research Stamp: Millions 
Raised for Research, but Better Cost Recovery Criteria Needed, GAO/ GGD-
00-80 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 28, 2000) and Breast Cancer Research 
Stamp: Effective Fund-Raiser, but Better Reporting and Cost-Recovery 
Criteria Needed, GAO-03-1021 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2003). 

[5] GAO-05-953. 

[6] Both acts were included as part of the Treasury and General 
Government Appropriations Act, 2002 (Pub.L. No. 107-67). 

[7] GAO-05-953. 

[8] The nine Governors, who are appointed by the President and 
confirmed by the Senate, are chosen to represent the public interest 
generally, and shall not be representatives of specific interests using 
the Postal Service. The Governors plus the Postmaster General and 
Deputy Postmaster General serve as members of the Board of Governors, 
which directs the operations of the Service. 

[9] The First-Class postage rate was increased to 41 cents, rather than 
42 cents, in May 2007. 

[10] 39 U.S.C 414. 

[11] Pub. L. No. 109-435. 

[12] GAO-05-953. 

[13] In-store messaging includes point of purchase placards and posters 
that include the semipostal's image along with commemorative stamp 
images. 

[14] About $1,000 of the amount spent for advertising was covered by 
the First-Class postage rate. 

[15] Emergency relief personnel suffering only emotional injuries were 
excluded in the definition of eligible claimants. 

[16] In order to totally deplete the proceeds from the sale of the 
stamp, 1,357 recipients received $7,672.53 and 20 recipients received 
$7,672.52. 

[17] FEMA asked the United States Fire Administration (USFA) to manage 
the program using USFA staff for day to day management of the program. 
Both FEMA and USFA also provided staff to serve on the Review Panel 
which made eligibility determinations on the applications, but 
personnel services for the review panel were provided on an in-kind 
basis. 

[18] 39 C.F.R. 551. 

[19] USPS, United States Postal Service: Response to the General 
Accounting Office Recommendations on the Breast Cancer Research Stamp 
(June 25, 2004). 

[20] The surcharge revenue is the amount paid above the First-Class 
postage rate by a semipostal customer. 

GAO's Mission: 

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. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail 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, DC 20548: 

To order by Phone: 
Voice: (202) 512-6000: 
TDD: (202) 512-2537: 
Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: [email protected]: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Manager, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

*** End of document. ***