Legal Services Corporation: Improvements Needed in Governance,
Accountability, and Grants Management and Oversight (22-MAY-08,
GAO-08-833T).
This testimony discuss GAO's recent reviews of Legal Services
Corporation's (LSC) governance, accountability and grants
management practices. LSC's mission is to make federal funding
available to provide legal assistance in civil matters to
low-income people throughout the United States on everyday legal
problems. LSC pursues this mission by providing financial
assistance, mostly through grants to legal service providers
(grant recipients or grantees) who serve low-income members of
the community who would otherwise not be able to afford legal
assistance (clients). Established by a federal charter in 1974 as
a federally funded, private nonprofit corporation, LSC is highly
dependent on federal appropriations for its operations. LSC
received $348.6 million in appropriations for fiscal year 2007,
which made up about 99 percent of its total funding. In 2007, LSC
served clients through 137 grantees with more than 900 offices
serving all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and current and
former U.S. territories. LSC uses the majority of its funding to
provide grants to local legal-service providers. Funds are
distributed based on the number of low-income persons living
within a service area, with some grantees maintaining several
offices within their service area. LSC management is responsible
for ensuring that grant funds are used for their intended
purposes and in accordance with laws and regulations. Thus, LSC
is accountable for the effectiveness of its own internal controls
and for providing oversight and monitoring of grantees' internal
controls, use of grant funds, and compliance with laws and
regulations. LSC's Board of Directors is responsible for carrying
out fiduciary responsibilities in overseeing LSC management's
operations and use of appropriated funds. In recent years,
governance and accountability processes have received increased
scrutiny and emphasis in the nonprofit, federal agency, and
public company sectors as a result of governance and
accountability breakdowns. Public companies now operate under
strengthened governance and accountability standards, including
requirements for ethics policies and improved internal controls.
The federal government and nonprofit sectors have followed this
lead and established new standards and requirements for improved
internal control reporting and governance and accountability. For
nonprofit corporations using funding from taxpayers and donors,
effective governance, accountability, and internal control are
key to maintaining trust and credibility. Governance and
accountability breakdowns result in a lack of trust from donors,
grantors, and appropriators, which could ultimately put funding
and the organization's credibility at risk. The current period of
economic hardship for many workers and their families' highlights
the importance of LSC's mission and the efficient and effective
use of taxpayers' dollars to achieve that mission. This testimony
highlights our key findings on LSC's governance and
accountability practices, as well as the internal control
improvements needed in LSC's grants management and oversight to
increase assurance that federal funds are being properly spent
and its operations are effectively carried out to meet its
mission of providing legal assistance to low-income people.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-08-833T
ACCNO: A82179
TITLE: Legal Services Corporation: Improvements Needed in
Governance, Accountability, and Grants Management and Oversight
DATE: 05/22/2008
SUBJECT: Accountability
Accounting procedures
Federal aid programs
Federal funds
Financial management
Financial statement audits
Financial statements
Fraud
Fund audits
Funds management
Grant administration
Grant monitoring
Grants
Grants-in-aid
Independent agencies
Internal controls
Legal aid
Program evaluation
Program management
Reporting requirements
Standards
Agency missions
******************************************************************
** 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-08-833T
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-833T
entitled 'Legal Services Corporation: Improvements Needed in
Governance, Accountability, and Grants Management and Oversight' which
was released on May 23, 2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to [email protected].
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.
Testimony:
Before the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT:
Thursday, May 22, 2008:
Legal Services Corporation:
Improvements Needed in Governance, Accountability, and Grants
Management and Oversight:
Statement of Jeanette Franzel, Director:
Financial Management and Assurance:
GAO-08-833T:
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss our recent reviews[Footnote 1]
of Legal Services Corporation's (LSC) governance, accountability and
grants management practices. LSC's mission is to make federal funding
available to provide legal assistance in civil matters to low-income
people throughout the United States on everyday legal problems. LSC
pursues this mission by providing financial assistance, mostly through
grants to legal service providers (grant recipients or grantees) who
serve low-income members of the community who would otherwise not be
able to afford legal assistance (clients). Established by a federal
charter in 1974 as a federally funded, private nonprofit corporation,
[Footnote 2] LSC is highly dependent on federal appropriations for its
operations. LSC received $348.6 million in appropriations for fiscal
year 2007, which made up about 99 percent of its total funding. In
2007, LSC served clients through 137 grantees with more than 900
offices serving all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and current
and former U.S. territories.
LSC uses the majority of its funding to provide grants to local legal-
service providers. Funds are distributed based on the number of low-
income persons living within a service area,[Footnote 3] with some
grantees maintaining several offices within their service area. LSC
management is responsible for ensuring that grant funds are used for
their intended purposes and in accordance with laws and regulations.
Thus, LSC is accountable for the effectiveness of its own internal
controls and for providing oversight and monitoring of grantees'
internal controls, use of grant funds, and compliance with laws and
regulations. LSC's Board of Directors is responsible for carrying out
fiduciary responsibilities in overseeing LSC management's operations
and use of appropriated funds.
In recent years, governance and accountability processes have received
increased scrutiny and emphasis in the nonprofit, federal agency, and
public company sectors as a result of governance and accountability
breakdowns, most notably in the public company financial scandals that
led to the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Public
companies now operate under strengthened governance and accountability
standards, including requirements for ethics policies and improved
internal controls. The federal government and nonprofit sectors have
followed this lead and established new standards and requirements for
improved internal control reporting and governance and accountability.
For nonprofit corporations using funding from taxpayers and donors,
effective governance, accountability, and internal control are key to
maintaining trust and credibility. Governance and accountability
breakdowns result in a lack of trust from donors, grantors, and
appropriators, which could ultimately put funding and the
organization's credibility at risk.
The current period of economic hardship for many workers and their
families' highlights the importance of LSC's mission and the efficient
and effective use of taxpayers' dollars to achieve that mission. Today
I will highlight our key findings on LSC's governance and
accountability practices, as well as the internal control improvements
needed in LSC's grants management and oversight to increase assurance
that federal funds are being properly spent and its operations are
effectively carried out to meet its mission of providing legal
assistance to low-income people.
Our conclusions are based on work performed for our August 2007 report
on LSC's governance and accountability practices[Footnote 4] as well as
our December 2007 report on LSC's grants management and
oversight.[Footnote 5] We conducted that work in accordance with
Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards. More detailed
information on our audit scope and methodologies can be found in these
two reports.
Summary:
Although LSC has stronger federal accountability requirements than many
nonprofit corporations, it is subject to governance and accountability
requirements that are weaker than those of independent federal agencies
and U.S. government corporations. Congress issued LSC's federal charter
over 30 years ago. We found that LSC has not kept up with evolving
reforms aimed at strengthening internal control over an organization's
financial reporting process and systems. As noted in our reports, a
properly implemented governance and accountability structure may have
prevented recent incidents of compensation rates in excess of statutory
caps, questionable expenditures, and potential conflicts of interest.
In addition, LSC has not kept up with current management practices. Of
particular importance are key processes in risk assessment, internal
control, and financial reporting. Also at the time or our review
management had not formally assessed the risks to the safeguarding of
its assets and maintaining the effectiveness and efficiency of its
operations, nor had it implemented internal controls or other risk-
mitigation policies.
We also found weaknesses in LSC's internal controls over grants
management and oversight of grantees that negatively affect LSC's
ability to provide assurance that grant funds are being used for their
intended purposes in compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
Effective internal controls over grants and grantee oversight are
critical to LSC as its very mission and operations rely extensively on
grantees to provide legal services to people who otherwise could not
afford to pay for adequate legal counsel. We also found poor fiscal
practices and improper and potentially improper expenditures by
grantees.
As a result of our two reviews, we made a total of 9 recommendations to
LSC's Board of Directors and 8 recommendations to LSC management. Those
recommendations dealt with fundamental management and governance
practices needed in the current environment in light of LSC's mission.
Both LSC's Board and management accepted our recommendations and
expressed a commitment to move diligently to implement the
recommendations. LSC's most recent progress report indicates that LSC
is starting to take action to address many of our recommendations and
is planning to take action on the remaining recommendations with
responsibility for corrective action already assigned. LSC has
indicated that it will provide us with a final update by September 1,
2008 to document completion of its implementation of our
recommendations. We look forward to receiving LSC's final report and
reviewing the progress LSC Board and management have made on these
issues.
LSC's Governance and Accountability Practices Need to be Modernized and
Strengthened:
We found that since its inception over 30 years ago, LSC's governance
and accountability requirements, including its financial reporting and
internal control, had not changed significantly. Further, LSC's board
and management had not kept pace with evolving governance and
accountability practices. As a result, LSC's current practices have
fallen behind those of federal agencies, U.S. government corporations,
and other nonprofit corporations.
For both governmental and nonprofit entities, governance can be
described as the process of providing leadership, direction, and
accountability in fulfilling the organization's mission, meeting
objectives, and providing stewardship of public resources, while
establishing clear lines of responsibility for results. Accountability
represents the processes, mechanisms, and other means--including
financial reporting and internal controls--by which an entity's
management carries out its stewardship and responsibility for resources
and performance. Strengthened governance and accountability structures
within LSC will increase assurance that federal funds are spent
properly and effectively in order to meet the needs of the clients
receiving legal assistance.
Governance and Accountability Requirements:
Because LSC is a unique federal entity, we compared its governance and
accountability requirements to other federal entities. We found that
although LSC has stronger federal accountability requirements than many
nonprofit corporations, its governance and accountability requirements
are weaker than those of independent federal agencies headed by boards
or commissions and those of U.S. government corporations. The LSC Act
provides that LSC be treated like a federal agency for purposes of
specified statutes that existed in the 1970s. LSC's authorizing
legislation was last comprehensively reviewed and reauthorized in the
Legal Services Corporation Amendment Act of 1977, and LSC's governing
statutes have undergone only limited changes since then.
In 1988, Congress created an Office of Inspector General (OIG) within
LSC. Therefore, LSC is subject to IG oversight. However, in other
respects, LSC has not kept up with evolving management reforms aimed at
strengthening internal control over an organization's financial
reporting process and systems. For example:
* LSC's statutory requirements for internal control systems are less
rigorous than those for independent federal agencies or U.S. government
corporations. The LSC Act requires LSC to account for federal funds
separately from nonfederal funds, but otherwise includes no specific
requirements for the establishment of accounting and internal control
systems. Although the LSC Act includes program management requirements,
these are much less rigorous than requirements for systems of internal
control for other federal entities.[Footnote 6]
* LSC is not subject to federal funds control laws that generally apply
to independent federal agencies and many U.S. government corporations.
Like many independent federal agencies and wholly owned government
corporations, most of LSC's annual revenues come from federal funds
made available through annual appropriations; however, LSC is not
required by law to control its use of those funds as are independent
federal agencies and wholly owned U.S. government corporations.
Further, the accountable officers of most federal agencies and some
wholly owned U.S. government corporations are financially liable for
improper or illegal payments. However, this is not the case for LSC.
The LSC Act does contain a number of provisions that restrict the use
of LSC's appropriated funds for certain purposes, such as an activity
that would influence the passage or defeat of any legislation at the
local, state, or federal level or that would support any political
party or campaign of any candidate for public office.
* Although the LSC Act requires LSC to submit a budget request to
Congress, it provides no requirements related to the form and content
of the budget request. For federal agencies and wholly owned U.S.
government corporations, OMB prescribes the form and content of budget
requests, consistent with specified statutory requirements that are
submitted through the President to Congress. Under the LSC Act, LSC
submits that budget request directly to Congress, with OMB's role
limited to submitting comments to Congress if it chooses to review
LSC's budget.
Governance Practices:
During our review, we found that the governance practices of LSC's
board fell short of the modern practices employed by boards of
nonprofit corporations and public companies. Although the board members
have demonstrated active involvement in LSC through their regular board
meeting attendance and participation, we found several areas where
LSC's governance practices could be strengthened. Those areas included
a more comprehensive orientation program for new board members and an
ongoing training program that enables board members to stay current on
governance practices, the regulatory environment, and key management
practices. Keeping current with governance practices is especially
important for the LSC board because the board composition changes
significantly with each new presidential administration, and thus the
board does not generally have the benefit of experienced board members.
Although the LSC board had four committees, including finance and
operations and regulations, it did not have audit, ethics, or
compensation committee, important governance mechanisms commonly used
in corporate governance structures. Finally, the board has not assessed
the performance, collectively or individually, of its board members.
Management Practices:
LSC's management practices have not kept up with the current practices
for key processes in the areas of risk assessment, internal control,
and financial reporting. We found that management has not implemented a
systematic or formal risk assessment that evaluates the risks the
corporation faces from both external and internal sources. Such an
assessment provides a structure for implementing internal control and
other risk mitigation policies. Without an effective program of risk
assessment and internal control, LSC management does not have adequate
assurance that it is using organizational resources effectively and
efficiently, nor reasonable assurances that LSC's assets and operations
are protected. In addition, senior management has not established
comprehensive policies or procedures regarding conflicts of interest or
other issues of ethical conduct. Without such policies and procedures,
LSC is at risk of not identifying potential conflicts of interest and
not taking appropriate actions to avoid potentially improper
transactions or actions on the part of LSC personnel. Such issues, if
they occur, could result in loss of credibility to LSC as an
organization. Also, management has not conducted its own assessment or
analysis of accounting standards to determine the most appropriate
standards for LSC to follow. Consequently, it is not clear which
standards are most relevant to LSC's operations and which would provide
the best financial information to LSC's management and financial
statement users.
Improved Internal Controls Needed Over Grants Management and Oversight:
In our review of grants management and oversight at LSC, we found
weaknesses in LSC's controls over grants management and oversight that
negatively affected LSC's ability to monitor and oversee grants and
left grant funds vulnerable to misuse. At grantees we visited, we also
found poor fiscal practices and improper or potentially improper
expenditures that LSC could have identified with more effective
oversight.
Internal control is an integral component of an organization's
management that provides reasonable assurance that the objectives of
effectiveness and efficiency of operations, reliability of financial
reporting, and compliance with applicable laws and regulations are
being achieved.[Footnote 7] Internal controls also serve as the first
line of defense in safeguarding assets and preventing and detecting
errors and fraud. Organizations that award and receive grants need good
internal control systems to ensure that funds are properly used and
achieve intended results. Effective internal controls over grants and
grantee oversight are critical to LSC as its very mission and
operations rely extensively on grantees to provide legal services to
people who otherwise could not afford to pay for adequate legal
counsel. For LSC and other organizations that award grants, ensuring
effective internal control over grant funds requires a two-prong
approach. LSC management, in addition to being held responsible for its
own internal control system, needs to provide oversight to help ensure
that its grantees' internal control systems provide reasonable
assurance that grant funds are properly used and achieve intended
results.
We found weakness in LSC's control environment regarding the lack of a
clear definition of the authority and responsibilities between two of
the three organizational units that oversee the work of grantees.
Currently, LSC management shares with the OIG fiscal oversight and
monitoring of grantees. Management's oversight role is conducted
through two offices ----the Office of Program Performance (OPP) and the
Office of Compliance and Enforcement (OCE). We found that the roles and
the division of responsibilities were not clearly communicated between
the OIG and OCE. The result has been staff confusion about the types
and scope of grantee fiscal reviews that LSC management can undertake
on its initiative and strained relations between management and the
OIG. In addition, communication and coordination between OCE and OPP
was not sufficient to prevent gaps and unnecessary duplication between
the offices' respective oversight activities.
Regarding its oversight of grantees, we found that the scope of LSC's
control activities for monitoring grantee fiscal compliance was
limited, and feedback to grantees not timely. In determining the timing
and scope of grantee oversight visits, LSC does not employ a structured
or systematic approach for assessing the risk of noncompliance or
financial control weaknesses across its 137 grantees. Without an
analytically sound basis for assessing risk and distributing its
oversight resources, LSC does not have a basis for knowing whether its
oversight resources are being used effectively to mitigate and reduce
risk among its grantees.
LSC's monitoring of grantee internal control systems needs to be
strengthened. We found that the scope of work in OCE's fiscal reviews
was not sufficient in assessing grantee internal control and compliance
for purposes of achieving effective oversight. In the OCE site visits
we observed, staff did not follow up on questionable transactions and
relied heavily on information obtained through interviews. LSC also was
not timely in follow up on an investigation into an alleged instance of
noncompliance referred to it by the OIG. Feedback to grantees was often
slow. As of September 2007, LSC had not yet issued reports to grantee
management for almost 19 percent (10 out of 53) of the 2006 site
visits. Without timely communications about the results of site visits,
grantee management does not have information about deficiencies and the
related corrective actions needed. In a grantee exit conference we
observed, the LSC review team did not communicate a number of findings
they had concluded were significant and in need of immediate attention.
Effective grantee monitoring is especially important for LSC because
LSC has limited options for sanctioning poorly performing grantees due
to the recurring nature of many of its grants.
In the limited reviews we performed at 14 grantees, we identified
internal control weaknesses at 9 grantees that LSC could have
identified with more effective oversight reviews. We also found
improper expenditures at some of the grantees we visited. While control
deficiencies at the grantees were the immediate cause of the improper
expenditures we found, weaknesses in LSC's controls over its oversight
of grantees did not assure effective monitoring of grantee controls and
compliance or prevent the improper expenditures. We identified the
following weaknesses and improper expenditures at grantees we visited:
* Expenditures with insufficient supporting documentation - At 7 out of
the 14 grantees we visited, we identified systemic issues involving
payments that lacked sufficient supporting documentation that made it
impossible to determine whether the expenditures were accurate,
allowable, and appropriate.
* Questionable independent contractor - One grantee paid an individual
approximately $750,000 between 2004 and 2006 for information technology
services. Several factors including the following caused us to question
the contractor arrangement:
- The contractor's office and mailing address were located in the same
office space as the grantee.
- The grantee could not locate its contract with the individual for
2005 and 2006.
- The contractor's business card was identical to that of other
employees working at the grantee.
* Alcohol purchases - We identified three grantees that used LSC funds
to purchase alcoholic beverages.
* Employee interest-free loans - One grantee that we visited was using
grant funds to provide interest-free loans to employees upon request as
an employee benefit. The loans were used to pay college tuition, make
down payments on homes, and to purchase computers.
* Lobbying fees - We identified two instances in which one grantee was
using LSC funds to pay lobbyist registration fees.
* Late fees - Three of the grantees that we visited used grant funds to
pay late fees on overdue accounts for goods and services purchased.
* Earnest money - We discovered an improper transaction at one grantee
involving the sale of a grantee building using both LSC and non-LSC
funds. The grantee transferred the escrow account funds into an
unrestricted general funds account to avoid the funds being subjected
to LSC regulations.
Conclusions and GAO's prior recommendations:
Effective governance and accountability practices are necessary to
provide strong board oversight and effective day-to-day management of
LCS's performance in carrying out its mission of promoting equal access
to the system of justice in our nation and providing high-quality civil
legal assistance to low-income persons. Effective internal controls
over grants and grantee oversight are also critical to LSC, as its very
mission and operations rely extensively on grantees to provide legal
services to people who otherwise could not afford to pay for adequate
legal counsel. Effective grants-oversight procedures and monitoring,
including a structured, systematic approach based on risk, are
necessary given LSC's limited resources and the scope of its
responsibilities for many widely dispersed entities. In addition, the
shared responsibilities for grantee oversight between LSC management
and OIG presents risks that can be mitigated with clear lines of
authority and responsibility and effective communications and
coordination across oversight offices to avoid unnecessary duplication
where possible. Finally, given the number of grantees, a sound risk-
based approach for determining timing and scope of site visits is key
to prioritizing resource allocations to reflect the varying risks
presented by the grantees.
To maximize the effectiveness of each site visit, LSC needs to conduct
its oversight visits with sufficient scope to target areas of greatest
risk, follow up on information and results of prior reviews and audits,
and employ a review scope and approach that is tailored to specific
risks. With high-quality targeted reviews and management that promptly
informs grantees about findings and provides them an opportunity to
correct them, risk can be mitigated.
In our August 2007 report,[Footnote 8] we made recommendations to LSC's
board for modernizing and strengthening its governance and oversight,
including action directed at formalizing a comprehensive orientation
program and an ongoing training program, conducting a performance
assessment, creating audit and compensation committees, developing and
implementing an approach to periodically evaluate certain key
management processes, and ensuring that LSC's audited financial
statements are issued more promptly. We also made recommendations to
LSC management directed at improving its accountability by conducting a
risk assessment and implementing a corresponding risk management
program as part of a comprehensive evaluation of internal control,
including establishing policies for handling conflicts of interest
(ethics) and evaluating accounting standards.
In our December 2007 report,[Footnote 9] we made five recommendations
to LSC to improve its internal control and oversight of grants by
clarifying organizational roles and responsibilities for overseeing
grantee internal controls and compliance among LSC units, improving
information sharing and coordination among LSC oversight organizations,
using risk-based criteria to select grantees for internal control and
compliance reviews, improving the effectiveness of the current fiscal
compliance reviews, and following up on each of the improper or
potentially improper uses of grant funds that we identified.
In response to both of our reports, we received written comment letters
from the Chairman on behalf of LSC's Board of Directors and the
President on behalf of LSC's management. Both the Chairman and
President expressed their commitment to achieving strong governance and
accountability and outlined actions that LSC's board and management
plan to take in response to the recommendations we made in our August
2007 report. The Chairman and the President also expressed their full
commitment to making the improvements in controls over grants
management and oversight noted in our December 2007 report, accepted
all of our recommendations, and outlined the actions that LSC's board
and management plan to take in response to our recommendations. LSC's
most recent progress report on implementing our recommendations is
highly encouraging. LSC has indicated that it is taking action to
address many of our recommendations and is planning to take action on
the remaining recommendations with responsibility already assigned. LSC
has indicated that it will provide us with a final update by September
1, 2008 to document completion of its implementation of our
recommendations. We look forward to receiving LSC's final report and
reviewing the progress LSC Board and management have made on these
issues.
In our August 2007 report, we also included a matter for congressional
consideration concerning whether LSC should have additional
legislatively mandated governance and accountability requirements
modeled after what has worked successfully at federal agencies or U.S.
government corporations. These requirements could be established either
by amending LSC's current governing statutes or by converting LSC to a
federal entity, such as a U.S. government corporation or an independent
federal agency. LSC's Chairman and President commented on the matter
that we presented for congressional consideration and provided their
views that LSC's governing statutes are appropriate and have worked
well and stated that many of the governance recommendations could be
accomplished without changing the statutory framework of LSC.
[End of section]
Appendix I: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
For further information about this testimony, please contact Jeanette
M. Franzel, Director, Financial Management and Assurance at (202) 512-
9471 or [email protected] . Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this testimony.
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the person named above, Kim McGatlin; Bonnie Derby; F.
Abe Dymond; Lauren Fassler; Cheryl Clark; Maxine Hattery; and, Matt
Zaun made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, Legal Services Corporation: Governance and Accountability
Practices Need to Be Modernized and Strengthened, GAO-07-993
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 15, 2007) and GAO, Legal Services Corporation:
Improved Internal Controls Needed in Grants Management and Oversight,
GAO-08-37 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 28, 2007).
[2] Legal Services Corporation Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-355, 88
Stat. 378 (July 25, 1974), codified, as amended, at 42 U.S.C. �� 2996 -
2996l (LSC Act).
[3] Under 45 C.F.R. � 1634.2(c), the service area is the geographic
area defined by LSC to be served by grants or contracts to be awarded
on the basis of a competitive bidding process.
[4] GAO-07-993.
[5] GAO-08-37.
[6] The legislative requirements that promote effective internal
control include Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (31
U.S.C. � 3512(c), (d)); Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, as
amended by the Government Management and Reform Act of 1994 and the
Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 (31 U.S.C. � 3515); and
Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. No. 104-
208, div. A., � 101(f), tit. VIII, 110 Stat. 3009, 3009-389 (Sept. 30,
1996) (reprinted in 31 U.S.C. � 3512 note)).
[7] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/
AIMD-00-21.3.1 (November 1999).
[8] GAO-07-993.
[9] GAO-08-37.
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, D.C. 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:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, [email protected]:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
*** End of document. ***