U.S. Postal Service: Information About Restrictions on Mailbox Access
(Letter Report, 05/30/97, GAO/GGD-97-85).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information to help
Congress assess whether changes are needed to the law that essentially
gives the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) exclusive access to mailboxes,
focusing on: (1) the purpose and history of the mailbox restriction; (2)
current U.S. public attitudes toward the mailbox restriction; (3) views
of the U.S. Postal Service, competitors, major mailers, postal labor
organizations, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Postal Rate
Commission on the mailbox restriction; and (4) the experience of the
United States and certain other countries regarding mail theft and the
need for a mailbox restriction. GAO did not independently verify this
information, evaluate the effectiveness of open access to mailboxes in
the 8 foreign countries, or reach an independent judgment on whether
theft or mail from mailboxes is a problem in the United States or the 8
foreign countries.

GAO noted that: (1) Congress adopted the mailbox restriction in 1934 to
protect postal revenue by preventing delivery of unstamped matter to
mailboxes; (2) the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of
the mailbox restriction in 1981; (3) on the basis of its national
survey, GAO estimated that the vast majority of adults are opposed to
allowing just anyone to put mail into their mailboxes; (4) however,
views differed regarding the desirability of mailbox access for
particular companies or particular items; (5) USPS, the 7 major postal
labor unions and management associations, and a contractors' association
said that the mailbox restriction should remain unchanged; (6) USPS said
it protects postal revenue, facilitates the efficient and secure
delivery of mail, and promotes the privacy of postal customers; (7) the
7 major postal labor unions and management associations and a
contractors' association gave similar reasons, saying that the
restriction ensures mail security and privacy, among other things; (8)
DOJ also opposed any relaxation, saying the restriction deters the
distribution of sexually explicit materials to mailboxes because certain
laws and regulations governing the distribution of such material apply
only to mail delivered by USPS and would not apply to others if they
were allowed to deliver material to mailboxes; (9) USPS's competitors
generally said the restriction should be repealed or modified because it
is unnecessary, impedes competition, and infringes on private property;
(10) a majority of mailer groups and mailers that responded favored
retaining the restriction but others had varying views about the extent
to which the restriction should be changed; (11) although the Postal
Inspection Service had no data on the number of mail thefts from
mailboxes, Inspection Service officials said that mail theft from
mailboxes is a very serious problem in the United States; (12) 6 of the
8 foreign postal administrations GAO surveyed reported minor or no
problems with mail theft from mailboxes in their countries; (13)
however, two factors apparently contribute to the better mailbox
security reported by most of the 8 foreign postal administrations GAO
surveyed: (1) the mix of residential mail receptacles was different from
the mix in the United States; and (2) 7 foreign postal administrations
reported that they generally do not collect outgoing mail from resident*

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GGD-97-85
     TITLE:  U.S. Postal Service: Information About Restrictions on 
             Mailbox Access
      DATE:  05/30/97
   SUBJECT:  Mail delivery problems
             Postal law
             Competition
             Foreign governments
             Postal service
             Proposed legislation
             Larceny
             Right of privacy
             Monopolies
IDENTIFIER:  Australia
             Canada
             France
             Germany
             Netherlands
             New Zealand
             Sweden
             United Kingdom
             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed 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.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on the Postal Service, Committee
on Government Reform and Oversight, House of Representatives

May 1997

U.S.  POSTAL SERVICE - INFORMATION
ABOUT RESTRICTIONS ON MAILBOX
ACCESS

GAO/GGD-97-85

Restrictions on Mailbox Access

(240213)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  DMM - Domestic Mail Manual
  MTRS - Mail Theft Reporting System
  SEO - Sexually explicit and obscene
  UPS - United Parcel Service

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-272447

May 30, 1997

The Honorable John M.  McHugh
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Postal Service
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
House of Representatives

Dear Mr.  Chairman: 

This letter responds to your request for information to help the
Subcommittee assess whether changes are needed to the law that
essentially gives the U.S.  Postal Service exclusive access to
mailboxes (18 U.S.C.  1725).  The Postal Service believes that this
law, generally called the "mailbox restriction," is needed to protect
postal revenue, facilitate efficient and secure delivery of mail, and
promote the privacy of postal customers.  Some major competitors of
the Service believe the mailbox restriction law should be repealed
because, in their view, it is unnecessary, unfair, and adversely
affects their delivery operations.  As the Subcommittee considers
proposed postal reform legislation,\1 which, among other things,
includes a demonstration project to test relaxing the mailbox
restriction, the issue of mailbox access has become hotly debated,
with little empirical data available to support the arguments, pro or
con.  To assist the Subcommittee in considering whether to test
changes to the mailbox restriction, we agreed to obtain and provide
information on (1) the purpose and history of the mailbox
restriction; (2) current U.S.  public attitudes toward the mailbox
restriction; (3) views of the U.S.  Postal Service, competitors,
major mailers, postal labor organizations, the U.S.  Department of
Justice, and the Postal Rate Commission on the mailbox restriction;
and (4) the experience of the United States and certain other
countries regarding mail theft and the need for a mailbox
restriction. 

To address the above objectives, among other methods, we contracted
for a national survey of 1,013 randomly selected adults (18 and
older), which achieved a 65 percent response rate and can be
generalized to all adults in the continental United States.\2

We also used a 1-page questionnaire to survey 59 selected domestic
organizations, including the U.S.  Postal Service, competitors, major
mailers, postal labor organizations, the U.S.  Department of Justice,
and the Postal Rate Commission, and obtained 41 written responses. 
We gave a more extensive questionnaire to eight selected foreign
postal administrations and received written responses from all of
them. 


--------------------
\1 Postal Reform Act of 1997, H.R.  22, 105th Cong.  (1997). 

\2 The overall results were surrounded by 95 percent confidence
intervals of plus or minus 4 percent or less. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

Congress adopted the mailbox restriction in 1934 to protect postal
revenue by preventing delivery of unstamped matter to mailboxes,
which reportedly was having a considerable impact on postal revenues. 
The U.S.  Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the mailbox
restriction in 1981.  Civic groups, which had delivered unstamped
material regarding their activities to mailboxes, claimed that the
mailbox restriction abridged their First Amendment rights to free
speech and the press.  The Court denied the groups' claim, ruling
that the law and enforcement actions were not geared in any way to
the content of the message placed in mailboxes.  The Court also found
that mailboxes are an essential part of national mail delivery and
that postal customers agree to abide by laws and regulations that
apply to their mailboxes in exchange for the Postal Service agreeing
to deliver and pick up mail in them.\3

On the basis of our national survey, we estimated that the vast
majority of adults (82 percent) are opposed to allowing just anyone
to put mail into their mailboxes.\4

However, views differed regarding the desirability of mailbox access
for particular companies or particular items.  For example, 58
percent favored allowing express mail companies, e.g., Federal
Express and United Parcel Service (UPS), to put packages into
mailboxes.  Fewer adults favored allowing companies to leave other
types of items in mailboxes, such as utility bills (48 percent);
magazines or newspapers (38 percent); and catalogs, coupons, or ads
(29 percent).  Sixty-six percent of adults reported their households
receive most of their mail in mailboxes without locks.  If there were
neither the mailbox restriction nor regulatory restrictions, these
mailboxes would be legally and practically accessible to private
delivery companies or others with respect to delivery of items not
covered by the Postal Service's letter mail monopoly. 

Postal stakeholders expressed mixed views about the need for the
mailbox restriction.  The Postal Service, the seven major postal
labor unions and management associations, and a contractors'
association said that the mailbox restriction should remain
unchanged.  The Service said it protects postal revenue, facilitates
the efficient and secure delivery of mail, and promotes the privacy
of postal customers.  The seven major postal labor unions and
management associations and a contractors' association gave similar
reasons, saying that the restriction ensures mail security and
privacy, among other things.  The Justice Department also opposed any
relaxation, saying the restriction deters the distribution of
sexually explicit materials to mailboxes because certain laws and
regulations governing the distribution of such materials\5 apply only
to mail delivered by the Postal Service and would not apply to others
if they were allowed to deliver material to mailboxes. 

In contrast, the Service's competitors generally said the restriction
should be repealed or modified because it is unnecessary, impedes
competition, and infringes on private property.  A majority of mailer
groups and mailers that responded favored retaining the restriction
but others had varying views about the extent to which the
restriction should be changed. 

Although the Postal Inspection Service--which is responsible for
enforcing postal laws--had no data on the number of mail thefts from
mailboxes, Inspection Service officials said that mail theft from
mailboxes is a very serious problem in the United States.  Six of the
eight foreign postal administrations we surveyed reported minor or no
problems with mail theft from mailboxes in their countries.  Like the
Postal Service, the eight foreign postal administrations also did not
have data on the number of mail thefts from mailboxes.  However, two
factors apparently contribute to the better mailbox security reported
by most of the eight foreign postal administrations we surveyed:  (1)
the mix of residential mail receptacles was different from the mix in
the United States, with the postal administrations of two foreign
countries reporting that the majority of their residential customers
use mail slots in doors or walls instead of mailboxes and another
foreign postal administration reporting that its residential
customers are more likely to use locked mailboxes; and (2) seven
foreign postal administrations reported that they generally do not
collect outgoing mail from residential customers' mailboxes. 

Officials of the U.S.  Postal Inspection Service said the mailbox
restriction helps deter mail theft and makes it easier to detect,
investigate, and resolve cases of mail theft from mailboxes.  The
eight foreign postal administrations we surveyed said that they do
not have mailbox restriction laws, have never had exclusive access,
and did not believe that they needed it.  Five foreign postal
administrations said that exclusive mailbox access would be
inconsistent with the concept of fair competition in their countries. 


--------------------
\3 U.S.  Postal Service v.  Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations,
453 U.S.  114 (1981). 

\4 Views on mailbox access were about the same for all adults
surveyed as for the 87 percent of adults who said their households
get most of their mail in mailboxes. 

\5 39 U.S.C.  3008 and 3010 and Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) C032 and
C033. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

In 1934, Congress enacted a law known as the "mailbox restriction"
that prohibits anyone from placing mailable matter without postage
into any mailbox.  This law, 18 U.S.C.  1725, gives the Postal
Service a virtual monopoly over mailboxes and currently reads as
follows: 

     "Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits any mailable matter
     such as statements of accounts, circulars, sale bills, or other
     like matter, on which no postage has been paid, in any letter
     box established, approved, or accepted by the Postal Service for
     the receipt or delivery of mail matter on any mail route with
     intent to avoid payment of lawful postage thereon, shall for
     each such offense be fined under this title."

Under current law, a violation of the mailbox restriction law is an
infraction that can be punished by a fine but not by imprisonment. 
The maximum fine for each offense is $5,000 for individuals and
$10,000 for organizations.\6

In addition to the mailbox restriction law, Postal Service
regulations provide that "every letterbox or other receptacle
intended or used for the receipt or delivery of mail" may be used
only for matter bearing postage and that any mailable matter found in
mailboxes without postage is subject to payment of the same postage
as if it had been carried by mail.\7 Postal Service regulations are
broader than the mailbox restriction law.  The regulations restrict
items placed upon, supported by, attached to, hung from, or inserted
into a mailbox.\8 However, the regulations do not apply to door
slots, among other things.\9

The Postal Inspection Service is responsible for enforcing postal
laws, including the mailbox restriction.  The Inspection Service has
maintained that because the mailbox restriction limits access to
mailboxes to the Service and the customer, it helps deter mail theft
and helps the Inspection Service enforce postal laws against mail
theft.  Because the Inspection Service believes that the mailbox
restriction is relevant to its investigations of mail theft,
obstruction of mail, and mail fraud, these laws are discussed below. 

Federal laws prohibit mail theft, obstruction of mail, and mail
fraud.  Theft of U.S.  mail is a federal criminal offense punishable
by fine and/or imprisonment under two federal laws:  (1) 18 U.S.C. 
1708 makes it a crime for anyone to steal U.S.  mail or unlawfully
possess stolen U.S.  mail; and (2) 18 U.S.C.  1709 makes it a crime
for Postal Service employees to steal U.S.  mail.  Obstruction of
U.S.  mail is also a criminal offense under two federal laws:  (1) 18
U.S.C.  1701 makes it a crime for anyone to knowingly and willfully
obstruct or retard the passage of U.S.  mail; and (2) 18 U.S.C.  1702
specifically prohibits anyone from taking U.S.  mail from post
offices, mailboxes, and letter carriers before delivery to the
addressee with the intent to obstruct the correspondence or pry into
the business of another.  Mail fraud is prohibited by a federal law,
18 U.S.C.  1341, which makes it a criminal offense for anyone to use
the U.S.  mail in any scheme of fraud. 

In addition, federal laws govern the distribution of sexually
oriented advertisements through the U.S.  mail, which may be
distributed to mailboxes.\10 These laws, and the postal regulations
that implement them,\11 enable postal customers to request that (1)
they be added to lists of customers who should not receive sexually
explicit advertisements through the U.S.  mail and/or (2) the Service
issue a prohibitory order directing a particular mailer to refrain
from making further mailings to that addressee.  These laws and
regulations also establish packaging and labeling requirements for
U.S.  mail that contains sexually explicit material. 

The U.S.  Department of Justice is responsible for prosecutions of
violations of postal related laws.  U.S.  Attorneys' offices, which
are part of the Justice Department, have the responsibility for
prosecuting these cases.  The U.S.  Attorneys' offices work with the
Postal Inspection Service and other law enforcement authorities who
are involved in these cases. 

The Postal Service Glossary of postal terms defines a mailbox as "any
receptacle or container used by customers to receive mail at their
residence either by door-to-door or by curbside delivery." Widespread
use of mailboxes began in the 1890s, and today the Postal Service
deposits mail for most residential customers in mailboxes purchased
and installed by the customers.  The Service also collects outgoing
mail from most mailboxes.  Curbside mailboxes generally have a flag
that can be raised to notify the letter carrier that outgoing mail
has been left for collection. 

Even if there were no statutory restrictions on mailbox access,
locked apartment mailboxes, cluster mailboxes, and U.S.  post office
boxes as they are currently used would generally not be accessible to
private delivery companies.  As a practical matter, only the Postal
Service and the postal customer are currently supposed to have keys
to these receptacles, which do not have slots for incoming mail. 
Figure 1 illustrates different types of mailboxes, door slots, and
U.S.  post office boxes. 



   Figure 1:  Mailboxes, Door
   Slots, and Post Office Boxes
   Used in the United States

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Source:  Photographs by the
   U.S.  Postal Service and GAO.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The Postal Service does not have complete data available on the total
number of residential mailboxes.  However, available Postal Service
information shows residential delivery to approximately 42 million
curbside mailboxes; 10 million cluster boxes; 17 million post office
boxes; 17 million centralized residential delivery points, such as
apartment house mailboxes, delivery centers, or mailroom receptacles;
and 34 million other residential delivery points, such as mailboxes
attached to houses, mailboxes behind the sidewalk, and door slots. 
Some postal customers with U.S.  post office boxes may receive some
mail at their residences and some mail at their post office boxes. 

As we reported in September 1996, the mailbox restriction is related
to the Service's monopoly over the delivery of letter mail.\12 We
said that if the Private Express Statutes\13 were relaxed, retaining
the mailbox restriction would help shield the Postal Service from
private competition for First-Class letters because mailers wish to
safeguard bills and other mail with personal or confidential
information.  However, we also reported that if the Private Express
Statutes were relaxed, the mailbox restriction would be less likely
to shield the Service from competition for Priority Mail and
heavyweight First-Class mail.  This mail is typically delivered to
businesses and often is too large to fit in residential mailboxes. 
In addition, the five principal national carriers of U.S.  domestic
expedited and parcel mail often rely on a signature for delivery.  We
reported that these national carriers generally did not see lack of
mailbox access as a barrier to pursuing increases in their shares of
these markets.  However, if Congress allows more private letter
delivery, the mailbox restriction may become more important because
the firms might find the use of mailboxes desirable to improve
competitiveness. 

We testified in January 1996 on eight foreign countries that operate
without laws comparable to the mailbox restriction.\14 These
countries were Australia, Canada, France, Germany, The Netherlands,
New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.  Private delivery
companies in these countries can deliver advertising and other items
not covered by their letter mail monopolies by depositing material
into mailboxes without locks, into locked mailboxes with slots for
receiving mail, or into mail slots in doors or walls. 

In recent years, some of the Service's main competitors and some
critics of its letter mail monopoly have called for repeal of the
mailbox restriction.  In June 1996, the Chairman of the Subcommittee
on the Postal Service, House Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight, introduced legislation to reform the Postal Service (H.R. 
3717) that included testing changes to the mailbox restriction.  The
Chairman cited the experiences of foreign countries that do not have
statutory mailbox restrictions as a key reason to test relaxing the
mailbox restriction.  The bill would have created a demonstration
project to test relaxing the mailbox restriction in certain areas for
3 years.  The Subcommittee held four hearings on the bill and
received a number of comments on the proposed mailbox demonstration
project, both pro and con.  The bill was not reported out of the
Subcommittee during the 104th Congress.  However, in January 1997,
the Chairman introduced H.R.  22, a similar bill that proposed the
same mailbox demonstration project. 


--------------------
\6 18 U.S.C.  3559 and 3571. 

\7 DMM D041.1.1, D041.1.3, and P011.2.2. 

\8 DMM D041.1.3. 

\9 Exemptions allow (1) mailable matter to be left without postage in
door slots and nonlockable bins or troughs used with apartment house
mailboxes; (2) mailable matter to be left without postage on a hook
or ring attached to the post or other support for the mailbox; and
(3) unstamped delivery of newspapers that are regularly mailed
second-class to curbside mailboxes on Sundays and national holidays,
if they are removed before the next scheduled day of mail delivery. 
See DMM D041.1.2, D041.2.10, and Rockville Reminder, Inc.  v.  United
States Postal Service, 480 F.2d.  4 (1973). 

\10 39 U.S.C.  3008 and 3010. 

\11 DMM C032 and C033. 

\12 Postal Service Reform:  Issues Relevant to Changing Restrictions
on Private Letter Delivery (GAO/GGD-96-129A/B, Sept.  12, 1996). 

\13 The Private Express Statutes are a set of criminal and civil laws
(18 U.S.C.  1693-1699 and 39 U.S.C.  601-606) that established the
Service's monopoly restricting the private delivery of letter mail. 

\14 U.S.  Postal Service:  A Look at Other Countries' Postal Reform
Efforts (GAO/T-GGD-96-60, Jan.  25, 1996). 


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

To determine the purpose and history of the mailbox restriction, we
reviewed relevant documents, including the current law, the House and
Senate reports submitted in support of the law when it was passed in
1934, the 1981 U.S.  Supreme Court case that upheld its
constitutionality, and current Postal Service regulations that
restrict access to mailboxes. 

To determine current public attitudes toward the mailbox restriction,
we developed survey questions and contracted with the University of
Maryland's Survey Research Center to conduct a national telephone
survey.  A total of 1,013 randomly selected adults (18 and older) in
the continental United States were interviewed between August 12 and
October 14, 1996.  The survey results are representative of all
adults in the continental United States, and the overall results were
surrounded by 95 percent confidence intervals of plus or minus 4
percent or less.  Appendix I describes the survey methodology more
fully, and appendix II gives the responses to each survey question. 

To obtain the views of key stakeholders on the mailbox restriction,
we used a 1-page questionnaire to survey 59 selected domestic
organizations, including (1) the Postal Service; (2) the 5 national
expedited mail and parcel delivery firms the Service has identified
as its principal competitors and an association that represents
expedited mail and parcel delivery firms; (3) 14 alternate delivery
firms and alliances, which we judgmentally selected to obtain a range
of company sizes, geographic locations, companies in areas with
different population levels, and both newspaper-owned firms and other
firms; (4) 28 mailer groups and mailers, which we judgmentally
selected to obtain the views of mailing industry trade associations
and mailers that represent those who send significant volumes of
mail, and mailer groups and mailers in the credit card, financial,
and insurance industries; (5) 7 major postal labor unions and
management associations and an association that represents
contractors who transport and deliver U.S.  mail; (6) the Justice
Department; and (7) the Postal Rate Commission.  We received a total
of 41 written responses.  Results based on responses from national
expedited mail and parcel delivery firms, alternate delivery firms
and alliances, and mailer groups and mailers are not generalizable to
all such organizations.  See appendix I for more detail. 

To provide information on the experience of the United States and
certain other countries regarding mail theft and the need for a
mailbox restriction, we obtained information from the U.S.  Postal
Service and eight selected foreign postal administrations.  We
interviewed U.S.  Postal Inspection Service headquarters officials
who oversee enforcement of postal laws.  They provided written
responses to our questions, and we reviewed the relevant documents
they submitted.  We also obtained documentation of Service policies
regarding delivery of mail to mailboxes and relevant data from
Service headquarters officials.  In addition, we gave questionnaires
to postal administrations in eight foreign countries that do not have
laws restricting mailbox access:  Australia, Canada, France, Germany,
The Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.  We
received written responses from all eight foreign postal
administrations.  Information in this report on mailbox security is
primarily based on information provided by the Postal Inspection
Service and the eight foreign postal administrations.  We did not
independently verify this information, evaluate the effectiveness of
open access to mailboxes in the eight foreign countries, or reach an
independent judgment on whether theft of mail from mailboxes is a
problem in the United States or the eight foreign countries.  See
appendix I for more detail on our objectives, scope, and methodology. 

We did our audit work in Washington, D.C., and Dallas, Texas, from
June 1996 through February 1997 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. 

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Postmaster
General.  The Postal Service's comments are discussed in this letter,
summarized at the end of this letter, and reprinted in appendix V. 
We also arranged for the eight foreign postal administrations to
review relevant sections of this report.  We incorporated their
technical comments to improve the accuracy of the report where
appropriate. 


   PURPOSE AND HISTORY OF THE
   MAILBOX RESTRICTION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Congress enacted the statutory mailbox restriction in 1934 to protect
the former U.S.  Post Office Department's\15 revenue and keep
unstamped matter out of mailboxes.  The law was intended to stop
businesses from delivering or using private carriers to deliver
mailable matter to mailboxes without paying postage, which reportedly
deprived the former Post Office Department of considerable revenue. 
In 1981, the U.S.  Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the
law.  It had been challenged by an umbrella organization for a number
of civic groups that delivered unstamped notices and pamphlets to
mailboxes.  The Court ruled against the groups' claim that the law
abridged their rights to freedom of speech and press under the First
Amendment, because the law was not geared to the content of items
left in mailboxes.  The Court also found that mailboxes are an
essential part of national mail delivery and that postal customers
agree to abide by laws and regulations that apply to their mailboxes
in exchange for the Postal Service agreeing to deliver and pick up
mail in them. 


--------------------
\15 The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 (P.L.  91-375) reorganized
the U.S.  Post Office Department into the U.S.  Postal Service. 


      CONGRESS ADOPTED THE MAILBOX
      RESTRICTION IN 1934 TO
      PROTECT REVENUES AND KEEP
      UNSTAMPED MATTER OUT OF
      MAILBOXES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

Congress enacted the 1934 statute, according to Senate and House
reports, to protect the former U.S.  Post Office Department's revenue
and prevent unstamped matter from being placed in mailboxes.\16 The
reports said that the law was intended to curb the practice of
persons other than postal employees depositing mail in mailboxes
without paying postage by making it a criminal offense.  Businesses,
particularly utility companies, reportedly were delivering or using
private carriers to deliver circulars and statements of accounts in
mailboxes without postage.  The reports said that these practices
deprived the former Post Office Department of considerable revenue. 
The reports also noted that the stuffing of mailboxes with unstamped
matter was a source of considerable annoyance to the Post Office
Department. 


--------------------
\16 S.  Rep.  No.  73-742 at 1-2 (1934) and H.R.  Rep.  No.  73-709
at 1-2 (1934). 


      THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
      MAILBOX RESTRICTION WAS
      UPHELD IN 1981
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

In 1981, the U.S.  Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the
law restricting mailbox access.\17 The statute was challenged by an
umbrella organization for a number of civic groups that delivered
unstamped notices and pamphlets to mailboxes.  The Court denied the
groups' claim that the law abridged their rights to freedom of speech
and press under the First Amendment because the statute and
enforcement actions were not geared in any way to the content of the
message placed in mailboxes.  In its ruling, the Court found that
mailboxes are an essential part of the Postal Service's nationwide
system for the delivery and receipt of mail and that although
mailboxes are privately owned, the postal customer implicitly agrees
to abide by statutory and regulatory restrictions that apply to the
mailbox in exchange for the Service agreeing to deliver and pick up
mail in it. 

During litigation of the case, the Service offered a number of
justifications for the mailbox restriction in addition to protecting
postal revenue and reducing unstamped matter left in mailboxes.  The
Service said the mailbox restriction aided investigations of mail
theft by enabling investigators to assume that anyone other than a
letter carrier or the postal customer who opens a mailbox may be
stealing mail.  For example, the Service said the restriction helped
it to investigate thefts of government benefit checks from mailboxes. 
Moreover, the Service said that if civic associations but not others
could leave circulars in mailboxes, letter carriers would have to
remove and examine individual unstamped items to determine their
legality.  The Service said that if the mailbox restriction were
eliminated or if civic groups could leave items in mailboxes, letter
carriers would be confronted with a larger amount of unstamped
mailable matter that they would be obliged to separate from outgoing
mail.  According to the Service, these additional activities by
letter carriers would add substantially to the daily cost of mail
delivery.  The Service also said that the restriction protects the
privacy interests of postal customers by giving them a way to send
and receive mail without their correspondence becoming known to other
members of the community. 


--------------------
\17 U.S.  Postal Service v.  Council of Greenburgh Civic
Associations, 453 U.S.  114 (1981). 


   VIEWS ON MAILBOX ACCESS
   DEPENDED ON WHO WOULD BE GIVEN
   ACCESS AND WHAT WOULD BE
   DELIVERED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

Views on mailbox access expressed in our national survey varied
depending on who would be given access to the mailbox and what
materials they would leave in the mailbox.\18

The vast majority of adults (82 percent) opposed allowing "any
individual person" to put mail in their mailboxes.  In contrast, 58
percent favored allowing "express mail companies like Federal Express
or UPS [United Parcel Service]" to leave packages in their mailboxes,
"if they are small enough to fit." Opinions were about evenly divided
over whether the "electric, gas, or water company" should be allowed
to put bills inside mailboxes, with 48 percent in favor and 44
percent opposed.  Conversely, 54 percent opposed and 38 percent
favored allowing companies to put subscription magazines or
newspapers inside their mailboxes.  Sixty-six percent opposed and 29
percent favored allowing companies to put "catalogs, coupons, or ads"
inside their mailboxes (see fig.  2). 

   Figure 2:  Views of Adults
   Differed on Allowing Any
   Individual or Certain Types of
   Companies to Leave Mail in
   Mailboxes

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Percentages do not add to 100 percent because volunteered
responses such as "no opinion" are not shown. 

Source:  GAO survey. 

In addition, strong support and opposition to expanded mailbox access
varied depending on who would put items in the mailbox and what they
would deliver.  Fifty-nine percent said they strongly opposed
allowing any individual to put mail into their mailboxes, while only
2 percent said they strongly favored such access.  Also, 40 percent
said they strongly opposed allowing companies to put catalogs,
coupons, or ads inside their mailboxes; 7 percent strongly favored
it.  In contrast, 15 percent said they strongly opposed allowing
express mail companies to put packages inside their mailboxes;
similarly, 19 percent strongly favored it.  This was the only
question on mailbox access for which about as many adults expressed
strong support as strong opposition. 

Not only did adults in general distinguish between who should have
mailbox access and for what items, but certain subgroups identified
in our survey tended to hold views different from others.  For
example, adults with more formal education were more likely to
support allowing express mail companies access to the mailbox. 
Fifty-five percent of those with a high school education or less, 60
percent with some college education, and 69 percent of college
graduates said that express mail companies should be allowed to leave
packages in their mailboxes.  In contrast, adults with more formal
education were more likely to oppose allowing companies to put
catalogs, coupons, or ads in their mailboxes.  Sixty percent of those
with a high school education or less opposed allowing companies to
put such matter into their mailboxes, compared to 71 percent of those
with some college education and 75 percent of college graduates.  The
Postal Service's latest Household Diary Study on mail received by
households found that households headed by adults with more formal
education received more pieces of advertising mail and tended to make
more mail order purchases.\19

Moreover, adults using mailboxes without locks were more likely to
favor allowing some others access to their mailboxes, compared to
adults with locked mailboxes.\20

For example, 53 percent of those using mailboxes without locks
favored allowing utility companies to put bills in their mailboxes,
compared to 30 percent of those with locked mailboxes.  Forty-four
percent of those using mailboxes without locks favored allowing
companies to put magazines or newspapers inside their mailboxes,
compared to 18 percent of those with locked mailboxes.  Seventeen
percent of those using mailboxes without locks favored allowing any
individual to put mail in their mailboxes, compared to 5 percent of
those with locked mailboxes. 


--------------------
\18 Eighty-three percent of adults said that they are aware that only
the Postal Service leaves mail in their mailboxes, which is the
intended effect of the mailbox restriction. 

\19 The Household Diary Study, Fiscal Year 1995, U.S.  Postal
Service, Finance (Washington, D.C.:  U.S.  Postal Service, Nov. 
1996), pp.  III-16, III-22, VI-163, VI-165. 

\20 Results for adults using locked mailboxes and mailboxes without
locks were based on adults who said their households get most of
their mail in curbside mailboxes, mailboxes attached to their houses,
a cluster of mailboxes near their homes, or apartment house
mailboxes. 


      WHEN ASKED TO CHOOSE, ADULTS
      GENERALLY PREFERRED MAILBOX
      ACCESS ONLY BY THE POSTAL
      SERVICE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

When asked to sum up their views on mailbox access by choosing which
of two general statements came closest to their views, 61 percent
said that "only the U.S.  Postal Service should put mail inside
mailboxes"; 32 percent said that "some companies should also be
allowed to put mail inside mailboxes" (see fig.  3). 

   Figure 3:  When Asked to
   Choose, Adults Generally
   Favored Limiting Mailbox Access
   to the Postal Service

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Adults were asked which of two statements came closest to
their own views.  Percentages do not add to 100 percent because of
rounding. 

Source:  GAO survey. 

The results of this general question were not necessarily consistent
with other, more specific questions on mailbox access because (1)
adults were asked to "sum up your views" by giving a single response
to one question; and (2) adults were asked to choose the response
that came closest to their views, even if it did not match their
views for each of the specific questions on mailbox access.  Adults
in our national survey held a range of views on mailbox access, so no
single question should be used as the sole measure of public opinion
on the subject.  In response to specific survey questions, adults
generally indicated that their views on mailbox access depended on
whether the mailbox access was limited to particular companies or
items. 


      TWO-THIRDS OF ADULTS
      RECEIVED MAIL IN MAILBOXES
      WITHOUT LOCKS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2

Two-thirds (66 percent) of adults we surveyed reported that their
households get most of their mail in mailboxes without locks.  If
there were neither the mailbox restriction nor regulatory
restrictions, mailboxes without locks would be legally and
practically accessible to private delivery companies or others with
respect to delivery of items not covered by the Postal Service's
letter mail monopoly. 

Our survey asked adults two questions to determine whether their
households use mailboxes without locks.  First, the survey asked
adults how their households get most of their mail.  A total of 87
percent said that their households get most of their mail in either
curbside mailboxes (42 percent), mailboxes attached to their houses
(25 percent), in a cluster of mailboxes near their homes (11
percent), or in apartment house mailboxes (10 percent).\21 The other
13 percent said their households get most of their mail either at
U.S.  post offices (8 percent), through door slots (4 percent), or in
some other way (1 percent). 

Second, our survey asked, "is there a lock on your mailbox, or not?"
(This question was asked of the 87 percent who had said their
households get most of their mail in either curbside mailboxes,
mailboxes attached to their houses, a cluster of mailboxes near their
homes, or apartment house mailboxes.) In response, 66 percent of all
adults in our national survey said their households get most of their
mail in mailboxes without locks; 21 percent said their mailboxes are
locked.  As described above, the other 13 percent said their
households get most of their mail either at U.S.  post offices (8
percent), through door slots (4 percent), or some other way (1
percent). 

Another question asked adults how concerned they were that mail could
be stolen out of their households' mailboxes (i.e, curbside
mailboxes, mailboxes attached to their houses, a cluster of mailboxes
near their homes, or apartment house mailboxes).  Twenty-five percent
of all adults in our national survey said that they were either "very
concerned" (10 percent) or "somewhat concerned" (15 percent) that
mail could be stolen out of their households' mailboxes.  Thirty
percent said they were "not very concerned," and 31 percent said they
were "not at all concerned."\22

The survey also asked adults how often they left outgoing mail in
their households' mailboxes (i.e, curbside mailboxes, mailboxes
attached to their houses, a cluster of mailboxes near their homes, or
apartment house mailboxes).  Sixteen percent of all adults in our
survey said their households generally leave outgoing "letters or
bills" in their mailboxes "all of the time," 11 percent said they
leave outgoing mail in their mailboxes "most of the time," and 13
percent said they leave outgoing mail in their mailboxes "some of the
time." The Postal Service has said that it can collect outgoing mail
from mailboxes more efficiently because the mailbox restriction
prevents others from leaving items in mailboxes. 


--------------------
\21 Percentages of each type of mailbox do not add to 87 percent
because of rounding. 

\22 One percent declined to express a level of concern, and 13
percent were not asked this question because they had said their
households get most of their mail either at U.S.  post offices,
through door slots, or in some other way. 


   STAKEHOLDERS HAD MIXED VIEWS ON
   THE NEED FOR THE MAILBOX
   RESTRICTION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

Postal stakeholders expressed mixed views on the need for the mailbox
restriction.  The Service, the seven major postal labor unions and
management associations, and a contractors' association said the
mailbox restriction should remain unchanged.  The Service said the
mailbox restriction protects postal revenue, facilitates efficient
and secure mail delivery, and promotes customer privacy.  The seven
major postal labor unions and management associations and a
contractors' association gave similar justifications, saying that the
restriction protects the security and privacy of the mail, among
other things.  The Justice Department also opposed any relaxation,
saying the restriction deters the distribution of sexually explicit
materials to mailboxes because certain laws and regulations governing
the distribution of such materials\23 apply only to mail delivered by
the Postal Service and would not cover such material if deposited
into mailboxes by persons other than the Postal Service. 

In contrast, the Service's competitors said the restriction should be
modified or repealed.  They said mailboxes are private property, and
the owners should decide who has access; other laws exist to protect
mail security; and the mailbox restriction impedes competition.  A
majority of mailer groups and mailers that responded to our
questionnaire favored retaining the restriction, but others had
varying views about the extent to which the restriction should be
changed (see app.  III for a copy of the questionnaire).  Table 1
summarizes responses to our questionnaire on the mailbox restriction. 
Results based on responses from national expedited mail and parcel
delivery firms, alternate delivery firms and alliances, and mailer
groups and mailers are not generalizable to all such organizations. 



                                     Table 1
                     
                       Overall Responses as to Whether the
                        Mailbox Restriction Should Be Kept
                         Unchanged, Modified, or Repealed


                                        Keep      Modify      Repeal          No
                           Total     the law     the law     the law    position
--------------------  ==========  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
U.S. Postal Service,          11          10           0           0           1
 postal labor unions
 and management
 associations,
 contractors'
 association,\a U.S.
 Department of
 Justice, and Postal
 Rate Commission\b
National expedited             4           0           0           4           0
 mail and parcel
 delivery firms
Alternate delivery             9           0           4           5           0
 firms and alliances
Mailer groups and             17          10           3           0           4
 mailers
================================================================================
Total                         41          20           7           9           5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  See appendix IV for a list of organizations that were selected
to receive the questionnaire. 

\a This association represents contractors who transport and deliver
U.S.  mail. 

\b The Postal Rate Commission declined to take a position on the
mailbox restriction because "it could be construed by some as
inappropriate and a potential conflict of interest regarding our
ratemaking responsibilities."

Source:  Responses to GAO questionnaire. 


--------------------
\23 39 U.S.C.  3008 and 3010 and DMM C032 and C033. 


      POSTAL SERVICE, JUSTICE
      DEPARTMENT, MAJOR POSTAL
      LABOR UNIONS, AND MANAGEMENT
      ASSOCIATIONS SUPPORTED THE
      MAILBOX RESTRICTION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

The Service told us that the mailbox restriction is justified for the
three broad reasons provided earlier by the Service in the Greenburgh
case:  it protects postal revenue, facilitates the efficient and
secure delivery of mail, and promotes the privacy of postal
customers.  But the Service also noted that just deleting the mailbox
restriction from the United States Code apparently would not, in
itself, authorize private carriers to deposit matter in mailboxes
since postal regulations also prohibit such behavior.  According to
the Service, its authority to issue these regulations comes from its
rulemaking authority under Title 39 of the United States Code,
without regard to the mailbox restriction, which is part of Title 18. 
These regulations were upheld by a U.S.  Court of Appeals in the
Rockville Reminder case.  Additionally, in commenting on our report,
the Deputy Postmaster General expressed serious concerns with the
idea of resolving the mailbox restriction issue by allowing selective
access to postal customers' mailboxes, based either on the kind of
matter to be delivered or on each postal customer's individual
preference.  He explained that (1) the resulting judicial,
administrative, and enforcement burdens would far outweigh any
benefits to mailers or postal customers, and (2) it may be difficult
or impossible for Congress to write a law that gives some parties
access to mailboxes which would withstand a court challenge from
other parties who had been denied access to mailboxes. 

The Service has also supported the mailbox restriction in written
responses to questions from the House Subcommittee on the Postal
Service.  In 1995, the Inspector General and Chief Postal Inspector
for the Postal Service wrote that the Postal Service should maintain
exclusive access to mailboxes.\24 He cited concern about the security
of mail and the potential that without the mailbox restriction,
mailboxes would be overcrowded with materials delivered by others. 
In October 1996, the Chairman of the Postal Service Board of
Governors wrote that ".  .  .  we are opposed to any relaxation of
the Private Express Statutes and to unrestricted access to the
mailbox." He explained that a limited monopoly over the delivery of
letter mail and exclusive access to mailboxes have generally been
regarded as required to preserve the necessary financial
underpinnings for affordable universal postal service, which the
Service is obligated to provide.  He said the universal service
requirement, uniform letter rate, and many public service activities
of the Postal Service are directly related to the Private Express
Statutes and the mailbox restriction.  He added, "We believe that
these restrictions cannot be relaxed without serious threat to
universal service."\25

The seven major postal labor unions and management associations and a
contractors' association unanimously supported the mailbox
restriction.  These organizations' justifications were similar to the
Postal Service's, emphasizing the need to limit mailbox access to the
Service and the customer in order to protect mail security and
privacy.  Seven of these organizations stated that the mailbox
restriction protects mail security.  The organizations variously said
the restriction protects universal service, helps the Service enforce
other postal laws, and protects Service revenues.  In 1996, the seven
major postal labor unions and management associations and the
contractors' association provided testimony or written statements to
the House Subcommittee on the Postal Service that opposed or
expressed strong concerns about the proposed mailbox demonstration
test. 

The Justice Department opposed the use of mailboxes by anyone other
than the Postal Service.  Certain federal laws and postal regulations
govern the distribution and labeling of sexually explicit
advertisements and allow postal customers to request not to receive
such materials.\26 These federal laws and postal regulations apply
only to mail delivered by the Postal Service and would not cover such
material if deposited into mailboxes by persons other than the Postal
Service.  In its response to our questions, the Justice Department
said: 

     "Currently, because of statutory limits on access, usually only
     mail which has been processed through the Postal Service can be
     found inside mailboxes.  In the past, many companies sent
     unsolicited sexually oriented advertisements to postal
     customers, causing a furor and resulting in federal criminal
     prosecutions.  Today, companies which use the mail know that
     materials will arrive at a mailbox only if the firms comply with
     regulations which are substantial and can be monitored by postal
     employees.  The repeal of existing authorities will permit
     anyone to put material into mailboxes, which will undoubtedly
     permit the return of sexually explicit advertisements that do
     not adhere to postal regulations.  For that reason, we oppose
     the use of mailboxes by anyone other than the [U.S.  Postal
     Service]."

The Acting Deputy Chief, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section,
Justice Department Criminal Division, told us that without the
mailbox restriction, he believed there would be substantial amounts
of illegal sexually explicit and obscene (SEO) materials delivered to
mailboxes without going through the postal system.  The official said
that distributors of SEO materials will try to take advantage of any
opportunity to achieve widespread distribution of such materials.  He
said the mailbox restriction deters placement of such materials
because (1) the Postal Inspection Service currently has authority
under other laws to investigate violations involving items delivered
to mailboxes and is aided by the mailbox restriction, which limits
access to mailboxes to the Postal Service and the postal customer;
and (2) the mailbox restriction essentially makes a suspect of anyone
opening a mailbox other than the Postal Service and the postal
customer.  The official said that although many laws cover the
distribution of SEO materials, without the mailbox restriction it
would be more difficult to identify and apprehend violators
delivering illegal SEO materials because almost anyone could legally
open mailboxes and not be a suspect.  The official also said that
such potential problems could be tempered somewhat if only large
private delivery companies such as Federal Express were allowed
access to mailboxes, because there are a limited number of such
companies and because they are large enough to provide adequate
security and assurance that materials they deliver meet applicable
laws. 


--------------------
\24 October 31, 1995, letter to the Chairman, Subcommittee on the
Postal Service, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, House
of Representatives, to be included with the record of the hearing
held by the Subcommittee on July 25, 1995. 

\25 October 1, 1996, letter to the Chairman, Subcommittee on the
Postal Service, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, House
of Representatives. 

\26 39 U.S.C.  3008 and 3010 and DMM C032 and C033. 


      POSTAL SERVICE COMPETITORS
      WANTED THE MAILBOX
      RESTRICTION REPEALED OR
      MODIFIED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.2

The four national expedited mail and parcel delivery firms that
responded to our questionnaire said that the mailbox restriction
should be repealed.  An executive at one of the three firms who
explained her firm's views said that the public interest would be
served by repealing the mailbox restriction because U.S.  history has
shown that absent special circumstances, competition is generally the
best and fairest way to advance the economy.  The executive said
there is no economic evidence to demonstrate that the mailbox
restriction is needed to maintain universal postal service; it is
unnecessary for protecting mail security, since other laws punish
theft and trespass; and it was not intended to restrict the delivery
of express parcels when it was passed in 1934.\27 The executive also
said the mailbox restriction is a matter of great frustration to the
firm, and a representative of the firm has previously said it imposes
considerable difficulties on private carriers.  An executive at a
second firm favoring repeal said that mailbox owners should be able
to use their property as they wish.  An executive at a third firm
said that the mailbox restriction gives the Postal Service an unfair
advantage because the firm is currently forced to leave items in
doorways and other places rather than in the mailbox.  The executive
said repeal would allow it to leave documents and packages in a safer
and more secure location, which would help protect them from the
weather. 

Among the nine alternate delivery firms and alliances that responded
to our questionnaire, four favored modification of the mailbox
restriction and five favored repeal.  An executive at one firm that
favored modification said that private carriers with access to
mailboxes should have to meet certain verification and delivery
requirements.  An executive at another firm that favored modification
said that the Service should receive some type of compensation from
others who use mailboxes.  Executives at the five alternate delivery
firms and alliances favoring repeal gave a number of reasons to
support their positions, including that mailbox owners should decide
who has access. 


--------------------
\27 The executive also said her firm would support two possible
limitations to mailbox access:  (1) allowing individuals to limit
access to their own mailboxes; and (2) allowing the Postal Rate
Commission to restrict access in areas or circumstances where
evidence shows that the public interest in universal service requires
it, and such restrictions would apply equally (e.g., if competitors
could not put express shipments in mailboxes, neither could the
Postal Service). 


      TEN OF 17 MAILER GROUPS AND
      MAILERS SUPPORTED THE
      MAILBOX RESTRICTION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.3

Ten of the 17 mailer groups and mailers that responded to our
questionnaire said they want to keep the current mailbox restriction,
3 favored modification of the law, and 4 had no position.  Executives
of these organizations that favored keeping the restriction primarily
expressed concerns about security of the mail, but other concerns
included customer privacy, protection of postal revenue, unwanted
material being placed into mailboxes, and efficient mail delivery by
the Postal Service. 

We asked those who said the mailbox restriction should be modified or
repealed to indicate whether certain companies or "private
individuals" should be "allowed to place mailable matter without
postage into private mailboxes." In contrast to the four national
expedited mail and parcel delivery firms that said that mailboxes
should be open to private individuals, six of nine alternate delivery
firms and alliances did not want to allow private individuals access
to mailboxes (see table 2).  Executives at four of these alternate
delivery firms and alliances said that there should be some form of
licensing or positive identification of those allowed access to the
mailboxes. 

The three mailer groups and mailers that favored having the law
modified said that private individuals should not be allowed to place
matter into mailboxes (see table 2).  Executives at two of the three
organizations that favored modifying the law to allow the proposed
mailbox access test said that those who deposit matter into mailboxes
should be licensed or registered.  An executive at the other
organization said that delivery services should be allowed to
distribute individually addressed mail pieces to mailboxes and said
the amount of mail addressed to "occupant" should be limited.  In
addition, an executive at one mailer association that took no
position on the mailbox restriction also supported the proposed
mailbox access test. 



                                     Table 2
                     
                     Views on Mailbox Access Among Those Who
                     Said That the Mailbox Restriction Should
                             Be Modified or Repealed


                                  Gas,
                 Private     electric,      Catalog,    Newspaper,
            express mail         water    coupon, ad      magazine       Private
               companies     companies  distributors  distributors   individuals
----------  ------------  ------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
National           4 yes         4 yes         4 yes         4 yes         4 yes
 expedited          0 no          0 no          0 no          0 no          0 no
 mail and
 parcel
 delivery
 firms
Alternate          9 yes         7 yes         8 yes         9 yes         3 yes
 delivery           0 no          2 no          1 no          0 no          6 no
 firms and
 alliances
Mailer             3 yes         3 yes         2 yes         3 yes         0 yes
 groups             0 no          0 no          1 no          0 no          3 no
 and
 mailers
================================================================================
Total who         16 yes        14 yes        14 yes        16 yes         7 yes
 favored            0 no          2 no          2 no          0 no          9 no
 modificat
 ion/
 repeal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Responses to GAO questionnaire. 


   THEFT OF MAIL FROM MAILBOXES IN
   THE UNITED STATES AND IN EIGHT
   FOREIGN COUNTRIES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

Although the Postal Inspection Service--which is responsible for
enforcing postal laws--had no data on the number of mail thefts from
mailboxes, Inspection Service officials said that theft of mail from
mailboxes is a very serious problem in the United States.  Six of the
eight foreign postal administrations we surveyed reported that theft
of mail from mailboxes is a minor or no problem within their
countries.  Like the Postal Service, the eight foreign postal
administrations also did not have data on the number of mail thefts
from mailboxes.  However, two factors appear to contribute to the
better mailbox security reported by most of the eight foreign postal
administrations we surveyed.  First, the mix of residential mail
receptacles was different in three foreign countries from the mix in
the United States.  Postal administrations of two of these countries
reported that the majority of their residential customers use mail
slots in doors or walls rather than using mailboxes, and another
foreign postal administration reported that its residential customers
use a higher proportion of locked mailboxes than the United States. 
Second, seven foreign postal administrations reported that they
generally do not collect outgoing mail from residential customers'
mailboxes. 

U.S.  Postal Inspection Service officials said the mailbox
restriction helps deter mail theft.  They said that the mailbox
restriction limits access to the Postal Service and the postal
customer, which makes it easier to detect, investigate, and resolve
cases involving theft of mail from mailboxes.  The eight foreign
postal administrations we surveyed said that they did not have
mailbox restriction laws, have never had exclusive access, and did
not believe that they needed it.  Five foreign postal administrations
said that exclusive mailbox access would be inconsistent with the
concept of fair competition in their countries. 


      THE INSPECTION SERVICE
      CONSIDERS THEFT OF MAIL FROM
      MAILBOXES TO BE A SERIOUS
      PROBLEM
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1

Theft of mail from mailboxes is a very serious problem in the United
States, according to Postal Inspection Service officials.  Although
the Inspection Service data on mail theft do not identify whether the
theft occurs from a mailbox or other location, the data show that the
Inspection Service received over 2.4 million mail theft complaints
during fiscal year 1996.  Over 1.2 million complaints were listed in
the Mail Theft Reporting System (MTRS), which is the repository for
complaints reported to the Inspection Service from external sources,
such as credit card issuers, state and federal check issuing
agencies, and money order issuers.  Of the 1.2 million MTRS
complaints, about 877,000 concerned nonreceipt of credit cards sent
through the mail, which resulted in an additional 175,000 complaints
involving fraudulent transactions with credit cards. 

Postal customers used the Mail Loss/Rifling Report (Form 1510)\28 to
file nearly 1.2 million general customer complaints regarding theft,
delay, and mistreatment of mail in fiscal year 1996.  Although the
proportion of the total 2.4 million complaints for mail theft that
involved theft of mail from mailboxes was not specifically
identified, the Inspection Service noted in its response to our
questions that "Although not all [of the 2.4 million complaints] are
directly attributable to thefts from mailboxes, it is safe to
characterize a large and significant portion of this number as theft
from mailboxes."

The Inspection Service reported 4,777 arrests for mail theft in
fiscal year 1996, including 499 postal employees and 4,278 other
persons.  In the same year, there were 4,224 convictions for mail
theft, including 548 postal employees and 3,676 other persons.\29 The
Inspection Service said it spent more than 1 million hours annually
investigating and working on mail theft cases in fiscal years 1992
through 1996.  There were no available data on the number of arrests,
convictions, or workhours that were related specifically to theft of
mail from mailboxes. 

According to Inspection Service Officials, most theft of mail from
mailboxes involves incoming mail, such as credit cards,\30 but theft
of outgoing mail is also a problem in numerous communities across the
nation.  Some local Inspection Service officials have advised postal
patrons in their jurisdictions to avoid leaving outgoing mail in
their mailboxes and, if they do, not to raise the mailbox flags
because this can be a signal to thieves that there is mail in the
mailboxes. 

The Service did not have complete data available on the total number
of mailboxes from which it collects outgoing mail, but Service
officials told us that outgoing mail is collected from most
mailboxes.  Postal Service regulations state that mailable matter is
generally to be collected from rural mailboxes if postage is fully
prepaid or money equal to the required postage is furnished.\31
Service policy calls for both city and rural carriers to collect
outgoing mail from curbside mailboxes when the flags are raised, even
if there is no mail for delivery that day to the mailboxes.  Service
data show there are about 42 million of these residential curbside
mailboxes.  City carriers are also directed to collect outgoing mail
with prepaid postage if it is placed next to, in, or on mailboxes
when they deliver mail to customers.  Service data show that there
are about 34 million residential delivery points, which include mail
delivered by letter carriers on foot to mailboxes attached to houses,
mailboxes behind the sidewalk, and door slots. 


--------------------
\28 According to Inspection Service officials, there is little
overlap between Form 1510 complaints and complaints recorded by MTRS. 

\29 Some convictions resulted from arrests made in the previous
year(s). 

\30 Postal Inspection Service officials told us that aside from
credit cards, other items are stolen from mailboxes, such as credit
card solicitations and certain types of checks, such as Treasury
checks and tax refund checks. 

\31 DMM D042.10.5. 


      MOST FOREIGN POSTAL
      ADMINISTRATIONS SAID THEFT
      OF MAIL FROM MAILBOXES WAS
      NOT A SERIOUS PROBLEM
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.2

Although the eight foreign postal administrations we surveyed did not
have data on the number of mail thefts from mailboxes, six said that
theft of mail from mailboxes was not a problem or was a minor problem
within their countries.  The three postal administrations of
Australia, France, and The Netherlands said that theft of mail from
mailboxes was not a problem.  The postal administration of The
Netherlands noted that a majority of its residential customers use
mail slots in doors or walls rather than mailboxes and estimated that
only about 12 percent of all households in that country use
mailboxes.  Similarly, the postal administration of the United
Kingdom said that theft from mailboxes did not apply because the vast
majority of its residential customers use mail slots in doors or
walls instead of mailboxes.  Two of the foreign postal
administrations, New Zealand Post and Sweden Post, said that theft of
mail from mailboxes was only a minor problem. 

The German postal administration, Deutsche Post AG, said theft of
mail from mailboxes was a very serious problem, while Canada Post
described it as a somewhat serious problem.  Deutsche Post AG had no
current data available on the theft of mail from mailboxes but said
".  .  .  such thefts lead to considerable interference with the
postal service." Canada Post said that although theft of mail was not
a serious problem in frequency, it treated the problem seriously
because mail theft ultimately affects its customers negatively. 
Canada Post had no statistical data on instances of mail thefts from
mailboxes, and none were available from the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police or Statistics Canada. 

In response to six questions, five or more foreign postal
administrations said that their lack of exclusive access to mailboxes
within their countries had not caused or contributed to conditions
cited by the U.S.  Postal Service as justifications for its mailbox
restriction--that is, to protect against significant loss of postal
revenue, inefficient mail delivery and collection, decreased mail
privacy, increased mail theft, difficulty in investigating mail
theft, and increased mail fraud (see table 3). 



                                Table 3
                
                     Views of Eight Foreign Postal
                   Administrations Regarding Possible
                 Problems Related to Lack of Exclusive
                          Access to Mailboxes

In your opinion, does the postal
administration's lack of exclusive access to
mailboxes cause or contribute to any of the                      Don't
following?                                         Yes      No    know
----------------------------------------------  ------  ------  ------
1. Significant loss of postal revenue?               0       6       2
2. Inefficient mail delivery/collection?             0       8       0
3. Decreased mail privacy?                           1       7       0
4. Increased mail theft?                             2       6       0
5. Difficulty investigating mail theft?              2       5       1
6. Increased mail fraud?                             1       5       2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Postal administrations in Australia, Canada, France,
Germany, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United
Kingdom. 

Although the eight foreign postal administrations generally did not
report specific problems (see table 3), three foreign postal
administrations did report that their lack of exclusive access to
mailboxes had caused or contributed to at least one problem in their
country.  Canada Post said its lack of exclusive access to mailboxes
had caused or contributed to increased mail theft but added that was
true only for "some [mail theft from] rural mailboxes that are not
locked." New Zealand Post said its lack of exclusive access to
mailboxes had caused or contributed to difficulty in investigating
mail theft, explaining that with anyone having access to the mailbox,
it could be claimed that an item was stolen after delivery. 

La Poste of France was the only foreign postal administration that
said that its lack of exclusive access to mailboxes had caused or
contributed to multiple problems, including increased mail theft,
difficulty in investigating mail theft, increased mail fraud, and
decreased mail privacy for postal customers.  La Poste also said that
the U.S.  Postal Service's exclusive access to mailboxes is a model
for other countries, as it offers a good first level of security
against mail fraud, such as advance fee schemes, look-alike billings,
and solicitations disguised as invoices. 


      TWO FACTORS APPEAR TO
      CONTRIBUTE TO FOREIGN
      MAILBOX SECURITY
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.3

Two factors appear to contribute to the better mailbox security
reported by most of the eight foreign postal administrations we
surveyed.  First, the mix of residential mail receptacles was
different in three foreign countries from the mix in the United
States.  Postal administrations of two of these countries reported
that the majority of their residential customers use mail slots in
doors or walls instead of mailboxes and another foreign postal
administration reported that its residential customers use a higher
proportion of locked mailboxes than the United States.  Second, seven
foreign postal administrations reported that they generally do not
collect outgoing mail from residential customers' mailboxes.  The
overwhelming majority of their customers take their outgoing mail to
central collection points, rather than leaving it in the mailboxes to
be picked up. 

Three foreign postal administrations reported that they have a
different mix of residential mail receptacles than the United States. 
Twenty-one percent of the U.S.  adults in our national survey said
their households get most of their mail in locked mailboxes and 66
percent said they receive most of their mail in mailboxes without
locks.\32 In contrast, the German postal administration reported that
55 percent of its residential customers get their mail in locked
mailboxes, while only 17.5 percent use unlocked mailboxes.\33 The
postal administration of the United Kingdom reported that the vast
majority of its residential customers use mail slots in doors or
walls instead of mailboxes.  Similarly, the postal administration of
The Netherlands said that a majority of its residential customers
also use mail slots in doors or walls, and estimated that only about
12 percent of households in that country use mailboxes, adding that
"These mailboxes are generally locked." The other five postal
administrations of Australia, Canada, France, New Zealand, and Sweden
said they could not estimate the proportion of locked and unlocked
residential mailboxes. 

Seven foreign postal administrations reported that they generally do
not collect outgoing mail from residential customers' mailboxes,
whereas the U.S.  Postal Service collects outgoing mail from most
mailboxes.  The postal administrations of France and The Netherlands
said they do not routinely collect outgoing mail from any mailboxes. 
In Germany, Deutsche Post AG said it routinely collects mail from
only 25,000 mailboxes in rural areas, or less than 0.1 percent of its
residential delivery points.  Canada Post estimated that it routinely
collects mail from some mailboxes in rural areas representing about 6
percent of all mailboxes.  New Zealand Post reported that it
routinely collects outgoing mail from about 110,000 rural customers'
mailboxes, which would represent about 9 percent of its residential
delivery points.  Customers who receive "Rural Delivery Service" in
New Zealand use mailboxes without locks that have flags that can be
used to indicate that outgoing mail is awaiting collection. 
Australia Post said it does not routinely collect outgoing mail from
any mailboxes, but it added that residents may hand fully prepaid
letters to the letter carrier.  In Sweden, letter carriers will
accept outgoing mail from mailboxes, but Sweden Post reported that
this is not a common practice. 


--------------------
\32 The other 13 percent of all adults in our national survey said
that their households get most of their mail either at U.S.  post
offices (8 percent), through door slots (4 percent), or some other
way (1 percent). 

\33 According to Deutsche Post AG, mail for other German residential
customers is (1) delivered through a slot in a door or wall (16
percent); (2) handed directly to them (8 percent); (3) received in a
mail room, by a building manager, or by a concierge (3 percent); or
(4) delivered to a post office box (0.5 percent). 


      THE INSPECTION SERVICE SAID
      THE MAILBOX RESTRICTION
      HELPS DETER MAIL THEFT
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.4

Inspection Service officials told us that the mailbox restriction
helps deter theft of mail from mailboxes by limiting mailbox access. 
They said that limited access also helps enforce laws against mail
theft, obstruction of mail, and mail fraud.  They said this limited
access makes it easier to identify mail theft suspects, simplifies
surveillance to identify perpetrators, and makes it easier to resolve
cases involving mail stolen from mailboxes.  The officials strongly
opposed any relaxation of the mailbox restriction, saying it would
potentially cause a dramatic increase in theft of mail from mailboxes
and impair law enforcement efforts. 

Inspection Service officials acknowledged that other postal laws
exist against mail theft, obstruction of mail, and mail fraud, but
they said these laws are most effective because the mailbox
restriction limits legal access to mailboxes to the Postal Service
and the postal customer.  First, they said that limited access helps
deter mail theft by making it easier for postal customers and the
Service to detect suspicious activity around mailboxes.  Without the
restriction, mail thieves would not need to be as surreptitious, the
officials said.  Second, the officials said that the mailbox
restriction makes it easier for the Inspection Service to investigate
and resolve cases involving mail theft or obstruction of mail because
it is often necessary to establish who had physical access to the
mailbox to prove that mail was stolen or obstructed.  Inspection
Service officials said limited access makes it easier for law
enforcement agencies or postal customers to identify mail theft
suspects because only the Postal Service and the postal customer have
legal access to the mailbox.  The Inspection Service generally uses
mailbox surveillance in its investigations when it suspects mail is
being stolen from mailboxes, according to Inspection Service
officials.  They said that the Inspection Service uses mailbox
surveillance to determine whether mail theft is occurring at the
mailbox, as well as to obtain proof that a particular suspect is
stealing mail.  Inspection Service officials also said that some mail
fraud investigations are dependent upon establishing that only the
addressee and the Postal Service letter carrier have legal access to
the mailbox. 

Inspection Service officials strongly opposed relaxing or repealing
the mailbox restriction.  They said that without the restriction,
mail theft cases would be more difficult to resolve.  In their view,
any company or person given legal access to mailboxes could become a
potential mail theft suspect that might need to be investigated when
problems such as mail theft occur. 

In addition, the officials said that if the mailbox restriction was
relaxed or repealed, federal laws against mail theft would not apply
to items left in mailboxes by private delivery companies or anyone
else because the items would not be U.S.  mail.  They said that theft
of items other than U.S.  mail from mailboxes would be considered
theft of personal property and would not be investigated by the
Inspection Service.  Instead, these thefts could be investigated by
the local police, and the Inspection Service would not be involved in
attempting to resolve these cases.  Moreover, consistent with the
views of the Justice Department, Inspection Service officials said
that the mailbox restriction helps deter the placement of sexually
explicit materials into mailboxes because, as previously discussed,
certain laws and regulations governing the distribution of sexually
explicit materials apply only to mail delivered by the Postal
Service.\34


--------------------
\34 39 U.S.C.  3008 and 3010 and DMM C032 and C033. 


      FOREIGN POSTAL
      ADMINISTRATIONS SAID THEY DO
      NOT NEED A MAILBOX
      RESTRICTION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.5

None of the eight foreign postal administrations we surveyed said
they needed a law restricting mailbox access and none have ever had
such a restriction.  Although La Poste of France recognized drawbacks
to its lack of exclusive mailbox access, it and four of the other
seven foreign postal administrations said that giving the postal
administration exclusive access to mailboxes would be counter to the
concept of fair competition for mail delivery.  As we reported in
September 1996,\35 private competitors in some of these countries are
allowed to deliver a larger proportion of letter mail than is the
case in the United States, where the Postal Service has a monopoly
over most letter mail. 

Australia Post said that restrictions on mailbox access would be
counter to national competition policy principles that aim to
minimize regulation.  The Australian government has encouraged all
its business enterprises to be able to compete on equal terms in the
market, Australia Post said, adding that Australia Post can compete
without gaining undue advantages from exclusive mailbox access.  La
Poste of France said if it had exclusive mailbox access, this would
be against fair competition rules because La Poste would be able to
take advantage in competing to deliver mail not covered by its postal
monopoly, such as unaddressed printed matter and parcels.  Deutsche
Post AG of Germany said that exclusive mailbox access would give rise
to problems under the fair trade rules.  PTT Post, the postal
administration of The Netherlands, also said exclusive mailbox access
would be an artificial obstruction of competition. 

New Zealand Post said the main reason there is open access to
mailboxes is to provide open competition for delivery of all items
except standard letters, adding that it would be placed in a dominant
position if it had a monopoly on mailbox access.  Canada Post said
its monopoly over letter mail is sufficient protection for its core
business; and since mailboxes are the private property of customers,
they had not seen any need to interfere with their right of
ownership.\36 Sweden Post said it cannot dictate how mailboxes should
be used because they belong to the addressees, adding that most
households with mailboxes subscribe to a morning newspaper that is
left in the mailboxes.  The postal administration of the United
Kingdom said it did not need exclusive access to mailboxes because
the vast majority of its residential customers receive mail through
slots in doors or walls rather than in mailboxes. 


--------------------
\35 GAO/GGD-96-129A/B. 

\36 Canada Post also said it has exclusive access to apartment house
mailboxes and to community mailboxes similar to U.S.  cluster boxes
because these mail receptacles are locked. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

In the Postal Service's comments (see app.  V), the Deputy Postmaster
General said that he was in general agreement with the information
contained in the report and said that it is a balanced presentation. 
We have summarized the Postal Service's views on the importance of
the mailbox restriction, and have incorporated their specific
comments opposing selective access to mailboxes into the report.  The
Deputy Postmaster General stressed the Service's concern that the
Private Express Statutes provide the financial underpinning necessary
for the Postal Service to provide universal service at a uniform
postage rate.  He said that the mailbox restriction is an essential
companion to the Statutes.  He also said that if as a result of
legislation, the Statutes were relaxed or eliminated and,
concurrently, others were given access to mailboxes, a major portion
of the Service's letter mail volume would potentially be open for
diversion.  He recognized that it is impossible to precisely predict
the consequences of such legislation, but he believed that there
would be an immediate and substantial decline in mail volume, which
would inevitably unravel the revenue base that supports universal
service. 

We agree that the Statutes have provided the financial underpinning
for universal service.  As we noted in our report on the Private
Express Statutes,\37 universal mail service at uniform rates is one
of several key issues Congress needs to consider in assessing the
desirability of changing the Statutes.  In addition, many other
factors could affect universal service.  Some of these include how
Congress might change the Statutes, how competitors might respond,
what mail volume might be diverted, and whether the Service can
improve service quality and control operating costs. 

Service officials also provided written and oral technical comments
to clarify and correct some of the information in the draft report. 
We have incorporated these comments into the report where
appropriate.  Similarly, we arranged for the eight foreign postal
administrations to review relevant sections of the draft report.  We
incorporated their technical comments to improve the accuracy of the
report where appropriate. 


--------------------
\37 GAO/GGD-96-129A/B. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.1

As arranged with the Subcommittee, unless you publicly announce the
contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution
until 30 days after the date of this letter.  At that time, we will
distribute copies of the report to the Ranking Minority Member of
your Subcommittee; the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the
Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation and Federal
Services, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs; the Postmaster
General; and other interested parties.  Copies will also be made
available to others upon request. 

Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI.  If you
have any questions about the report, please call me on (202)
512-8387. 

Sincerely yours,

Michael E.  Motley
Associate Director, Government
 Business Operations Issues


OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I

The Chairman, Subcommittee on the Postal Service, House Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight, requested that we provide
information relevant to considering possible changes to 18 U.S.C. 
1725, which is known as the mailbox restriction.  He requested the
review shortly before he introduced legislation (H.R.  3717, 104th
Cong.  (1996)) in the 104th Congress to reform the Postal Service
that included, among other things, a demonstration project to test
relaxing the mailbox restriction, in certain areas for 3 years.  This
bill was not reported out of the Subcommittee in the 104th Congress. 
In January 1997, the Chairman introduced a similar bill (H.R.  22,
105th Cong.  (1997)) that proposed the same demonstration project. 

Our objectives were to obtain and provide information on (1) the
purpose and history of the mailbox restriction; (2) current U.S. 
public attitudes toward the mailbox restriction; (3) views of the
U.S.  Postal Service, competitors, major mailers, postal labor
organizations, the U.S.  Department of Justice, and the Postal Rate
Commission on the mailbox restriction; and (4) the experience of the
United States and certain other countries regarding mail theft and
the need for a mailbox restriction. 

To determine the purpose and history of the mailbox restriction, we
(1) reviewed the mailbox restriction law, 18 U.S.C.  1725; (2)
examined the legislative history of the mailbox restriction and
current Postal Service regulations that restrict access to mailboxes;
and (3) reviewed court cases involving challenges to the mailbox
restriction, particularly the 1981 U.S.  Supreme Court decision that
upheld its constitutionality.\38 We also reviewed relevant federal
laws, including laws against mail theft, obstruction of mail, and
mail fraud; laws governing the distribution of sexually explicit
materials; and current postal regulations that restrict access to
mailboxes.\39

To determine current U.S.  public attitudes about the mailbox
restriction, we developed survey questions and contracted with the
University of Maryland's Survey Research Center to conduct a national
telephone survey.  A total of 1,013 randomly selected adults (18 and
older) in the continental United States were interviewed between
August 12 and October 14, 1996.  Survey results are representative of
all adults in the continental United States. 

To obtain a random sample of adults within households, telephone
numbers were randomly generated from a sampling frame of working area
code and three-digit prefix combinations in the continental United
States.  This methodology generated both listed and unlisted
telephone numbers.  A single adult was selected at random from among
all adults residing in each household that was contacted. 

Our questions were asked as part of an "omnibus" survey, which means
that multiple sponsors paid to include their questions in the survey. 
We were the only sponsor that asked questions about postal issues. 

The response rate to the survey was 65 percent.  Table I.1 summarizes
the outcomes of telephone interviewing and the response rate to the
survey. 



                               Table I.1
                
                 Outcomes of Telephone Interviewing and
                Response Rate for Survey of U.S. Adults

                                                                Percen
Description                                             Number       t
------------------------------------------------------  ------  ------
Telephone numbers in original sample                     2,570
Nonhouseholds (e.g., businesses, nonworking telephone      886
 numbers)
Household status unknown (e.g., no answer or busy          131
 signal, and the number was dialed at least 20 times)
Households                                               1,553     100
Interview completed with randomly selected adult         1,013      65
Refusal                                                    298      19
Telephone answering machine was reached and at least       155      10
 25 attempts were made to complete the interview, or
 the designated respondent could not be contacted and
 at least 25 attempts were made to contact the
 selected adult
Physical limitations prevented the interview, such as       87       6
 illness, lack of hearing, or inability to speak
 English
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  University of Maryland Survey Research Center. 

Results from the survey were adjusted according to (1) the number of
nonbusiness telephone numbers in the household because every
telephone number had an equal probability of selection, so households
with more than one telephone number had a higher chance of inclusion;
and (2) household size because only one adult was selected from among
all adults in the household.  Results from the survey were also
adjusted to match the characteristics of all adults in the general
public according to demographic characteristics that included sex,
age, education, race, and region.  In reporting percentages for each
survey question, we excluded the small number of adults (4 to 15
adults out of 1,013 in the survey) who did not give an answer to that
particular question. 

Because the survey used random sampling, the results are subject to
some uncertainty, or sampling error.  The overall results were
surrounded by 95 percent confidence intervals of plus or minus 4
percent or less.  Results for subgroups had larger sampling errors. 
For results given in this report, sampling errors were less than plus
or minus 7 percent for subgroups with different levels of education,
less than plus or minus 8 percent for those with locked mailboxes,
and less than plus or minus 4 percent for those with mailboxes
without locks. 

The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce
nonsampling errors.  As in any survey, differences in the wording of
questions, in the sources of information that are available to
respondents, or in the types of people who do not respond can lead to
somewhat different results.  Therefore, we obtained comments on the
questionnaire from Postal Service officials and made minor changes to
address their comments.  We also took steps to minimize the
nonsampling errors.  For example, we pretested our survey questions,
and the University of Maryland Survey Research Center also conducted
pretesting. 

Several actions by the University of Maryland Survey Research Center
also helped to maximize the response rate, including (1) making at
least 20 attempts to contact each sampled household; (2) training
interviewers how to conduct the interview, avoid refusals, and
persuade potential respondents to participate; and (3) recontacting
households that initially refused to participate.  The latter
resulted in completed interviews with 45 percent of those
recontacted.  A supervisor monitored interviewing in the centralized
location where interviewing was conducted.  In addition, we used a
second analyst to double-check our computer analyses. 

To obtain the views of key stakeholders toward the mailbox
restriction, we used a one-page questionnaire that asked structured
questions about the mailbox restriction and mailbox access.  We
selected 59 domestic organizations to receive the questionnaire,
including the Postal Service, the U.S.  Department of Justice, 7
major postal labor unions and management associations, an association
representing contractors who transport and deliver U.S.  mail, 5
national expedited mail and parcel delivery firms, an association
representing expedited mail and parcel delivery firms, 14 alternate
delivery firms and alliances, 28 mailer groups and mailers, and the
Postal Rate Commission.  Our basis for selecting these organizations
is described below. 

We selected (1) the Postal Service because it is the current
beneficiary of the mailbox restriction; (2) the U.S.  Department of
Justice because it has enforcement responsibilities for federal laws,
including postal laws covering mail theft, obstruction of mail, and
mail fraud; and federal laws related to the distribution of
pornography and mailings of sexually explicit materials, including
such mail sent to mailboxes; (3) the Postal Rate Commission because
it is the independent body with responsibilities in the postal
ratesetting process; (4) the seven major postal labor unions and
management associations and an association that represents
contractors who transport and deliver U.S.  mail, because they
represent postal employees and contractors who could be affected by
changes to the mailbox restriction; and (5) the five national
expedited mail and parcel delivery firms that the Service had
previously identified as its principal competitors and an association
that represents expedited parcel delivery firms. 

In addition, we selected 14 alternate delivery firms and alliances
that are members of an industry that competes with the Service for
delivery of some materials, such as unaddressed advertising.  We
judgmentally selected these organizations to ensure a broad range of
company sizes, geographic locations, companies in areas with
different population levels, and both newspaper-owned firms and other
firms.  We also judgmentally selected 28 mailer groups and mailers to
obtain the views of (1) mailing industry trade associations and
mailers that represent those who send significant volumes of mail;
and (2) mailer groups and mailers in the credit card, financial, and
insurance industries. 

We faxed the vast majority of the questionnaires on various dates in
October and November 1996, with follow-ups primarily in January 1997. 
We received a total of 41 written responses to the questionnaires,
which form the basis for discussion in this report.  Respondents
included the Postal Service, the 7 major postal labor unions and
management associations, an association representing contractors who
deliver and transport U.S.  mail, 17 mailer groups and mailers, 4
national expedited mail and parcel delivery firms, 9 alternate
delivery firms and alliances, the Justice Department, and the Postal
Rate Commission.  Results based on responses from national expedited
mail and parcel delivery firms, alternate delivery firms and
alliances, and mailer groups and mailers are not generalizable to all
such organizations because we did not send questionnaires to random
samples of these groups.  Fifteen organizations did not respond to
the initial questionnaire or follow-up, 2 organizations declined to
participate at the time of our initial telephone contact, and 1
organization had apparently gone out of business and could not be
reached.  We also interviewed the Acting Deputy Chief, Child
Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Justice Department Criminal
Division, to clarify the Department's response. 

To provide information on the experience of the United States and
certain other countries regarding mail theft and the need for a
mailbox restriction, we obtained information from the U.S.  Postal
Service and the eight foreign postal administrations of Australia,
Canada, France, Germany, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, and
the United Kingdom.  We contacted the U.S.  Postal Inspection
Service, which is part of the U.S.  Postal Service, because it is
responsible for enforcing U.S.  postal laws, including laws against
mail theft.  The eight foreign postal administrations were described
in a recent Price Waterhouse report\40 as among the most "progressive
postal administrations." Most of the eight have been reformed in the
past 15 years to change their structures and operations and give them
greater freedom from governmental control.  We previously
testified\41 that the postal reform experiences of these countries
are relevant to postal reform in the United States and reported that
none of these countries have laws that give their postal
administrations exclusive access to mailboxes.\42

At the Postal Service headquarters in Washington, D.C., we
interviewed Postal Inspection Service officials who oversee
enforcement of postal laws, and we reviewed the relevant documents
they submitted.  Those officials provided written responses to our
questions and detailed responses in interviews.  We did not verify
Inspection Service data on complaints, arrests, convictions, and
workhours related to mail theft. 

We surveyed the eight foreign postal administrations using an 11-page
questionnaire to obtain various information on mailbox access, mail
theft, enforcement of postal laws, and the types of mailboxes used
within these countries.  In September 1996, we hand-delivered the
questionnaire to an Australian government official who visited us
regarding a related postal reform issue at our headquarters in
Washington, D.C.  In October 1996, we faxed the questionnaire to the
remaining seven foreign postal administrations. 

We received written responses from all eight foreign postal
administrations between October 1996 and January 1997.  Seven
responses were supplemented by clarifications provided in telephone
interviews or in written answers to follow-up questions. 

Our discussion in this report on mailbox security is primarily based
on information provided by the Postal Inspection Service and the
eight foreign postal administrations.  We did not independently
verify this information, evaluate the effectiveness of open access to
foreign mailboxes, or reach an independent judgment on whether or not
theft of mail from mailboxes is a problem in the United States or the
eight foreign countries. 

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Postmaster
General.  The Postal Service's comments are summarized in this report
and reprinted in appendix V.  Service officials also provided written
and oral technical comments to clarify and correct some of the
information in the draft report.  We incorporated these comments into
the report where appropriate. 

We also arranged for the eight foreign postal administrations to
review relevant sections of the draft report.  We incorporated their
technical comments to improve the accuracy of the report where
appropriate. 

We did our audit work in Washington, D.C., and Dallas, Texas, from
June 1996 through February 1997 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. 



(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix II

--------------------
\38 U.S.  Postal Service v.  Council of Greenburgh Civic
Associations, 453 U.S.  114 (1981). 

\39 18 U.S.C.  1341, 1701, 1702, 1708, 1709, and 39 U.S.C.  3008 and
3010, and DMM C032 and C033. 

\40 A Strategic Review of Progressive Postal Administrations: 
Competition, Commercialization, and Deregulation (Price Waterhouse
LLP, February 1995). 

\41 GAO/T-GGD-96-60. 

\42 GAO/GGD-96-129A/B. 


QUESTIONNAIRE FOR GAO NATIONAL
SURVEY ON THE MAILBOX RESTRICTION
AND OVERALL RESPONSES
=========================================================== Appendix I



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix III
QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO SELECTED
DOMESTIC ORGANIZATIONS ON THE
MAILBOX RESTRICTION
=========================================================== Appendix I


DOMESTIC ORGANIZATIONS SELECTED TO
RECEIVE GAO QUESTIONNAIRES ON
MAILBOX ACCESS
========================================================== Appendix IV

U.S.  Postal Service, Washington, D.C.  (*)

Postal Labor Unions, Management Associations, and Contractors'
Association

American Postal Workers Union, Washington, D.C.  (*)
National Association of Letter Carriers, Washington, D.C.  (*)
National Association of Postal Supervisors, Alexandria, VA (*)
National Association of Postmasters of the United States,
 Alexandria, VA (*)
National League of Postmasters, Alexandria, VA (*)
National Postal Mail Handlers Union, Washington, D.C.  (*)
National Rural Letter Carriers' Association, Alexandria, VA (*)
National Star Route Mail and Contractors' Association,
 Washington, D.C.  (*)

U.S.  Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.  (*)

Postal Rate Commission, Washington, D.C.  (*)

Postal Service Competitors

National Expedited Mail and Parcel Delivery Firms

Airborne Express, Seattle, WA (*)
Caliber System, Inc., holding company for RPS, Arlington, VA (*)
DHL Worldwide Express, Redwood City, CA (*)
Federal Express Corporation, Memphis, TN (*)
United Parcel Service, Atlanta, GA

Association Representing Expedited Mail and Parcel Delivery Firms

Air Courier Conference of America, Washington, D.C. 

Alternate Delivery Firms

A&A Distribution, Inc., San Jose, CA
AdPost Northwest, Inc., Seattle, WA (*)
Advertisers Postal Service, Gaylord, MI
Alternate Postal Delivery, Inc., Grand Rapids, MI (*)
Atlanta Journal and Constitution, Atlanta, GA
Distribution Systems of America/Newsday, Hicksville, NY (*)
Dow Jones and Company, Inc., Princeton, NJ (*)
H&H Advertising, Fort Worth, TX
The Houston Chronicle, Houston, TX (*)
Maxx Mail, Ltd., New York, NY (*)
Nationwide Alternate Delivery Alliance, Washington, D.C.  (*)
The Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia, PA
R-J ADservices, Las Vegas, NV (*)
Times Distribution, Inc., Seatac, WA (*)

Mailer Groups and Mailers

Advertising Mail Marketing Association, Washington, D.C.  (*)
ADVO, Windsor, CT
Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers, Washington, D.C.  (*)
American Bankers Association, Washington, D.C.  (*)
American Council of Life Insurance, Washington, D.C.
American Express Company, Washington, D.C.  (*)
American Insurance Association, Washington, D.C.  (*)
Association of American Publishers, Washington, D.C.
Association of Priority Mail Users, McLean, VA
Direct Marketing Association, Washington, D.C.  (*)
Envelope Manufacturers Association, Alexandria, VA (*)
Health Insurance Association of America, Washington, D.C.
Magazine Publishers of America, Washington, D.C.  (*)
Mail Advertising Service Association, Alexandria, VA (*)
Mail Order Association of America, Washington, D.C.
Major Mailers Association, El Dorado Hills, CA
MasterCard International, Purchase, NY
Merrill Lynch, Piscataway, NJ (*)
National Association of Advertising Distributors, Centreville, VA (*)
National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Washington, D.C.
National Association of Presort Mailers, Brandon, FL (*)
National Federation of Nonprofits, Washington, D.C.  (*)
National Newspaper Association, Arlington, VA (*)
National Postal Policy Council, Arlington, VA
Newspaper Association of America, Washington, D.C.  (*)
Parcel Shippers Association, Washington, D.C.  (*)
Sears, Roebuck and Company, Hoffman Estates, IL (*)
VISA USA, Inc., Foster City, CA

Note:  Respondents are indicated with an asterisk (*). 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix V
COMMENTS FROM THE U.S.  POSTAL
SERVICE
========================================================== Appendix IV



(See figure in printed edition.)


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix VI

GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Gerald P.  Barnes, Assistant Director
James T.  Campbell, Assistant Director (retired)
Kenneth E.  John, Senior Social Science Analyst
Stuart Kaufman, Survey Specialist
George H.  Quinn, Jr., Computer Specialist
James M.  Fields, Senior Social Science Analyst
Martin de Alteriis, Senior Social Science Analyst
Katherine M.  Wheeler, Publishing Advisor

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Jill P.  Sayre, Senior Attorney

DALLAS FIELD OFFICE

Sherrill Johnson, Core Group Manager
Louis G.  Tutt, Senior Evaluator


*** End of document. ***