MILITARY 

PERSONNEL

DOD Needs to 

Establish 

Performance 

Measures for the 

Armed Forces Sports 

Program 

Report to Congressional Committees

June 2017

GAO-17-542

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-17-542, a report to 

congressional committees

June 2017

MILITARY PERSONNEL 

DOD Needs to Establish Performance 

Measures for the Armed Forces Sports 

Program 

What GAO Found

The Department of Defense (DOD) has data on participation in and costs of the 

Armed Forces Sports Program, but has not taken steps, including developing 

performance measures and clarifying roles and responsibilities that are needed 

to help ensure the program is implemented effectively. DOD officials stated that 

they use sport and competition participation data to measure the performance 

and effectiveness of the program. According to these data, servicemember 

participation changed from 968 servicemembers in fiscal year 2012 to 848 

servicemembers in fiscal year 2016, and program costs ranged from about $2.1 

million to about $2.8 million in fiscal years 2014 through 2016. While these data 

provide important context about the program’s size and reach, they do not exhibit 

several key attributes, such as linkage, a measurable target, and baseline and 

trend data that GAO has found are key to successfully measuring a program’s 

performance. 

• First, these data do not exhibit linkage because no relationship has been 

established to show how the number of servicemember participants 

contribute to achievement of the program’s objectives, such as promoting 

goodwill among and a positive image of the U.S. Armed Forces through 

sports.

• Second, these data were not associated with a measurable target that 

would enable program officials to determine how far the program has

progressed toward a desired outcome or end state. 

• Third, while DOD has program participation data, it does not track baseline 

and trend data for measures that are able to assess the program’s 

performance and progress over time.

Without performance measures that demonstrate these attributes, DOD will be 

unable to effectively demonstrate that it is achieving the intended benefits of the 

program, such as improving readiness, recruitment, and retention as well as 

promoting the goodwill of the U.S. Armed Forces. Officials cited the program as 

aiding recruiting because it showcased unique opportunities open to those in the

U.S. Armed Forces. However, outside of participation and cost data and some 

anecdotal examples, officials did not have specific measures for or data on the 

Armed Forces Sports Program’s contribution to the services’ readiness, 

recruiting, and retention efforts.

The roles and responsibilities that are currently being implemented for the 

program differ from the program’s roles and responsibilities specified in DOD 

policy. DOD Instruction 1330.04 specifies that the program includes training or 

national qualifying events in preparation for participation in International Military 

Sports Council events, the Pan American Games, the Olympic Games, the 

Paralympic Games, and other international competitions. While this is how the 

program is defined in key program documents, DOD officials stated that all 

responsibilities, including costs, associated with servicemember participation in 

the Pan American, Olympic, and Paralympic Games are handled by the services. 

DOD officials stated that they plan to review DOD Instruction 1330.04 and make 

necessary updates, but have not yet determined what specific changes would be 

made to clarify the program’s roles and responsibilities.

View GAO-17-542. For more information, 

contact Brenda S. Farrell at (202) 512-3604 or 

farrellb@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

For nearly a century, the U.S. Armed 

Forces (i.e., the Army, the Navy, the 

Marine Corps, the Air Force, and the 

Coast Guard) have organized and 

participated in international and 

national sporting competitions in part 

because of the intended benefits for 

servicemember morale and the unique 

opportunity that participation provides 

to foster diplomatic relations. 

House Report 114-537 accompanying 

a bill for the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 

included a provision for GAO to review 

the Armed Forces Sports Program and 

its impact on the military services’ 

readiness. This report assesses the 

effectiveness of DOD’s implementation 

of the Armed Forces Sports Program.

GAO analyzed participation data for 

fiscal years 2012 through 2016 and 

cost data for fiscal years 2014 through 

2016, compared DOD data with

attributes of successful performance 

measures, compared roles and 

responsibilities specified in policy with 

those being implemented, and 

interviewed DOD officials.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD develop 

and implement performance measures 

for the Armed Forces Sports Program

that, at a minimum, demonstrate 

linkage to the program’s goals or 

mission, have a measurable target, 

and include a baseline that can be 

used to demonstrate program 

performance. DOD concurred with the 

recommendation, noting potential 

limitations on establishing measures. 

GAO acknowledges these limitations, 

but continues to believe that measures 

are important to evaluating the 

program’s effectiveness.
Page i GAO-17-542 DOD Sports Program

Letter 1

Background 3

DOD Has Participation Data, but Has Not Developed Performance 

Measures or Clarified Roles and Responsibilities to Help 

Ensure Effective Program Implementation 8

Conclusions 17

Recommendations for Executive Action 18

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 18

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 20

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Defense 22

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 24

Tables

Table 1: Description of the Armed Forces Sports Council 

Secretariat’s and the Service Sports Offices’ 

Responsibilities for the Armed Forces Sports Program 5

Table 2: Number of Armed Forces Sports Council Secretariat and 

Service Sports Office Staff Members Working for the 

Armed Forces Sports Program 6

Table 3: Number of Servicemembers Participating in and 

Supporting the Armed Forces Sports Program, Fiscal 

Years 2012 through 2016 8

Table 4: Number of Days Servicemembers Were Away from Their 

Unit Participating in the Armed Forces Sports Program, 

Fiscal Years 2012 through 2016 9

Table 5: Number of Civilians Supporting the Armed Forces Sports 

Program, Fiscal Years 2012 through 2016 10

Table 6: Armed Forces Sports Program Costs, Fiscal Years 2014 

through 2016 10

Table 7: Armed Forces Sports Program Participation Costs for 

Armed Forces Sports Championships and Higher Level 

Competition, Fiscal Years 2014 through 2016 12

Table 8: Attributes of Effective Performance Measures 12

Contents
Page ii GAO-17-542 DOD Sports Program

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-17-542 DOD Sports Program

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

June 8, 2017

The Honorable John McCain

Chairman

The Honorable Jack Reed

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Mac Thornberry

Chairman

The Honorable Adam Smith

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

For nearly a century, the U.S. Armed Forces1 have organized and 

participated in international and national sporting competitions in part 

because of the intended benefits for servicemember morale and the 

unique opportunity that participation provides to foster diplomatic 

relations. The concept originated with the U.S.-led effort to organize the 

Inter-Allied Games of 1919 in France as a way to promote unity of effort 

among U.S. soldiers during the lengthy period of demobilization at the 

end of World War I, and to help enrich the U.S. relationship with the 

Allies. In continuing these efforts, in 1948 the Armed Forces Sports 

Program, originally named the Inter-service Sports Council, was 

established. In 2010, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued DOD 

Instruction 1330.04, which states that the Armed Forces Sports Program 

includes actions such as training or national qualifying events in 

preparation for servicemember participation in International Military 

Sports Council events, the Pan American, Olympic, and Paralympic 

Games, and other international competitions.2 Currently, the program 

offers 24 team and individual sports for men and women; annually 

administers 16 Armed Forces Sports Championships; and participates in 

 1 The U.S. Armed Forces include the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, 

and the Coast Guard (including when the latter is a service in the Department of 

Homeland Security). For the purposes of this report, we refer to the U.S. Armed Forces as 

the “Armed Forces” or the “services.”

2 DOD Instruction 1330.04, Armed Forces Participation in National and International 

Sports Activities (Aug. 31, 2010).

Letter
Page 2 GAO-17-542 DOD Sports Program

9 U.S. national championships and in 16 International Military Sports 

Council Military World Championships.

House Report 114-537 accompanying a bill for the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 included a provision for us to 

review the Armed Forces Sports Program and provide a briefing by 

February 2017 on the impact the program has on the military services’

readiness. We briefed your committees in February 2017 and this report 

expands on the information provided in that briefing. This report assesses 

the effectiveness of DOD’s implementation of the Armed Forces Sports 

Program.

For this review, we analyzed participation data for fiscal years 2012 

through 2016 and cost data for fiscal years 2014 through 2016.3 Based 

on responses of officials in the Armed Forces Sports Council Secretariat 

(Sports Council Secretariat) to data reliability questionnaires, we 

determined that the data we obtained are sufficiently reliable for the 

purposes of our reporting objectives. We compared DOD’s policy for the 

program against the federal standards for internal control4 that state 

among other things that managers should establish activities to monitor 

performance measures.5 We interviewed officials from the Office of the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Sports 

Council Secretariat, and each service to discuss performance measures 

 3 Cost data were provided only since fiscal year 2014 because officials said that not all 

services had data prior to that. 

4 See GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G 

(Washington, D.C.; Sept. 10, 2014) and Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.; Nov. 1, 1999). Internal control is a 

process affected by an entity’s oversight body, management, and other personnel that 

provides reasonable assurance that the objectives of an entity will be achieved. 

5 Our prior work emphasizes key attributes of performance measures, such as measurable 

targets and baseline data. See GAO, Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Further Refine Its 

Tax Filing Season Performance Measures, GAO-03-143 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22, 

2002), p. 45, for a description of how we developed the attributes of effective performance 

goals and measures and GAO, Defense Health Care Reform: Additional Implementation 

Details Would Increase Transparency of DOD’s Plans and Enhance Accountability, 

GAO-14-49 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 6, 2013), p. 17 for a description of why the baseline 

measure was added as an attribute of effective performance measures. See also GPRA 

Performance Reports, GAO/GGD-96-66R (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14, 1996); Missile 

Defense: Opportunity to Refocus on Strengthening Acquisition Management, GAO-13-432 

(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 26, 2013); Performance Measurement and Evaluation: Definitions 

and Relationships, GAO-11-646SP (Washington, D.C.: May 2011); and Agency 

Performance Plans: Examples of Practices That Can Improve Usefulness to 

Decisionmakers, GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-69 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 26, 1999). 
Page 3 GAO-17-542 DOD Sports Program

used to assess the program’s effectiveness, including the effects of 

program participation on services’ readiness. Specifically, we interviewed 

13 randomly selected servicemembers from the services that participated 

in the program in calendar year 2015 to gather information related to 

program participation and readiness effects on the services. We also 

interviewed ten commanders who had approved a randomly selected 

participants request to participate in the program to gather information 

related to participation and its effect on unit readiness.6 Further, we 

assessed program policies and interviewed officials from the Office of the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Sports 

Council Secretariat, and each service to discuss policies, including roles 

and responsibilities for implementing the program. Specifically, we 

analyzed DOD’s implementation of department policies to determine 

whether these policies were implemented as intended. We also examined 

the extent to which DOD has clearly defined key areas of authority and 

responsibilities and established appropriate lines of reporting for the 

program, in accordance with federal standards for internal control.7 A 

more detailed description of our scope and methodology appears in 

appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from August 2016 to June 2017 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

DOD instruction 1330.04 outlines the following roles and responsibilities 

regarding the Armed Forces Sports Program:

 6 We used calendar year 2015 data to randomly select servicemembers who participated 

in the program since this was the most recent year for which the program had a complete 

set of participant data.

7 See GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 and GAO-14-704G.

Background

Roles and Responsibilities 

for the Armed Forces 

Sports Program
Page 4 GAO-17-542 DOD Sports Program

• Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 

Readiness: Provides guidance and oversight concerning the 

participation of servicemembers in Armed Forces, national, and 

international amateur sports competitions.

• Senior Military Sports Advisor: Serves as the Service Personnel Chief 

who is responsible for the management and operation of the program 

and reports to the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for 

Personnel and Readiness.

• Armed Forces Sports Council: Serves as the governing body of the 

program, and is composed of the Morale, Welfare, and Recreation8

representatives from each service or their designated representatives.

• Armed Forces Sports Council Secretariat: Serves as the executive 

office for the council and serves as the U.S. liaison to the International 

Military Sports Council.

• Armed Forces Sports Council Working Group: Serves as the staffing 

body of the Armed Forces Sports Council, which is composed of 

Morale, Welfare, and Recreation representatives from each service.

• Secretaries of the Military Departments: Develop sports programs 

based on specific needs and mission requirements that provide the 

opportunity for servicemembers to prepare for and compete in 

national and international amateur sports competitions on a voluntary 

basis.

According to Sports Council Secretariat officials and the policies for 

managing servicemembers’ participation in national and international 

amateur sports competitions, the Sports Council Secretariat and the 

service sports offices each have responsibilities for managing the Armed 

Forces Sports Program. Table 1 further describes the responsibilities of 

the Armed Forces Sports Council Secretariat’s and the service sports 

offices for the Armed Forces Sports Program.

 8 The Coast Guard refers to its program as “Morale, Well-Being, and Recreation.” For 

consistency, we use “Morale, Welfare, and Recreation” to refer to these programs when 

the military services and the Coast Guard are discussed collectively.
Page 5 GAO-17-542 DOD Sports Program

Table 1: Description of the Armed Forces Sports Council Secretariat’s and the Service Sports Offices’ Responsibilities for the 

Armed Forces Sports Program

Office Program-related responsibilities 

Armed Forces Sports Council 

Secretariat

• Advises the Armed Forces Sports Council and Armed Forces Sports Council Working Group

• Serves as a steward of the program’s budget

• Maintains program social media accounts and perform public affairs activities for the program

• Provides meeting agenda items

• Orders uniforms, athletic gear, medals, and trophies

For Armed Forces Sports Championships and U.S. national events

• Coordinates with host installations

• Arranges for the payment and transportation of sports officials

• Ensures that Armed Forces Sports Championships conform to the Armed Forces Sports 

Council’s standard operating procedures

• Communicates with each sport’s national governing body regarding Armed Forces Sports 

Program participation in civilian national competitions

For International Military Sports Council events and other international competitions

• Processes travel clearances

• Conducts all direct communication and agreements with organizations, such as the International 

Military Sports Council

• Ensures that competition delegations have a servicemember of appropriate rank and are 

provided with needed administrative information

• Serves as the U.S. Chief of Delegation to the International Military Sports Council and votes at 

the General Assembly

• Co-authored the International Military Sports Council Strategic Plan and Business Plan

• Serves on the Para-Sport Advisory Team

Service sports offices For Armed Forces Sports Championships and U.S. national events

• Receive applications from servicemembers to participate in the program

• Determine servicemember selection

• Secure orders for participating servicemembers

• Fund transportation and lodging for servicemember to participate

• Assemble all-service sports teams to compete in Armed Forces Sports Championships

• Serve on the Armed Forces Sports Council Working Group

• Track program participation

• Develop service sports office budgets

• Perform service-specific public affairs activities

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense information. | GAO-17-542

Notes: According to Armed Forces Sports Program officials, the Armed Forces Sports Council 

Secretariat performs public affairs activities for the entire program, whereas the service sports offices 

perform only service-specific public affairs activities for their servicemembers’ participation. The 

officials said that they may request public affairs assistance from the base where an Armed Forces 

Sports Championship is hosted; however, this assistance (if available) is provided at no charge to the 

program since it is considered part of the public affairs offices’ responsibilities.
Page 6 GAO-17-542 DOD Sports Program

The number of staff members working in the Armed Forces Sports 

Council Secretariat and the service sports offices and the percentage of 

time staff members spend working for the Armed Forces Sports Program 

varies. For example, the Navy Sports Office has two staff members who 

work on the program nearly full time, while the Army Sports Office has 

four staff members who work on the program part time. In addition, the 

staff members working for the Armed Forces Sports Program include both 

civilians and active-duty servicemembers. Table 2 provides further details 

on the number of staff members and the estimated percentage of time 

they spend working for the Armed Forces Sports Program.

Table 2: Number of Armed Forces Sports Council Secretariat and Service Sports Office Staff Members Working for the Armed 

Forces Sports Program

Office Number and type of staff 

members

(civilians and 

servicemembers)

Percentage of time 

spent working for 

the program

Duties other than for the program

Armed Forces Sports 

Council Secretariat 

Office

2 civilians 100 • None

Army Sports Office 4 civilians 15 – 50 • Oversee Army Morale, Welfare, and Recreation 

programs and 234 fitness centers

• Provide garrison support

• Conduct quarterly garrison budget reviews

• Provide guidance to garrisons

• Procure sports apparel and gear

Navy Sports Office 2 civilians 85 – 95 • Oversee all Navy Sports Office programs

• Provide installation support for sports

• Perform general headquarters duties

Marine Corps Sports 

Office

2 civilians

1 servicemember

25 – 85 • Oversee all Marine Corps Morale, Welfare, and 

Recreation fitness and aquatic programs and 56 

fitness centersa

• Provide installation support

• Provide general headquarters duties 

Air Force Sports Office 1 civilian

2 servicemembers

20 – 40 • Provide administrative support to the Air Force 

World Class Athlete Program and to the Athlete of 

the Year program including sponsorship, marketing, 

budget preparation, and execution

• Provide fitness center training

• Assist with military obligations

Number of Staff Members 

Working for the Armed 

Forces Sports Program 

and Team and Individual 

Sports Offered
Page 7 GAO-17-542 DOD Sports Program

Office Number and type of staff 

members

(civilians and 

servicemembers)

Percentage of time 

spent working for 

the program

Duties other than for the program

Coast Guard Sports 

Office

1 civilian

1 servicemember

10 • Oversee Coast Guard Morale, Well-Being, and 

Recreation programs and funding requirements

• Provide field Morale, Well-Being, and Recreation 

support

• Develops policy and procedures for managing 

Morale, Well-Being, and Recreation programs

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense information. | GAO-17-542

a

According to Armed Forces Sports Program officials, one civilian on the Marine Corps Sports Office 

staff oversees all Marine Corps Morale, Welfare, and Recreation fitness and aquatic programs and 

fitness centers.

Servicemembers from each of the services may participate in any of the 

following 24 sports:

Archery 

Basketball

Bowling 

Cross-Country

Cycling

Golf

Judo

Lifesaving

Marathon 

Modern Pentathlon

Orienteering

Parachuting

Rugby 

Sailing

Shooting 

Skiing

Soccer 

Softball

Swimming

Tae Kwon Do 

Track and Field

Triathlon

Volleyball-Indoor 

Wrestling
Page 8 GAO-17-542 DOD Sports Program

DOD has data on participation in and costs of the Armed Forces Sports 

Program, but has not taken steps, including developing performance 

measures and clarifying roles and responsibilities, that are needed to help 

ensure that the program is implemented effectively.

Sports Council Secretariat officials provided us with data for fiscal years 

2012-2016 on servicemember participation in the program, including on 

the number of days servicemembers are away from their unit participating 

in the program and on civilians supporting the program, and data for fiscal 

years 2014-2016 on program costs.

In analyzing the number of servicemembers participating in the program, 

we found that servicemember participation changed from 968 

servicemembers in fiscal year 2012 to 848 servicemembers in fiscal year 

2016. Table 3 provides further details about the number of 

servicemembers who participated in or supported the Armed Forces 

Sports Program in fiscal years 2012-2016.

Table 3: Number of Servicemembers Participating in and Supporting the Armed Forces Sports Program, Fiscal Years 2012 

through 2016

Service

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Athletes Coaches Staff Athletes Coaches Staff Athletes Coaches Staff Athletes Coaches Staff Athletes Coaches Staff

Air 

Force

224 15 5 174 10 5 137 5 4 183 12 6 218 18 6

Army 225 21 9 198 20 16 159 12 12 210 19 11 215 17 11

Marine 

Corps

202 15 1 137 8 2 86 3 1 158 10 5 145 10 5

Navy 187 6 6 155 6 7 113 6 1 161 6 1 166 7 7

DOD Has 

Participation Data, 

but Has Not 

Developed 

Performance 

Measures or Clarified 

Roles and 

Responsibilities to 

Help Ensure Effective 

Program 

Implementation

DOD Has Data on 

Participation in and Costs 

of the Armed Forces 

Sports Program

Servicemember Participation
Page 9 GAO-17-542 DOD Sports Program

Service

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Athletes Coaches Staff Athletes Coaches Staff Athletes Coaches Staff Athletes Coaches Staff Athletes Coaches Staff

Coast 

Guard

48 4 0 22 4 0 32 1 1 32 2 0 21 2 0

Total 886 61 21 686 48 30 527 27 19 744 49 23 765 54 29

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense data. | GAO-17-542

Notes: The Armed Forces Sports Program includes servicemembers from the Army, the Navy, the 

Marine Corps, the Air Force, and the Coast Guard. Officials said members of the Reserve 

Component are also able to apply but need to be on active-duty orders. Staff refers to 

servicemembers serving as athletic trainers, service representatives, Chiefs of Mission, match 

delegates, or medical staff.

We also found that servicemember participation ranged from an average 

of 6.8 days per event in fiscal year 2013 to 13.2 days per event in fiscal 

year 2016. Sports Council Secretariat and service officials stated that the 

servicemembers who participate in the program are in peak physical 

shape and that they were unaware of any additional recovery time that a 

participant has needed after competing. Table 4 breaks out these data for 

each year from fiscal years 2012 through 2016.

Table 4: Number of Days Servicemembers Were Away from Their Unit Participating 

in the Armed Forces Sports Program, Fiscal Years 2012 through 2016

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Total staff daysa 179 183 138 186 435

Number of events 21 27 20 23 33

Average staff days per event 8.5 6.8 6.9 8.1 13.2

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense data. | GAO-17-542

Notes: Officials said that the increase in staff days for fiscal year 2016 is related to participation in 

several events at the Military World Games in South Korea, the amount of time required to travel to 

South Korea, and the requirement for servicemembers to participate in opening and closing 

ceremonies at the Military World Games.

Sports Council Secretariat officials stated that these data do not include any additional training or 

recovery time associated with a servicemember’s participation in an Armed Forces Sports Program 

competition.

a

Officials said that staff days refer to the time servicemembers are away from their unit to participate 

in Armed Forces Sports Program events.

According to officials, DOD civilians provide various types of support to 

the Armed Forces Sports Program and may include employees who work 

for the program on a full- or part-time basis, as well as those who serve in 

a volunteer capacity. Civilians who support the program as volunteers 

may serve in a variety roles, as coaches or as staff, for example, which 

include athletic trainers, service representatives, or medical staff. Table 5 

Civilians Supporting the 

Program
Page 10 GAO-17-542 DOD Sports Program

provides further details on the number of civilians who supported the 

Armed Forces Sports Program in fiscal years 2012 through 2016.

Table 5: Number of Civilians Supporting the Armed Forces Sports Program, Fiscal Years 2012 through 2016

Service

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Coaches Staff Coaches Staff Coaches Staff Coaches Staff Coaches Staff

Air Force 11 20 7 5 10 9 10 11 12 23

Army 6 15 4 10 3 7 5 12 4 14

Marine Corps 9 19 9 7 7 8 7 3 4 7

Navy 16 13 6 6 10 7 14 12 13 9

Coast Guard 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0

Total 42 84 27 28 31 31 37 67 34 53

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense data. | GAO-17-542

Sports Council Secretariat officials stated the program covers the cost of 

servicemembers participating and units do not have to provide any 

funding. Program costs ranged from about $2.1 million to about $2.8 

million from fiscal years 2014 through 2016.9 Table 6 provides additional 

details about these costs.

Table 6: Armed Forces Sports Program Costs, Fiscal Years 2014 through 2016

2014

(dollars)

2015

(dollars)

2016

(dollars)

Armed Forces Sports Program Office

Administrative program costs 132,571.10 190,820.05 309,090.31

Office staff travel 19,122.94 21,582.12 28,674.82

Office staff salary 259,000.00 262,000.00 266,000.00

Air Force

Participation in events 330,155.00 515,795.44 375,751.00

Office staff travel 2,600.00 9,100.00 6,308.00

Office staff salary 64,441.58 65,092.50 65,570.00

Army

Participation in events 351,549.17 500,347.11 407,401.61

Office staff travel 12,826.46 15,216.14 18,422.40

 9 According to DOD officials, the services primarily use non-appropriated funds to cover 

costs related to the Armed Forces Sports Program.

Program Costs
Page 11 GAO-17-542 DOD Sports Program

2014

(dollars)

2015

(dollars)

2016

(dollars)

Office staff salary 126,923.00 128,205.00 129,500.00

Marine Corps

Participation in events 197,063.16 411,224.86 432,927.77

Office staff travel 14,402.74 27,671.95 33,088.72

Office staff salary 153,626.80 161,799.20 164,910.80

Navy

Participation in events 247,694.68 424,171.44 392,799.00

Office staff travel 11,495.88 22,389.29 18,785.99

Office staff salary 156,294.66 158,961.57 158,961.57

Coast Guard

Participation in events 0.00 2,046.22 2,119.93

Office staff travel 1,629.89 1,968.00 2,168.27

Office staff salary 26,614.00 26,882.00 26,997.00

Total 2,108,010.66 2,945,272.89 2,839,637.19

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense data. | GAO-17-542

Notes: Armed Forces Sports Program officials said that office staff salary costs reflect the cost for 

each service’s office staff members based on the percentage of time they indicated that they work for 

the Armed Forces Sports Program. A Coast Guard official said that rugby is the only sport that the 

Coast Guard participates in. If servicemembers are selected for higher level rugby competition, the 

Coast Guard pays for the servicemembers’ participation. In fiscal year 2014, there were no higher 

level rugby competitions. According to DOD officials, in fiscal year 2014, the government shutdown 

resulted in the cancellation of 3 events, resulting in a reduction of expenditures for that year. Also, 

officials said in fiscal year 2015 DOD provided $755,000 to the Armed Forces Sports Program in 

support of the 2015 Military World Games in South Korea (these funds were executed at the end of 

fiscal year 2015 and the beginning of fiscal year 2016). This expense typically occurs approximately 

every 4 years and is not an annual recurring expense.

Armed Forces Sports Championships are hosted by one of the services 

and must include at least three of the services in competition for all team 

sports and most individual sports. Higher level competitions are attended 

by the most competent athletes from the Armed Forces Sports 

Championships or athletes selected based on other qualifying events or 

criteria and may include U.S. national, International Military Sports 

Council, or other international events. In table 7 we break out the costs for 

participation in events from table 6 associated with Armed Forces Sports 

Championships and higher level competitions for fiscal years 2014 

through 2016.
Page 12 GAO-17-542 DOD Sports Program

Table 7: Armed Forces Sports Program Participation Costs for Armed Forces Sports Championships and Higher Level 

Competition, Fiscal Years 2014 through 2016

2014

(dollars)

2015

(dollars)

2016

(dollars)

Armed Forces Sports 

Championship

Higher level 

competition 

Armed Forces Sports 

Championship

Higher level 

competition 

Armed Forces Sports 

Championship

Higher level 

competition 

885,270.36 241,191.65 1,310,482.94 543,102.13 1,204,378.16 406,621.15

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense data. | GAO-17-542

Notes: Higher level competition refers to U.S. national events, International Military Sports Council 

events, and other international events. In fiscal year 2015, the Office of the Secretary of Defense 

provided $755,000 to the Armed Forces Sports Program in support of the 2015 Military World Games 

in Korea.

While DOD has data on program participation and cost, these data are 

outputs and not outcomes and therefore do not exhibit important 

attributes of successful performance measures that are necessary to 

demonstrate that the Armed Forces Sports Program is being 

implemented effectively. Federal internal control standards state, among 

other things, that managers should establish activities to monitor 

performance measures.10 Furthermore, our prior work on performance 

measurement identified ten key attributes of performance measures, such 

as clarity, objectivity, having a measurable target, and having baseline 

and trend data in order to identify, monitor, and report changes in 

performance and to help ensure that performance is viewed in context.11

Table 8 identifies each attribute of effective performance measures along 

with its definition.

Table 8: Attributes of Effective Performance Measures

Attribute Definition 

Balance A suite of measures ensures that an organization’s various 

priorities are covered. 

Clarity Measure is clearly stated, and the name and definition are 

consistent with the methodology used to calculate it. 

Core program activities Measures cover the activities that an entity is expected to 

perform to support the intent of the program. 

 10 See GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 and GAO-14-704G.

11 See GAO-03-143, GAO-14-49, GAO-13-432, GAO-11-646SP, and 

GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-69.

DOD Has Not Developed 

Performance Measures to 

Demonstrate the 

Effectiveness of the Armed 

Forces Sports Program
Page 13 GAO-17-542 DOD Sports Program

Attribute Definition 

Government-wide 

priorities 

Each measure covers a priority such as quality, timeliness, 

and cost of service. 

Limited overlap Measures provide new information beyond that provided by 

other measures. 

Linkage Measure is aligned with division- and agency-wide goals and 

mission and is clearly communicated throughout the 

organization. 

Measurable target Measure has a numerical goal. 

Objectivity Measure is reasonably free from significant bias or 

manipulation.

Reliability Measure produces the same result under similar conditions. 

Baseline and trend data Measure has a baseline and trend data associated with it to 

identify, monitor, and report changes in performance and to 

help ensure that performance is viewed in context. 

Source: GAO. | GAO-17-542

Sports Council Secretariat officials stated that they use data on the 

number of servicemembers and services annually participating in each 

sport and competition to measure the performance and effectiveness of 

the Armed Forces Sports Program. While these data provide important 

context about the program’s size and reach, they are outputs and do not 

constitute performance measures because they do not exhibit several of 

the key attributes previously discussed.

First, we found that the Sports Council Secretariat’s use of participation 

data does not exhibit the attribute of linkage in that there is not clear 

alignment between the number of participants and how it affects the 

program’s ability to achieve its goals and mission. For example, while 

DOD Instruction 1330.04 does not specify goals or a mission, the Armed 

Forces Sports Council’s standard operating procedures identify that the 

five objectives of the program are to:

(1) promote goodwill among the Armed Services through sports,

(2) promote a positive image of the Armed Forces through sports,

(3) provide the incentive and encourage physical fitness by promoting a 

highly competitive sports program,

(4) provide a venue for military athletes to participate in national and 

international competitions, and
Page 14 GAO-17-542 DOD Sports Program

(5) engage in valuable military-to-military opportunities with International 

Military Sports Council member nations through sports.

However, Sports Council Secretariat officials have not established a link 

between the participant data that they stated are used to measure 

program performance and the achievement of these objectives.

Further, our prior work has shown that linkages between goals and 

measures are most effective when they are clearly communicated and 

create a “line of sight” so that everyone understands what an organization 

is trying to achieve and the goals it seeks to reach. During meetings with 

the Sports Council Secretariat, officials stated that they use data, such as 

servicemember participation in the Armed Forces Sports Championships, 

International Military Sports Council Championships, U.S. Nationals, and 

the Olympic and Paralympic Games to measure the performance and 

effectiveness of the Armed Forces Sports Program, and that they have 

created performance measures on an as-needed basis when it has been 

necessary to prioritize the allocation of funds for individual sports. 

However, none of the documents we were provided on the program 

identify participation or any other data as a performance measure, and 

these efforts do not exhibit a deliberate, four-stage performance 

measurement process that involves (1) identifying goals, (2) developing 

performance measures, (3) collecting data, and (4) analyzing data and 

reporting results.12 Further, servicemember participation in the Olympic 

and Paralympic Games is not a valid performance measure because, 

according to officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the 

Sports Council Secretariat, and the services, the Armed Forces Sports 

Program does not have responsibility for these games.

Second, participation data do not exhibit the measurable target attribute 

because they represent a summary of the program’s activity and are not 

associated with numerical goals, which are needed to gauge program 

progress and results. Our prior work has shown that numerical targets or 

other measurable values facilitate future assessments of whether overall 

goals and objectives are achieved because comparisons can be easily 

made between projected performance and actual results.13 While the 

Sports Council Secretariat’s data included the “actual” number of program 

 12 GAO, Managing for Results: Analytic Challenges in Measuring Performance, 

GAO/HEHS/GGD-97-138 (Washington, D.C.: May 30, 1997).

13 See GAO-03-143.
Page 15 GAO-17-542 DOD Sports Program

participants, they did not identify projected performance targets that 

would enable program officials to determine how far they have 

progressed toward a desired outcome or end state. In response to our 

analysis, Sports Council Secretariat officials stated that they consider the 

list of 24 sports and total number of competitions that servicemembers 

may participate in to be the target—the attainment of which is based on 

variables such as available funding and the extent to which each service 

agrees to provide teams to participate in the competitions. However, this 

is not a valid demonstration of this attribute because neither the target in 

this sense nor the variables affecting participation (e.g., funding and 

service branch involvement) demonstrate how well the Armed Forces 

Sports Program performs or carries out its mission.

In addition, officials from the Sports Council Secretariat and the services 

stated that the program directly benefits the services’ readiness, 

recruitment, and retention efforts. Specifically, officials cited the program’s 

emphasis on a higher level of physical fitness than is otherwise required 

by the services as contributing to individual servicemember readiness, 

and involvement in national and international sports championships as 

aiding recruiting efforts because it showcases some of the unique 

opportunities open to those in the services. Further, officials stated that 

the opportunity to participate in higher level competitions through the 

program helps retention because it provides an incentive for some 

servicemembers to stay in the services. However, outside of participation 

and cost data and some anecdotal examples, officials did not have 

specific measures for or data on the Armed Forces Sports Program’s 

contribution to the services’ readiness, recruiting, and retention efforts.

Third, while DOD has program participation data, it does not track 

baseline and trend data in order to assess the program’s performance 

and progress over time. Our prior work has demonstrated that by tracking 

and developing a performance baseline for all measures—including those 

that demonstrate the effectiveness of a program—agencies can better 

evaluate progress made and whether or not goals are being achieved.14

Further, identifying and reporting deviations from the baseline as a 

program proceeds provides valuable information for oversight by 

identifying areas of program risk and their causes for decision makers. 

According to Sports Council Secretariat officials, many of the program’s 

benefits—such as helping with readiness, recruitment, and retention—are 

 14 GAO-14-49.
Page 16 GAO-17-542 DOD Sports Program

not measured, and commanding officers are responsible for determining 

and managing the program’s effect on the readiness of their units. Thus, 

given the relatively small number of program participants and participation 

being contingent on obtaining commanding officer approval, Sports 

Council Secretariat officials stated that they do not believe that the 

services’ readiness is negatively affected by servicemembers 

participating in the Armed Forces Sports Program.15

We acknowledge that the measurement of the program’s performance 

may be difficult, but DOD’s participation data do not include targets 

allowing program performance to be measured and do not assess the 

intended benefits of the program. Without effective performance 

measures that demonstrate linkage with the program’s goals or mission, 

have measurable targets, and an established baseline of data, DOD will 

be unable to effectively demonstrate the benefits of the program and will 

not have the information needed to ensure that the department is 

allocating resources to its highest priority efforts.

The roles and responsibilities that are currently being implemented for the 

Armed Forces Sports Program differ from the program’s roles and 

responsibilities specified in DOD policy. DOD Instruction 1330.04 and the 

Armed Forces Sports Council’s standard operating procedures specify 

that the Armed Forces Sports Program includes training or national 

qualifying events in preparation for participation in International Military 

Sports Council events, the Pan American Games, the Olympic Games, 

the Paralympic Games, and other international competitions.16 While this 

is how the program is defined in key program documents, the Office of 

the Secretary of Defense, Sports Council Secretariat, and service officials 

 15 During our review, we spoke with commanding officers who had a servicemember who 

previously had participated in the program, and they confirmed that they have the 

authority to approve or deny a servicemember’s participation in the program, and stated 

that they would not approve participation if it would negatively affect their unit’s readiness. 

Further, commanding officers we spoke with stated that they monitor the participation of 

servicemembers who are authorized to participate in the Armed Forces Sports Program 

and may recall a member if the needs of the unit change, but data are not tracked to show 

how many times this has occurred.

16 Officials stated that even though the program does not manage servicemember 

participation in the Pan American, Olympic, and Paralympic Games as defined in program 

policies, the program manages servicemember participation in Armed Forces Sports 

Championships and national qualifying events that prepare servicemembers for 

participation in International Military Sports Council events and other international 

competitions.

DOD’s Implementation of 

Armed Forces Sports 

Program’s Roles and 

Responsibilities Differs 

from Those Currently 

Defined in Policy
Page 17 GAO-17-542 DOD Sports Program

stated that all responsibilities, including costs, associated with 

servicemember participation in the Pan American, Olympic, and 

Paralympic Games are, in practice, handled by the services.17

According to these officials, the program’s primary objective when it was 

established was to support the Olympic movement by providing 

servicemembers the opportunity to compete in the 1948 London Olympic 

Games. Further, DOD Instruction 1330.04 specifies that the Armed 

Forces Sports Program includes, among other things, training or national 

qualifying events in preparation for participation in the Pan American 

Games, the Olympic Games, and the Paralympic Games. However, 

officials stated that over time, the services assumed responsibility for their 

respective servicemembers’ participation in the Pan American, Olympic, 

and Paralympic Games.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense and Sports Council Secretariat 

officials stated they plan to review DOD Instruction 1330.04 and make 

necessary updates but did not indicate what specific changes would be 

made to clarify the program’s roles and responsibilities. Further, these 

officials stated that they were not sure whether they would remove the 

Pan American, Olympic, and Paralympic Games from the Armed Forces 

Sports Council’s standard operating procedures because of the potential 

for responsibilities to shift again in the future.

The Armed Forces Sports Program provides a means by which 

servicemember athletes can participate in national and international 

competitions while representing the Armed Forces. However, the program 

currently does not have performance measures with linkage, measurable 

targets, or a baseline. Without measures that address the desired 

outcomes and include these attributes, it will be difficult for DOD and 

Congress to determine whether the program is meeting the desired goals 

or benefiting readiness, recruitment, and retention.

 17 DOD officials stated that the services do not bear all the costs of participation in the 

Olympics by servicemembers. When a servicemember makes the U.S. Olympic Team, 

the U.S. Olympic Committee funds the servicemember’s expenses for lodging, food, 

travel, and team apparel, while the service funds the temporary duty.

Conclusions
Page 18 GAO-17-542 DOD Sports Program

To improve the management of the Armed Forces Sports Program and 

better determine whether the program is achieving its desired results, we 

recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Personnel and Readiness to develop and implement 

performance measures for the Armed Forces Sports Program that 

measure the desired outcomes for the program and, at a minimum, 

demonstrate linkage to the program’s goals or mission, have a 

measurable target, and include a baseline that can be used to 

demonstrate program performance.

We provided a draft of this report to DOD and the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) for review and comment. In its comments on a 

draft of this report, DOD concurred with our recommendation and their

comments are reprinted in their entirety in appendix II. DOD and DHS 

also provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the report 

as appropriate. 

DOD concurred with our recommendation to develop and implement 

performance measures for the Armed Forces Sports Program that 

measure the desired outcomes for the program and, at a minimum, 

demonstrate linkage to the program’s goals or mission, have a 

measurable target, and include a baseline that can be used to 

demonstrate program performance but also noted potential limitations on 

establishing measures. Specifically, DOD said that it will explore the 

development and implementation of performance outcome measures for 

the Armed Forces Sports Program and that it will review Department of 

Defense Instruction 1330.04 for potential opportunities to incorporate 

appropriate guidance regarding performance measures for the Armed 

Forces Sports Program. However, DOD stated that there are limitations 

on establishing metrics for several of the program’s objectives, such as 

goodwill and positive image, which are challenging to measure. Further, 

DOD said that quantifying outcomes for some objectives, such as the 

“spirit” of the program, also will be challenging, but that the lack of a 

performance measurement does not negate the importance of pursuing 

objectives that contribute to demonstrating the program’s overall 

effectiveness. In our report, we acknowledged that measurement of the 

program’s performance may be difficult but also necessary to produce the 

evidence-based support that is needed to objectively demonstrate how 

the specific activities that comprise a program are contributing to its 

effectiveness. Exploring the development and implementation of 

performance measures and reviewing DOD guidance regarding 

performance measures are positive steps, but we continue to believe that 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 19 GAO-17-542 DOD Sports Program

DOD needs to develop and implement performance measures in order to 

demonstrate if the Armed Forces Sports Program is being implemented 

effectively. While it may be challenging to develop performance 

measures, our prior work has demonstrated that even for highly complex 

areas such as DOD’s reform of its medical health system and prevention 

of sexual assault, developing and implementing performance measures 

can be done, and if implemented correctly, can enhance decision-making. 

Until DOD does develop and implement performance measures, it will be 

unable to effectively demonstrate the benefits of the program and will not 

have the data needed to monitor the program, make decisions about 

program management and ensure that the department is allocating 

resources to its highest priority efforts.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of Homeland 

Security; the Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; the 

Commandants of the Marine Corps and the Coast Guard; and the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. In addition, the report 

is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. GAO staff members who made key contributions to 

this report are listed in appendix III.

Brenda S. Farrell

Director

Defense Capabilities and Management
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 20 GAO-17-542 DOD Sports Program

To assess the effectiveness of the Department of Defense’s (DOD) 

implementation of the Armed Forces Sports Program, we reviewed DOD

and service (including the Coast Guard) policies and procedures related 

to the administration of and participation in the program. We interviewed 

officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel 

and Readiness, the Armed Forces Sports Council Secretariat (“Sports 

Council Secretariat”), and each service about these policies and 

procedures.

We also discussed the extent to which any performance measures had 

been established to assess the program’s effectiveness, including any 

effects of program participation on the services’ readiness. We obtained 

and analyzed data from DOD on the number of active-duty 

servicemembers, by service, who had participated in the Armed Forces 

Sports Program in fiscal years 2012 through 2016 as well as on the 

number of days servicemembers had spent away from their respective 

units participating in the program during the same time frame. We also 

obtained and analyzed data from DOD on the number of DOD and Coast 

Guard civilians who had supported the Armed Forces Sports Program in 

fiscal years 2012 through 2016. Further, we obtained and analyzed data 

from DOD on program costs for fiscal years 2014 through 2016, including 

the administrative, travel, and salary costs incurred by the Armed Forces 

Sports Council Secretariat, program-related travel and salary costs for 

each service, and participation costs of travel participants, which 

according to program officials include transportation and lodging costs. 

The time frame of the participant and cost data that we obtained differs 

because DOD officials stated that fiscal year 2014 was the most recent 

year that cost data were available from all the services. Based on 

responses from the Armed Forces Sports Program office to data reliability 

questionnaires, we determined that the data we obtained were sufficiently 

reliable for the purposes of this review. We compared DOD’s policy for 

the program against the federal standards for internal control1 that state, 

among other things, that managers should establish activities to monitor 

performance measures. Additionally, we compared DOD’s participant 

data—the department’s measure for demonstrating the effectiveness of 

the Armed Forces Sports Program—with our prior work on performance 

 1 See GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G 

(Washington, D.C.; Sept. 10, 2014) and Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.; Nov. 1, 1999). Internal control is a 

process affected by an entity’s oversight body, management, and other personnel that 

provides reasonable assurance that the objectives of an entity will be achieved. 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 21 GAO-17-542 DOD Sports Program

measurement to determine the extent to which these data exhibit the ten 

key attributes of successful performance measures.2

To obtain servicemembers’ perspectives on the Armed Forces Sports 

Program and its effect on individual readiness, we interviewed 13 

randomly selected servicemembers who had participated in the program 

in calendar year 2015 since, at that time, this was the most recent year 

for which the program had a complete set of participant data. To 

understand any effect that a servicemembers’ participation may have had 

on unit readiness, we also interviewed ten commanding officers who had 

approved one of the randomly selected servicemembers’ requests to 

participate in the Armed Forces Sports Program. While the information 

that we obtained was nongeneralizable, it provided perspectives from 

individuals with first-hand experience with the Armed Forces Sports 

Program.

We also reviewed DOD and service policies and procedures to identify 

roles and responsibilities associated with implementing the Armed Forces 

Sports Program. Further, we interviewed officials within each organization 

to discuss how designated roles and responsibilities were being 

implemented.

We conducted this performance audit from August 2016 to June 2017 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 2 Our prior work emphasizes key attributes of performance measures, such as measurable 

targets and baseline data. See GAO, Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Further Refine Its 

Tax Filing Season Performance Measures, GAO-03-143 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22, 

2002), p. 45, for a description of how we developed the attributes of effective performance 

goals and measures. We also reviewed the Government Performance and Results Act of 

1993. See also GPRA Performance Reports, GAO/GGD-96-66R (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 

14, 1996); Missile Defense: Opportunity to Refocus on Strengthening Acquisition 

Management, GAO-13-432 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 26, 2013); Performance 

Measurement and Evaluation: Definitions and Relationships, GAO-11-646SP 

(Washington, D.C.: May 2011); and Agency Performance Plans: Examples of Practices 

That Can Improve Usefulness to Decisionmakers, GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-69 (Washington, 

D.C.: Feb. 26, 1999). 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 22 GAO-17-542 DOD Sports Program

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Defense
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 23 GAO-17-542 DOD Sports Program
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 24 GAO-17-542 DOD Sports Program

Brenda S. Farrell, (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Kimberly A. Mayo, Assistant 

Director; Christopher H. Conrad; Mae Frances Jones; Stephanie Moriarty; 

Shahrzad Nikoo; Shane T. Spencer; Andrew Stavisky; and John W. Van 

Schaik made key contributions to this report.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(101087)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov and read The Watchblog.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.