Report to the Ranking Minority

Member, Committee on Governmental

Affairs, U.S. Senate

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

July 2001 FEDERAL

EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT

AGENCY

Status of Achieving

Key Outcomes and

Addressing Major

Management

Challenges

GAO-01-832
Page 1 GAO-01-832 Federal Emergency Management Agency

July 9, 2001

The Honorable Fred Thompson

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

Dear Senator Thompson:

As you requested, we reviewed the Federal Emergency Management

Agency’s (FEMA) fiscal year 2000 performance report and fiscal year 2002

performance plan required by the Government Performance and Results

Act of 1993 (GPRA) to assess the agency’s progress in achieving selected

key outcomes that you identified as important mission areas for the

agency.1

 These are the same outcomes we addressed in our June 2000

review of the agency’s fiscal year 1999 performance report and fiscal year

2001 performance plan to provide a baseline by which to measure the

agency’s performance from year to year.2

 These selected key outcomes are

to

• minimize human suffering and property losses after natural disasters,

• provide timely responses to disaster aid requests, and

• prevent or reduce harm and losses from future disasters through

mitigation efforts.

As agreed, using the selected key outcomes for FEMA as a framework, we

(1) assessed the progress FEMA has made in achieving these outcomes

and the strategies the agency has in place to achieve them and (2)

compared FEMA’s fiscal year 2000 performance report and fiscal year 2002

performance plan with the agency’s prior year performance report and

plan for these outcomes. Additionally, we agreed to analyze how FEMA

addressed its major management challenges, including the

 1

This report is one of a series of reports on the 24 Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act

agencies’ fiscal year 2000 performance reports and fiscal year 2002 performance plans. This

report is based, in part, on our review of FEMA’s fiscal year 2002 performance plan issued

in April 2001. According to FEMA’s Acting Chief of Staff, FEMA is considering selective

modifications to this plan because of its recent realignment.

2

Observations on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Fiscal Year 1999

Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Plan (GAO/RCED-00-210R,

June 30, 2000).

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO-01-832 Federal Emergency Management Agency

governmentwide high-risk areas of strategic human capital management3

and information security that we identified. Appendix I provides detailed

information on how FEMA addressed these challenges.

Although FEMA did not attain all of the goals pertaining to the selected

key outcomes in its fiscal year 2000 annual performance report, the

performance report showed that FEMA made some progress toward

achieving the outcomes. FEMA’s progress varied for each outcome, and

the information presented in the performance report did not always

provide sufficient information to facilitate an independent assessment of

FEMA’s progress in achieving the outcome. In general, FEMA’s strategies

for achieving these key outcomes appeared to be clear and reasonable.

• Planned outcome: Minimize human suffering and property losses after

natural disasters. FEMA’s report indicated that FEMA had made some

progress in achieving this outcome. It reported that it did not fully meet 5

of the 10 goals related to this outcome; and for 2 other goals, we were

unable to determine whether the goals had been achieved, based on the

information provided. The agency’s strategies for meeting its fiscal year

2002 goals under this outcome appeared to be clear and reasonable. For

example, the agency plans several strategies to improve disaster response

operations such as enhancing interagency coordination through several

groups, such as the Catastrophic Disaster Response Group, and

establishing improved disaster declaration criteria.

• Planned outcome: Provide timely responses to disaster aid requests.

FEMA’s report indicated that it is making limited progress in providing

timely responses to disaster aid requests. While it did not fully meet any of

this outcome’s three goals, FEMA reported accomplishing most of the

performance measures associated with the goals. Although FEMA

provided a rationale for why these goals were not fully achieved, it did not

provide a detailed strategy on how it plans to achieve these unmet goals in

the future.

• Planned outcome: Prevent or reduce harm and losses from future disasters

through mitigation efforts. FEMA’s report showed that the agency is

 3

Key elements of modern strategic human capital management include strategic human

capital planning and organizational alignment; leadership continuity and succession

planning; acquiring and developing staffs whose size, skills, and deployment meet agency

needs; and creating results-oriented organizational cultures.

Results in Brief
Page 3 GAO-01-832 Federal Emergency Management Agency

making progress towards preventing or reducing harm and losses from

future disasters through mitigation efforts. FEMA met the majority of its

goals for this key outcome, which included such results as (1) entering

into formal agreements with 11 agencies to support mitigation goals, (2)

implementing building standards that increased the use and effectiveness

of mitigation tools, and (3) refining and remeasuring savings achieved

from flood-loss reduction estimated by FEMA to be about $1 billion in

fiscal year 2000. Also, FEMA’s strategies for meeting its fiscal year 2002

goals appear to be clear and reasonable. In addition, FEMA made progress

in making performance goals more outcome oriented by consolidating

related goals. For example, FEMA integrated several mitigation-related

performance goals into a single performance goal that will support the

development of disaster resistance in communities and states.

Although FEMA has additional work to do on the outcomes we reviewed,

its fiscal year 2000 performance report and fiscal year 2002 performance

plan reflect continued improvement compared with the prior year’s report

and plan. FEMA has refined its performance goals making them more

outcome oriented. FEMA began its performance planning effort in 1999

with 60 goals and has reduced them to the 19 goals presented in its fiscal

year 2002 performance plan. In addition, FEMA’s performance report and

plan provided more trend data and more descriptive details on

performance goals such as the benefits derived by achieving performance

goals. For example, FEMA’s fiscal year 2000 performance report used data

on deployments of trained safety and security staff from fiscal years 1998

through 2000 to illustrate progress toward achieving its goal of providing a

safe and secure environment for FEMA and its emergency management

partners at disaster facilities. FEMA’s plan also included more explicit

explanations of why certain goals and measures were revised from

previous years and did a better job of providing detailed descriptions of

the procedures the agency plans to use to verify and validate performance

data. However, unlike FEMA’s fiscal year 1999 performance report, which

clearly stated the extent to which goals were met, its fiscal year 2000

performance report did not fully state the extent to which some goals were

met. For example, in the fiscal year 1999 performance report, FEMA

reported it met 70 percent of its goal to make communities more disaster

resistant by increasing the use and effectiveness of mitigation information

tools. However, its fiscal year 2000 performance report provided a

narrative of progress made in achieving this goal, such as providing

technical guidance on new construction, but did not clearly indicate the

degree to which progress was made.
Page 4 GAO-01-832 Federal Emergency Management Agency

The agency’s fiscal year 2000 performance report and fiscal year 2002

performance plan generally addressed the management challenges we

identified. The report and plan indicate that FEMA has taken some actions

to address strategic human capital management and information security

management challenges. For example, in the area of strategic human

capital management, FEMA’s fiscal year 2002 performance plan discusses

the skills required for the agency to achieve its key outcomes and

establishes a goal to create and maintain human resource systems that

would help it accomplish human resource planning and managing human

capital missions. However, the plan contains no specifics on leadership

continuity and succession planning and has limited discussion of strategic

human capital planning and organizational alignment. Similarly, FEMA

reported taking actions to address information security such as

establishing a Critical Infrastructure Assurance Officer position and an

Information Assurance Branch in fiscal year 2000 to address weaknesses

in information security, but the agency’s fiscal year 2002 performance plan

does not have performance goals and measures directly related to

information security. As a result, it will be difficult to assess future

progress in this area.

We provided copies of a draft of this report to FEMA for its review and

comment. FEMA chose to meet with us to provide oral comments on the

draft report, and we met with FEMA’s GPRA Manager of the

Administration and Resource Planning Directorate on June 28, 2001, to

discuss these comments. The FEMA official agreed with the report, but

provided us with clarifying comments that we have addressed in the final

report.

GPRA is intended to shift the focus of government decisionmaking,

management, and accountability from activities and processes to the

results and outcomes achieved by federal programs. New and valuable

information on the plans, goals, and strategies of federal agencies has been

provided since federal agencies began implementing GPRA. Under GPRA,

annual performance plans are to clearly inform the Congress and the

public of (1) the annual performance goals for agencies’ major programs

and activities, (2) the measures that will be used to gauge performance,

(3) the strategies and resources required to achieve the performance goals,

and (4) the procedures that will be used to verify and validate

performance information. These annual plans, issued soon after

Background
Page 5 GAO-01-832 Federal Emergency Management Agency

transmittal of the president’s budget, provide a direct linkage between an

agency’s longer term goals and mission and day-to-day activities.4

 Annual

performance reports are to subsequently report on the degree to which

performance goals were met. The issuance of the agencies’ performance

reports, due by March 31, represents a new and potentially more

substantive phase in the implementation of GPRA—the opportunity to

assess federal agencies’ actual performance for the prior fiscal year and to

consider what steps are needed to improve performance and reduce costs

in the future.5

FEMA is an independent agency whose mission is to reduce the loss of life

and property and protect our institutions from natural and technological

hazards by leading and supporting the nation in a comprehensive, riskbased emergency management program of mitigation, preparedness,

response, and recovery. Traditionally, the role of the federal government

has been to supplement the emergency management efforts of state and

local governments, voluntary organizations, and private citizens.

According to FEMA’s strategic plan, the nation’s emergency management

capability is built on a partnership of local, state, and federal governments;

voluntary agencies; business and industry; and individual citizens. FEMA’s

focus is on building partnerships and mitigating the effects of disaster by

assisting state, tribal, and local governments to prepare for, respond to,

and recover from natural, manmade, and technological disasters.

This section discusses our analysis of FEMA’s performance in achieving its

selected key outcomes and the strategies it has in place, particularly

strategic human capital management and information technology, for

accomplishing these outcomes. In discussing these outcomes, we have

also provided information drawn from our prior work on the extent to

which the agency provided assurance that the performance information it

is reporting is credible.

 4

The fiscal year 2002 performance plan is the fourth of these annual plans under GPRA.

5

The fiscal year 2000 performance report is the second of these annual reports under

GPRA.

Assessment of

FEMA’s Progress and

Strategies in

Achieving Selected

Key Outcomes
Page 6 GAO-01-832 Federal Emergency Management Agency

According to its fiscal year 2000 annual performance report, FEMA has

made some progress in minimizing human suffering and property losses

after natural disasters. FEMA has 10 performance goals related to this key

outcome. It reported that it met three of this outcome’s goals, including

efforts to process disaster declaration requests within an average of 8.3

days and achieved an 85-percent customer satisfaction rating for elements

of its Public Assistance Program. We could not determine progress for two

other goals because FEMA did not provide data for all measures

associated with these goals. For example, FEMA did not provide data on

reducing costs for disseminating FEMA documents and public

announcements making it difficult to assess FEMA’s progress toward its

goal of providing reliable data and communications services to disaster

locations. FEMA also reported that it did not fully meet five goals related

to this outcome but generally provided explanations for why goals were

not achieved. For instance, FEMA reported that its growth rate for

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policies fell short of its 5

percent goal but discusses a number of factors that affected overall policy

growth in fiscal year 2000.

FEMA’s fiscal year 2000 performance report was similar to its fiscal year

1999 performance report in that it did little to identify significant

limitations that potentially affect the credibility of data used to measure its

performance. For example, FEMA has a goal associated with this outcome

to enhance recovery by expediting disaster operations through the

National Emergency Management Information System. FEMA does not

acknowledge reported limitations associated with this system. In a report

to be issued in July 2001, we note that FEMA had identified weaknesses in

the system, such as untimely data, as reported in FEMA after-action

reports.

The fiscal year 2000 performance report presented more descriptive

details for each of the annual performance goals than the fiscal year 1999

performance report, including more explanation on the goals’ background

and why the goals are important. In some cases, FEMA included

information on the benefits derived from achieving goals. For example,

one of the Response and Recovery goals is to enhance a community’s

disaster recovery process by improving administrative processes and

training. FEMA stated in its fiscal year 2000 performance report that

achieving this goal means that customers are satisfied with the overall

Public Assistance Program and are being served in a timely manner by

responsive, competent, and accountable staff. In some cases, FEMA also

identified special conditions that affected the agency’s ability to meet the

goals. For example, one of the measures used to determine progress

Minimize Human Suffering

and Property Losses After

Natural Disasters
Page 7 GAO-01-832 Federal Emergency Management Agency

toward the goal discussed in the previous example did not have complete

data on fiscal year 2000. As a result, FEMA reported on data for the first

half of the fiscal year and provided an explanation of why the data were

not available for the entire year. FEMA also indicated that incomplete data

would be a continuing problem because of the lag time between collecting

and analyzing data on this goal.

FEMA’s fiscal year 2000 performance report also used more data to

illustrate progress toward achieving goals. For example, FEMA has a goal

to increase the effective delivery of response services by ensuring

immediate response to a governor’s request for a presidential declaration.

One measure is that FEMA will process a governor’s request within an

average of 8.3 days. Figure 1 illustrates FEMA’s progress toward achieving

its processing goal for fiscal years 1999 and 2000.

Figure 1: Average Days to Process Presidential Disaster Declaration Packages

Source: FEMA’s Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Report.
Page 8 GAO-01-832 Federal Emergency Management Agency

In its fiscal year 2002 performance plan, FEMA outlines several strategies

to improve disaster response operations such as enhancing interagency

coordination through a number of groups, including the Catastrophic

Disaster Response Group, Emergency Support Function Leaders, and the

Regional Interagency Committee and establishing improved disaster

declaration criteria. FEMA’s plan also discusses specific actions for

coordinating with other agencies to accomplish this goal. In the area of

information technology, FEMA’s fiscal year 2002 performance plan states

that it plans to reduce the resources needed and increase the speed for

processing disaster assistance within the National Emergency

Management Information System. However, FEMA mentions no specifics

on how it plans to achieve this goal. In the area of strategic human capital

management, FEMA presents a strategy to increase senior management

effectiveness at disaster field offices for three goals, but provides no

specifics on how it plans to pursue this strategy.

Although FEMA reported accomplishing most performance measures

under this outcome, it reported that it did not fully meet any goal under

this outcome. This outcome contained three goals with numerous

performance measures. For example, FEMA’s goal to increase the level of

internal and external customer satisfaction with FEMA services contains

nine performance measures. FEMA reported that four of nine measures

were accomplished, two were not accomplished, and three were

discontinued and not reported. Although FEMA provided a rationale for

why some of these goals were not fully achieved, it did not provide a

detailed strategy on how it plans to achieve these unmet goals in the

future. For example, FEMA explained it did not fully achieve its goal of

referring 100 percent of eligible delinquent debts to the Department of the

Treasury. However, the only discussion provided on needed changes was

that FEMA must develop a policy on the collection of delinquent debts,

publish rules and regulations in the Federal Register before collecting

such debts, and transfer remaining delinquent debts to the Treasury.

FEMA’s fiscal year 2002 performance plan has two performance goals

under this outcome that represent goals for several FEMA offices. FEMA

acknowledges that these goals are iterations of goals found in the other

two outcomes—minimizing human suffering and mitigation efforts.

Although the goals themselves appear to be clear and reasonable, they

could result in confusion over who is responsible for achieving these

goals. For example, the Response and Recovery Directorate has a

performance goal in this outcome to determine cost drivers in the

response and recovery processes and implement re-engineered processes

to support improvements in FEMA cost efficiency. Under the outcome to

Provide Timely Responses

to Disaster Aid Requests
Page 9 GAO-01-832 Federal Emergency Management Agency

minimize human suffering and property losses after natural disasters,

FEMA has performance measures to improve disaster processing by 5

percent and reduce the total dollar value of assets at closed disaster field

offices by 10 percent.

In the area of strategic human capital management, FEMA outlines the

skills base it needs to achieve goals under this outcome and has one goal

for the Human Resources Management Office to provide timely and

effective human resource tools, services, information, and assistance to

FEMA organizations. In the area of information technology, FEMA’s fiscal

year 2002 performance plan has measures to expand public access to

information through e-government services and deliver accessible and

standardized information technology services at 98 percent availability

with no undetected virus attacks. Expanding e-government services is a

new administration initiative, which FEMA plans to use to provide

information to the public in a more timely and efficient manner.

FEMA’s fiscal year 2000 performance report showed that the agency was

making progress in preventing or reducing harm and losses from future

disasters through mitigation efforts. The agency reported meeting the

majority of its goals for this key outcome, which included results such as

• entering into formal agreements with 11 agencies to support mitigation

goals,

• designating 63 communities as Project Impact communities,6

• implementing building standards that increased the use and effectiveness

of mitigation tools, and

• completing seven hurricane evacuation studies.

Most of the performance goals for this key outcome have at least one

measurable or quantifiable performance measure that helps demonstrate

progress toward reaching the goals. For example, FEMA reported that the

Federal Insurance Administration (FIA)7

 successfully refined and

remeasured the savings achieved from flood loss reduction. FEMA

 6

Project Impact is a partnership initiative between FEMA and local communities aimed at

helping to protect communities from the devastating effects of natural disasters by taking

actions that dramatically reduce disruption and loss.

7

FIA administers the National Flood Insurance Program–a major component of the federal

government’s efforts to provide flood-related assistance.

Prevent or Reduce Harm

and Losses From Future

Disasters Through

Mitigation Efforts
Page 10 GAO-01-832 Federal Emergency Management Agency

estimated flood loss reduction amounted to just over $1 billion in fiscal

year 2000. It also reported that tests of the National Warning System

showed emergency alerts were disseminated within 2 minutes—exceeding

FEMA’s goal of 3-minute dissemination.

In addition, as we pointed out in our May 2001 testimony, opportunities

are emerging to better measure the success of the NFIP in protecting lives

and preventing loss of property.8 FEMA’s FIA has a number of

performance goals aimed at improving the results of the NFIP, including

increasing the number of insurance policies sold. FEMA did not meet the 5

percent annual increase goal for policies sold in fiscal years 1999 and 2000.

However, it decided not to change the goal, according to the acting FIA

Administrator, because FIA felt it was an effective workforce driver.

Although this goal may serve a workforce purpose and provide insight on

program volume, it does not measure the degree of participation by the

most vulnerable residents—those living in flood-prone areas. Capturing

data on the number of both uninsured and insured structures in floodprone areas could provide FEMA with another indication of how

effectively the program is penetrating into those areas most at risk of

flooding, whether the financial consequences of floods in these areas are

increasing or decreasing, and where to better target marketing efforts.

Our May 2001 testimony also pointed out that opportunities are developing

for FEMA to obtain valuable information about the program’s success

through analysis of the rate of participation for those communities

involved in the program. The participation rate is obtained by dividing the

number of properties located in special flood hazard areas (SFHA) with

flood insurance by the total number of properties in these SFHAs. FIA

maintains a database on the number of flood insurance policies in force,

including the number in SFHAs. However, the data FEMA has on the

national and local community levels for the number of structures in SFHAs

are of varying quality, according to FIA’s Acting Administrator. Even so,

several current mapping technologies can be used to facilitate the

collection of data on the number of structures in the SFHAs. Local

communities, such as Dekalb County, GA and Charlotte, NC, are using

mapping technologies to estimate the number of structures in SFHAs.

Combining these technologies with the digital flood maps that FEMA is

already producing would increase accuracy in the identification of

 8

Emerging Opportunity to Better Measure Certain Results of the National Flood

Insurance Program (GAO-01-736T, May 16, 2001).
Page 11 GAO-01-832 Federal Emergency Management Agency

structures within SFHAs and the calculation of participation rates. FIA

officials agree that program participation rates are a useful measure that

can provide insights for measuring the program’s success, including the

effectiveness of marketing.

However, it is still difficult to determine the degree of progress FEMA has

made in achieving some of it goals. This is because FEMA did not clearly

state whether some goals were fully achieved. For example, FEMA cited

that it had achieved “substantial advancement” in achieving its efforts to

evaluate the effectiveness of the mitigation planning. It would be more

helpful if FEMA clearly stated whether or not the goal had been met or not

met as required under GPRA, then discuss the degree of achievement

FEMA made under this goal.

In addition, FEMA did not report the results achieved for some of the

performance measures. For example, FEMA’s goal to increase public

awareness of fire hazards has two performance measures: (1) increase the

usage of public education materials by 4 percent and (2) increase the

number of hotels and motels with automatic sprinkler and smoke

detection systems by 20 percent. FEMA provided performance data for the

first measure but did not provide any performance data or information on

the second measure. Also, FEMA still needs to provide better information

on significant limitations to the data used to measure performance.

Although the Director of FEMA acknowledges there are limitations with

some of FEMA’s data in the fiscal year 2000 performance report, the report

did not always discuss where data limitations exist and how they affect the

accuracy, completeness, and availability of performance measurement

data under this outcome.

FEMA’s fiscal year 2002 performance plan shows that the agency has

made some improvements in its strategies by streamlining a number of its

mitigation goals into one outcome-oriented goal that will support the

development of disaster resistance in a number of communities. FEMA

reports that this consolidation is in recognition that several fiscal year

2000 goals were better identified as means and strategies to the revised

goal. FEMA’s strategies for achieving progress towards this key outcome

include conducting post-disaster economic impact studies and

coordinating with other federal departments and agencies via

Memorandums of Understanding to identify ways existing programs and

new initiatives can support national mitigation goals.

In the area of strategic human capital management, FEMA discusses the

skills needed to achieve performance goals under this outcome in its fiscal
Page 12 GAO-01-832 Federal Emergency Management Agency

year 2002 performance plan. In the area of information technology, FEMA

plans to evaluate and apply emerging technologies that enable more costeffective modeling and mapping.

For the selected key outcomes, this section describes major improvements

or remaining weaknesses in FEMA’s (1) fiscal year 2000 performance

report in comparison with its fiscal year 1999 report and (2) fiscal year

2002 performance plan in comparison with its fiscal year 2001 plan. It also

discusses the degree to which the agency’s fiscal year 2000 report and

fiscal year 2002 plan address concerns and recommendations made by the

Congress, GAO, FEMA’s Inspector General, us and others.

FEMA made a number of improvements in its fiscal year 2000 performance

report, such as using more trend data and providing explanations about

variations in its performance goals but omitted a key piece of information

that highlighted the degree of progress it made towards achieving its

performance goals. However, unlike FEMA’s fiscal year 1999 performance

report which clearly stated the extent to which goals were met, FEMA’s

fiscal year 2000 performance report did not include a quantitative

assessment of the progress the agency made in achieving each goal, which

makes it difficult, in some cases, to determine whether the agency

achieved its goal.

FEMA’s fiscal year 2000 performance report used more data to illustrate

progress towards achieving goals. The report made frequent use of

graphics to illustrate trends—which is helpful to the reader. For example,

FEMA has an annual performance goal to provide a safe and secure

environment for FEMA and its emergency management partners at

disaster facilities. One measure is to provide trained safety and security

staff for 80 percent of major declared disasters. FEMA illustrates its

achievement with a graph of security staff deployments to major disasters

for fiscal years 1998 through 2000.

Comparison of

FEMA’s Fiscal Year

2000 Performance

Report and Fiscal

Year 2002

Performance Plan

With the Prior Year

Report and Plan for

Selected Key

Outcomes

Comparison of

Performance Reports for

Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000
Page 13 GAO-01-832 Federal Emergency Management Agency

FEMA’s fiscal year 2000 performance report also showed improvement in

providing explanations for its inability to meet some of its performance

goals and measures. For example, FEMA reported that it did not meet its

goal to increase the number of policies in the NFIP but cited several

factors, such as lack of flood activity and drought conditions across many

parts of the United States, that affected overall policy growth. In addition,

when applicable, FEMA identified whether its goal changed in the next

fiscal year.

In some cases, it is difficult to determine the degree of progress FEMA

made towards achieving goals under its three outcomes because FEMA

did not provide a quantitative assessment of progress. For example, the

goal on evaluating the effectiveness of mitigation planning processes and

related initiatives does not explicitly state whether the goal was met. The

narrative under “Achievement” states fiscal year 2000 efforts have resulted

in substantial advancement in mitigation planning. The text goes on to

discuss a variety of mitigation planning activities but does not clearly state

whether the goal has been achieved. Both GPRA and the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11’s guidance for developing

performance plans and reports require that agencies provide an indication

of whether a goal is or is not met.

FEMA made some improvements to its fiscal year 2002 performance plan

as compared to its fiscal year 2001 performance plan. FEMA continued to

streamline its performance goals and make them more outcome-oriented.

FEMA also provided more descriptive details on the background of the

goals and means and strategies for achieving them; more graphics and

trend data on annual outcomes; and added goals to reflect FEMA’s

commitment to the administration’s reform goals. FEMA’s fiscal year 2002

performance plan also shows improvement in providing details about the

procedures for verification and validation for most of the performance

goals. However, the agency did not generally provide information on

significant limitations that may potentially affect the credibility of the data

used to measure performance.

As mentioned previously, FEMA continued its streamlining by

consolidating a number of goals. As a result, FEMA has 19 performance

goals in its fiscal year 2002 performance plan compared with 30 in its fiscal

year 2001 performance plan. The fiscal year 2002 performance plan’s goals

have some measures that were performance goals in the fiscal year 2001

plan. For example, FEMA consolidated a number of mitigation-related

Comparison of

Performance Plans for

Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002
Page 14 GAO-01-832 Federal Emergency Management Agency

goals to form a more outcome-oriented goal to support the development of

disaster resistance in communities and states.

FEMA’s fiscal year 2002 performance plan also has more descriptive

details for each of the outcomes. For example, FEMA outlines a number of

mitigation tools, education and outreach activities, and partnership

agreements it will pursue to support the development of disaster

resistance in communities and states. FEMA plans to coordinate with

other federal departments and agencies to identify ways in which their

existing programs and new initiatives can support national mitigation

goals. FEMA also plans to discuss specific actions for coordinating with

other agencies to accomplish these goals. FEMA makes use of trend data,

for example, to illustrate the costs FEMA avoids when purchasing new

equipment by recycling previously used equipment in support of its goals

to operate a logistics program that provides timely and cost effective

resources in support of emergency management missions.

FEMA added six goals to its fiscal year 2002 performance plan in support

of its commitment to the administration’s reform goals issued in February

2001 through OMB. Five of the six reform goals are part of the outcome to

provide timely responses to disaster aid requests. Of these five goals, one

has elements of strategic human capital management—determine

management levels for streamlining purposes. The remaining four goals

include reducing erroneous payments, expanding on-line procurement,

and making greater use of performance-based contracts. The sixth goal—

related to minimizing human suffering and property losses after natural

disasters—calls for the development of a disaster declaration process that

better defines federal and state responsibilities for providing disaster

assistance. Three of the six goals have quantitative measures to measure

success, but FEMA does not provide any details on its strategies for

achieving the goals.

FEMA has addressed weaknesses that we identified in the 1999 plan by

providing additional descriptions of the procedures for verification and

validation for most performance goals. For example, FEMA plans to use

additional verification and validation strategies to measure progress in

supporting the reduction of loss of life from fire-related incidents. FEMA’s

fiscal year 2002 performance plan states it will use reports from several

sources, including the National Fire Data Center, the National Center for

Health Statistics, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission to

compare data on fire-related deaths, injuries, and losses.
Page 15 GAO-01-832 Federal Emergency Management Agency

However, FEMA still needs to do a better job of identifying limitations that

potentially affect the credibility of the data used to measure performance

and identifying external factors that may affect performance data. For

example, FEMA has a goal to improve response operations for which one

measure requires FEMA to act on requests for water, food, and shelter

within 12 hours after a presidential disaster declaration. FEMA reports the

goal’s intent is to coordinate through partnerships with other federal

agencies, states, and local governments and private and voluntary

organizations for initial provision of these basic needs. The difficulties

inherent in working with so many other agencies and organizations are not

acknowledged, although they may have an effect on FEMA’s ability to

meet this performance goal.

We have identified two governmentwide high-risk areas: strategic human

capital management and information security. We found that FEMA’s

performance plan had goals and measures related to human capital, but

the agency’s performance report did not explain its progress in resolving

human capital challenges except that progress had been made in

improving Disaster Field Office operations. We also found that FEMA’s

fiscal year 2000 performance report discusses information security

activities such as the interception of major viruses and strengthening its

Internet firewall policies, but the fiscal year 2002 performance plan had no

goals and measures directly related to information security.

While FEMA’s fiscal year 2002 performance plan has no goals and

measures directly related to information security, it does have a

performance measure indirectly related to information technology that is

associated with its customer satisfaction goal. FEMA has a two-part

performance measure that calls for (1) delivering accessible and

standardized information technology services at 98-percent availability

with no undetected virus attacks and (2) resolving 80 percent of help desk

trouble issues on the first call. In its fiscal year 2000 performance report,

FEMA reported it had established a Critical Infrastructure Assurance

Officer position and an Information Assurance Branch and was taking

actions to protect and strengthen its Intranet/Internet assets. FEMA also

reported that it had intercepted major viruses, conducted network scan

and security audits, and implemented Intranet security measures.

However, as part of an audit of FEMA’s fiscal year 2000 financial

statements, an independent auditor reported a material weakness in

computer-based controls over FEMA’s automated financial information

systems.

FEMA’s Efforts to

Address Its Major

Management

Challenges Identified

by GAO
Page 16 GAO-01-832 Federal Emergency Management Agency

In addition, we identified three other major management challenges facing

FEMA. In our January 2001 Presidential and Congressional Transition

effort, we identified three management challenges—determining the cost

effectiveness of mitigation efforts, reducing the cost of disaster assistance,

and improving the financial condition of the NFIP. For these three major

management challenges, FEMA’s performance plan had 19 goals or

measures that were directly related to these challenges. Appendix I

provides detailed information on how FEMA addressed these challenges,

high-risk areas that we identified, and the challenges identified by FEMA’s

Office of Inspector General.

As agreed, our evaluation was generally based on the requirements of

GPRA; the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000; guidance to agencies from

OMB for developing performance plans and reports (OMB Circular A-11,

part 2); previous reports and evaluations by us and others; our knowledge

of FEMA’s operations and programs; our identification of best practices

concerning performance planning and reporting; and our observations of

FEMA’s other GPRA-related efforts. We also discussed our review with

agency officials and with FEMA’s Office of Inspector General. The agency

outcomes that were used as the basis for our review were identified by the

Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee

as important mission areas for the agency and generally reflect the

outcomes for all of FEMA’s programs or activities. The major management

challenges confronting FEMA, including the governmentwide high-risk

areas of strategic human capital management and information security,

were identified by us in our January 2001 Performance and Accountability

Series and High-Risk Update or in our January 2001 Presidential and

Congressional Transition effort. The management challenges identified by

FEMA’s OIG were included in a December 2000 letter from the OIG to the

Director. We did not independently verify the information contained in the

performance report and plan, although we did draw from some of our

other work in assessing the validity, reliability, and timeliness of FEMA’s

performance data. We conducted our review from April 2001 through June

2001 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing

standards.

We provided a draft of this report to FEMA for its review and comment.

FEMA chose to meet with us to provide oral comments on the draft report,

and we met with FEMA’s GPRA Manager of the Administration and

Resource Planning Directorate on June 28, 2001, to discuss these

comments. While the FEMA official agreed with the report, she provided

suggested changes that we have included in this final report. The

Scope and

Methodology

Agency Comments
Page 17 GAO-01-832 Federal Emergency Management Agency

suggested changes that we incorporated in this report include (1) adding

clarifying language that FEMA did not “fully meet” five goals related to the

outcome to minimize human suffering and property losses to recognize the

progress FEMA had made, (2) adding five goals outlined in FEMA’s fiscal

year 2002 performance plan related to the major management challenge to

support terrorism preparedness coordination, and (3) adding additional

information on progress made to resolve the major management challenge

to improve the financial condition of the NFIP.

FEMA also asked us to identify its key outcomes with FEMA’s own

numbering system in its performance plan in addition to the narrative

description we provided to increase clarity in the discussion of agency

outcomes. We did not include this change because it does not improve the

clarity of the report.

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after the

date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to appropriate

congressional committees; the Director, Federal Emergency Management

Agency; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. Copies will

also be made available to others upon request.

If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-8984.

Key contributors to this report were Mark Abraham, Julia Duquette,

David Gill, Signora May, Robert Procaccini, and Carrie Watkins.

Sincerely yours,

JayEtta Z. Hecker

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Appendix I: Observations on FEMA’s Efforts

to Address Its Major Management Challenges

Page 18 GAO-01-832 Federal Emergency Management Agency

The following table identifies the major management challenges

confronting the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),

including the governmentwide high-risk areas of strategic human capital

management and information security. The first column lists the

challenges identified by our office and/or FEMA’s Office of Inspector

General (OIG). The second column discusses the progress that has been

made in resolving the challenges as discussed in FEMA’s fiscal year 2000

performance report. The third column discusses the extent to which

FEMA’s fiscal year 2002 performance plan includes performance goals and

measures to address the challenges that we and/or FEMA’s OIG identified.

FEMA’s fiscal year 2000 performance report generally discussed the

agency’s progress in resolving its challenges. Of the agency’s 9 major

management challenges, its performance plan had (1) 38 goals or

measures that were directly related to 7 challenges; (2) 3 goals or

measures that were indirectly applicable to 2 challenges—one of these

challenges also has goals or measures directly related to it; and (3) no

goals or measures related to 1 challenge—financial management

systems—but discussed strategies to address this challenge.

Appendix I: Observations on FEMA’s Efforts

to Address Its Major Management Challenges
Appendix I: Observations on FEMA’s Efforts

to Address Its Major Management Challenges

Page 19 GAO-01-832 Federal Emergency Management Agency

Table 1: Major Management Challenges

Major management challenge

Progress in resolving major management

challenge as discussed in the fiscal year

2000 performance report

Applicable goals and measures in

the fiscal year 2002 performance

plan

GAO-designated governmentwide high

risk

Strategic human capital management: GAO

identified shortcomings at multiple agencies

involving key elements of modern human

capital management, including strategic

human capital planning and organizational

alignment; leadership continuity and

succession planning; acquiring and

developing staffs whose size, skills, and

deployment meet agency needs; and

creating results-oriented organizational

cultures.

In its fiscal year 2000 performance report,

FEMA reported progress was made in

improving its Disaster Field Office operations,

such as convening a council to review

operations and implementing corrective

actions on a FEMA OIG report. However, it is

still struggling with effectively utilizing its

disaster cadre in the most efficient,

economical, and effective manner possible.

The fiscal year 2002 performance plan

contains a goal directly related to this

challenge—to create and maintain

human resource systems that help

FEMA accomplish its mission,

including planning and managing

human capital. The plan also contains

a goal indirectly related to this

challenge—to manage processes and

procedures that support the agency

and a measure to determine

appropriate management levels that

would result in streamlining FEMA’s

organizational units. The plan states

that this measure reflects an

administration initiative to reduce

middle management layers.
Appendix I: Observations on FEMA’s Efforts

to Address Its Major Management Challenges

Page 20 GAO-01-832 Federal Emergency Management Agency

Major management challenge

Progress in resolving major management

challenge as discussed in the fiscal year

2000 performance report

Applicable goals and measures in

the fiscal year 2002 performance

plan

Information security: Our January 2001

high-risk update noted that the agencies’

and governmentwide efforts to strengthen

information security have gained

momentum and expanded. Nevertheless,

recent audits continue to show federal

computer systems are riddled with

weaknesses that make them highly

vulnerable to computer-based attacks and

place a broad range of critical operations

and assets at risk of fraud, misuse, and

disruption.

(FEMA’s OIG also designated information

technology management, including areas

related to information security, as a

management challenge.)

In its fiscal year 2000 performance report,

FEMA reported that it had intercepted 24

major viruses, conducted network scan and

security audits on its Intranet/Internet assets,

strengthened its Internet firewall policies, and

implemented a Intranet firewall. The report

stated that FEMA also deployed firewall

controls to a National Emergency

Management Information System module and

tested and implemented a firewall at the

National Emergency Training Center. The

report also stated that FEMA is constantly

reviewing and improving its systems security

and, as a result, security and change controls

are stronger and complementary manual

controls were implemented as warranted.

Notwithstanding FEMA’s fiscal year 2000

performance report, an independent auditor

evaluated computer controls over FEMA’s

financial information systems as part of its

audit of FEMA’s fiscal year 2000 financial

statements. The auditor reported that

computer-based controls do not contribute to

the reliability of the accounting systems and

that control deficiencies in FEMA’s automated

Integrated Financial Management Information

System, particularly in the areas of access

controls and program change controls, were a

material weakness.

FEMA reported it has established a Critical

Infrastructure Assurance Officer position and

an Information Assurance Branch and was

taking actions to protect and strengthen its

Intranet/Internet assets.

FEMA’s fiscal year 2002 performance

plan did not identify any goals that

directly related to this management

challenge. However, a performance

measure associated with FEMA’s goal

to increase levels of internal and

external customer satisfaction with

FEMA services indirectly relates to this

challenge. The measure calls for

delivering accessible and standardized

information technology services at 98-

percent availability with no undetected

virus attacks.

The Chief Information Officers Council

in coordination with the National

Institute of Standards and Technology

and the Office of Management and

Budget has developed a framework for

agencies to use in determining the

current status of information system

controls and, where necessary, for

establishing a target for improvement.

FEMA could use this framework as a

means of measuring progress in

improving its information security

program.
Appendix I: Observations on FEMA’s Efforts

to Address Its Major Management Challenges

Page 21 GAO-01-832 Federal Emergency Management Agency

Major management challenge

Progress in resolving major management

challenge as discussed in the fiscal year

2000 performance report

Applicable goals and measures in

the fiscal year 2002 performance

plan

GAO and OIG-designated major

management challenges

Determine the cost-effectiveness of disaster

mitigation efforts: In August 1999, GAO

recommended that FEMA, among other

things, establish an analytical basis to

support the cost-effectiveness of acquiring

substantially damaged properties in

floodplains and conduct periodic reviews of

projects after they have been implemented

to determine whether they are costeffective.a To provide the best available

data for analyzing the cost-effectiveness of

proposed flood hazard mitigation projects,

GAO also recommended that FEMA:

• conduct postdisaster verifications of flood

hazards for use in evaluating and

possibly revising flood hazard map

information and

• Make the agency’s information on past

insurance more readily available for

FEMA staff conducting benefit-cost

analyses.

(FEMA’s OIG also designated aspects of

mitigation strategies as a management

challenge.)

In its fiscal year 2000 performance report,

FEMA reported it is establishing a system to

measure whether state and local mitigation

plans identify activities that they will

undertake. FEMA is also developing an

evaluation instrument to measure and

document best planning practices so the

states and local communities can assess their

own strengths and weaknesses and make

adjustments according to the results so that

FEMA is better positioned to target technical

assistance, training, and funding levels for

further capability building.

The fiscal year 2002 performance plan

contains two goals directly related to

this management challenge.

1. To support the development of

disaster resistance in communities

and states. Measures include (1)

reducing by 5,000 the number of lives,

by 2,200 the number of structures, and

by 150 the elements of infrastructure

at risk and (2) increasing by 10% the

number of communities who take

actions to foster disaster resistance.

2. For the second goal on state and

local preparedness and mitigation

capability, FEMA’s plan calls for

developing clearly defined and

mutually agreed-upon strategic goals

and priorities for its Emergency

Management Performance Grant

program agreements in collaboration

with federal and local governments.

Measures associated with this goal

include having all eligible recipients of

program grants developed work plans

that include goals and priorities and to

improve baselines established in prior

year grants.
Appendix I: Observations on FEMA’s Efforts

to Address Its Major Management Challenges

Page 22 GAO-01-832 Federal Emergency Management Agency

Major management challenge

Progress in resolving major management

challenge as discussed in the fiscal year

2000 performance report

Applicable goals and measures in

the fiscal year 2002 performance

plan

Reduce the cost of disaster assistance:

One way to reduce federal disaster

assistance costs is to change the eligibility

criteria under the public assistance

program. In 1996, GAO made several

recommendations regarding changing the

eligibility criteria. FEMA has since made

changes to eligibility, but eligibility and

oversight issues remain.

(FEMA’s OIG also designated reducing the

cost of disaster assistance as a

management challenge.)

In its fiscal year 2000 performance report,

FEMA states that the integration of the map

modernization plan into the Flood Hazard

Mapping Program will reduce the cost of the

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and

reduce disaster costs.

FEMA analysis of flood loss reduction savings

indicates that the projected $1 billion in

savings by fiscal year 2002 has already been

met and recalculation of the projected savings

will be done.

FEMA also reported that it reduced disaster

assistance cost by avoiding the cost of

purchasing new equipment and using recycled

disaster equipment instead.

FEMA’s implementation of reengineered

response and recovery processes will support

a 2-percent improvement in FEMA’s cost

efficiency.

The fiscal year 2002 performance plan

contains two goals directly related to

this management challenge.

1. FEMA plans to increase overall

customer satisfaction with its Public

Assistance programs. The measure

is to manage public assistance

programs to achieve an overall

customer satisfaction rate of 87

percent.

2. FEMA also plans to manage

processes and procedures that

support the agency in its efforts to

provide effective and efficient

services. Measures for this goal

include expanding public access to

information through e-government

services, to complete research to

determine cost drivers in response

and recovery processes, and

implement re-engineered processes

to support improvements in agency

cost efficiency.
Appendix I: Observations on FEMA’s Efforts

to Address Its Major Management Challenges

Page 23 GAO-01-832 Federal Emergency Management Agency

Major management challenge

Progress in resolving major management

challenge as discussed in the fiscal year

2000 performance report

Applicable goals and measures in

the fiscal year 2002 performance

plan

Improve the financial condition of the NFIP:

The program has had to borrow funds from

the Treasury to cover operating losses

resulting from heavy flooding in recent

years that produced flood insurance losses

exceeding the premiums collected from

policyholders. Two major factors underlie

financial difficulties—the program, by

design, is not actuarially sound; and it has

experienced repetitive losses.

(FEMA’s OIG also designated improving the

financial condition of the NFIP as a

management challenge.)

As stated in the fiscal year 2000 performance

report, in fiscal year 2000 efforts were focused

on identifying a target group of repetitive loss

properties and the transfer of their insurance

policies to a special servicing facility to better

oversee claims and to coordinate and facilitate

insurance and mitigation actions. FIA

continued to reduce the amount of the NFIP

subsidy and developed recommended

alternatives for reducing the subsidy enjoyed

by certain policyholders and held a series of

meetings to refine the recommendations.

Further reported for 2000, the NFIP

Compliance Strategy helps states measure

and ensure the effectiveness of local

floodplain management programs. FEMA is

undertaking several specific NFIP compliance

initiatives to make more efficient use of and

better target limited resources in the areas of

technical assistance, training, and funding for

floodplain management.

The NFIP Community Rating System provides

incentives that encourage state and

community mitigation programs, planning, and

initiatives. The system rewards community

activities that go beyond the minimum

standards of the NFIP, lead to a reduction of

flood losses in the United States, include

community recognition, and result in reduced

flood insurance rates for NFIP policyholders in

system communities.

The fiscal year 2002 performance plan

contains three goals directly related to

this management challenge.

1. Reduce flood-loss: Through the

NFIP’s insurance and floodplain

management activities, reduce

potential annual flood losses by

more than $1 billion. The measure

associated with this goal is that

refined measurement systems

confirm that reduced or avoided

flood damage costs exceed the

estimate $900 million.

2. Reduce repetitive losses and

subsidies: Implement a repetitiveloss initiative to reduce the almost

$200 million per year in losses to

properties that have sustained

flood damage on multiple

occasions. Rate and coverage

changes will be implemented in

keeping with legislative

authorities. The measure

associated with this goal is that

the program’s underwriting

experience and financial

performance will be analyzed and

projected in the aggregate and for

discrete classes of business. New

projections will be made based on

loss and expense expectations for

historical average loss-year

levels.

3. Flood insurance policy growth. To

increase the number of flood

insurance policies: Increase sales

of insurance policies in force by 5

percent annually.
Appendix I: Observations on FEMA’s Efforts

to Address Its Major Management Challenges

Page 24 GAO-01-832 Federal Emergency Management Agency

Major management challenge

Progress in resolving major management

challenge as discussed in the fiscal year

2000 performance report

Applicable goals and measures in

the fiscal year 2002 performance

plan

OIG-designated major management

challenges

Financial management: Much more must be

done to ensure that FEMA’s financial

management systems and operations can

produce, in a timely manner, accurate, and

relevant financial information.

The performance report stated that (1)

improvements made during fiscal year 2000 to

streamline the financial statements

preparation process made the financial

statements available for audit more than 1

month earlier than the 1999 fiscal year’s and

required substantially less year-end

adjustments, (2) corrective actions have

resulted in stronger security and change

controls, and (3) complimentary manual

controls were implemented as warranted.

None. As this area is a FEMA OIGdesignated major management

challenge, goals or measures

addressing the weaknesses in

financial management should be

included in the performance plan.

While FEMA has realized an important

objective in obtaining an unqualified

opinion, financial accountability goes

well beyond an unqualified opinion.

The key is to take steps to

continuously improve internal control

and the underlying financial and

management information systems as a

means to ensure accountability and

enhance the effectiveness of

government. These systems must

generate timely, accurate, and useful

information on an ongoing basis, not

just at the end of the year.

Grant management structure: FEMA needs

to improve its grant management structure.

In its fiscal year 2000 performance report,

FEMA notes it has made strides in its grant

management activities/functions. Prior to fiscal

year 1998, FEMA did not have a grant

management structure that was sufficient to

ensure how funds were dispensed to states.

There were weaknesses in grants awarded for

both disaster recovery and emergency

preparedness. FEMA’s OIG was satisfied in

fiscal year 1999 that FEMA was making an

effort to improve its grants management

capability. Grants management will continue to

be monitored in fiscal year 2001 to ensure

satisfactory improvements.

The fiscal year 2002 performance plan

contains one goal directly related to

this challenge—in collaboration with

federal and local governments, states

are to establish clearly defined and

mutually agreed-upon strategic goals

and priorities for their Emergency

Management Performance Grant

agreements. Two measures are

associated with this goal:

1. All eligible recipients of such

grants are to develop work plans

that include strategic goals and

priorities.

2. Improvements are to be made to

baselines established in prior year

program grants.
Appendix I: Observations on FEMA’s Efforts

to Address Its Major Management Challenges

Page 25 GAO-01-832 Federal Emergency Management Agency

Major management challenge

Progress in resolving major management

challenge as discussed in the fiscal year

2000 performance report

Applicable goals and measures in

the fiscal year 2002 performance

plan

Determine how to measure state and local

preparedness programs:

FEMA still does not have the ability to

measure state disaster risks and

performance capability.

In its fiscal year 2000 performance report,

FEMA notes that in collaboration with state

partners, it revised the State Capability

Assessment for Readiness; and in fiscal year

2000, 56 states and territories completed the

self-assessment. Analysis of the data provides

FEMA and the states with information on

areas where states will focus their efforts for

improvement. A local capability assessment is

being developed, and a tribal (Native

American) version is being considered.

The fiscal year 2002 performance plan

contains two goals directly related to

this challenge.

1. The first goal is State, tribal, and

local, and private sector

preparedness capability. Provide

federal, state, tribal, local and

private partners with the tools to

improve their knowledge, skills,

abilities in all phases of

comprehensive emergency

management. The two measures

associated with this goal are to (1)

involve partners in the

development and recommended

practices in the fiscal year 2001

and (2) develop, update, revise,

and deliver training in fiscal year

2002.

2. The second goal is to support the

development of disaster

resistance in communities and

states. The measures associated

with this goal are to increase

community resistance to natural

hazards and reduce losses from

future disasters.
Appendix I: Observations on FEMA’s Efforts

to Address Its Major Management Challenges

Page 26 GAO-01-832 Federal Emergency Management Agency

Major management challenge

Progress in resolving major management

challenge as discussed in the fiscal year

2000 performance report

Applicable goals and measures in

the fiscal year 2002 performance

plan

Support terrorism preparedness

coordination: FEMA needs to support

terrorism-related emergencies.

In its fiscal year 2000 performance report,

FEMA has a key role in developing and

maintaining a national strategy to support

terrorism-related emergencies. FEMA

established an Office of Terrorism within the

Office of the Director.

The fiscal year 2002 performance plan

contains five goals directly related to

this challenge. There are no

measures associated with these goals.

1. To provide clear and concise

guidance on FEMA’s roles and

responsibilities in terrorism related

activities.

2. To ensure FEMA supports

federal, state, and local

consequence management

planning, training, and exercise

programs.

3. To improve coordination and

sharing of program information

among federal, state, and local

communities.

4. To establish an organizational

structure for coordinating

terrorism preparedness within

FEMA.

5. To develop systems to monitor

and track resources needed to

support FEMA’s terrorism

consequence management

programs and activities.

a

Disaster Assistance: Opportunities to Improve Cost-Effectiveness Determination for Mitigation Grants

(GAO/RCED-99-236, Aug. 4, 1999).

b

Disaster Assistance: Improvements Needed in Determining Eligibility for Public Assistance

(GAO/RCED-96-113, May 23, 1996).

(394003)
The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are

$2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the

Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are also

accepted.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St., NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To

receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days,

please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will

provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Orders by Internet

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an email message with “info” in the body to:

Info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at:

http://www.gao.gov

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

Ordering Information

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in

Federal Programs