MANAGING FOR

RESULTS

Views on Ensuring

the Usefulness of

Agency Performance

Information to

Congress

United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Committee on

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

U.S. Senate

January 2000

GAO/GGD-00-35

United States General Accounting Office General Government Division

Washington, D.C. 20548

Page 1 GAO/GGD-00-35 Performance Information to Congress

B-282487

January 26, 2000

The Honorable James M. Jeffords

Chairman, Committee on Health, Education,

 Labor, and Pensions

United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Congressional committees have cited the need for a variety of information

about federal programs and their performance to help the committees

make decisions about the programs they oversee. Seeking to provide

Congress and federal managers with more objective information on the

results of federal programs and thus to improve government performance

and accountability, Congress enacted the Government Performance and

Results Act of 1993 (GPRA). The act established governmentwide

requirements for agencies to set strategic and annual performance goals

and, beginning in March 2000, to report annually on their results in

achieving their goals.

In reviewing agencies’ second annual performance plans (setting goals for

fiscal year 2000), the Committee was concerned that the performance

measures selected by some agencies did not meet the Committee’s needs

for oversight information and that it had insufficient input into some

agencies’ performance plans. Recognizing that agencies are still in the

early, learning stages of GPRA implementation, you asked us to explore, in

three case studies, how agencies might better meet congressional needs

for information on program and agency performance—through whatever

source. The three agencies we studied are responsible for health

surveillance, postsecondary student loans, and pension oversight.1

We interviewed staff from these agencies’ authorizing and appropriations

committees about their information needs and whether those needs were

met, and we interviewed agency officials about how that information might

be obtained. As agreed with your office, this report addresses the following

questions: (1) Which aspects of congressional information needs were met

by the agency’s annual performance plan or some other source? (2) Where

those needs were not met, what accounts for the discrepancies or gaps in

 1

 The three agencies are the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health

and Human Services (HHS); the Office of Student Financial Assistance (OSFA), Department of

Education; and the Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration (PWBA), Department of Labor (DOL).
B-282487

Page 2 GAO/GGD-00-35 Performance Information to Congress

the information provided? (3) What options could the agencies use to

practically and efficiently provide the desired performance information?

The congressional staff we interviewed identified a great diversity of

information they would like to have to address key questions about

program performance—either on a regular or an ad hoc basis. The

agencies we studied met some, but not all, of these recurring and ad hoc

congressional information needs through both formal and informal means.

The congressional staffs were looking for recurring information on

spending priorities within programs; the quality, quantity, and efficiency of

program operations; the populations served or regulated; as well as the

program’s progress in meeting its objectives. For example, learning who

benefits from a program can help in addressing questions about how well

services are targeted to those most in need. Some of these recurring needs

were met through formal agency documents, such as annual budget

request justification materials, annual performance plans, or other

recurring reports.

Other congressional information needs were ad hoc, requiring more

detailed information or analysis as “hot” issues arose for congressional

consideration. The congressional staffs were seeking more detailed

information about program authority and scope, news of impending

change, assessments of emerging issues, projected effects of proposed

changes, and the effects and side effects of existing programs. For

example, on several occasions when a negative incident occurred, they

wanted to know how frequently it occurred, how well the public was

protected against it, and whether a congressional response was warranted.

Some of these needs were met through both formal and informal means,

such as reports, hearings, agency referrals to other documents, formal

briefings, or informal consultations.

Information needs that the congressional staffs reported as unmet were

similar in content to, but often more specific or detailed than, those that

were met. Several factors accounted for the gaps in meeting congressional

information needs. Some information the agencies provided did not fully

meet the congressional staffs’ needs because the presentation was not

clear, directly relevant, or sufficiently detailed. For example, congressional

staffs wanted to see more direct linkages among the agencies’ resources,

strategies, and goals. In other cases, the information was not readily

available to the congressional staffs, either because it had not been

requested or reported, or because staff were not informed that it was

available. Some of the authorizing committee staff had not seen the annual

performance plan that one agency had prepared separately from its

Results in Brief
B-282487

Page 3 GAO/GGD-00-35 Performance Information to Congress

department’s plan, because the agency had not submitted it to that

committee. Although all three agencies placed documents on their Internet

sites, they did not typically inform congressional staff about them unless

they specifically asked for the information. Finally, in some cases, the

agencies said they did not have the information—such as the use of new

student loan repayment options—because it was either too soon or too

difficult to obtain it. They said that special studies would be required to

obtain data not contained in program records or to assess long-term

effects.

These experiences suggest a variety of options for increasing the

congressional staffs’ access to the information they need to address key

policy questions about program performance, depending on the

circumstances. Foremost, improved communication between

congressional staff and agency officials about those needs might help

ensure that congressional information needs are understood, and that,

where feasible, arrangements are made to meet them. Agency officials

indicated that improved communication could have avoided some of these

unmet needs; they believed that, if requested to do so, they could have

provided, or arranged to obtain, most of the information the congressional

staff wanted. Although the congressional staffs were able to obtain

answers to many of their inquiries by going through official agency

channels, a few noted that informal discussions, when they occurred, were

particularly helpful. Improved two-way communication might also make

clear what information is and is not available.

Greater consultation on how best to distribute agency documents might

improve congressional access to existing reports. Posting publications on

Internet sites can increase congressional staffs’ access to agency

information without their having to specifically request it, but staff still

need to learn that the information exists and where to look for it.

Depending on the circumstances, agencies may want to broadly distribute

some documents of general interest and simply alert key contacts within

the committees to new publications and events of more specific potential

interest.

The agencies’ annual GPRA performance plans and other reports might be

more useful to congressional committees if they addressed the issues

congressional staff said they wanted addressed on a recurring basis, and if

agency staff consulted with the committees on their choice of performance

measures. Developing performance plans for major bureaus or programs

might help clarify the links between their resources, strategies, and goals

at the program level—the level at which these committee staffs were
B-282487

Page 4 GAO/GGD-00-35 Performance Information to Congress

interested. Agencies could opt either to incorporate this information in

their departmental performance plans or to refer readers to supplementary

documents. However, without feedback from congressional staff on where

presentations were unclear, or where additional detail or content was

desired, future reports might still not meet congressional information

needs.

Finally, to obtain new information about subpopulations or emerging

issues, congressional staff would have to make direct requests of the

agency, and the agency officials we interviewed said they welcomed these

requests. However, as we stated in a previous report, two-way

communication is critical in obtaining special studies, to ensure a mutual

understanding of information needs and how they can be met.2

In 1995, we reported on a study of how three agencies collected and

reported evaluative information about their programs to this Committee.3

We found that the agencies collected a great deal of useful information

about their programs, but much of it was not requested and thus did not

reach the Committee, and much of what the Committee did receive was

not as useful as it could have been. We also found that communication

between the Committee and agency staff on information issues was limited

and afforded little opportunity to build a shared understanding of the

Committee’s needs and how to meet them. At that time, we proposed a

strategy for obtaining information to assist program oversight and

reauthorization review: (1) select descriptive and evaluative questions to

be asked about a program at reauthorization and in interim years, (2)

explicitly arrange to obtain oversight information and results of evaluation

studies at reauthorization, and (3) provide for increased communication

with agency program and evaluation officials to ensure that information

needs are understood and requests and reports are suitably framed.

At the time, GPRA had recently been enacted, requiring agencies to

develop multiyear strategic plans and annual performance plans and

reports over a 7-year implementation period. In our 1995 report, we noted

that annual reporting under GPRA was expected to fill some of the

information gaps we described and that GPRA also emphasized the

importance of consultation with Congress as evaluation strategies are

planned, goals and objectives are identified, and indicators are selected.

We suggested that our proposed process for identifying questions would

 2

 Program Evaluation: Improving the Flow of Information to the Congress (GAO/PEMD-95-1, Jan. 30,

1995).

3

 GAO/PEMD-95-1.

Background
B-282487

Page 5 GAO/GGD-00-35 Performance Information to Congress

be useful as agencies prepared to meet GPRA requirements and that

consultation with Congress would help ensure that data collected to meet

GPRA reporting requirements could also be used to meet the Committee’s

special needs (for example, to disaggregate performance data in ways

important to the Committee). We also saw a need for a useful complement

to GPRA reports (and their focus on progress towards goals) that would

provide additional categories of information, such as program description,

side effects, and comparative advantage to other programs. The

Committee had found such information to be useful, especially in

connection with major program reauthorizations and policy reviews.

Since its enactment, we have been tracking federal agencies’ progress in

implementing GPRA by identifying promising practices in performance

measurement and results-based management, as well as by evaluating

agencies’ strategic plans and the first two rounds of performance plans.4

We found that although agencies’ fiscal year 2000 performance plans, on

the whole, showed moderate improvements over the fiscal year 1999 plans,

key weaknesses remained and important opportunities existed to improve

future plans to make them more useful to Congress. Overall, the fiscal year

2000 plans provided general, rather than clear, pictures of intended

performance, but they had increased their use of results-oriented goals and

quantifiable measures. Although some agencies made useful linkages

between their budget requests and performance goals, many needed to

more directly explain how programs and initiatives would achieve their

goals. Finally, many agencies offered only limited indications that their

performance data would be credible, a source of major concern about the

usefulness of the plans.

This report does not directly evaluate the three agencies’ performance

plans but rather looks more broadly at the types of information that

authorizing and appropriations committees need from the agencies and

how their unmet needs could be met, either through performance plans or

through other means. We included program performance information

available from sources other than annual performance plans because

agencies communicate with congressional committees using a variety of

 4

 Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act (GAO/GGD96-118, June 1996); Managing for Results: Analytic Challenges in Measuring Performance

(GAO/HEHS/GGD-97-138, May 30, 1997); Managing for Results: Critical Issues for Improving Federal

Agencies’ Strategic Plans (GAO/GGD-97-180, Sept. 16, 1997); Managing for Results: An Agenda to

Improve the Usefulness of Agencies’ Annual Performance Plans (GAO/GGD/AIMD-98-228, Sept. 8,

1998); Managing for Results: Measuring Results That Are Under Limited Federal Control (GAO/GGD99-16, Dec. 11, 1998); Managing for Results: Opportunities for Continued Improvements in Agencies’

Performance Plans (GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215, July 20, 1999); and Performance Budgeting: Fiscal Year

2000 Progress in Linking Plans With Budgets (GAO/AIMD-99-239R, July 30, 1999).
B-282487

Page 6 GAO/GGD-00-35 Performance Information to Congress

modes—reports, agency Internet sites, hearings, briefings, telephone

consultations, e-Mail messages, and other means. We did not assume that

annual GPRA performance plans or performance reports are the best or

only vehicle for conveying all kinds of performance information to

Congress.

We conducted our work between May and November 1999 in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards. We requested

comments on a draft of this report from the Secretaries of Education,

Labor, and Health and Human Services and the Director of the Office of

Management and Budget. HHS and Labor provided written comments that

are reprinted in appendixes II and III. The other agencies either had no

comments or provided technical comments. The agencies’ comments are

discussed at the end of this letter. We also requested comments from the

congressional staff members we interviewed on our characterization of

their concerns, and we incorporated the clarifying changes they suggested.

Health Surveillance. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

(CDC) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) supports—

through a number of programs—a system of health surveillance activities

to monitor, and help prevent and control, infectious and chronic diseases.

By working with the states and other partners, CDC—primarily the

National Center for Infectious Diseases and the National Center for

Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion—provides leadership

and funding through grants to state and local public health departments.

Grants support research to develop diagnostic tests, prevention

interventions, local and state public health laboratories, and information

sharing and other infrastructure to facilitate a nationwide surveillance

system. CDC centers support critical disease registries (such as the cancer

registries) and surveillance tools (such as the Behavioral Risk Factor

Survey) and disseminate public health surveillance data.

Pensions Oversight. In the Department of Labor (DOL), the Pension and

Welfare Benefits Administration (PWBA) oversees the integrity of private

sector pensions (as well as health and other welfare benefits) and seeks to

increase employer-sponsored pension coverage in the workforce. The

Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) sets minimum

standards to ensure that private employee pension plans are established

and maintained in a fair and financially sound manner. Employers also

have an obligation to provide promised benefits and to satisfy ERISA

requirements for managing and administering private pension plans. PWBA

tracks and collects annual reports by plan managers on the plan

operations, funding, assets, and investments. It develops regulations and

Program Descriptions
B-282487

Page 7 GAO/GGD-00-35 Performance Information to Congress

conducts enforcement investigations and compliance reviews to deter

pension fund mismanagement. PWBA also provides information and

customer assistance, such as brochures targeted to women, small

businesses, and minorities with low participation rates in pension plans, to

encourage the growth of employment-based benefits.

Postsecondary Student Loans. The Department of Education’s Office of

Student Financial Assistance (OSFA), a newly created performance-based

organization, manages operations of the direct loan program (William D.

Ford Federal Direct Student Loan Program) and guaranteed loan program

(Federal Family Education Loan Program) that are major student financial

assistance programs.5 These and other programs under the Higher

Education Act of 1965, as amended, aim to help undergraduate and

graduate students meet the cost of their education. The agency provides

loans to students (or families) either directly through the direct loan

program or under the guaranteed loan program, through private banks that

lend the money at a federally subsidized rate.

In the direct loan program, the student applies through the school to the

agency that transfers funds to the school. Later, a loan servicer (under

agency contract) tracks and collects payments on the loan. In the

guaranteed loan program, the student applies for the loan through a

private lender that then tracks and collects the loan payments. The agency

subsidizes the interest rate paid by the borrower. If a borrower defaults, a

local guaranty agency reimburses the bank for the defaulted loan, and the

department pays the guaranty agency.

Congressional staff identified a great diversity of information they wanted

to have to enable them to address key questions about program

performance—either on a regular basis, to answer recurring questions, or

in response to ad hoc inquiries as issues arose. Agencies met some, but not

all, of these information needs through a variety of formal and informal

means, such as formal reports and hearings and informal consultations.

 5

 The 1998 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act resulted in the creation of the performancebased organization to help modernize and improve the student aid delivery system that previously was

managed by the Office of Postsecondary Education.

Some Congressional

Information Needs

Were Met Through

Formal and Informal

Means
B-282487

Page 8 GAO/GGD-00-35 Performance Information to Congress

Congressional staff identified a number of recurring information needs,

some of which were met through annual documents, such as agencies’

budget justification materials, GPRA annual performance plans, or other

annual reports. The recurring information needs fell into four broad

categories:

• allocation of program personnel and expenditures across activities;

• data on the quantity, quality, and efficiency of operations or services;

• characteristics of the populations or entities served or regulated; and

• indicators of progress in meeting objectives and side effects.

Both authorizing and appropriations staff wanted regular information on

how personnel and expenditures were allocated across activities, both for

the purpose of learning what was actually spent on a program or activity as

well as to understand priorities within a program. This information was

typically provided to their appropriations committees in the detailed

budget justification documents that agencies submit each year with their

budget requests. An appropriations staff member indicated that the routine

data he wanted on PWBA’s program staffing and expenditures were

provided by the agency’s budget justification documents, and that the

agency was forthcoming in responding to requests for additional

information.

Congressional staff also described wanting information on the quantity,

quality, and efficiency of the activities or services provided. This

information was needed to inform them of the nature and scope of a

program’s activities, as well as to address questions about how well a

program was being implemented or administered. They said they found

this kind of information in both agency budget justification documents and

performance plans. For example, both authorizing and appropriations staff

members noted that the Department of Education’s budget justification

documents and its departmental performance plan met their needs for

basic information on trends in program expenditures and the volume and

size of student loans and grants-in-aid over time. This data provided them

with information about the change over time in the use of different

financing options, revealing the potential for an increase in student debt

burden.

In addition, the department’s performance plan included performance

indicators and targets for OSFA’s response times in processing loan

applications, an issue of concern to congressional staff because backlogs

in loans being consolidated under the direct loan program had been

identified and targeted for increased attention. In this case, Education

Formal Annual Reports Met

Some Recurring

Information Needs
B-282487

Page 9 GAO/GGD-00-35 Performance Information to Congress

officials said that a committee report required a biweekly report for 18

months on its loan processing so that the committee could monitor their

progress in resolving the backlog. Officials said that this report was

provided to a total of six committees—the authorizing, appropriations, and

budget committees—in both the Senate and House. All three agencies also

described their major programs (with some information on program

activities and services provided) on their agency Internet sites.6

Similarly, congressional staff also wanted regular information on the

characteristics of the persons or entities the programs serve or regulate. In

addition to providing a picture of who benefits from the program, such

information can help answer questions about how well program services

are targeted to the population most in need of service and how well those

targeted populations are reached. The congressional staff described PWBA

as good at providing statistics on the private pension plans and

participants covered by ERISA in an annual report issued separately from

the GPRA requirements. This report, the Private Pension Plan Bulletin,

provides their most recent as well as historical data on plans and

participants and detailed data on employee coverage and other

characteristics by employer size.

Finally, the congressional staff also wanted regular information on the

program’s progress in meeting its objectives and any important side effects

that the program might have. The Department of Labor’s fiscal year 2000

performance plan supplied information on one of PWBA’ s goals—to

increase the number of employees covered by private pension plans—

derived from a survey conducted by the Bureau of the Census (Census).

Congressional staff noted their satisfaction with the inclusion of program

data on the student loan default rate and default recovery rate as

performance measures in the Department of Education’s performance

plan. The plan also provided data on whether low- and middle-income

students’ access to postsecondary education was improving over time

relative to high-income students’ access. These and other measures in the

plan of unmet need for student financial aid, college enrollment rates, and

size of debt repayments were derived from special surveys conducted by

the Department of Education or by Census.

 

6

 For PWBA, see http://www.dol.gov/dol/pwba; for CDC, see http://www.cdc.gov; for OSFA, see

http://www.ed.gov.
B-282487

Page 10 GAO/GGD-00-35 Performance Information to Congress

Congressional staff identified a number of ad hoc information needs that

arose periodically as “hot issues” came up for congressional consideration.

Some of the needs were met through existing documents, and many others

through informal consultations in response to a request from

congressional staff, while still other needs were not met. The ad hoc

information needs were similar to but somewhat different from recurring

information needs and fell into five broad categories:

• details about a program’s activities and authority,

• news of impending change in the program,

• assessments of emerging issues,

• projected effects of proposed program changes, and

• effects and side effects of existing programs.

Congressional staff often wanted details about the scope of a program’s

activities and authority that were not readily available from the general

documents they had. Questions might have been raised by a constituent

request or a legislative proposal, in which case the staff member wanted a

fairly rapid response to a targeted question. In such cases, congressional

staff said they often called the agency’s congressional liaison office, which

either handled the request itself or forwarded it to knowledgeable program

officials who, in turn, either returned the call to the requester or forwarded

the information through the liaison. CDC officials also described referring

requesters to the brief program descriptions they maintain on their

Internet site.

Congressional staff noted that they wanted the agency to proactively

inform them, in advance, when there was news of significant impending

change in their Member’s district or to a program in which they had been

involved. In one case, they wanted to have an opportunity to influence the

policy discussions; in another case, they wanted to be prepared when the

news appeared in the press. An authorizing committee staff member found

that CDC’s targeted distribution of “alerts” provided a very useful “heads

up” before the agency issued a press release about a public health concern.

The alerts were distributed by e-Mail or faxed to the interested committee

staff member or congressional members. During the recent appearance of

a rare form of encephalitis in New York City, for example, CDC said that it

informed congressional members and interested staff members from that

region (as well as their authorizing and appropriations committees) about

its findings regarding the source of the disease and explained what CDC

was doing about it.

Some Ad Hoc Information

Needs Were Met Through

Formal Reports and

Informal Consultation
B-282487

Page 11 GAO/GGD-00-35 Performance Information to Congress

Another type of ad hoc information request was for assessments of an

issue’s potential threat. Congressional staff described several occasions

when a negative incident—such as a disease outbreak—occurred that

raised questions about how frequently such incidents occur, how well the

public is protected against them, and whether a congressional or

legislative response was warranted. Because of the highly specific nature

of such requests, the staff said they were usually made by telephone to the

agency’s congressional liaison and responded to with a brief, informal

consultation or a formal briefing.

On one occasion, CDC officials testified at a congressional hearing

summarizing their research into antimicrobial-resistant diseases and how

CDC’s surveillance programs track and respond to the problem. In another

example, in response to a proposed merger of two large private

corporations, a staff member wanted to know what the new owner’s

obligations were to its holdover employees and how this would affect

those employees’ pension benefits. In addition, in order to ensure the

protection of those employees’ rights, the staff member wanted to know

what enforcement options were available to the agency. The staff member

indicated that PWBA officials provided this technical assessment and

consultation in a timely manner.

As either the legislative or executive branch proposed changes to a

program, congressional staff wanted projections of the effects of those

proposed changes, not only as to whether (and how) the change would fix

the problem identified, but also whether it would have undesired side

effects. As committee staff discuss proposals, they said they often asked

agency officials for informal consultations. If hearings or other more

formal deliberations were planned, some kind of formal document might

be requested. When an agency proposed a regulation or amended

regulation, the agency prepared a formal document for public comment

that provided a justification for the change. For example, to reduce the

cost of loans to student borrowers, a congressional committee considered

reducing the interest rate. However, some lenders expressed concern that

a rate reduction would cut into their profit margins, forcing some to drop

out of the program. To assess the likelihood of this projected result, the

committee staff turned to the estimates of lenders’ profit margins

produced by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the

Treasury Department.

Similarly, as new provisions are implemented, congressional staff might

have questions about whether the provisions are operating as planned and

having the effects hoped for or the side effects feared. In December 1998,
B-282487

Page 12 GAO/GGD-00-35 Performance Information to Congress

OSFA was designated a performance-based organization (PBO), given

increased administrative flexibility, and charged with modernizing the

Department’s information systems and improving day-to-day operations.

OSFA has provided authorizing and appropriations committee staff with

regular reports on its Interim Performance Objectives (also available on its

Internet site) that provide measures of efficiency in processing loan and

loan consolidation applications and measures of borrower and

institutional satisfaction. OSFA has also initiated cost accounting

improvements to obtain better data on loans made, serviced, and collected

under both the direct and guaranteed loan programs in order to provide

baseline data against which to measure its progress in improving

operational efficiency.

Information needs that congressional staff reported as unmet were similar

in content to, but often more specific or detailed than, those that were met.

The information needs that congressional staff described as having been

met tended to be general, descriptive information about a program’s

activities and expenditures (such as those that might support their budget

request) or descriptive information about the agency’s activities in

response to a specific, often emerging, issue. This information was often

provided in a formal report or presentation (such as a briefing or hearing).

The information needs that congressional staff described as typically

unmet were detailed information on the allocation of funds for activities,

descriptive information about the program’s strategies and the issues they

addressed, and analyses showing the program’s effects on its objectives.

The key factors accounting for the gaps in meeting congressional

information needs were the following:

• the presentations of information were not clear, sufficiently detailed, or

directly relevant;

• the information was not readily available to congressional staff; or

• the information was not available to the agency.

In some cases, information on the topics was available or provided, but its

presentation was not as useful as it could have been. Congressional staff

members noted that neither the budget submission nor the departmental

strategic plan demonstrated the link between a CDC cancer screening

program, the dollars appropriated for it in the budget, and how this

program contributed to meeting the department’s strategic objectives. A

CDC official noted that, in combination, CDC’s performance plan and

budget submission did link the strategic objectives with the budget. They

explained that this was in part due to CDC’s budget being structured

Several Factors

Accounted for Gaps in

Meeting Congressional

Information Needs

Some Information

Presentations Were Not

Clear, Detailed Enough, or

Directly Relevant
B-282487

Page 13 GAO/GGD-00-35 Performance Information to Congress

differently from its organization of centers and institutes. A CDC budget

work group, formed in early 1999 in response to similar concerns, met with

its congressional stakeholders and program partners and is developing a

revised budget display that the group hopes will make this information

more understandable in CDC’s next budget submission.

In another situation, congressional staff looked to the performance plan

for a clear presentation of PWBA’s regulatory strategy that showed how

the agency planned to balance its various activities—litigation,

enforcement, guidelines, regulations, assistance, and employee

education—and how those activities would meet PWBA’s strategic goals.

The congressional staff wanted to know what PWBA’s regulatory priorities

were, as well as how PWBA expected the different activities to achieve its

goals. However, the departmental plan did not provide a comprehensive

picture of PWBA and described only isolated PWBA activities to the extent

that they supported departmental goals.

Some agency reports did not provide enough detail on issues of concern to

the committee. Congressional staff members concerned about PWBA’s

enforcement efforts wanted detailed information on the patterns of

violations to show how many were serious threats to plans and their

financial assets, rather than paperwork filing problems. A PWBA official

indicated that PWBA could disaggregate its data on violations to show the

distribution of various types of violations, but that there would need to be

some discussion with the committee staff about what constituted a

“paperwork” rather than a “serious” violation.7

In another case, a congressional staff member was concerned that some

patients were experiencing significant delays in obtaining cancer

treatment after being screened under the National Breast and Cervical

Cancer Early Detection Program. The program focuses on screening and

diagnosis, while participating health agencies are to identify and secure

other resources to obtain treatment for women in need. Staff wanted to

see the distribution of the number of days between screening and

beginning treatment, in addition to the median period, in order to assess

how many women experienced significant delays. When this issue was

raised in a hearing, CDC officials provided the median periods as well as

the results of surveillance data that showed that 92 percent of the women

diagnosed with breast cancer and invasive cervical cancer had initiated

treatment.

 

7

 PWBA did produce an Enforcement Strategy Implementation Plan in 1994 that discussed its

enforcement efforts, but officials told us that it was not for external distribution.
B-282487

Page 14 GAO/GGD-00-35 Performance Information to Congress

Some responses to congressional inquiries were not adequately tailored to

meet congressional staff’s concerns. For example, in preparing legislation,

a congressional staff member needed immediately very specific

information about the scope and authority of a program in order to assess

whether a proposed legislative remedy was needed. However, he said he

received documents containing general descriptive information on the

issue instead, which he did not consider relevant to his question. An

agency official indicated that this response suggested that the

congressional query may not have been specific enough, or that the

responding agency official did not have the answer and hoped that those

documents would satisfy the requestor. In other cases, staff indicated they

obtained this type of information succinctly through a telephone call to the

agency’s congressional affairs office, which might direct them to a brief

description of the program’s authority, scope, and activities on the

agency’s Internet site or refer them to a knowledgeable agency official.

One authorizing committee staff person noted that, although the

committee staff assigned to an issue develops background on these

programs over time, there is rapid turnover in Members’ staff

representatives to a committee. Moreover, because these staff are

expected to cover a broad range of topics, she thought that they would

find particularly useful brief documents that articulate the program’s

authority, scope, and major issues, to draw upon as needed.

Some congressional information needs were unmet because the

information was not readily available, either because it was not requested

or reported, or because staff were not informed that it was available. In

one instance, concerned about the safety of multiemployer pension plans,

congressional staff wanted disaggregated data on the results of

enforcement reviews for that type of plan. PWBA officials explained that

the ERISA Annual Report to Congress does not highlight enforcement

results for particular types of plans. However, they said that they could

provide this information if congressional staff specifically requested it.

In several cases, the agencies thought that they had made information

available by placing a document on the agency’s Internet site, but they had

not informed all interested committee staff of the existence or specific

location of those documents. For instance, an authorizing committee staff

member had heard of long delays in PWBA’s responses to requests for

assistance and wanted to know how frequently these delays occurred. In

its own agency performance and strategic plans, PWBA included

performance measures of its response times to customers requesting

assistance and interpretations. But, because those measures were not

Some Information Was Not

Readily Available
B-282487

Page 15 GAO/GGD-00-35 Performance Information to Congress

adopted as part of the departmental performance plan and PWBA did not

provide its own performance plan to the authorizing committee staff, this

information was not available to those staff. Agency officials said that this

information was available because they had posted their strategic plan on

the agency’s Internet site. However, the committee staff person was

unaware of this document’s presence on the site and thus was unaware

that such a measure existed.

In some instances, the desired information was not available to the agency.

This was because either special data collection was required, it was too

early to get the information, the data were controlled by another agency,

or some forms of information were difficult to obtain.

Where congressional questions extend across program or agency

boundaries, special studies, coordinated at the department level, might be

required to obtain the answers. For example, to address a policy question

about how well prenatal services were directed to pockets of need,

congressional staff wanted a comparison of the geographic distribution of

the incidence of low birth-weight babies with areas served by prenatal

programs and with the availability of ultrasound testing. HHS officials

explained that although CDC and the National Center for Health Statistics

had information on the regional incidence of low birth-weight babies

through birth certificate data, these agencies did not have the information

on the availability of prenatal services. The Health Resources and Services

Administration (another HHS agency), which is concerned with such

services, does not have information on the location of all prenatal

programs or the availability of ultrasound equipment to link with the birth

certificate data on low birth-weight. HHS officials indicated that, if this

analysis were requested, the department would need to initiate a special

study to collect data on the availability of services to match with existing

vital statistics.

Some congressional information needs extend beyond what a program

collects as part of its operations and thus would require supplemental

information or a special data collection effort to obtain. For example,

because a student’s race is not collected as part of loan applications, the

Department of Education supplements its own records on the use of

different student finance options with periodic special studies of student

borrowers that do collect racial information. Because the different student

loan programs maintain their records in separate databases, the office

relies on special studies, conducted every 3 years since school year 1986-

1987, to examine the full package of financial options students and their

families use to pay for postsecondary education. The congressional staff

Some Information Was Not

Available to the Agency
B-282487

Page 16 GAO/GGD-00-35 Performance Information to Congress

also wanted to obtain trend data on the extent to which all forms of

student aid received (e.g., grants, loans, and tax credits) cover the cost of

school attendance for low-income students. Education officials said that if

published data from these special studies were not adequate, specialized

data tabulations could be obtained. In the meantime, OSFA issued a 5-year

performance plan in October 1999 that showed how it plans to improve the

information systems for the student loan programs in order to improve

operations and interconnectivity among the programs.

As programs are revised, questions naturally arise about whether the new

provisions are operating as planned and having the desired effects or

unwanted side effects. Congressional staff identified several questions of

this type for the student loan programs due to changes created by the 1998

reauthorization of the Higher Education Act and the separate enactment of

a new tuition tax credit: How many students will select each of the new

loan repayment options? Which students benefit more from the new tax

credit, low- or middle-income? Will the need to verify a family’s

educational expenses create a new burden for schools’ financial aid

offices?

In our discussions with OSFA, officials told us that they will report

information on use of the new repayment options in their next annual

budget submission, and that they believed the Internal Revenue Service

(IRS) would include analyses of who used the tuition tax credit (similar to

its analyses of other personal income tax credits) in its publication series,

Statistics of Income. Because OSFA does not administer the tax credit,

OSFA officials suggested to us that IRS would be responsible for estimates

of any reporting burden for schools related to the tax credit.

Lastly, some information was not available because it is difficult to obtain.

There has been congressional interest in whether a provision that cancels

loan obligations for those who enter public school teaching or other public

service leads more student borrowers to choose public service careers.

Education officials said that a design for a special evaluation had been

prepared, but that they had discovered that, because only a small number

of student borrowers benefited from this provision, they were unable to

obtain a statistically valid sample of these borrowers through national

surveys.

Determining the effectiveness of federally funded state and local projects

in achieving federal goals can be challenging for federal agencies. A CDC

official told us that CDC conducts many studies evaluating whether a

specific health prevention or promotion practice is effective or not, but
B-282487

Page 17 GAO/GGD-00-35 Performance Information to Congress

that it expects it will take a combination of such practices to produce

populationwide health effects. However, it is much more difficult to

measure the effects of a combination of practices, especially when such

practices are carried out in the context of other state and local health

initiatives, than to test the efficacy of one specific health practice at a time.

In addition, measuring the effectiveness of health promotion and disease

prevention programs related to chronic disease can be difficult in the short

term, given the nature of chronic diseases.

To help ensure that congressional stakeholders obtain the information

they want requires communication and planning—to understand the form

and content of the desired information as well as what can feasibly be

obtained, and to arrange to obtain the information. Our analysis uncovered

a range of options that agency and congressional staffs could choose

from—depending on the circumstances—to improve the usefulness of

agency performance information to these congressional staffs. Improved

communication might help increase congressional access to existing

information, improve the quality and usefulness of existing reports, and

plan for obtaining supplemental data in the future.

Agency officials said that increased communication between agency and

congressional staff could have prevented some of the unmet information

needs because they believed that, if requested, they could have provided

most of the information congressional staff said they wanted, or arranged

for the special analysis required. Increased two-way communication might

also make clear what information is and is not available.

Each agency has protocols for communication between congressional staff

and agency officials, typically requiring the involvement of congressional

liaison offices to ensure departmental review and coordination of policy.

Agency congressional liaisons and other officials said that they answered

some ad hoc inquiries directly or referred congressional staff to existing

documents or program specialists. Congressional staff said that they were

generally able to get responses to their formal and informal inquiries

through these channels, but several noted that communication was often

very formal and controlled in these settings.

Some congressional staff and agency officials found that the informal

discussions they had had were very helpful. In one case, agency officials

were asked to discuss their program informally with appropriations

committee staff; in another case, the incoming agency director scheduled a

visit with a subcommittee chair and his staff to describe his plans and

learn of their interests. It is our opinion that when key agency or

Improved

Communication Offers

Several Options for

Filling Unmet

Information Needs

Options for Increasing

Access to Existing

Information
B-282487

Page 18 GAO/GGD-00-35 Performance Information to Congress

committee staff changes occur, introductory briefings or discussions might

help ensure continuity of understanding and open lines of communication

that could help smooth the process of obtaining information on a recurring

and on an ad hoc basis.

Discussion of what might be the most appropriate distribution options for

different types of documents might help ensure that the information

agencies make available is actually found. For example, authorizing

committees might want to routinely receive agencies’ annual budget

justification documents, which contain detailed information on allocations

of resources. Also, although the three agencies aimed to increase the

volume of material that was publicly available by posting it on their

Internet sites, the information was often not available to congressional

staff unless they knew that it existed and where to look for it. For

relatively brief and broadly applicable material, like CDC’s summary of

cost-effective health promotion practices, an agency may decide, as CDC

did, to send copies to all congressional offices. Alternatively, to avoid

overwhelming congressional staffs with publications, CDC officials sent eMail or fax alerts to contacts at relevant committees about newly released

publications and other recent or upcoming events of potential interest.

Our analysis of the types of information the congressional staffs said they

wanted on a recurring basis suggests ways the agencies might improve the

usefulness of their performance plans and other reports to these

committees. In addition, increased communication about the specifics of

congressional information needs might help ensure that those needs are

understood and addressed.

The congressional staff said that they wanted a clear depiction at the

program level of the linkages between program resources, strategies, and

the objectives they aim to achieve. Of our three case studies, congressional

staff indicated that only the Education Department’s performance plan

provided adequate detail at the program level—the level that they were

interested in. As we previously reported, most federal agencies’ fiscal year

2000 plans do not consistently show how the program activity funding in

their budget accounts would be allocated to agencies’ performance goals.8

And, although most agencies attempted to relate strategies and program

goals, few agencies indicated how the strategies would contribute to

accomplishing the expected level of performance.

 

8

 Managing for Results: Opportunities for Continued Improvements in Agencies’ Performance Plans

(GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215, July 20, 1999).

Options for Improving

GPRA and Other Existing

Reports
B-282487

Page 19 GAO/GGD-00-35 Performance Information to Congress

One option would be for agencies to consider developing performance

plans for their major bureaus or programs and incorporating this

information in their department’s plan. For example, the HHS Fiscal Year

2000 Performance Plan consisted of a departmentwide summary as well as

the annual performance plans developed by its component agencies and

submitted as part of the agencies’ budget justifications. Alternatively,

departments that prefer to submit a consolidated plan keyed to

departmentwide goals could refer readers to where more specific data

could be found in supplementary documents. OMB’s Circular No. A-11

guidance asks agencies to develop a single plan covering an entire agency

but notes that, for some agencies, the plan will describe performance on a

macro scale by summarizing more detailed information available at

different levels in the agency. In these instances, OMB instructs agencies

to have ready their more detailed plans specific to a program or

component to respond to inquiries for more refined levels of performance

information.

The congressional staff also said that they wanted, on a recurring basis,

data on the quantity, quality, and efficiency of a program’s activities; the

characteristics of the population served; and indicators of a program’s

progress in meeting its objectives. These categories are consistent with

those identified in our 1995 report as the information Congress wants on a

routine basis.9

 (Appendix I contains the categories of information and the

list of core questions that we proposed committees select from and adapt

to meet their needs when requesting information.) Although all three

agencies consulted with congressional committees on their strategic plans

as required by GPRA, only one consulted with our congressional

interviewees on the development of its performance plan and choice of

indicators. As we previously reported, agency consultation with both

authorizing and appropriations committees as performance measures are

selected is likely to make the agencies’ performance plans more useful to

those committees.

The three agencies’ planned and ongoing efforts in data collection and

analysis improvements may improve the quality and responsiveness of

their reported information. However, without feedback from the

congressional staffs on where presentations were unclear, or where

additional detail or content is desired, the reports may still not meet

congressional needs. Discussing information needs could also help identify

which needs could be addressed in an annual or other recurring report and

which could be addressed more feasibly through some other means.

 

9

 GAO/PEMD-95-1.
B-282487

Page 20 GAO/GGD-00-35 Performance Information to Congress

In addition to performance plans and reports, the congressional staff also

described a need for readily accessible background information on

individual programs’ authority, scope, and major issues. Committee staff

noted that rapid turnover in Members’ staff representatives to a committee

results in some of their colleagues needing a quick introduction to

complex programs and their issues. Some of the program and agency

descriptions on agency Internet sites were designed for the general public

and were not detailed enough to meet the congressional staffs’ needs.

To obtain new information about special subpopulations or emerging

issues, congressional staff would have to make direct requests of the

agency. Agency officials told us that they welcomed these requests and

would do what they could to meet them. However, depending on the

information requested and the time period in which a response is needed,

it might not be possible for the agency to obtain it in time. Therefore,

discussion between congressional staff and agency officials concerning the

information needed is important to clarify what is desired and what is

feasible to obtain, as well as to arrange for obtaining the information.

In some cases, the agencies said that they were able to conduct special

tabulations to obtain the desired information. In other cases, they said that

more data collection or analysis efforts might be required and that they

would need some initial planning to determine how much time and

resources it would take to obtain the requested information. Because it

can be costly to obtain some information, advance agreement on the

information content and format might avoid some frustration on both sides

by clarifying expectations. In a couple of cases, when congressional staff

members learned that the information was not readily available and would

be costly to obtain, they were satisfied to accept a less precise or less

detailed response.

Where congressional staff expect certain information will be important in

future congressional considerations, advance planning for its collection

would help ensure its availability in the desired format when it is needed.

In some cases, agencies may be able to alter their information systems to

track some new provision; in others, they may have to plan new data

collection efforts. As stated in our 1995 report, communication is critical at

two points in obtaining special studies:10

 

10 GAO/PEMD-95-1.

Options for Arranging to

Obtain New Information
B-282487

Page 21 GAO/GGD-00-35 Performance Information to Congress

• when a Committee frames a request for information, to ensure that the

agency understands what is wanted and thus can alert the Committee to

issues of content or feasibility that need resolution; and

• as report drafting begins, to assist the agency in understanding the issues

that will be before the Committee and what kind of presentation format is

thus likely to be most useful.

The Departments of Health and Human Services and Labor provided

written comments on a draft of this report, which are reprinted in

appendixes II and III. Both HHS and Labor stated that, in general, the

report is balanced and contains useful ideas for improving

communications between federal agencies and congressional committees.

HHS also expressed two concerns. One concern was that the report

suggested that the Department did not provide performance information at

the program level. It said its component agencies provided this information

in their own performance plans, which are presented as part of their

congressional budget justifications. We have changed the text to clarify

that the HHS Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan consisted of a

departmentwide summary as well as the performance plans submitted as

part of its component agencies’ congressional budget justifications.

However, because we understand that these budget justifications were not

widely distributed beyond the appropriations committees, we remain

concerned that this performance information was not made readily

available to authorizing committee staff.

HHS’ other concern was that the opening paragraphs of the report implied

that it would emphasize GPRA as the primary medium for disseminating

agency performance information although, it noted, the scope of the report

is appropriately much broader. The Committee’s expectations for and

concerns about agencies’ performance plans prepared under GPRA were

the impetus for this report. However, the Committee also recognized that

these plans and reports are only one mechanism to provide performance

information to Congress and thus broadened the focus of our work.

Officials at the Department of Education suggested no changes and said

that they appreciated recognition of their efforts to work collaboratively

with Congress and provide good management for the department’s

programs. OMB, HHS, and PWBA provided technical comments that we

incorporated where appropriate throughout the text.

Agency Comments and

Our Evaluation
B-282487

Page 22 GAO/GGD-00-35 Performance Information to Congress

To explore how agencies might improve the usefulness of the performance

information they provide Congress, we conducted case studies of the

extent to which the relevant authorizing and appropriations committee

staffs obtained the information they wanted about three program areas.

These cases were selected in consultation with the requesting committee’s

staff to represent programs whose performance information they felt could

be improved and to represent a range of program structures and

departments under the Committee’s jurisdiction. For example, one

selection (pension oversight) is a regulatory program in the Department of

Labor; the other two (student loans and health surveillance) represent

service programs in the Departments of Education and Health and Human

Services. Pension oversight represents the direct operations of a federal

agency, while the other cases operate through state and local agencies or

the private sector. Each case represents a program or cluster of programs

administered by an agency within these departments.

To identify congressional information needs and the extent to which they

were met, we interviewed staff members recommended by the minority

and majority staff directors of the authorizing and appropriation

committees for the selected agencies.11 We asked the staffs to identify what

information they needed to address the key policy questions or decisions

they faced over the preceding 2 years, and whether their information needs

were met. To identify the reasons for the information gaps and how in

practice the agencies might better meet those congressional information

needs, we interviewed both agency officials and congressional staff;

reviewed agency materials; and drew upon our experience with various

data collection, analysis, and reporting strategies.

We are sending copies of this report to Senator Edward Kennedy, Ranking

Minority Member of your committee; Senator Ted Stevens, Chairman, and

Senator Robert Byrd, Ranking Minority Member, Senate Committee on

Appropriations; Representative William Goodling, Chairman, and

Representative William Clay, Ranking Minority Member, House Committee

on Education and the Workforce; Representative Tom Bliley, Chairman,

and Representative John Dingell, Ranking Minority Member, House

Committee on Commerce; and Representative Bill Young, Chairman, and

Representative David Obey, Ranking Minority Member, House Committee

 

11 We interviewed staffs on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee; the House

Committees on Commerce and on Education and the Workforce; and the House Appropriations

Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies. Staff on the

Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related

Agencies were unavailable during the time frame of this review because of the ongoing appropriations

process.

Scope and

Methodology
B-282487

Page 23 GAO/GGD-00-35 Performance Information to Congress

on Appropriations. We are also sending copies of this report to the

Honorable Alexis Herman, Secretary of Labor; the Honorable Donna

Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services; the Honorable Richard

Wiley, Secretary of Education; and the Honorable Jacob Lew, Director,

Office of Management and Budget. We will also make copies available to

others on request.

If you have any questions concerning this report, please call me or

Stephanie Shipman at (202) 512-7997. Another major contributor to this

report was Elaine Vaurio, Project Manager.

Sincerely yours,

Nancy R. Kingsbury

Acting Assistant Comptroller General
Page 24 GAO/GGD-00-35 Performance Information to Congress

Contents

1 Letter

Appendix I 26

Core Questions to

Assist Program

Oversight

Appendix II 27

Comments From the

Department of Health

and Human Services

Appendix III 30

Comments From the

Department of Labor

Related GAO Products 34
Page 25 GAO/GGD-00-35 Performance Information to Congress
Appendix I

Core Questions to Assist Program Oversight

Page 26 GAO/GGD-00-35 Performance Information to Congress

Category of

information

Core question

Description Overall, what activities are conducted? By whom? How extensive

and costly are the activities, and whom do they reach?

If conditions, activities, and purposes are not uniform throughout the

program, in what significant respects do they vary across program

components, providers, or subgroups of clients?

Implementation What progress has been made in implementing new provisions?

Have feasibility or management problems become evident?

If activities and products are expected to conform to professional

standards or to program specifications, have they done so?

Targeting Have program activities or products focused on appropriate issues or

problems?

To what extent have they reached the appropriate people or

organizations?

Do current targeting practices leave significant needs unmet

(problems not addressed, clients not reached)?

Impact Overall, has the program led to improvements consistent with its

purpose?

If impact has not been uniform, how has it varied across program

components, approaches, providers, or client subgroups?

Are there components or providers that consistently have failed to

show an impact?

Side-effects Have program activities had important positive or negative side

effects, either for program participants or outside the program?

Comparative

advantage

Is this program’s strategy more effective in relation to its costs than

others that serve the same purpose?

Source: GAO/PEMD-95-1, page 26.
Appendix II

Comments From the Department of Health

and Human Services

Page 27 GAO/GGD-00-35 Performance Information to Congress
Appendix II

Comments From the Department of Health and Human Services

Page 28 GAO/GGD-00-35 Performance Information to Congress
Appendix II

Comments From the Department of Health and Human Services

Page 29 GAO/GGD-00-35 Performance Information to Congress
Appendix III

Comments From the Department of Labor

Page 30 GAO/GGD-00-35 Performance Information to Congress
Appendix III

Comments From the Department of Labor

Page 31 GAO/GGD-00-35 Performance Information to Congress
Appendix III

Comments From the Department of Labor

Page 32 GAO/GGD-00-35 Performance Information to Congress
Page 33 GAO/GGD-00-35 Performance Information to Congress
Related GAO Products

Page 34 GAO/GGD-00-35 Performance Information to Congress

Performance Budgeting: Fiscal Year 2000 Progress in Linking Plans With

Budgets (GAO/AIMD-99-239R, July 30, 1999).

Performance Plans: Selected Approaches for Verification and Validation of

Agency Performance Information (GAO/GGD-99-139, July 30, 1999).

Managing for Results: Opportunities for Continued Improvements in

Agencies’ Performance Plans (GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215, July 20, 1999).

Regulatory Accounting: Analysis of OMB’s Reports on the Costs and

Benefits of Federal Regulation (GAO/GGD-99-59, Apr. 20, 1999).

Performance Budgeting: Initial Experiences Under the Results Act in

Linking Plans With Budgets (GAO/AIMD-99-67, Apr. 12, 1999).

Emerging Infectious Diseases: Consensus on Needed Laboratory Capacity

Could Strengthen Surveillance (GAO/HEHS-99-26, Feb. 5, 1999).

Managing for Results: Measuring Program Results That Are Under Limited

Federal Control (GAO/GGD-99-16, Dec. 11, 1998).

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation: Financial Condition Improving, but

Long-Term Risks Remain (GAO/HEHS-99-5, Oct. 16, 1998).

Managing for Results: An Agenda to Improve the Usefulness of Agencies’

Annual Performance Plans (GAO/GGD/AIMD-98-228, Sept. 8, 1998).

Student Loans: Characteristics of Students and Default Rates at

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (GAO/HEHS-98-90, Apr. 9,

1998).

Credit Reform: Greater Effort Needed to Overcome Persistent Cost

Estimation Problems (GAO/AIMD-98-14, Mar. 30, 1998).

Managing for Results: Critical Issues for Improving Federal Agencies’

Strategic Plans (GAO/GGD-97-180, Sept. 16, 1997).

Direct Student Loans: Analyses of the Income Contingent Repayment

Option (GAO/HEHS-97-155, Aug. 21, 1997).

Student Financial Aid Information: Systems Architecture Needed to

Improve Programs’ Efficiency (GAO/AIMD-97-122, July 29, 1997).
Related GAO Products

Page 35 GAO/GGD-00-35 Performance Information to Congress

Managing for Results: Analytic Challenges in Measuring Performance

(GAO/HEHS/GGD-97-138, May 30, 1997).

High-Risk Series: Student Financial Aid (GAO/HR-97-11, Feb. 1997).

Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance

and Results Act (GAO/GGD-96-118, June 1996).

Program Evaluation: Improving the Flow of Information to the Congress

(GAO/PEMD-95-1, Jan. 30, 1995).
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order made

out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA

and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or

more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25

percent.

Order by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

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

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using

fax number (202) 512-6061, or 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.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send e-mail 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

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100

(966713)