Testimony 

Before the Committee on Government 

Reform, House of Representatives

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT 

Thursday, June 24, 2004 HOMELAND SECURITY

Coordinated Planning and 

Standards Needed to Better 

Manage First Responder 

Grants in the National 

Capital Region 

Statement of William O. Jenkins, Jr. 

Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues 

GAO-04-904T 
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-904T 

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact William O. 

Jenkins, Jr., at (202) 512-8757 or 

jenkinswo@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-904T, a testimony 

before the Chairman, Committee on 

Government Reform, House of 

Representatives 

June 24, 2004

HOMELAND SECURITY

Coordinated Planning and Standards 

Needed to Better Manage First Responder 

Grants In the National Capital Region 

In fiscal years 2002 and 2003, grant programs administered by the 

Departments of Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, and Justice 

awarded about $340 million to eight NCR jurisdictions to enhance 

emergency preparedness. Of this total, the Office for National Capital Region 

Coordination (ONCRC) targeted all of the $60.5 million Urban Area Security 

Initiative funds for projects designed to benefit NCR as a whole. However, 

there was no coordinated regionwide plan for spending the remaining funds 

(about $279.5 million). Local jurisdictions determined the spending priorities 

for these funds and reported using them for emergency communications and 

personal protective equipment and other purchases. 

NCR faces several challenges in organizing and implementing efficient and 

effective regional preparedness programs, including the lack of a 

coordinated strategic plan for enhancing NCR preparedness, performance 

standards, and a reliable, central source of data on funds available and the 

purposes for which they were spent. 

Without these basic elements, it is difficult to assess first responder 

capacities, identify first responder funding priorities for NCR, and evaluate 

the effectiveness of the use of federal funds in enhancing first responder 

capacities and preparedness in a way that maximizes their effectiveness in 

improving homeland security. 

National Capital Region Jurisdictions 

Loudoun County

Prince William

County

Fairfax County

Montgomery County

Prince George's

County

Source: National Capital Planning Commission.

Arlington

County

District of

Columbia

Virginia Maryland

City of Alexandria

Since the tragic events of 

September 11, 2001, the National 

Capital Region (NCR), comprising 

jurisdictions including the District 

of Columbia and surrounding 

jurisdictions in Maryland and 

Virginia, has been recognized as a 

significant potential target for 

terrorism. GAO was asked to 

report on (1) what federal funds 

have been allocated to NCR 

jurisdictions for emergency 

preparedness; (2) what challenges 

exist within NCR to organizing and 

implementing efficient and 

effective regional preparedness 

programs; (3) what gaps, if any, 

remain in the emergency 

preparedness of NCR; and (4) what 

has been the role of the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) in NCR to date. 

GAO recommends that the 

Secretary of DHS (1) work with 

local NCR jurisdictions to develop 

a coordinated strategic plan to 

establish capacity enhancement 

goals and priorities; (2) monitor the 

plan’s implementation; and 

(3) identify and address gaps in 

emergency preparedness and 

evaluate the effectiveness of 

expenditures by conducting 

assessments based on established 

standards and guidelines. 

DHS and the ONCRC Senior Policy 

Group generally agreed with GAO’s 

recommendations and noted that a 

new governance structure, adopted 

in February 2004, should 

accomplish essential coordination. 
Page 1 GAO-04-904T 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify on the results of our work on the 

management of first responder grants in the National Capital Region 

(NCR). Our report is being released today, and my testimony highlights the 

major findings and recommendations of that report. 1

Our report addressed the following questions: 

• What federal funds have been allocated to local jurisdictions in NCR for 

emergency preparedness, for what specific purposes, and from what 

sources? 

• What challenges exist within NCR to organizing and implementing 

efficient and effective regional preparedness programs? 

• What gaps, if any, remain in the emergency preparedness of NCR? 

• What has been the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) role to date 

in enhancing the preparedness of NCR through such actions as 

coordinating the use of federal emergency preparedness grants, assessing 

preparedness, providing guidance, targeting funds to enhance 

preparedness, and monitoring the use of those funds? 

To respond to these questions, we met with and obtained documentation 

from officials of DHS including its Office for National Capital Region 

Coordination (ONCRC), the Senior Policy Group, the Metropolitan Council 

of Governments, state emergency management agencies, and first 

responder officials from NCR jurisdictions. We identified 25 emergency 

preparedness programs that provided funding to NCR jurisdictions in 

fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and we selected 16 of them for detailed review. 

These 16 grants were selected to cover a range of programs, including the 

largest funding sources; grants provided for general purposes, such as 

equipment and training; and grants provided for specific purposes, such as 

fire prevention and bioterrorism. We collected and analyzed grant data 

from federal, state, and local sources; and reviewed relevant reports, 

studies, and guidelines on homeland security and domestic preparedness. 

 1

See Homeland Security: Management of First Responder Grants in the National Capital 

Region Reflects the Need for Coordinated Planning and Performance Goals, GAO-04-433, 

(Washington, D.C.: May 28, 2004), 
Page 2 GAO-04-904T 

We conducted our review from June 2003 through February 2004 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

• In fiscal years 2002 and 2003, the DHS, the Department of Justice, and the 

Department of Health and Human Services awarded about $340 million 

through 16 grants to NCR jurisdictions. Of these funds, $60.5 million were 

from the Urban Area Security Initiative grant, designated for region-wide 

needs, and the Office of National Capital Region Coordination has 

developed a regional plan for their use. The remaining funds, about $279.5 

million, were available to local jurisdictions for a wide variety of needs, 

such as equipment and training, and local jurisdictions determined how 

these funds were to be spent. Local jurisdictions used or planned to use 

monies from those grants to buy equipment and to implement training and 

exercises for the area’s first responders, as well as improve planning for 

responding to a terrorist event. But, spending for these purposes was not 

generally based on a coordinated plan for enhancing regional first 

responder capacities and preparedness. 

• ONCRC and the NCR face at least three interrelated challenges in 

managing federal funds in a way that maximizes the increase in first 

responder capacities and preparedness while also minimizing inefficiency 

and unnecessary duplication of expenditures. These challenges are (1) a 

lack of preparedness standards; (2) a coordinated region-wide plan for 

establishing first responder performance goals, needs, and priorities and 

assessing the benefits of expenditures in enhancing first responder 

capabilities; and (3) the lack of a readily available, reliable source of data 

on the federal grant funds available to first responders in NCR, budget 

plans and criteria used to determine spending priorities, and actual 

expenditures. Without the standards, a region-wide plan, and needed data 

on spending, it is extremely difficult to determine whether NCR first 

responders have the ability to respond to threats and emergencies with 

well-planned, well-coordinated, and effective efforts that involve a variety 

of first responder disciplines from NCR jurisdictions. 

• During our review, we could identify no reliable data on preparedness 

gaps in the NCR, which of those gaps were most important, and the status 

of efforts to close those gaps. The baseline data needed to assess those 

gaps had not been fully developed or made available on a NCR-wide basis. 

• To date, DHS and ONCRC appear to have had a limited role in assessing 

and analyzing first responder needs in NCR and developing a coordinated 

effort to address those needs through the use of federal grant funds. 

ONCRC has focused principally on developing a plan for using the Urban 

Summary 
Page 3 GAO-04-904T 

Area Security Initiative funds. In its comments on a draft of our report, 

DHS said that a governance structure approved in February 2004, should 

accomplish essential region-wide coordination. 

Since September 11, 2001, the federal government, state and local 

governments, and a range of independent research organizations have 

agreed on the need for a coordinated intergovernmental approach to 

allocating the nation’s resources to address the threat of terrorism and 

improve our security. The need for a coordinated approach was most 

recently stated in the report of the Homeland Security Advisory Council,2

released earlier this month: 

Arguably, while each at-risk locality must be provided adequate resources to effectively 

fight this war, no single jurisdiction or response discipline can fight it alone. Effective 

homeland security efforts require continuous regional collaboration and coordination. 

Such an approach includes developing national guidelines and standards 

and monitoring and assessing preparedness against those standards to 

effectively manage risk. 

The National Strategy for Homeland Security, released in 2002 following 

the proposal for DHS, emphasized a shared national responsibility for 

security involving close cooperation among all levels of government and 

acknowledged the complexity of developing a coordinated approach 

within our federal system of government and among a broad range of 

organizations and institutions involved in homeland security. The national 

strategy highlighted the challenge of developing complementary systems 

that avoid unintended duplication and increase collaboration and 

coordination so that public and private resources are better aligned for 

homeland security. The national strategy established a framework for this 

approach by identifying critical mission areas with intergovernmental 

initiatives in each area. For example, the strategy identified such initiatives 

as modifying federal grant requirements and consolidating funding sources 

to state and local governments. The strategy further recognized the 

importance of assessing the capability of state and local governments, 

developing plans, and establishing standards and performance measures 

to achieve national preparedness goals. In addition, many aspects of DHS’ 

 2

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, The Homeland Security Advisory Council, A 

Report from the Task Force on State and Local Homeland Security Funding (Washington, 

D.C.: June 2004), p. 12. 

Background 
Page 4 GAO-04-904T 

success depend on its maintaining and enhancing working relationships 

within the intergovernmental system as the department relies on state and 

local governments to accomplish its mission. 

The creation of DHS was an initial step toward reorganizing the federal 

government to respond to some of the intergovernmental challenges 

identified in the National Strategy for Homeland Security. The Homeland 

Security Act established ONCRC within DHS to oversee and coordinate 

federal programs for, and relationships with, federal, state, local, and 

regional authorities in the NCR.3

 Specifically, ONCRC was mandated to 

• coordinate the activities of DHS relating to NCR, including cooperating 

with the DHS’ Office for State and Local Government Coordination; 

• coordinate with federal agencies in the NCR on terrorism preparedness to 

ensure adequate planning, information sharing, training, and execution of 

the federal role in domestic preparedness activities; 

• coordinate with federal, state, and regional agencies and the private sector 

in NCR on terrorism preparedness to ensure adequate planning, 

information sharing, training, and execution of domestic preparedness 

activities among these agencies and entities; 

• serve as a liaison between the federal government and state, local, and 

regional authorities, and private sector entities in NCR to facilitate access 

to federal grants and other programs.4

With regard to resource assessments and needs, the NCR’s responsibilities 

also include 

• assessing and advocating for resources needed by state, local, and regional 

authorities in the NCR to implement efforts to secure the homeland and 

 3

P.L. 107-296 §882. 

4

The Office of National Capital Region Coordination was also mandated to provide state, 

local, and regional authorities in NCR with regular information, research, and technical 

support to assist the efforts of state, local, and regional authorities in NCR in securing the 

homeland; and develop a process for receiving meaningful input from state, local, and 

regional authorities and the private sector in NCR to assist in the development of the 

federal government’s homeland security plans and activities. 

ONCRC 

Responsibilities 

Include Assessing 

Capabilities and 

Advocating for 

Needed Resources 
Page 5 GAO-04-904T 

• submitting an annual report to Congress that (1) identifies resources 

required to fully implement homeland security efforts, (2) assesses 

progress in implementing homeland security efforts in the NCR, and (3) 

includes recommendations to Congress regarding additional resources 

needed to fully implement homeland security efforts in the NCR. 

In fiscal years 2002 and 2003, 16 separate federal grant programs conveyed 

about $340 million to state and local emergency management, law 

enforcement, fire, public health, and other emergency response agencies 

in NCR. Two funding sources—the fiscal year 2002 Department of Defense 

Emergency Supplemental Appropriation (almost $230 million) and the 

fiscal year 2003 Urban Area Security Initiative ($60.5 million) accounted 

for about 85 percent of those funds. The Urban Area Security Initiative 

funds were designated for regional use, and a plan has been developed for 

using the funds to benefit the region as a whole. These funds have been 

targeted for equipment ($26.5 million), planning ($12.4 million), exercises 

($4 million), and administrative costs ($1.8 million), among other things. 

The other grant programs were not specifically designated for regional 

purposes, and spending for these funds was determined by individual local 

jurisdictions. These funds were available for such purposes as purchasing 

additional equipment and supplies for first responders; planning, 

coordinating, and evaluating exercises; training first responders; funding 

the emergency preparedness planning efforts and administration; and 

providing technical assistance. NCR jurisdictions reported using or 

planning to use these funds to purchase a range of equipment—for 

example, vehicles and communications equipment—supplies, training, and 

technical assistance services. 

In our report, we discuss issues associated with managing federal first 

responder grants in NCR, assessing gaps in first responder capacities and 

preparedness in the region, and the role of the Office for National Capital 

Region Coordination in coordinating and assessing efforts to enhance first 

responder capacity across NCR. Effectively managing first responder 

federal grants funds requires the ability to measure progress and provide 

accountability for the use of public funds. A strategic approach to 

homeland security includes identifying threats and managing risks, 

aligning resources to address them, and assessing progress in preparing 

for those threats and risks. As with other major policy areas, 

demonstrating the results of homeland security efforts includes developing 

and implementing strategies, establishing baselines, developing and 

Grants Available to 

NCR Jurisdictions and 

Their Use 

Challenges to Using 

Coordinated, 

Effective Use of 

Federal Grants in 

NCR 
Page 6 GAO-04-904T 

implementing performance goals and data quality standards, collecting 

reliable data, analyzing the data, assessing the results, and taking action 

based on the results. The purpose of these efforts with regard to first 

responder grant funds to be able to answer three basic, but difficult, 

questions: 

• For what types of threats and emergencies should first responders be 

prepared? 

• What is required—for example, coordination, equipment, training—to be 

prepared for these threats and emergencies? 

• How do first responders know that they have met their preparedness 

goals? 

NCR is an example of the difficulties of answering the second and third 

questions in particular. 

The region faces significant challenges in managing homeland security 

dollars. ONCRC and NCR jurisdictions face three interrelated challenges 

that limit their ability to jointly manage federal funds in a way that 

demonstrates increased first responder capacities and preparedness while 

minimizing inefficiency and unnecessary duplication of expenditures. 

First, a lack of preparedness standards for both equipment and 

performance means that it is difficult to assess first responder capabilities, 

identify gaps in those capabilities, and measure progress in closing those 

gaps. As in other areas of the nation generally, NCR does not have a set of 

accepted benchmarks (best practices) and performance goals that could 

be used to identify desired goals and determine whether first responders 

have the ability to respond to threats and emergencies with well-planned, 

well-coordinated, and effective efforts that involve police, fire, emergency 

medical, public health, and other personnel from multiple jurisdictions. 

Second, a strategic plan for the use of homeland security funds—whether 

in NCR or elsewhere—should be based on established goals, priorities, 

and measures, and align spending plans with those priorities and goals. At 

the time of our review, ONCRC had developed a regional spending plan for 

the Urban Area Security Initiative grants, but this plan was not part of a 

broader coordinated plan for spending federal grant funds and developing 

first responder capacity and preparedness in NCR. The lack of 

benchmarks and performance goals may contribute to difficulties in 

Lack of Standards, Plans, 

and Data Limit Effective 

Grant Management to 

Guide First Responder 

Spending in NCR 
Page 7 GAO-04-904T 

developing a coordinated region-wide plan for determining how to spend 

federal funds and assessing the benefits of that spending. 

Third, there is no established process or means for regularly and reliably 

collecting data on (1) the amounts of first responder grants available to 

each jurisdiction and (2) the budget plans and criteria used for 

determining spending allocations and budget priorities. Reliable data are 

needed to establish accountability, analyze gaps, and assess progress 

toward meeting established performance goals. Without such data, it is 

difficult to verify the results of preparedness assessments and to establish 

a baseline that could be used to develop plans to address outstanding 

needs. It should be noted that the fragmented nature of the multiple 

federal grants available to first responders—some awarded to states, some 

to localities, some directly to local first responder agencies—may make it 

more difficult to collect and maintain region-wide data on grant funds 

received and the use of those funds in NCR. 

Without national standards, guidance on likely threats and scenerios for 

which to be prepared, coordinated plans, and reliable data, it is difficult 

for us or ONCRC to determine what gaps, if any, remain in the emergency 

response capacities and preparedness within NCR. 

Determining the existence of gaps in NCR’s emergency preparedness is 

difficult currently because there is little baseline data on the region’s 

preparedness, and DHS’s Office for National Capital Region Coordination 

does not have information on how NCR localities used federal grant 

dollars to enhance their capacities or preparedness. Even if those data 

were available, a lack of standards against which to evaluate the data 

would also have made it difficult to assess any gaps. The Office for 

Domestic Preparedness collected information on regional security risks 

and needs for NCR jurisdictions, and ONCRC based funding decisions for 

the Urban Area Security Initiative on the results. However, as already 

noted, it is not clear how the Urban Area Security Initiative spending plan 

links to the actual and planned uses for the other funding sources that 

comprised about $279.5 million of the $340 million in federal homeland 

security grants to the NCR during fiscal years 2002 and 2003. 

Each jurisdiction provided us with information on their perceived gaps 

and specific needs for improving emergency preparedness. However, there 

is no consistent method for identifying these gaps among jurisdictions 

within NCR. Several jurisdictions told us that they identify remaining gaps 

based on requests from emergency responder agencies. Other jurisdictions 

Guidance, Reliable 

Data Needed to 

Assess Remaining 

Gaps in First 

Responder 

Capabilities 
Page 8 GAO-04-904T 

said they have established emergency management councils or task forces 

to review their preparedness needs and are developing a more strategic 

plan for funding those needs. Officials of most NCR jurisdictions 

commonly identified the need for more comprehensive and redundant 

communications systems and upgraded emergency operations centers. 

We recognize that NCR is a complex multijurisdictional area comprising 

the District of Columbia and surrounding county and city jurisdictions in 

Maryland and Virginia. The region is the home to the federal government, 

many national landmarks, and military installations. Coordination within 

this region presents the challenge of working with numerous jurisdictions 

that vary in size, political organization, and experience with managing 

large emergencies. 

According to emergency management officials we contacted, DHS’ Office 

for National Capital Region Coordination could play a potentially 

important role in assisting them to implement a coordinated, well-planned 

effort in using federal resources to improve the region’s preparedness. In 

our view, meeting ONCRC’s statutory mandate would fulfill such a key 

responsibility. 

We recognize that the Office for National Capital Region Coordination was 

created about 15 months ago, and that some start-up time has been 

required. To date, however, it appears that ONCRC’s efforts have not 

focused on assessing what has been accomplished with funds available 

within NCR to date and identifying what needs remain and for what 

purposes. ONCRC has concentrated its efforts on developing a 

coordinated assessment and plan for the use of Urban Area Security 

Initiative funds. Although we believe that those steps are important for 

rationalizing and prioritizing the expenditure of homeland security dollars 

designated for region-wide use, ONCRC’s efforts generally do not address 

expenditures from the majority of the homeland security grant dollars 

received in NCR. In addition, it is difficult for the ONCRC to meet its 

statutory responsibilities without an NCR emergency preparedness 

baseline, a region-wide plan for prioritizing expenditures and assessing 

their benefits, and reliable data on funds that are available and those have 

been spent. 

According to DHS, a governance structure was approved in February 2004 

that will provide the essential region-wide coordination that is necessary. 

DHS and ONCRC 

Appear to Have Had 

Limited Role in 

Promoting Regional 

Coordination in NCR 
Page 9 GAO-04-904T 

Our report contains several recommendations. To help ensure that 

emergency preparedness grants and associated funds are managed in a 

way that maximizes their effectiveness, we recommend that the Secretary 

of the Department of Homeland Security take the following three actions 

to fulfill DHS’s statutory responsibilities in NCR: 

• Work with NCR jurisdictions to develop a coordinated strategic plan to 

establish goals and priorities for enhancing first responder capacities that 

can be used to guide the use of federal emergency preparedness funds. 

• Monitor the plan’s implementation to ensure that funds are used in a way 

that promotes effective expenditures that are not unnecessarily 

duplicative. 

• Identify and address gaps in emergency preparedness and evaluate the 

effectiveness of expenditures in meeting those needs by adapting 

standards and preparedness guidelines based on likely scenarios for NCR 

and conducting assessments based on them. 

In their comments on a draft of our report, DHS and the Senior Policy 

Group generally agreed with our recommendations, but also said that NCR 

jurisdictions had worked cooperatively together to identify opportunities 

for synergies and lay a foundation for meeting the challenges noted in the 

report. The Senior Policy Group noted the challenge and critical 

importance of integrating private sector initiatives as part of the broader 

effort. DHS and the Senior Policy Group also agreed that there is a need to 

continue to improve preparedness by developing more specific and 

improved preparedness standards, clearer performance goals, and an 

improved method for tracking regional initiatives. They believe the 

governance process now in place will accomplish essential regional 

coordination. 

Coordinated planning for the use of federal grant funds and monitoring the 

results achieved with those funds are fundamental for assessing and 

building the needed first responder capacity of the region to prepare for, 

mitigate, respond to, and recover from major emergency events in the 

region—whether the result of nature, accident, or terrorist act. The urgent 

nature of the security risk to the National Capital Region requires a 

coordinated, well-planned approach to the expenditure of federal first 

responder grants. To maximize the positive impact of such federal dollars, 

duplication needs to be minimized, available resources used to the 

maximum extent possible, and a strategic, region-wide plan based on an 

Our 

Recommendations 

Concluding 

Comments 
Page 10 GAO-04-904T 

assessment of preparedness gaps developed to guide those expenditures. 

Assessments of the current status of emergency preparedness and of any 

existing preparedness gaps require the existence and application of 

various types of standards. DHS’s Office for National Capital Region 

Coordination has a significant, statutorily mandated role in meeting those 

requirements. It has made a good first step in developing a region-wide 

plan for the use of the Urban Area Initiative Grants. However, information 

and analysis of planned and actual expenditures by local NCR jurisdictions 

is also needed to develop a region-wide plan for the use of federal grants. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer 

any questions you or other members of the Committee may have. 

For questions regarding this testimony, please contact William O. Jenkins, 

Jr., on (202) 512-8777 or Patricia A. Dalton, Director, on (202) 512-6737. 

Other individuals making key contributions to this testimony included 

Amelia Shachoy, Ernie Hazera, John Bagnulo, and Wendy Johnson. 

Contacts and 

Acknowledgments 

(440333) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal 

government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; 

evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

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

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

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

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail 

alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading. 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A 

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. 

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a 

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs