United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Information Policy, 

Census, and National Archives, Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform, House of 

Representatives 

2010 CENSUS

Census Bureau Is Making 

Progress on the Local 

Update of Census 

Addresses Program, but 

Improvements Are Needed 

Statement of Mathew J. Scirè 

Director, Strategic Issues

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 2:00 p.m., EDT

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

 

GAO-07-1063T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

June 26, 2007

2010 CENSUS

Census Bureau Is Making Progress on 

the Local Update of Census Addresses 

Program, but Improvements Are Needed 

Highlights of GAO-07-1063T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Information 

Policy, Census, and National Archives, 

Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform, House of Representatives

The Bureau has conducted its planned LUCA operations in accordance with 

its published timeline. The Bureau has also taken steps to reduce burden and 

improve training for localities that participate in LUCA—all areas GAO and 

others had identified as needing improvement. For instance, to reduce 

participant burden, the Bureau provided a longer period for reviewing and 

updating LUCA materials; provided options for submitting materials for the 

LUCA program; combined the collection of LUCA addresses from two 

separate operations into one integrated program; and created MAF/TIGER 

Partnership Software (MTPS), which is designed to assist LUCA program 

participants in reviewing and updating address and map data. Also, the 

Bureau has planned improvements to the 2010 LUCA program training and 

plans to supplement the workshops with computer-based training (CBT). 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau and GAO analysis.

Time frame Activity Status

February 2006 LUCA advance notification letters and Completed

 informational materials mailed to highest

 elected officials.

March to Census Bureau invited local governments to Completed

May 2006 participate in the LUCA Program.

May 2006 Census Bureau conducted training workshops Completed

 for participants.

June 2006 Census Bureau shipped the LUCA review Completed

 materials to each participating government.

June to LUCA participants reviewed and updated the Completed

October 2006 address list and returned their comments to the

 Census Bureau’s regional office.

November to Census Bureau reviewed the participants’ Completed

December 2006 LUCA submission and updated the MAF/TIGER

 geographic database.

April to June 2007 Census Bureau conducts address canvassing Under way

 (field check) operation.

December 2007 to Participants review feedback materials. To be

January 2008 completed

2008 LUCA Dress Rehearsal Program Schedule

LUCA participants that GAO surveyed report that they had adequate time to 

complete the LUCA review, and a majority of the participants were satisfied 

with the options for submitting materials. However, the Bureau faces new 

challenges. For instance, the Bureau tested MTPS with only one local 

government and did not test its CBT software in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal.

Also, many participants had difficulty converting Bureau-provided files to 

their own software formats. Finally, the Bureau does not collect certain data 

on localities that agree to participate in LUCA but provide no response. This 

information is needed to fully assess the effect of the LUCA program on 

address lists and population counts. 

The Department of Commerce’s 

U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau) seeks 

updated information on the

addresses and maps of housing 

units from state, local, and tribal 

governments through the Local

Update of Census Addresses 

(LUCA) program. This testimony 

discusses (1) the status of the 

LUCA program, and (2) the 

Bureau’s response to prior issues 

raised by GAO as well as new 

challenges related to the program. 

The testimony is based on a GAO 

report issued on June 14, 2007. 

GAO reviewed LUCA program 

documents, met with and surveyed 

participants in the LUCA Dress 

Rehearsal, and interviewed Bureau

officials and local officials. 

What GAO Recommends

At this time, GAO is not making any 

new recommendations, but GAO’s 

June 2007 report recommended 

that the Secretary of Commerce

direct the Bureau to take several 

actions to improve the LUCA 

program, including further

assessing usability issues of the 

MAF/TIGER Partnership Software 

(MTPS) and the computer-based 

training (CBT) software, as well as 

providing further instructions on 

converting files. GAO also 

recommended that the Bureau

collect additional data on localities 

that agree to participate but 

provide no response. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1063T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Mathew J. 

Scirè at (202) 512-6806 or sciremj@gao.gov. 
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Turner, and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Census Bureau’s (Bureau) 

progress in testing and implementing its Local Update of Census 

Addresses (LUCA) program. In 1994 Congress required the Bureau to 

develop a local address review program in order to give local and tribal 

governments greater input into the Bureau’s address list development 

process.1

 This program, LUCA, gives these governments the opportunity 

to review the accuracy and completeness of the Bureau’s address 

information for their respective jurisdictions, and suggest corrections 

where warranted. In Census 2000, LUCA participants expressed 

frustrations about the program, including the burden the program placed 

on the resources of local governments. As a result, the Bureau undertook

efforts in preparation for the 2010 LUCA to reduce this burden. My 

testimony today discusses (1) the current status of the LUCA effort, and 

(2) how the Bureau is addressing prior issues and new challenges 

associated with implementing LUCA. 

As you know, the census is a critical national effort mandated by the 

Constitution. Census data are used to apportion seats in the Congress, 

redraw congressional districts, allocate billions of dollars in federal 

assistance to state and local governments, and for numerous other public 

and private sector purposes. Hence, failure for the decennial is not an 

option and the Bureau employs a number of quality assurance programs 

throughout the course of the census to ensure it delivers quality data. One 

such program is LUCA. The success of LUCA can help to contribute to 

accurate address lists and precise maps, which are key to a quality census. 

Together, accurate address lists and maps help ensure that (1) 

questionnaires are properly delivered; (2) unnecessary and costly followup efforts at vacant and nonexistent residences are reduced; and (3) the 

population is counted in their proper locations, which is the basis of 

congressional apportionment and redistricting. 

My remarks today are based primarily on our recent report on how the 

Bureau has improved its LUCA program since the last decennial.2

 During 

the autumn of 2006, we observed preparations for and the conduct of 

LUCA for the 2008 Dress Rehearsal in sites located in North Carolina and 

 1

Census Address List Improvement Act, Pub. L. 103-430 (Oct. 31, 1994). 

2

GAO, 2010 Census: Census Bureau Has Improved the Local Update of Census Addresses 

Program, but Challenges Remain, GAO-07-736 (Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2007). 

Page 1 GAO-07-1063T 
California. We reviewed LUCA program documents and interviewed 

Bureau officials. Further, we conducted a Web-based survey of LUCA 

Dress Rehearsal participants in California and North Carolina to gauge 

their satisfaction with how the Bureau addressed prior recommendations 

and new challenges for the LUCA program. We also performed structured 

phone interviews with several localities that decided not to participate in 

the LUCA Dress Rehearsal.3

 We conducted our work in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. 

In summary, Mr. Chairman, our recent work has shown that the Bureau 

has made progress in planning for and implementing LUCA. For example, 

the Bureau has completed nearly all of its planned LUCA Dress Rehearsal 

operations in accordance with its published timeline, and has taken steps 

to reduce participant workload and burden and improve training. 

However, the Bureau can do more to mitigate possible difficulties that 

participants may have with new LUCA software and training. Specifically, 

the Bureau could do more to assess the usability of software designed to 

assist LUCA participants in reviewing and updating address and map data 

and to test computer-based training. In addition, many participants in the 

Dress Rehearsal experienced problems converting Bureau-provided 

address files into their own software formats. The Bureau could do more 

to provide information to localities on how to convert files from the 

Bureau to their respective applications. 

We also found that the Bureau could do more to understand the effect that 

the LUCA program may have. For example, while the Bureau planned to

assess the contribution of LUCA to housing unit counts, it had not decided 

whether to assess the contribution of the program to the population count, 

and it did not plan to collect information on the number of participants 

involved in LUCA that do not respond because they have no changes. The 

Bureau agreed to implement recommendations we made that address each 

of the concerns discussed above. We look forward to its action plan, due 

in August 2007, for how it will implement our recommendations. 

 3

Sixty-two localities were eligible to participate in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal. The Bureau 

identified 44 state, county, and municipal governments that had signed up to participate, 

had been shipped at least some of the material needed to perform their reviews, and had

not subsequently formally indicated to the Bureau that they had decided to drop out of the

review process. As part of our Web-based survey, questionnaires were sent to 42 local

governments and completed by 31 such governments, for a response rate of 74 percent. Of

the 18 localities that were eligible to participate in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal but did not 

take part in the program, we also conducted 7 structured interviews (in person and by 

telephone). 

Page 2 GAO-07-1063T 
The Bureau’s approach to building complete and accurate address lists 

and maps consists of a series of operations that sometimes overlap and are 

conducted over several years. These operations include partnerships with 

the U.S. Postal Service and other federal agencies; state, local and tribal 

governments; local planning organizations; the private sector; and 

nongovernmental entities. LUCA is one of those operations that give local 

and tribal governments direct input into the Bureau's address database. 

Background 

LUCA was first implemented for the 2000 Census.4

 Under the LUCA 

program, the Bureau is authorized (prior to the decennial census) to share 

individual residential addresses with officials of tribal, state, and local

governments who agree to protect the Title 13 confidentiality of the 

information.5

 LUCA allows participants to review, comment on, and 

provide updated information on the list of addresses and maps that the 

Bureau will use to deliver questionnaires within their communities. 

According to the Bureau, because of their knowledge of or access to data

in their jurisdictions, LUCA participants may be better positioned to 

identify some housing units that are hard to find or are hidden. For 

example, local governments may have alternate sources of address 

information—such as utility bills, tax records, information from housing or 

zoning officials, or 911 emergency systems—which can help the Bureau 

build a complete and accurate address list. 

For 2010, the Bureau plans to invite approximately 40,000 entities to 

participate in LUCA.6

 After localities that opt to participate in LUCA have 

submitted their updated maps and address lists, the Bureau conducts a 

field check called address canvassing. At that time, the address 

canvassers for the 2010 Census, will go door-to-door (using handheld 

computers equipped with a global positioning system) updating the 

address list. Through the address canvassing operation, the Bureau can 

ensure that all changes submitted for the LUCA program actually exist and 

that they are assigned to the correct census block. After address 

canvassing the Bureau will provide feedback to LUCA participants on the 

 4

The 2000 LUCA program had two separate components: the 1998 city-style address 

operation and the 1999 non-city-style address operation. 

5

13 U.S.C. §9(a). 

6

For the 2000 Census, of the 39,051 eligible entities—such as cities and counties—for LUCA

participation, 20,718 chose not to participate; 5,525 entities signed participation 

agreements; 2,877 entities returned materials but recorded no updates or action; and 9,931

entities submitted at least one address action or challenged at least one block. 

Page 3 GAO-07-1063T 
actions taken. Should local governments disagree during LUCA 2010, they 

can appeal the Bureau’s actions to the Census Address List Appeals Office. 

In preparation for the 2010 Census, both LUCA and the subsequent 

address canvassing operation will be tested as part of the Bureau’s Dress 

Rehearsal taking place in nine counties in the Fayetteville, North Carolina, 

area and San Joaquin County, California. 

The Bureau has completed nearly all planned operations for the LUCA 

Dress Rehearsal in accordance with the LUCA Dress Rehearsal timeline 

(see fig. 1).7

 On June 26, 2007 the Bureau expects to complete address 

canvassing—an operation designed to verify all housing units at the Dress 

Rehearsal sites, including changes provided by LUCA participants. Next,

the Dress Rehearsal participants will have the opportunity to review 

materials regarding their submissions—this is scheduled to take place 

from December 2007 through January 2008. 

The Bureau met the first date on its LUCA Dress Rehearsal timeline when 

it mailed the advance notification letters and informational materials to 

the highest elected officials in February 2006. The Bureau officially invited 

localities to participate in LUCA, provided participant training, and 

shipped LUCA materials on schedule. Additionally, localities reviewed and 

updated LUCA materials within the June to October 2006 period specified 

on the timeline. The Bureau also finished its review of participants’ LUCA 

submissions and updated the MAF/TIGER8

 geographic database in 

December 2006. 

The Bureau Has 

Completed Nearly All 

Planned Activities for 

the LUCA Dress

Rehearsal and the 

First Step of the 2010 

LUCA Program

 7

Bureau headquarters and the Charlotte regional office provided us with internal timelines 

for the 2010 LUCA Program and the LUCA Dress Rehearsal operations held in parts of

California and North Carolina from June through October 2006. Additionally, we obtained a 

public version of the Bureau’s timelines for both the LUCA Dress Rehearsal and the 2010

LUCA Program from its Web site, http://www.census.gov/geo/www/luca2010/luca.html. 

8

The Bureau’s address list is known as the Master Address File (MAF); its associated 

geographic information system is called the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding

and Referencing (TIGER) database. TIGER is a registered trademark of the U.S. Census 

Bureau. 

Page 4 GAO-07-1063T 
Figure 1: Bureau’s LUCA Dress Rehearsal Timeline and Status 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau and GAO analysis.

Time frame Activity Status

February 2006 LUCA advance notification letters and Completed

 informational materials mailed to highest

 elected officials.

March to Census Bureau invited local governments to Completed

May 2006 participate in the LUCA Program.

May 2006 Census Bureau conducted training workshops Completed

 for participants.

June 2006 Census Bureau shipped the LUCA review Completed

 materials to each participating government.

June to LUCA participants reviewed and updated the Completed

October 2006 address list and returned their comments to the

 Census Bureau’s regional office.

November to Census Bureau reviewed the participants’ Completed

December 2006 LUCA submission and updated the MAF/TIGER

 geographic database.

April to June 2007 Census Bureau conducts address canvassing Under way

 (field check) operation.

December 2007 to Participants review feedback materials. To be

January 2008 completed

2008 LUCA Dress Rehearsal Program Schedule

It is important to note that while the Bureau generally met the time frames 

listed in its published LUCA Dress Rehearsal timeline, some activities 

were not included in that timeline. For example, plans to test newly 

developed software, which is intended to assist participating localities in 

their 2010 LUCA reviews, and test the new computer-based LUCA training 

were not included in the Bureau’s LUCA Dress Rehearsal schedule—

precluding the opportunity to test these software products under censuslike conditions. 

To begin preparation for the 2010 Census, LUCA has already sent the 

advance notification letters to the highest elected officials in each of the 

eligible localities (see fig. 2). For Census 2000, slightly over half of the 

eligible localities chose not to participate; for the 2010 Census, the Bureau 

has set a participation goal of 60 percent. 

Page 5 GAO-07-1063T 
Figure 2: Bureau’s 2010 LUCA Timeline 

Note: See the Bureau’s Web site, http://www.census.gov/geo/www/luca2010/luca.html. 

The Bureau has taken steps to reduce participants’ workloads and burdens

and improve training—all areas that the National Research Council (NRC), 

we, and others had identified as needing improvement for Census 2000.

Building on the progress it has made, the Bureau could take additional 

steps to address new challenges in these areas, as well as issues related to

measuring overall program effectiveness. 

Bureau Modified LUCA to 

Address Issues from the 

Census 2000 Experience, 

but Faces New Challenges 

for 2010 

To reduce the workload and burden on LUCA participants, the Bureau 

provided a longer period—from 90 to 120 days—for reviewing and 

updating LUCA materials. This extension was well received by LUCA 

Dress Rehearsal participants, as the majority of respondents to our survey 

indicated that 120 days allowed adequate time for them to complete the 

LUCA review (see fig. 3). 

Page 6 GAO-07-1063T 
Figure 3: LUCA Dress Rehearsal Participants’ Views on the Adequacy of Time 

Allowed to Complete the Review 

Another change aimed at reducing workload and burden is providing 

localities with more options for how they may participate in the LUCA 

program. Those options are: (1) full address list review with count review, 

(2) Title 13 local address list submission, and (3) non-Title 13 local address 

list submission. The options differ in the level of review of Bureau 

materials by participating localities and in requirements to adhere to rules

concerning confidentiality of information. For example, under option 1, 

participants directly edit Bureau-provided address lists and maps. Under 

option 2, participants review Bureau-provided maps but submit their own 

address lists in Bureau-provided formats. Under option 3, participants do 

not receive address lists from the Bureau, but may provide their own 

address lists to the Bureau and edit Bureau-provided maps. A majority of 

LUCA Dress Rehearsal participants that we surveyed were satisfied with 

the options that the Bureau provided. 

To assist LUCA participants in updating the Bureau’s address list and 

maps electronically, the Bureau has created MAF/TIGER Partnership 

Software (MTPS). This software will enable users to import address lists 

and maps for comparison to the Bureau’s data and participate in both the 

LUCA and another geographic program, the Boundary and Annexation 

Page 7 GAO-07-1063T 
Survey (BAS)9

 at the same time. The Bureau has also planned

improvements to the 2010 LUCA program training by separately offering 

specialized workshops for informational and technical training and by

supplementing the workshops with computer-based training (CBT). 

Finally, based on complaints about the multiphased LUCA program from 

the 2000 experience (where some participants found the two separate 

operations for city-style and non-city-style addresses to be confusing), the 

Bureau designed the 2010 LUCA program to be a single operation for all 

addresses. 

All of these steps are intended to help reduce the burden on localities’ 

participation in LUCA. However, there are additional steps the Bureau 

could take to ease participant burden. For example, the Bureau could do

more to assess the usability of the MTPS software. The Bureau did not 

test MTPS as part of the LUCA Dress Rehearsal, and tested MTPS with 

only one locality in preparation for the 2010 LUCA program. Properly 

executed user-based methods for software testing can give the truest 

estimate of the extent to which real users can employ a software 

application effectively, efficiently, and satisfactorily. In response to 

recommendations to our report on the 2010 LUCA program, the Bureau 

agreed to better assess the usability of the MTPS for 2010. 

Some participants will not rely on the MTPS. For these participants, the 

Bureau could do more to help them use their own software. We found that 

participants in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal experienced problems 

converting files from the Bureau’s format to their respective 

applications—our survey of LUCA Dress Rehearsal participants revealed 

that the majority of respondents had, to some extent, problems with file 

conversions to appropriate formats. Our fieldwork also revealed issues 

pertaining to file conversion. For example, one local official noted that it

took him two days to determine how to convert the Bureau’s pipedelimited files. The Bureau previously informed us that, to mitigate the 

potential burden on localities that choose not to use MTPS, it would 

provide technical guidance on file conversion through its LUCA technical 

help desk; however, it does not plan to provide instructions for converting

Bureau-provided address files through other means. At present, the 

Bureau does not know how many localities will opt not to use MTPS for 

 9

The Bureau conducts the BAS annually to collect information about selected defined 

geographic areas. The BAS is used to update information about the legal boundaries and

names of all governmental units in the United States. 

Page 8 GAO-07-1063T 
LUCA as part of the 2010 Census, but those localities may face the same 

challenges faced by participants in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal. In response 

to recommendations in our report on the 2010 LUCA program, the Bureau 

agreed to disseminate instructions on file conversion on its Web site and 

provide instructions to help desk callers. 

The Bureau did not test the CBT it developed to supplement its new 

workshops for informational and technical training during the Dress 

Rehearsal. Though participants were not provided with CBT in the LUCA 

Dress Rehearsal, our work found that this method of training is viewed by

participants as helpful. Specifically, respondents to our survey ranked 

CBT higher than classroom training, in terms of being “extremely” or 

“very” useful. Additionally, local officials told us that CBT was more 

convenient for them because they need not leave their offices or adjust 

their schedules to learn how the LUCA program works. Because this is a 

new aspect of the LUCA program and will be used nationally, it is 

important to test and improve the training prior to implementing it for 

multiple local jurisdictions. In response to recommendations in our report 

on the 2010 LUCA program, the Bureau agreed to test the CBT software

with local governments. 

Overall, the effect that the LUCA program may have on housing unit and 

population counts is not known. To perform such analysis, the Bureau 

should collect additional data. Specifically, we found that although the 

Bureau has not finalized its evaluation plans regarding the 2010 LUCA 

program, Bureau officials have stated that it intends to assess the LUCA’s 

contribution to housing unit counts and would consider a plan to assess 

the program’s contribution to the census population count. Such analysis 

is important because it would provide a measure of the ultimate effect of 

LUCA on achieving a complete count of the population. However, the 

Bureau does not have a method of distinguishing between localities that 

agreed to participate in the program but do not submit an update because

they have no changes, and localities that did not submit an update because

they did not review the materials. Without this information, the Bureau 

cannot fully measure the extent to which local reviews have contributed 

toward accurate address lists and population counts. In response to 

recommendations in our report on the 2010 LUCA program, the Bureau 

agreed to establish a process for localities to indicate that they

participated in LUCA but found no changes to address lists and maps. 

Page 9 GAO-07-1063T 
In summary, Mr. Chairman, the success of the census depends in large part 

on the ability of the Bureau to locate and deliver questionnaires to every 

household in the United States. To accomplish this monumental task, the 

Bureau must maintain accurate address and map information for every 

location where a person could reside. We applaud the moves the Bureau

has undertaken to improve its LUCA program so that user workload and 

burden are reduced, thus, making it easier for local and tribal governments 

to provide input into the accuracy and completeness of the Bureau’s 

address information for their respective jurisdictions. However, there is 

more the Bureau can do to address information- technology-based 

challenges to the LUCA program prior to the 2010 Census. The Bureau 

performed little user testing of MTPS and no user testing of the CBT 

module for the LUCA Dress Rehearsal. Testing new technology will help 

the Bureau identify any issues related to the usability of the MTPS and 

CBT software. Finally, without better data on why some localities that 

agree to participate do not provide updated information, the Bureau may 

be hampered in its ability to estimate the effect of the LUCA program on 

the MAF database and the census population count. 

As in the past, we look forward to supporting this subcommittee’s 

oversight efforts to promote a timely, complete, accurate, and costeffective census. 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Turner, this concludes my prepared statement. I would 

be pleased to respond to any questions that you or other members of the 

subcommittee might have. 

For questions regarding this testimony, please contact Mathew J. Scirè, on 

(202) 512-6806, or by e-mail at sciremj@gao.gov. Individuals making 

contributions to this testimony include Lisa Pearson, David Bobruff, Betty 

Clark, Jennifer Edwards, Ernie Hazera, Mark Ryan, and Tim Wexler. 

Page 10 GAO-07-1063T 

Contact and 

Acknowledgments 

(450610) 
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. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

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

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

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. Government Accountability 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 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER