Report to Congressional Requesters

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO 

November 2003 NATIONAL 

EMERGENCY 

GRANTS 

Services to Dislocated 

Workers Hampered by 

Delays in Grant 

Awards, but Labor Is 

Initiating Actions to 

Improve Grant Award 

Process 

GAO-04-222 
Page i GAO-04-222 National Emergency Grants 

Letter 1

Appendix I Briefing Slides 5 

Appendix II Listing of Surveyed States Awarded a Regular Grant 23 

Appendix III Summary of Funds Awarded for Regular, Disaster, 

and Dual Enrollment National Emergency Grant 24 

Appendix IV Number of Days to Award Regular Grants by State 26 

Related GAO Products 28 

Contents 

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. 
Page 1 GAO-04-222 National Emergency Grants 

November 14, 2003 

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

 and Pensions 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Patty Murray 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Employment, Safety 

 and Training 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

United States Senate 

Between 2000 and 2002, almost 60,000 mass layoffs of 50 or more workers 

occurred resulting in nearly 7 million workers losing their jobs. The 

Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 authorizes the Department of 

Labor to award national emergency grants to affected states and local 

areas to provide employment and training assistance to workers affected 

by major economic dislocations, such as plant closures, and major 

disasters, such as floods and hurricanes. Although national emergency 

grants are intended to be a timely response to unexpected events, 

questions arose during congressional hearings in April 2003 about whether 

national emergency grant funds were getting to state and local areas 

quickly enough to help workers when they needed it the most. 

WIA specifies separate funding streams for each of the act’s main client 

groups—adults, youths, and dislocated workers—and requires the 

Secretary of Labor to reserve 20 percent of dislocated worker funds for 

national emergency grants, demonstrations, and technical assistance. 

States and local areas apply to the Secretary for national emergency grants 

when they need additional funds to assist dislocated workers. These 

include regular grants, which provide employment and training assistance 

to workers who lost their jobs due to layoffs and plant closings; disaster 

grants, which provide temporary employment to workers affected by 

natural disasters and other catastrophic events; and dual enrollment grants 

to provide supplemental assistance to workers who have been certified by 

Labor to receive services under the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform 

Act of 2002. Workers eligible under dual enrollment grants are typically 

workers who have lost their jobs because of increased imports from, or 

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-04-222 National Emergency Grants 

shifts in production to, foreign countries. At least 85 percent of the 

Secretary’s 20 percent funds must be used for national emergency grants, 

and these funds can only be awarded during the year the funds are 

allotted. From July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2003, Labor used these funds to 

award over $614 million in national emergency grants to 46 states and the 

District of Columbia, Guam, and the Federated States of Micronesia. 

Because of your concern about whether national emergency grants were 

awarded to states and local areas quickly enough to provide services to 

workers when they are most needed, you asked us to (1) determine the 

length of time Labor takes to award national emergency grants, 

(2) determine the effect delays in grant awards have on the ability of states 

and local areas to provide workers with employment and training services, 

and (3) identify actions Labor is taking to improve the timeliness of grant 

awards. To respond to these issues, we interviewed Labor officials at both 

headquarters and regional offices, reviewed Labor files for all grants 

awarded between July 1, 2000 and June 30, 2003, and surveyed officials in 

the 39 states that had received at least one regular national emergency 

grant during that period. We received responses from 38 states. We 

conducted our work from March to October 2003 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. 

On November 5, 2003, we briefed your staffs on the interim results of our 

ongoing work. This report formally conveys the information provided 

during that briefing. Appendix I contains the briefing slides. 

In summary, we found that Labor awards virtually all of the funds 

available each year for national emergency grants, but that it rarely awards 

regular national emergency grants within its goal of 30 days.1

 Nearly 

90 percent of regular grant awards took longer than 30 days, and about 

46 percent took 90 days or more. For regular grants, which represent 

about 64 percent of the grants and 58 percent of the funds awarded 

between July 1, 2000 and June 30, 2003, it took Labor an average of 92 days 

to send the notification of an award after receiving an application. The 

amount of time Labor took to award regular grants appeared to be related 

to the quarter in which the application was received. For example, regular 

 1

Labor’s goal measures the number of calendar days between the date a complete 

application is received and the date the grant award is approved by the Secretary. After 

approval, Labor notifies the appropriate congressional office and issues the award letter. 

We tracked the number of calendar days between the date the original application was 

received and the date of the award letter. 
Page 3 GAO-04-222 National Emergency Grants 

grant applications received in the first-quarter of a program year 2 averaged 

111 days from the time the application was received to the time the grant 

was awarded, whereas applications received in the fourth-quarter 

averaged 58 days. Furthermore, nearly 60 percent of all regular grants 

were awarded in the fourth-quarter of the program year, representing 

nearly two-thirds of the regular grants funds awarded, and 40 percent 

during the final month, representing about one-half of the regular grant 

funds awarded. Labor took less time to award dual enrollment and 

disaster grants. Dual enrollment grants, which represent about one-third of 

the funds awarded, took an average of 20 days to award after the 

applications were received, and disaster grants, which represent less than 

10 percent of the funds awarded, took an average of 48 days. 

Thirty-three of the 39 states that received at least one regular grant 

between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2003, said that the amount of time it 

takes to receive regular grant funds was a major problem. In fact, 25 of the 

states reported that because of the delays in receiving grant funds, they 

had to delay or deny services to dislocated workers. Twenty of these 

states reported that local areas had to delay training for dislocated 

workers because, while waiting for national emergency grant funds, they 

did not have funds available to enroll them in training. For example, in 

1 state, workers were on waiting lists for 3 to 4 months before they 

received training. Officials in another state reported that a local area 

cancelled training for over 300 workers because of a delay in receiving 

grant funds. 

Labor has said it is taking steps to address the length of time it takes to 

approve and award national emergency grants. In particular, under 

proposed guidelines, Labor would commit to approving a grant application 

within 15 business days of receiving a complete application. Labor is also 

developing a Web-based, electronic system that would allow states to 

apply for grants on-line. The system is also intended to help Labor better 

manage the review process by automatically assigning applications to 

specific staff members, specifying the number of days that they have to 

complete their responsibilities, and tracking their completion dates. Labor 

expects that the new guidelines and electronic system will be finalized in 

December 2003. In addition, according to Labor officials, they are 

 2

A program year begins on July 1 of a year and ends on June 30 of the following year. A 

program year is designated by the year in which it begins. Thus, program year 2000 began 

on July 1, 2000, and ended on June 30, 2001. 
Page 4 GAO-04-222 National Emergency Grants 

considering additional steps to enhance the award process, such as 

reviewing the entire grant award process and developing training for 

states and local areas on applying for national emergency grants. As part 

of our ongoing work, we will assess in more detail whether Labor’s 

proposed actions are likely to improve the process for awarding national 

emergency grants. 

We provided a draft of this report to officials at Labor for their technical 

review and incorporated their comments where appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to relevant congressional committees 

and other interested parties and will make copies available to others upon 

request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s 

Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staffs have any questions 

about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7215 or Joan Mahagan at 

(617) 788-0521. Wayne Sylvia and Yunsian Tai also made key contributions 

to this report. 

Sigurd R. Nilsen 

Director, Education, Workforce, 

 and Income Security Issues 
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 5 GAO-04-222 National Emergency Grants 

Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

1

National Emergency Grants

Briefing for Staff of

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Ranking Minority Member

Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

and

Senator Patty Murray, Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Employment, Safety, and Training

Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

November 5, 2003
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 6 GAO-04-222 National Emergency Grants 

2

Objectives

Our objectives were to

• determine the length of time the Department of Labor takes 

to award national emergency grants,

• determine the effects delays in awards have on the ability of 

states and local areas to provide workers with employment 

and training services, and

• identify actions Labor is taking to improve the timeliness of 

grant awards. 
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 7 GAO-04-222 National Emergency Grants 

3

Scope and Methodology

To attain our objectives, we

• interviewed Labor officials at both headquarters and regional 

offices;

• reviewed Labor files for all national emergency grants 

awarded during program years1 2000 through 2002 (July 1, 

2000 through June 30, 2003);

• surveyed officials in the 39 states that received at least one 

regular national emergency grant between program years 

2000 through 2002 (see app. II). Thirty-eight states 

responded; and

• conducted the review from March to October 2003 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards.

1 A program year begins on July 1 of a year and ends on June 30 of the following year and is 

designated by the year in which it begins.
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 8 GAO-04-222 National Emergency Grants 

4

Summary of Results

We found that:

• Nearly 90 percent of regular grant awards took longer than Labor’s 

goal of 30 days and 46 percent took 90 days or more.

• Grant applications received in the first-quarter of program years 

2000-2002, averaged 111 days to award; while applications 

received in the fourth-quarter averaged 58 days.

• Forty percent of regular grant awards were made in the last 

month of the program year.

• Thirty-three states said delays in grant awards were a major or very 

major problem, and 25 states reported that they had to deny or 

delay services to workers due to delays in receiving funds.

• Labor said it is taking steps to improve the grant award process.
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 9 GAO-04-222 National Emergency Grants 

5

Background

• Between 2000 and 2002, almost 60,000 mass layoffs occurred 

causing nearly 7 million workers to lose their jobs.

• The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) authorized Labor to award 

national emergency grants in a timely manner but did not specify a 

timeframe.

• In a program year, the Secretary can only award National 

Emergency Grants from funds available for that program year.

• Labor has a goal to approve grants within 30 calendar days of 

receiving an application.2

• During program years 2000 through 2002, Labor awarded about 

$614 million for national emergency grants to 46 states, the District 

of Columbia, Guam, and the Federated States of Micronesia (see 

app. III).

2 Labor’s goal measures the number of calendar days between the date a complete application is received and 

the date the grant award is approved. After approval, Labor notifies the appropriate congressional office and 

issues the award letter.
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 10 GAO-04-222 National Emergency Grants 

6

Background (continued)

National emergency grants include:

• Regular grants. These provide employment and training assistance to workers who lost their jobs due to layoffs or 

plant closings. 

• Disaster grants. These provide temporary jobs to workers affected by natural disasters and other 

catastrophic events. 

• Dual enrollment grants. These provide employment and training assistance to workers eligible for services under 

the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002. 

Workers who are eligible include those workers who have 

lost their jobs due to increased imports from, or shifts in 

production to, foreign countries.
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 11 GAO-04-222 National Emergency Grants 

7

Background (continued)
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 12 GAO-04-222 National Emergency Grants 

8

Regular Grant Awards Take Longer than 

Labor’s Goal

• Nearly 90 percent of the regular grants awarded during 

program years 2000 through 2002 took longer than Labor’s 

goal of 30 days. 

• About 46 percent of the regular grants took 90 days or more 

from the date Labor received the application.

• On average, regular grants were awarded 92 days after 

receiving the application (see app. IV for average number of 

days by state).

• Other grant types took less time to award: 

• Dual enrollment grants took, on average, 20 days.

• Disaster grants took, on average, 48 days.
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 13 GAO-04-222 National Emergency Grants 

9

Percentage of Regular Grants Awarded 

within Specified Timeframes
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 14 GAO-04-222 National Emergency Grants 

10

Regular Grant Applications Submitted 

Early in the Year Took Longer to Award

• Each year Labor awarded virtually all of the funds available 

for national emergency grants.

• On average, Labor took longer to approve regular grants 

when the applications were received earlier in the program 

year than when received later in the year. During program 

years 2000 to 2002, Labor’s award process averaged

• 111 days for applications received in the first-quarter,

• 109 days for applications received in the second-quarter,

• 100 days for applications received in the third-quarter, 

and

• 58 days for applications received in the fourth-quarter.
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 15 GAO-04-222 National Emergency Grants 

11

Most Regular Grant Awards Were Made 

Later in Year

• During program years 2000 through 2002, nearly 60 percent 

of regular grant awards were approved in the fourth-quarter 

of the year, representing about two-thirds of the regular grant 

funds awarded.

• Forty percent of these regular grant awards were approved in 

June, the last month of the program year, representing about 

one-half of the regular grant funds awarded.

• This trend is not reflective of when applications were 

submitted because nearly a third of the applications were 

submitted during the second-quarter and about 27 percent 

were submitted in each of the third- and fourth-quarters.
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 16 GAO-04-222 National Emergency Grants 

12

Percentage of Regular Grant 

Applications and Awards by Quarter
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 17 GAO-04-222 National Emergency Grants 

13

Percentage of Regular Grant 

Applications and Awards by Month
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 18 GAO-04-222 National Emergency Grants 

14

Most States Consider Amount of Time to 

Receive Regular Grants a Problem
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 19 GAO-04-222 National Emergency Grants 

15

Average Number of Days to Award Regular 

Grants to States with at Least Five Grants
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 20 GAO-04-222 National Emergency Grants 

16

Delays Hindered States’ Abilities to 

Serve Dislocated Workers

• Twenty-five states reported that local areas had to delay or 

deny services to dislocated workers as a result of these 

delays. For example:

• Local areas in 20 states delayed or cancelled training.

• One local area placed workers on waiting lists for 3 to 

4 months before training could be provided.

• Another local area cancelled training for over 300 

workers.

• Local areas in 6 states could not provide intensive 

services, such as case management, to workers.
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 21 GAO-04-222 National Emergency Grants 

17

Labor Is Taking Actions to Improve 

Timeliness of Grant Awards

• In guidelines under development, Labor is proposing to 

approve grant applications within 15 business days of 

receiving a complete application. 

• Labor is developing a Web-based electronic system to

• enable states to apply for grants on-line; and

• improve Labor’s management of the grant review process 

by automatically assigning applications to specific staff, 

specifying the number of days they have to complete their 

steps of the process and tracking their completion dates.

• Labor expects to finalize the guidelines and implement the 

electronic system in December 2003.

Note: A draft of the guidelines was made available for public comment in the May 16, 2003, issue 

of the Federal Register.
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 22 GAO-04-222 National Emergency Grants 

18

Labor is Taking Actions to Improve 

Timeliness of Grant Awards (continued)

• According to officials, Labor is also considering

• reviewing the entire process for awarding grants and

• developing training for states and local areas on applying 

for national emergency grants.
Appendix II: Listing of Surveyed States 

Awarded a Regular Grant 

Page 23 GAO-04-222 National Emergency Grants 

Listing of 39 States Surveyed That Were Awarded a Regular National Emergency Grant during 

Program Years 2000 through 2002 

Alabama Kentucky Ohio 

Arkansas Maine Oklahoma 

California Maryland Oregon 

Colorado Massachusetts Pennsylvania 

Connecticut Michigan Rhode Island 

District of Columbia Minnesota South Carolina 

Florida Mississippi South Dakota 

Georgia Missouri Tennessee 

Idaho Montana Texas 

Illinois Nebraska Vermont 

Indiana Nevada Virginia 

Iowa New Hampshire Washington 

Kansas New Jersey Wisconsin 

Source: GAO analysis of national emergency grants awarded between July 1, 2000 and June 30, 2003. 

Appendix II: Listing of Surveyed States 

Awarded a Regular Grant 
Appendix III: Summary of Funds Awarded for 

Regular, Disaster, and Dual Enrollment 

National Emergency Grant 

Page 24 GAO-04-222 National Emergency Grants 

Program Years 2000 through 2002 

Statea 

Program year

 2000

Program year

 2001

Program year 

 2002 Total

Alabama $6,100,000 $3,461,359 $765,689 $10,327,048

Arizona 1,271,931 0 2,747,960 4,019,891

Arkansas 9,745,980 0 1,433,566 11,179,546

California 42,631,721 2,679,762 1,896,786 47,208,269

Colorado 0 3,700,000 3,509,933 7,209,933

Connecticut 1,202,002 1,534,400 3,203,075 5,939,477

District of Columbia 876,573 0 0 876,573

Federated States of Micronesia 0 0 1,150,000 1,150,000

Florida 212,346 8,602,272 8,603,858 17,418,476

Georgia 0 3,026,880 420,000 3,446,880

Guam 0 0 13,300,000 13,300,000

Idaho 1,072,489 1,800,000 3,373,185 6,245,674

Illinois 5,250,562 7,000,000 4,000,889 16,251,451

Indiana 0 3,505,274 3,769,867 7,275,141

Iowa 4,498,909 4,728,639 6,748,852 15,976,400

Kansas 620,226 0 5,792,029 6,412,255

Kentucky 0 0 10,935,804 10,935,804

Louisiana 3,280,000 0 1,500,000 4,780,000

Maine 1,200,000 6,425,441 10,488,317 18,113,758

Maryland 0 5,970,294 3,181,022 9,151,316

Massachusetts 0 15,697,403 15,938,190 31,635,593

Michigan 0 4,153,666 5,709,991 9,863,657

Minnesota 0 8,000,000 11,990,890 19,990,890

Mississippi 0 0 1,644,366 1,644,366

Missouri 2,070,883 1,913,322 11,449,938 15,434,143

Montana 9,576,978 2,876,534 2,114,478 14,567,990

Nebraska 1,121,474 2,168,931 236,054 3,526,459

Nevada 0 1,900,000 3,900,000 5,800,000

New Hampshire 0 5,004,456 470,403 5,474,859

New Jersey 6,245,346 270,000 3,442,318 9,957,664

New Mexico 0 0 560,842 560,842

New York 0 0 1,561,851 1,561,851

North Carolina 6,300,000 5,989,718 7,084,245 19,373,963

Appendix III: Summary of Funds Awarded for 

Regular, Disaster, and Dual Enrollment 

National Emergency Grant 
Appendix III: Summary of Funds Awarded for 

Regular, Disaster, and Dual Enrollment 

National Emergency Grant 

Page 25 GAO-04-222 National Emergency Grants 

Statea 

Program year

 2000

Program year

 2001

Program year 

 2002 Total

North Dakota 378,793 0 99,000 477,793

Ohio 15,200,826 0 11,838,929 27,039,755

Oklahoma 0 1,175,155 5,609,778 6,784,933

Oregon 10,905,717 11,397,917 4,513,004 26,816,638

Pennsylvania 16,139,341 19,579,042 33,672,196 69,390,579

Rhode Island 2,827,470 0 268,236 3,095,706

South Carolina 0 0 3,414,658 3,414,658

South Dakota 1,088,725 250,000 1,093,540 2,432,265

Tennessee 375,000 1,352,774 3,988,873 5,716,647

Texas 7,732,972 16,943,771 2,111,738 26,788,481

Utah 0 0 740,230 740,230

Vermont 0 400,000 985,877 1,385,877

Virginia 15,000,000 4,715,000 5,938,031 25,653,031

Washington 6,068,668 5,000,000 14,361,486 25,430,154

West Virginia 0 9,499,990 3,000,000 12,499,990

Wisconsin 5,554,054 10,152,032 4,457,451 20,163,537

Total $184,548,986 $180,874,032 $249,017,425 $614,440,443

Source: GAO analysis of regular, disaster, and dual enrollment grant funds awarded between July 1, 2000 and June 30, 2003 

a

Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, and Wyoming did not receive any regular, disaster, or dual enrollment 

national emergency grants. 
Appendix IV: Number of Days to Award 

Regular Grants by State 

Page 26 GAO-04-222 National Emergency Grants 

State Number of regular grantsa

Average number of 

days from receipt of 

 application to award 

Alabama 2 120 

Arkansas 1 23 

California 1 206 

Colorado 1 62 

Connecticut 6 102 

District of Columbia 1 131 

Florida 1 63 

Georgia 4 137 

Idaho 4 70 

Illinois 3 39 

Indiana 2 92 

Iowa 16 103 

Kansas 3 63 

Kentucky 3 126 

Maine 13 91 

Maryland 2 77 

Massachusetts 9 87 

Michigan 3 85 

Minnesota 3 103 

Missouri 12 99 

Montana 5 51 

Nebraska 2 40 

Nevada 1 79 

New Hampshire 3 78 

New Jersey 3 174 

Ohio 4 40 

Oklahoma 3 123 

Oregon 6 96 

Pennsylvania 4 109 

Rhode Island 3 32 

South Carolina 1 122 

South Dakota 3 82 

Tennessee 2 116 

Texas 3 122 

Appendix IV: Number of Days to Award 

Regular Grants by State 
Appendix IV: Number of Days to Award 

Regular Grants by State 

Page 27 GAO-04-222 National Emergency Grants 

State Number of regular grantsa

Average number of 

days from receipt of 

 application to award 

Virginia 2 106 

Vermont 1 90 

Wisconsin 5 77 

a

Represents the number of regular grants for which complete information was available. There were a 

total of 14 regular grants for which we did not have complete information. 
Related GAO Products 

Page 28 GAO-04-222 National Emergency Grants 

Workforce Investment Act: Potential Effects of Alternative Formulas on 

State Allocations. GAO-03-1043. Washington, D.C.: August 28, 2003. 

Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to 

Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and 

Information Sharing is Needed. GAO-03-725. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 

2003. 

Workforce Investment Act: Exemplary One-Stops Devised Strategies to 

Strengthen Services, but Challenges Remain for Reauthorization. 

GAO-03-884T. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003. 

Workforce Investment Act: Issues Related to Allocation Formulas for 

Youth, Adults, and Dislocated Workers. GAO-03-636. Washington, D.C.: 

April 25, 2003. 

Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Funding and 

Performance Measures for Major Programs. GAO-03-589. Washington, 

D.C.: April 18, 2003. 

Workforce Training: Employed Worker Programs Focus on Business 

Needs, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access for 

Some Workers. GAO-03-353. Washington, D.C.: February 14, 2003. 

Older Workers: Employment Assistance Focuses on Subsidized Jobs and 

Job Search, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access to 

Other Services. GAO-03-350. Washington, D.C.: January 24, 2003. 

Workforce Investment Act: States’ Spending Is on Track, but Better 

Guidance Would Improve Financial Reporting. GAO-03-239. Washington, 

D.C.: November 22, 2002. 

Workforce Investment Act: Interim Report on Status of Spending and 

States’ Available Funds. GAO-02-1074. Washington, D.C.: September 5, 

2002. 

Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and Revised Funding 

Formula Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program. GAO-02-274. 

Washington, D.C.: February 11, 2002. 

Related GAO Products 

(130242) 
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