CRITICAL 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

PROTECTION

DHS Is Taking Action to 

Better Manage Its Chemical 

Security Program, but It Is 

Too Early to Assess Results

Statement of Cathleen A. Berrick, Managing Director

Homeland Security and Justice

Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on the 

Environment and the Economy, 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

GAO-12-567T

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-567T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittee on the Environment 

and the Economy, Committee on Energy and 

Commerce, House of Representatives. 

September 2012 

CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION

DHS Is Taking Action to Better Manage Its Chemical 

Security Program, but It Is Too Early to Assess 

Results

Why GAO Did This Study

The events of September 11, 2001, 

triggered a national re-examination of 

the security of facilities that use or 

store hazardous chemicals in 

quantities that, in the event of a 

terrorist attack, could put large 

numbers of Americans at risk of 

serious injury or death. As required by 

statute, DHS issued regulations that 

establish standards for the security of 

high-risk chemical facilities. DHS 

established the CFATS program to 

assess the risk posed by these 

facilities and inspect them to ensure 

compliance with DHS standards. ISCD, 

a division of IP, manages the program. 

A November 2011 internal ISCD 

memorandum, prepared by ISCD 

senior managers, expressed concerns 

about the management of the program. 

This statement addresses (1) how the 

memorandum was developed and any

challenges identified, (2) what actions 

are being taken in response to any 

challenges identified, and (3) the 

extent to which ISCD’s proposed 

solutions require collaboration with 

NPPD or IP. GAO’s comments are 

based on recently completed work 

analyzing the memorandum and 

related actions. GAO reviewed laws, 

regulations, DHS’s internal 

memorandum and action plans, and 

related documents, and interviewed 

DHS officials.

In a July 2012 report, GAO 

recommended that ISCD explore 

opportunities to develop measures, 

where practical, to determine where 

actual performance deviates from 

expected results. ISCD concurred and 

has taken action to address the 

recommendation.

What GAO Found

The November 2011 memorandum that discussed the management of the 

Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program was prepared 

based primarily on the observations of the former Director of the Department of

Homeland Security’s (DHS) Infrastructure Security Compliance Division (ISCD), 

a division of the Office of Infrastructure Protection (IP) within the National 

Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD). The memorandum was intended to 

highlight various challenges that have hindered ISCD efforts to implement the 

CFATS program. According to the former Director, the challenges facing ISCD 

included not having a fully developed direction and plan for implementing the 

program, hiring staff without establishing need, and inconsistent ISCD 

leadership—factors that the Director believed place the CFATS program at risk.

These challenges centered on three main areas: (1) human capital issues, 

including problems hiring, training, and managing ISCD staff; (2) mission issues, 

including problems reviewing facility plans to mitigate security vulnerabilities; and 

(3) administrative issues, including concerns about NPPD and IP not supporting 

ISCD’s management and administrative functions.

ISCD has begun to take various actions intended to address the issues identified 

in the ISCD memorandum and has developed a 94-item action plan to track its 

progress. According to ISCD managers, the plan appears to be a catalyst for 

addressing some of the long-standing issues the memorandum identified. As of 

June 2012, ISCD reported that 40 percent (38 of 94) of the items in the plan had 

been completed. These include directing ISCD managers to meet with staff to 

involve them in addressing challenges, clarifying priorities, and changing ISCD’s 

culture; and developing a proposal to establish a quality control function over 

compliance activities. The remaining 60 percent (56 of 94) that were in progress

include those requiring longer-term efforts—i.e., streamlining the process for 

reviewing facility security plans and developing facility inspection processes; 

those requiring completion of other items in the plan; or those awaiting action by 

others, such as approvals by ISCD leadership. ISCD appears to be heading in 

the right direction, but it is too early to tell if corrective actions are having their

desired effect because ISCD is in the early stages of implementing them and has 

not yet established performance measures to assess results. 

According to ISCD officials, almost half of the action items included in the June 

2012 action plan require ISCD collaboration with or action by NPPD and IP. The 

ISCD memorandum stated that IP and NPPD did not provide the support needed 

to manage the CFATS program when the program was first under development. 

ISCD, IP, and NPPD officials confirmed that IP and NPPD are now providing 

needed support and stated that the action plan prompted them to work together 

to address the various human capital and administrative issues identified.

View GAO-12-567T. For more information, 

contact Cathleen A. Berrick, (202) 512-8777, 

BerrickC@gao.gov. 
 

Page 1 GAO-12-567T 

Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Green, and Members of the 

Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Department of Homeland 

Security’s (DHS) efforts to address the various challenges in 

implementing and managing the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism 

Standards (CFATS) program. My statement today summarizes the 

testimony we delivered on July 26, 2012 before the House Committee on 

Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security.1 The events of 

September 11, 2001, triggered a national re-examination of the security of 

facilities that use or store hazardous chemicals in quantities that, in the 

event of a terrorist attack, could put large numbers of Americans at risk of 

serious injury or death. Chemicals held at these facilities can be used to 

cause harm to surrounding populations during terrorist attacks; can be 

stolen and used as chemical weapons or as precursors (the ingredients 

for making chemical weapons); or stolen and used to build an improvised 

explosive device. To mitigate this risk, the DHS appropriations act for 

fiscal year 20072 required DHS to issue regulations to establish riskbased performance standards for securing high-risk chemical facilities, 

among other things.3

A November 2011, internal ISCD memorandum, prepared by ISCD’s 

former Director in consultation with the former Deputy Director

DHS established the CFATS program to assess the 

risk, if any, posed by chemical facilities; place high-risk facilities in one of 

four risk-based tiers; require high-risk facilities to develop security plans; 

review these plans; and inspect the facilities to ensure compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. DHS’s National Protection and Programs 

Directorate (NPPD) is responsible for the CFATS program. Within NPPD, 

the Infrastructure Security Compliance Division (ISCD), a division of the 

Office of Infrastructure Protection (IP), manages the program.

4

 

1

GAO, Critical Infrastructure Protection: DHS Is Taking Action to Better Manage Its 

Chemical Security Program, but It Is too Early to Assess Results, 

and 

GAO-12-515T 

(Washington, D.C.: July 2012).

2

Pub. L. No. 109-295, § 550, 120 Stat. 1355, 1388 (2006).

3

According to DHS, a high-risk chemical facility is one that, in the discretion of the 

Secretary of Homeland Security, presents a high risk of significant adverse consequences 

for human life or health, national security, or critical economic assets if subjected to a 

terrorist attack, compromise, infiltration, or exploitation. 6 C.F.R. § 27.105.

4

The ISCD director who prepared the internal memorandum is no longer in that position, 

and the deputy director who assisted with the internal memorandum is now the director. 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-567T 

designated by DHS as “for official use only” (FOUO), expressed concerns 

about the management of the CFATS program. The ISCD memorandum, 

which was leaked to the media in December 2011, cited an array of 

challenges that, according to these officials, hindered ISCD’s ability to 

implement and manage the CFATS program.5

This statement is based on work we recently completed for this 

subcommittee on the ISCD memorandum and related actions. To conduct 

this work, we reviewed applicable laws and regulations, as well as NPPD, 

IP, and ISCD policies and procedures for administering the CFATS 

program, analyzed the ISCD memorandum prepared by the former ISCD 

Director in consultation with the former Deputy Director, compared it with 

the proposed action plan ISCD officials prepared to address the 

challenges identified, and compared subsequent action plans to monitor 

ISCD’s progress.

My statement today 

discusses: (1) how the memorandum was developed and what 

challenges were identified; (2) what actions are being taken to address 

the challenges identified; and (3) the extent to which ISCD’s planned 

actions and proposed solutions require action to be taken by or in 

collaboration with NPPD or IP.

6

We conducted this performance audit from February 2012 to July 2012 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our analysis based 

on our audit objectives.

 Our results are based on the ISCD’s action plan as of 

June 2012 so these results reflect the status of ISCD’s progress up to that 

point in time. The details of our scope and methodology can be found in 

our July 2012 statement. In August 2012, ISCD provided us with an 

updated action plan which we used to document the additional action 

items completed between June 2012 and August 2012. We did not verify

the status of these action items.

 

5

According to DHS officials, the ISCD memorandum was never intended to be publically 

released. 

6

We initially reviewed an ISCD action plan developed in January 2012. ISCD periodically 

updated the plan to monitor progress on the action items and we reviewed 8 versions of 

the action plan up to and including one developed in June 2012. 
 

Page 3 GAO-12-567T 

Section 550 of the DHS appropriations act for fiscal year 20077 requires 

DHS to issue regulations establishing risk-based performance standards8

for the security of facilities that the Secretary determines to present high 

levels of security risk, among other things. The CFATS rule was 

published in April 20079 and Appendix A to the rule, published in 

November 2007, listed 322 chemicals of interest and the screening 

threshold quantities for each.10

 

7

Pub. L. No. 109-295, § 550, 120 Stat. 1355, 1388 (2006).

ISCD has direct responsibility for 

implementing DHS’s CFATS rule, including assessing potential risks and 

identifying high-risk chemical facilities, promoting effective security 

planning, and ensuring that final high-risk facilities meet the applicable 

risk-based performance standards though site security plans approved by 

DHS. ISCD is managed by a Director and a Deputy Director and operates 

five branches that are, among other things, responsible for information 

technology operations, policy and planning, and providing compliance 

and technical support. From fiscal years 2007 through 2012, DHS 

dedicated about $442 million to the CFATS program. During fiscal year 

2012, ISCD was authorized 242 full-time-equivalent positions. For fiscal 

year 2013, DHS’s budget request for the CFATS program was $75 million 

and 242 positions.

8

The CFATS rule establishes 18 risk-based performance standards that identify the areas 

for which a facility’s security posture are to be examined, such as perimeter security, 

access control, and cyber security. To meet these standards, facilities are free to choose 

whatever security programs or processes they deem appropriate so long as DHS 

determines that the facilities achieve the requisite level of performance in each applicable 

standard.

9

72 Fed. Reg. 17,688 (Apr. 9, 2007) (codified at 6 C.F.R. pt. 27).

1072 Fed. Reg. 65,396 (Nov. 20, 2007). According to DHS, CFATS not only covers 

facilities that manufacture chemicals but also covers facilities that store or use certain 

chemicals as part of their daily operations. This can include food-manufacturing facilities 

that use chemicals of interest in the manufacturing process, farms that use certain 

quantities of ammonium nitrate or urea fertilizers, or universities that use chemicals to do 

experiments.

Background
 

Page 4 GAO-12-567T 

Our review of the ISCD memorandum and discussions with ISCD officials 

showed that the memorandum was developed during the latter part of 

2011 and was developed primarily based on discussions with ISCD staff 

and the observations of the ISCD former Director in consultation with the 

former Deputy Director. In November 2011, the former Director and 

Deputy Director provided the Under Secretary with the ISCD 

memorandum entitled “Challenges Facing ISCD, and the Path Forward.” 

These officials stated that the memorandum was developed to inform 

leadership about the status of ISCD, the challenges it was facing, and the 

proposed solutions identified to date. In transmitting a copy of the 

memorandum to congressional stakeholders following the leak in 

December 2011, the NPPD Under Secretary discussed caveats about the 

memorandum, including that it had not undergone the normal review 

process by DHS’s Executive Secretariat and contained opinions and 

conclusions that did not reflect the position of DHS.

The former ISCD Director stated that the memo was intended to begin a 

dialog about the program and challenges it faced. The former Director 

confirmed that she developed the memorandum by (1) surveying division 

staff to obtain their opinions on program strengths, challenges, and 

recommendations for improvement; (2) observing CFATS program 

operations, including the security plan review process; and (3) analyzing 

an internal DHS report on CFATS operations,11

 

11DHS Office of Compliance and Security, National Protection and Programs Directorate, 

Infrastructure Security Compliance Division (ISCD) Program Inspection, April-September, 

2011. 

which, according to the 

former Director served as a basis for identifying some administrative 

challenges and corrective action. The senior ISCD and NPPD officials we 

contacted said that they generally agreed with the material that they saw, 

Senior ISCD Leaders 

Developed the ISCD 

Memorandum to 

Highlight Various 

Challenges Hindering 

CFATS 

Implementation

ISCD’s Memorandum 

Based Largely on 

Observations of Senior 

ISCD Managers 
 

Page 5 GAO-12-567T 

but noted that they believed the memorandum was missing context and 

balance. For example, one NPPD official stated that that the tone of the 

memorandum was too negative and the problems it discussed were not 

supported by sound evaluation. However, the official expressed the view 

that the CFATS program is now on the right track.

The ISCD memorandum discussed numerous challenges that, according 

to the former Director, pose a risk to the program. The former Director 

pointed out that, among other things, ISCD had not approved any site 

security plans or carried out any compliance inspections on regulated 

facilities. The former Director attributed this to various management 

challenges, including a lack of planning, poor internal controls, and a 

workforce whose skills were inadequate to fulfill the program’s mission, 

and highlighted several challenges that have had an impact on the 

progress of the program. In addition, the memorandum provided a 

detailed discussion of the issues or problems facing ISCD, grouped into 

three categories: (1) human capital management, such as poor staffing 

decisions; (2) mission issues, such as the lack of an established 

inspection process; and (3) administrative issues, such as a lack of 

infrastructure and support, both within ISCD and on the part of NPPD and 

IP. 

ISCD is using an action plan to track its progress addressing the 

challenges identified in the memorandum, and, according to senior 

division officials, the plan may be helping them address some legacy 

issues that staff were attempting to deal with before the memorandum 

was developed. The January 2012 version of the proposed action plan 

listed 91 actions to be taken categorized by issue—human capital 

management issues, mission issues, or administrative issues—that, 

according to the former ISCD Director, were developed to be consistent 

with the ISCD memorandum. However, the January 2012 version of the 

action plan did not provide information on when the action was started or 

to be finished. Eleven of the 12 ISCD managers (other than the former 

Director and Deputy Director) assigned to work as the coordinators of the 

ISCD Management Was 

Concerned That 

Challenges Place the 

CFATS Program at Risk

ISCD Has Begun to 

Take Various Actions 

Intended to Address 

Challenges Identified

ISCD’s Action Plan 

Included Time Frames and 

Appears to be Helping 

Address Some Legacy 

Issues
 

Page 6 GAO-12-567T 

individual action items told us that even though they were not given the 

opportunity to view the final version of the ISCD memorandum, the former 

Director provided them the sections of the action plan for which they were 

responsible to help them develop and implement any corrective actions. 

They said that they agreed that actions being taken in the plan were 

needed to resolve challenges facing ISCD. Our discussions with these 

officials also showed that about 39 percent (37 of 94) of the items in the 

March and June 2012 action plans addressed some legacy issues that 

were previously identified and, according to these officials, corrective 

actions were already underway for all 37 of these items.

Our analysis of the June 2012 version of the ISCD action plan showed 

that 40 percent of the items in the plan (38 of 94) had been completed. 

The remaining 60 percent (56 of 94) were in progress. Of the 38 

completed items, we determined that 32 were associated with human 

capital management and administrative issues, including those involving 

culture and human resources, contracting, and documentation. The 

remaining 6 of 38 action items categorized by ISCD as completed were 

associated with mission issues. Figure 1 shows the status of action items 

by each of the three categories as of June 2012.

Figure 1: Status of ISCD Action Plan by Category, as of June 2012

ISCD’s June 2012 Plan 

Update Showed 38 Action 

Items Completed
 

Page 7 GAO-12-567T 

For the remaining 56 items that were in progress as of June 2012, 40 

involved human capital management and administrative issues.

According to ISCD officials, these 40 issues generally involved longerterm efforts—such as organizational realignment—or those that require

approval or additional action on the part of IP or NPPD. Sixteen of 56 

remaining actions items in progress covered mission issues that will likely 

also require long-term efforts to address.

As of August 2012, ISCD reported that it had completed another 21 action 

items, of which 8 were to address mission-related issues. We did not 

verify ISCD’s efforts to complete actions since June 2012. However, we 

have recently begun a follow-up review of CFATS at the request of this 

and other committees, which will focus on DHS’s efforts to address 

mission-related issues. We expect to report the results of these efforts 

early in 2013.

Our analysis of the April and June versions of the plan shows that the 

division had extended the estimated completion dates for nearly half of 

the action items. Estimated completion dates for 52 percent (48 of 93 

items)12 either did not change (37 items) or the date displayed in the June 

2012 plan was earlier than the date in the April 2012 version of the plan 

(11 items). Conversely, 48 percent (45 of 93) of the items in the June 

2012 version of the plan had estimated completion dates that had been 

extended beyond the date in the April 2012 plan. Figure 2 shows the 

extent to which action plan items were completed earlier than planned, 

did not change, or were extended, from April 2012 through June 2012, for 

the human capital management, mission, and administrative issues 

identified in the plan.

 

12ISCD data showed that 93 of 94 action items were consistent between the April 2012 

and June 2012 action plans; therefore, computation of the estimated completion dates 

was based on 93 total items. One action item in the April 2012 plan dealing with strategies 

for managing ISCD funding levels was removed from the June 2012 plan because after 

the analysis was prepared and submitted to NPPD, the decision was made to delete the 

item from the plan. The funding action item was replaced in the June 2012 action plan with 

an action item to conduct a peer review of the facility tiering process and formula. For 

purposes of this analysis, we used the 93 action items (instead of 94 action items) that 

were consistent between the April and June 2012 action plans. 

Almost Half of ISCD’s 

Action Item Completion 

Dates Had Been Extended 

since April 2012
 

Page 8 GAO-12-567T 

Figure 2: Change in CFATS Action Plans Estimated Completion Dates from April 2012 to June 2012

a

ISCD data showed that 93 of 94 action items were consistent between the April 2012 and June 2012 

action plans, therefore, computation of the estimated completion dates was based on 93 total items. 

One action item in the April 2012 plan dealing with strategies for managing ISCD funding levels was 

removed from the June 2012 plan because after the analysis was prepared and submitted to NPPD, 

the decision was made to delete the item from the plan. The funding action item was replaced in the 

June 2012 with an action item to conduct a peer review of the facility tiering process and formula. For 

purposes of this analysis, we used the 93 action items that were consistent between the April and 

June 2012 action plans. 

ISCD officials told us that estimated completion dates had been extended 

for various reasons. For example, one reason for moving these dates was 

that the work required to address some items was not fully defined when 

the plan was first developed and as the requirements were better defined, 

the estimated completion dates were revised and updated. In addition, 

ISCD officials also stated that timelines had been adversely affected for 

some action items because staff had been reassigned to work on higher 

priority responsibilities, such as reducing the backlog of security plans 

under review.

ISCD, through its action plan, appears to be heading in the right direction 

towards addressing the challenges identified, but it is too early to tell if the 

action plan is having the desired effect because (1) the division had only 

recently completed some action items and continues to work on 

completing more than half of the others, some of which entail long-term 

Action Plan Performance 

Measures Could Help 

Gauge Progress
 

Page 9 GAO-12-567T 

changes, and (2) ISCD had not yet developed an approach for measuring 

the results of its efforts. ISCD officials told us that they had not yet begun 

to plan or develop any measures, metrics, or other documentation 

focused on measuring the impact of the action plan on overall CFATS 

implementation because they plan to wait until corrective action on all 

items has been completed before they can determine the impact of the 

plan on the CFATS program. For the near term, ISCD officials stated that 

they plan to assess at a high level the impact of the action plan on 

CFATS program implementation by comparing ISCD’s performance rates 

and metrics pre-action plan implementation and post-action plan 

implementation.13

In our July 2012 statement, we recommended that ISCD look for 

opportunities, where practical, to measure results of their efforts to 

implement particular action items, and where performance measures can 

be developed, periodically monitor these measures and indicators to 

identify where corrective actions, if any, are needed. The agency 

concurred with our recommendation and developed a new action item 

(number 95) intended to develop metrics for measuring, where practical, 

results of efforts to implement action plan items, including processes for 

periodic monitoring and indicators for corrective actions. This action item 

is in progress.

However, because ISCD will not be completing some 

action items until 2014, it will be difficult for ISCD officials to obtain a 

complete understanding of the impact of the plan on the program using 

this comparison only.

According to ISCD officials, almost half of the action items included in the 

June 2012 action plan either require ISCD to collaborate with NPPD and 

IP or require NPPD and IP to take action to address the challenges 

identified in the ISCD memorandum. NPPD, IP, and ISCD officials have 

been working together to identify solutions to the challenges the 

memorandum identified and to close pertinent action items. According to 

division officials, 46 of the 94 action items included in the June 2012 

action plan required action either by NPPD and IP or collaboration with 

NPPD and IP. This includes collaborating with NPPD officials 

 

13According to ISCD officials, ISCD uses a performance measure to track the 

performance of the CFATS program overall, but as of June 2012 did not have 

performance measures in place to track the progress of the action plan, or particular 

action items.

ISCD Officials Stated 

That Almost Half of 

the Action Items 

Required 

Collaboration with or 

Action by NPPD or IP
 

Page 10 GAO-12-567T 

representing the NPPD human capital, facilities, and employee and labor 

relations offices, among others, and with IP’s Directorate of Management 

Office.14 As of June 2012, 13 of the 46 items that require action by or 

collaboration with NPPD or IP were complete; 33 of 46 were in progress.

As of August 2012, ISCD reported that it had completed 8 more of these 

action items, such that 21 of the 46 were complete and 25 were in 

progress. We did not verify ISCD’s efforts to close these additional action 

items.

Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Green, and members of the 

subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy 

to respond to any questions you may have at this time.

For information about this statement please contact Cathleen A. Berrick, 

Managing Director, Homeland Security and Justice, at (202) 512-8777 or 

BerrickC@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this 

statement. Other individuals making key contributions include Stephen L. 

Caldwell, Director; John F. Mortin, Assistant Director; Ellen Wolfe, 

Analyst-in-Charge; Charles Bausell; Jose Cardenas; Andrew M. Curry; 

Michele Fejfar; Tracey King; Marvin McGill; Mona E. Nichols-Blake; and 

Jessica Orr.

 

14The IP Directorate of Management Office is responsible for providing IP divisions with 

program management support such as training and facilities management. 

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgements

(441022)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product 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 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 website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.