INDIAN AFFAIRS

Management Challenges 

Continue to Hinder Efforts 

to Improve Indian 

Education

Statement of George A. Scott, Director 

Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues

Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Interior, 

Environment, and Related Agencies, 

Committee on Appropriations, 

House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EST

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

GAO-13-342T

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-342T, a report to the 

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and 

Related Agencies, Committee on 

Appropriations, House of Representatives

February 27, 2013

INDIAN AFFAIRS

Management Challenges Continue to Hinder Efforts 

to Improve Indian Education

Why GAO Did This Study

In 2011, the federal government 

provided over $800 million to BIE

schools that serve about 41,000 Indian 

students living on or near reservations.

Within the Department of Interior, BIE 

is part of Indian Affairs, and BIE’s

director is responsible for the 

management of all education functions. 

BIE’s mission is to provide quality 

education opportunities to Indian 

students. However, poor student 

outcomes raise questions about how 

well BIE is achieving its mission. 

This testimony reports on ongoing 

GAO work about the Department of 

Interior’s management of BIE schools. 

A full report will be issued later this 

year. Based on preliminary findings, 

today’s testimony will focus on: (1) the 

key management challenges affecting 

BIE and (2) BIE’s governance of 

schools. 

For this work, GAO reviewed agency 

documents and relevant federal laws 

and regulations; interviewed agency 

officials; and conducted site visits to 

public and BIE schools.

What GAO Found

Management challenges within the Department of Interior’s Office of the 

Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs (Indian Affairs), such as fragmented 

administrative structures and frequent turnover in leadership, continue to 

hamper efforts to improve Indian education. For example, incompatible 

procedures and lack of clear roles for the Bureau of Indian Education and 

the Indian Affairs’ Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management (DAS-M), 

which provides administrative functions to BIE, such as human resources 

and acquisitions, contribute to delays in schools acquiring needed 

materials and resources. According to BIE officials, some DAS-M staff are 

not aware of the necessary procedures and timelines to meet schools’ 

needs. For instance, delays in contracting have occasionally affected 

BIE’s ability to provide services for students with disabilities in a timely 

manner. A study commissioned by Indian Affairs to evaluate the 

administrative support structure for BIE and the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(BIA)—also under Indian Affairs—concluded that organizations within 

Indian Affairs, including DAS-M, BIA, and BIE, do not coordinate 

effectively and communication among them is poor. Similarly, preliminary 

results from GAO’s work suggest that lack of consistent leadership within 

DAS-M and BIE hinders collaboration between the two offices. 

Two Indian Affairs Offices Support BIE Schools

Although BIE’s responsibilities to operate Indian schools are in some respects 

similar to those of state educational agencies (SEAs), BIE’s influence is limited 

because most schools are tribally-operated. Like an SEA, BIE administers, 

monitors, and provides technical support for a number of programs funded by the 

Department of Education. Yet, in contrast to states that can impose a range of 

reforms on schools, in most BIE schools tribes retain authority over key policies. 

For example, BIE cannot require most schools to adopt or develop their own 

teacher and principal evaluation systems. Further complicating reform efforts, 

many small individual BIE schools function as their own school districts. We 

have previously reported that smaller school districts may face challenges 

acquiring special education services or providers because they lack the same 

capacity, resources, knowledge, or experience necessary to provide those 

services as larger-sized school districts.

View GAO-13-342T. For more information, 

contact George A. Scott at (202) 512-7215 or 

scottg@gao.gov
 

Page 1 GAO-13-342T 

Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member Moran, and Members of the 

Subcommittee:

Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the preliminary results of 

our work you requested on management of the Department of the 

Interior’s (Interior) Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools. In 2011, the 

Departments of the Interior and Education provided over $800 million to 

183 BIE schools, primarily in rural areas and small towns, in 23 states. 

These schools serve about 41,000 Indian students living on or near 

reservations, or about 7 percent of the Indian student population. There 

are significant gaps in educational outcomes for students in BIE schools 

compared with public schools.1 Additionally, the high school graduation 

rate for BIE students for the 2008-2009 school year was 52 percent, 

compared to the national average for public school students of 76 

percent.

2

Our analysis is based on interviews with officials in the Interior’s Office of 

the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs’ Office of the Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Management, and Bureaus of Indian Education and Indian 

Affairs. We also interviewed Department of Education (Education) 

officials. Additionally, we reviewed agency documents, including budget 

justifications, guidance, internal correspondences, agency-sponsored 

management studies and relevant federal laws and regulations. We also 

conducted site visits to public schools, as well as BIE schools that serve 

the Oglala Sioux Tribe in Pine Ridge, S.D., and the Mississippi Band of 

Choctaw Indians, where we interviewed administrators and teachers. Site 

visit locations were selected to reflect an array of BIE schools that varied 

in administration type, school and tribal size, and location. We plan to 

BIE’s mission is to provide quality education opportunities to 

Indian students. Poor student outcomes raise questions about how well 

BIE is achieving its mission. For today’s testimony, we will focus on (1) 

the key management challenges affecting BIE and its mission of 

educating Indian children, and (2) BIE’s governance of schools.

 

1

Fourth and eighth grade reading and math scores were higher for Indian students in 

public schools than those in BIE-schools on the National Assessment of Educational 

Progress (NAEP), referred to as “The Nation’s Report Card.” The NAEP has been 

conducted regularly since 1969 and tracks student achievement throughout the United 

States over time.

2

Bureau of Indian Affairs Office of Indian Education Programs, Bureau-Wide Annual 

Report Card 2008-2009, and National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of 

Education 2012 (May 2012).

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-342T 

conduct an additional site visit in the spring of this year to complete our 

work. This testimony is part of ongoing work requested by this 

subcommittee. We intend to produce a report later this year that will 

provide our final results on and further detail the management of BIE 

schools, as well as compare funding, expenditures and performance 

indicators for BIE schools to those of nearby public schools and, where 

appropriate, Department of Defense schools. We discussed our 

preliminary results with Interior, and incorporated their comments as 

appropriate.

We are conducting our ongoing work 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 findings and conclusions.

BIE, formerly known as the Office of Indian Education Programs when it 

was part of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), was renamed and 

established as a separate bureau in 2006. Organizationally, BIE is under 

the Office of the Assistant Secretary- Indian Affairs (Indian Affairs), and its 

director reports to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs. 

The director is responsible for the direction and management of all 

education functions, including the formation of policies and procedures, 

supervision of all program activities, and approval of the expenditure of 

funds for education functions. BIE is comprised of a central office in 

Washington, D.C.; a major field service center in Albuquerque, New 

Mexico; 3 associate deputy directors’ offices located regionally (1 in the 

east and 2 in the west); 22 education line offices located near Indian 

reservations; and schools in 23 states.3

BIE schools are primarily funded through Interior. Similar to public 

schools, BIE schools receive formula grants from Education. BIE, like 

Of the 183 schools and 

dormitories BIE administers, 58 are directly operated by BIE (BIEoperated), and 125 are operated by tribes (tribally-operated) through 

federal contracts or grants.

 

3

All of the BIE schools are located in the continental United States.

Background 
 

Page 3 GAO-13-342T 

state educational agencies, administers and monitors the operation of 

these Education programs.

Currently, BIE’s administrative functions—human resources, budget 

management, information technology, and acquisitions—are managed by 

Indian Affairs’ Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management (DAS-M). The 

heads of both BIE and DAS-M report to the Principal Deputy Assistant 

Secretary-Indian Affairs. (See fig. 1)

Figure 1: Offices Responsible for Supporting BIE Schools

BIE and its predecessor, the Office of Indian Education Programs, have 

been through a number of restructuring efforts. Prior to 1999 BIA’s 

regional offices were responsible for most administrative functions for 

Indian schools. In 1999, the National Academy of Public Administration 

issued a report, commissioned by the Assistant Secretary of Indian 

Affairs, which identified management challenges within BIA. The 
 

Page 4 GAO-13-342T 

report concluded that BIA’s management structure was not adequate to 

operate an effective and efficient agency.4

More recently, in 2011, Indian Affairs commissioned another study—

known as the Bronner report—to evaluate the administrative support 

structure for BIE and BIA. The report, issued in March 2012, found that 

organizations within Indian Affairs, including DAS-M, BIA, and BIE, do not 

coordinate effectively and communication among them is poor. The study 

recommended that Indian Affairs adopt a more balanced organizational 

approach to include, among other things, shared responsibility, new 

policies and procedures, and better communication, with increased 

decentralization.

The report recommended 

centralization of some administrative functions. According to BIE officials, 

for a brief period from 2002 to 2003, BIE was responsible for its own 

administrative functions. However, in 2004, in response to the NAPA 

study, its administrative functions were centralized under the DAS-M.

5 According to Indian Affairs officials, the department is in 

the process of developing a plan to address these recommendations, but 

they have not yet finalized a proposal for reorganization.

Indian Affairs’ Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management (DAS-M) is 

responsible for, among other things, acquisition of materials and services 

for BIE-operated schools and management of construction-related 

requests. However, incompatible procedures and a lack of clear roles for 

BIE and DAS-M contribute to delays in the acquisition of needed 

materials and resources. For example, according to BIE officials, some 

DAS-M staff are not aware of the necessary procedures and timelines to 

meet schools’ needs. Purchasing items for schools in a timely manner, for 

 

4

National Academy of Public Administration, A Study of Management and Administration: 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (1999).

5

Bronner Group, Final Report: Examination, Evaluation, and Recommendations for 

Support Functions (March 2012).

Management 

Challenges Continue 

to Impede BIE’s 

Mission 

Fragmented 

Administrative Structure 

Negatively Affects Schools
 

Page 5 GAO-13-342T 

instance, is critical to ensure that all supplies and textbooks are delivered 

before the start of the school year. However, the procurement process 

used by BIE-operated schools can cause delays in textbook delivery. 

Likewise, delays in contracting have occasionally affected BIE’s ability to 

provide timely services for students with disabilities.

Communication is especially difficult because of Indian Affairs’ 

fragmented administrative structure. For example, school officials we 

spoke with said that their correspondences are often lost and that there 

appears to be little coordination between Indian Affairs offices. For 

instance, the Bronner report found that the responsibility for facilities 

management is scattered between three divisions within DAS-M. First, 

the Property Management Division in the Office of the Chief Financial 

Officer (OCFO) is responsible for maintaining the real property inventory. 

Second, the Acquisition Office in the OCFO manages the leasing of 

buildings for the BIA and BIE. Finally, maintenance and construction of all 

Indian Affairs’ buildings is under the purview of the Office of Facilities, 

Environmental and Cultural Resources, and Office of Facilities 

Management and Construction. This fragmented administrative structure

directly impact schools. For instance, the Little Wound School on the Pine 

Ridge reservation in South Dakota closed for a few days because Indian 

Affairs initially did not respond to their request for funds to replace a 

broken boiler. Tribal school officials in Mississippi told us they are unsure 

whether they should invest in repairs or rent additional modular 

classrooms as they have not been told when or if the department will 

construct new facilities.6

The Bronner report found that although DAS-M is tasked with supporting

both BIE and BIA, its staff is not structured in a way that effectively 

supports both bureaus. Although the contracting needs of schools are 

different than those of a federal agency, DAS-M does not have a specific 

acquisition team assigned to BIE. The report also found that DAS-M’s 

acquisition services were slow and not customer focused and that there 

was a disconnect between programs and support.

 

6

For additional information on BIE school facilities, see Department of the Interior, Office 

of Inspector General, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Indian Education: Schools in 

Need of Immediate Action, C-IN-BIA-0008-2007 (Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2007); 

Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General, Improvements Needed to Ensure 

Safety and Program Performance—School Construction Program, Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, W-FL-BIA-0047-2002 (Sacramento, CA: February 2004). 
 

Page 6 GAO-13-342T 

Further, DAS-M staff may not have the requisite expertise needed for 

working on BIE-related tasks. The Bronner report found that key staff 

positions, such as budget analysts, were not assigned responsibilities in a 

manner that would help them develop expertise on the goals, funding 

history, and performance of BIE programs. Despite a request from BIE, 

DAS-M has not conducted a workforce analysis to determine the number 

and skill set of staff supporting the mission of BIE.

According to BIE officials, DAS-M staffs’ focus on supporting BIA rather 

than BIE hinders DAS-M from seeking and acquiring expertise in 

education issues and from making the needs of BIE schools a priority. We 

have previously reported that strategic workforce planning, similar to 

workforce analysis, can identify core competencies for mission-critical 

occupations and be used to develop targeted training as well as spur 

planning efforts.7

In a December 2011 memo to Secretary Salazar, BIE’s former Director 

expressed frustration with the current organizational structure of Indian 

Affairs and asserted that the “major challenges facing BIE cannot be 

overcome . . . until basic structure and governance issues are addressed 

and resolved.” In addition, according to his memo, “because of this 

disjointed system, points-of-view concerning the effectiveness of support 

functions do not necessarily originate from a similar organizational 

culture, mindset, or most importantly, mission outcomes.” Additionally, he 

noted that “the outcome of student achievement is often overshadowed 

and leaves our Bureau fighting to focus attention on education priorities 

and competing for leftover resources scattered throughout the larger 

organization.” 

The challenges outlined above run contrary to our past work on agency 

collaboration. We have found that different agencies participating in any 

collaborative mechanism bring diverse organizational cultures to it. 

Accordingly, it is important to address these differences and establish 

ways to operate across agency boundaries.8

 

7

GAO, Department of Education: Improved Oversight and Controls Could Help Education 

Better Respond to Evolving Priorities, 

As we have previously 

reported, agencies can work together to define and agree on roles and 

GAO-11-194 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 10, 2011).

8

GAO, Managing For Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 

Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012).
 

Page 7 GAO-13-342T 

responsibilities, which can be set forth in policies, memorandums of 

understanding, or other arrangements.9 We will continue to monitor these 

issues and report our final results later this year.

Leadership turnover in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Indian 

Affairs, DAS-M, and BIE has exacerbated the various challenges created 

by administrative fragmentation. (See fig. 2.) Since approximately 2000 

there have been:

• 12 acting and permanent Assistant Secretaries for Indian Affairs,

• 6 DAS-M Deputy Assistant Secretaries, and

• 8 BIE Directors or Acting Directors.

The tenure of acting and permanent assistant secretaries has ranged 

from 16 days to 3 years. Further, from August 2003 through February 

2004 the post was unfilled. These are key leadership positions. The 

assistant secretary provides direction on all issues related to Indian 

affairs, while DAS-M, as mentioned above, provides essential 

administrative functions for BIE and its schools. In previous reports, we 

found that frequent changes in leadership may complicate efforts to 

improve student achievement,10 and that lack of leadership negatively 

affects an organization’s ability to function effectively and to sustain focus 

on key initiatives.11

 

9

GAO-12-1022. 

10GAO, District of Columbia Public Schools: Important Steps Taken to Continue Reform 

Efforts, But Enhanced Planning Could Improve Implementation and Sustainability, 

GAO-09-619 (Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2009).

11GAO, Recovering Servicemembers and Veterans: Sustained Leadership Attention and 

Systematic Oversight Needed to Resolve Persistent Problems Affecting Care and 

Benefits, GAO-13-5 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 16, 2012) and Architect of the Capitol: 

Committed, Sustained Leadership Needed to Continue Progress, GAO-07-407 

(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2007).

BIE Faces Significant 

Turnover in Leadership
 

Page 8 GAO-13-342T 

Figure 2: Leadership of Offices that Support BIE Schools

a

Two Assistant Secretaries for Indian Affairs served in an acting capacity in January 2001.

b

The office of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management was created in January 2003. 

c

Prior to 2006, the Office of Indian Education Programs fulfilled the responsibilities of the current 

Bureau of Indian Education.

Preliminary results from our work also suggest that lack of consistent 

leadership within DAS-M and BIE hinders collaboration between the two 

offices. According to our work on leadership, effective working 

relationships between agency leaders and their peers is essential to using 

resources most effectively and ensuring that people and processes are 

aligned to an agency’s mission.12

 

12GAO, Organizational Transformation: Implementing Chief Operating Officer/Chief 

Management Officer Positions in Federal Agencies, 

Working relations between BIE and 

DAS-M’s leadership appears informal and sporadic. Currently, there are 

no regularly scheduled meetings between BIE and DAS-M leadership to 

discuss issues, priorities and goals. Additionally, BIE officials reported 

having difficulty obtaining timely updates from DAS-M on its responses to 

requests for services from schools. According to BIE officials, they used 

to have regularly scheduled meetings with DAS-M leadership to discuss 

operations, but the meetings were discontinued in September 2012. BIE 

GAO-08-34 (Washington D.C.: 

November 2007).
 

Page 9 GAO-13-342T 

now depends on ad hoc meetings to discuss issues requiring resolution. 

As a result, BIE officials stated there is a disjointed approach to serving 

schools.

Although BIE’s responsibilities to operate Indian schools are in some 

respects similar to those of state educational agencies (SEA), BIE’s 

influence is limited because most schools are tribally operated. Like an 

SEA, BIE administers, oversees, and provides technical support for a 

number of programs funded by Education. These include grants for 

disadvantaged children, students with disabilities, and teacher quality 

improvement. BIE also acts in the capacity of an SEA by monitoring, 

overseeing, and providing technical support to BIE schools. Yet, in 

contrast to states that can impose a range of reforms on schools, in 

tribally operated schools, which form the majority of BIE schools, tribes 

retain authority over key policies. This means that BIE must seek 

cooperation from tribal officials to implement reform. For example, BIE 

cannot require tribally-operated schools to adopt or develop their own 

teacher and principal evaluation systems. Also, although BIE could 

implement a curriculum for the schools it operates, BIE cannot implement 

a bureau-wide curriculum that would apply to tribally-operated schools. In 

contrast, some SEAs may be granted this authority through their state’s 

laws.

According to BIE correspondence submitted to Education in June 2012,13

 

13The U.S. Department of Education has 

the accountability system BIE is required to use, as a condition of 

receiving funding under Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act (ESEA), as amended, is onerous. Like SEAs, BIE is 

accountable for the academic achievement of students in its schools. 

However, BIE schools must use the accountability measures of the 23 

respective states where the schools are located unless an alternative has 

been approved. As a result, BIE calculates proficiency—the extent to

which schools have made adequate yearly progress meeting 

performance goals—using the states’ accountability systems. In 2008, we 

invited each SEA to request flexibility regarding 

specific requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) in exchange for 

rigorous and comprehensive State-developed plans designed to improve educational 

outcomes for all students, close achievement gaps, increase equity, and improve the 

quality of instruction. Bureau of Indian Education, ESEA Flexibility Request for Window 3, 

Submitted to the Department of Education June 7, 2012. OMB-1810-0581. 

BIE’S Limited

Governance of 

Schools Affects 

Reform Efforts
 

Page 10 GAO-13-342T 

reported that BIE officials told us that, given the work involved, it was 

challenging to calculate and report proficiency levels to schools before the 

start of the subsequent school year.14 However, under ESEA, if schools 

do not make adequate yearly progress toward specific proficiency levels 

set by the states in reading, math, and science, they may be required to 

pursue reforms that are best implemented at the beginning of the school 

year. Recently, Education allowed 16 of the 23 states where BIE schools 

are located to change their assessments and methodology for calculating 

proficiency.15

Further complicating reform efforts, both BIE and Education consider BIE 

schools, unlike public schools, to have the responsibilities of both school 

districts and schools. BIE, unlike an SEA, treats each school as a public 

school district. According to BIE and Education officials, many of these 

individual schools are small in size and lack the organizational capacity to 

function as a school district. We have previously reported that smaller 

school districts face challenges acquiring special education services or 

providers because they lack the same capacity, resources, knowledge, or

experience necessary to provide those services as larger-sized school 

districts.

Consequently, this has affected BIE’s ability to calculate 

proficiency for its schools in a timely manner. Currently, BIE is seeking to 

revise its regulations that require it to use the 23 states’ accountability 

systems. 

16

BIE is one of two federal entities that directly oversees the management 

and operation of schools. The Department of Defense is the only other 

federal agency that operates elementary and secondary schools, and it 

does so to meet the educational needs of military dependents and 

children of some civilian employees. The Department of Defense 

Education Activity (DODEA) oversees the management and operation of 

194 schools in seven states; Puerto Rico and Guam; and 12 foreign 

countries. Unlike BIE, DODEA has considerable autonomy over its own 

BIE and Education officials acknowledge that this represents a 

strain on BIE’s capacity to function in this manner.

 

14GAO, Bureau of Indian Education Schools: Improving Interior’s Assistance Would Help 

Some Tribal Groups Implement Academic Accountability Systems, GAO-08-679 

(Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2008). 

15 Currently, 34 states and the District of Columbia are approved for ESEA flexibility.

16GAO, Charter Schools: Additional Federal Attention Needed to Help Protect Access for 

Students with Disabilities, GAO-12-543 (Washington, D.C.: June 7, 2012). 
 

Page 11 GAO-13-342T 

internal management, budget, and operations. According to the Director 

of DODEA, the DODEA headquarters office is responsible for setting 

general policy guidelines, while schools and local DODEA administrative 

offices are charged with overseeing day-to-day operations. As a result, 

DODEA retains full operational control over all its schools and is therefore 

able to establish standardized curricula, testing, and evaluations.

It is critical that Indian students receive a high-quality education in order 

to ensure their long-term success. While BIE confronts several limitations 

in its ability to govern schools, its mission remains to provide students 

quality education opportunities. To this end, officials’ roles and 

responsibilities must be clear, and sustained leadership is key. 

Additionally, it is imperative that the offices responsible for education work 

together more efficiently and effectively to enhance the education of 

Indian children. We will continue to monitor these issues as we complete 

our ongoing work and consider any recommendations needed to address 

these issues.

Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member Moran, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be pleased to 

answer any questions that you may have.

For future contact regarding this testimony, please contact George A. 

Scott at (202) 512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov. Key contributors to this 

testimony were Beth Sirois, Ramona Burton, Sheranda Campbell, Holly 

Dye, Alex Galuten, Rachel Miriam Hill, and Jean McSween.

Concluding 

Observations 

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(131233)
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.