a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Committees

September 2005 U.S. POSTAL 

SERVICE

Factors Affecting 

Fund-Raising Stamp 

Sales Suggest Lessons 

Learned

GAO-05-953
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-953.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Katherine 

Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or 

siggerudk@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-953, a report to 

congressional committees 

September 2005

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE

Factors Affecting Fund-Raising Stamp 

Sales Suggest Lessons Learned 

Congress has directed the U.S. 

Postal Service to issue three fundraising stamps, also called 

semipostals, since 1998. These 

stamps are sold at a higher price 

than First-Class stamps, with the 

difference going to federal agencies 

for specific causes. The proceeds 

from the three stamps address 

breast cancer research, assistance 

to families of emergency personnel 

killed or permanently disabled in 

the terrorist attacks of September 

11, and domestic violence. 

The law authorizing the Breast 

Cancer Research stamp directed 

GAO to report on the fund-raising 

results. To provide additional 

information to Congress, GAO 

expanded the study to include all 

three semipostals. GAO’s study 

addressed (1) the amounts raised 

and the factors affecting sales, (2) 

how the designated agencies used 

the proceeds and reported the 

results, and (3) lessons learned for 

the Postal Service, agencies 

receiving the proceeds, and others. 

To enhance accountability for 

semipostal proceeds, GAO 

recommends that agencies 

receiving the proceeds issue annual 

reports to Congress on their use of 

the proceeds. The Postal Service 

generally agreed with the report’s 

findings. The Department of 

Defense concurred with the 

recommendation. The other 

agencies did not comment. 

Over $56 million has been raised through semipostal sales as of June 2005, 

and sales were likely affected by several key factors. Individually, proceeds 

totaled $44 million for the Breast Cancer Research stamp, over $10.5 million 

for the Heroes of 2001 stamp, and nearly $2 million for the Stop Family 

Violence stamp. Sales patterns and levels differed greatly, with four key 

factors affecting sales patterns: (1) fund-raising cause, (2) support of 

advocacy groups, (3) stamp design, and (4) promotion by the Postal Service.

The designated federal agencies currently award or plan to award grants 

with the proceeds; none of the agencies has reported specifically on results. 

Breast Cancer Research stamp proceeds have been used to award research 

grants by the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense. 

No grants have yet been awarded with the proceeds from the two other 

semipostals. The Federal Emergency Management Agency plans to distribute 

Heroes of 2001 stamp proceeds through grants to families of emergency 

personnel killed or permanently disabled from the September 11 attacks, 

while the Department of Health and Human Services plans to use Stop 

Family Violence stamp proceeds for grants to organizations for projects 

aimed at enhancing services to children exposed to domestic violence. 

Key lessons that have emerged from the three semipostals: 

• The nature of the charitable cause can greatly affect sales patterns and 

other results. A disaster, for example, is more likely to have a brief but 

intense response, while an ongoing health issue will have a longer one. 

• Early and continued involvement of advocacy groups helps sustain 

semipostal support. 

• Stamp design, promotion, and clear understanding about how proceeds 

will be used can greatly affect consumers’ response. 

• Semipostals generate proceeds immediately, but the logistics of using 

the moneys raised takes much longer. 

• Reporting can enhance accountability. Congress included a reporting 

requirement in the Semipostal Authorization Act of 2000, but these three 

semipostals are not subject to that requirement. 

Breast Cancer Research, Heroes of 2001, and Stop Family Violence Stamps 

Source: U.S. Postal Service.
Page i GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 4

Background 8

Semipostals Have Raised Over $56 Million, with Several Factors 

Likely Affecting Sales 12

Semipostal Proceeds Will Be Used for Grants, with Limited 

Reporting on Specific Uses 23

Lessons Learned from Existing Semipostals 32

Conclusion 38

Recommendation for Executive Action 38

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 39

Appendixes

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 41

Appendix II: Postal Service Semipostal Costs and Semipostal Cost 

Recovery Regulation Changes 44

Appendix III: Semipostal Design 51

Appendix IV: NIH Breast Cancer Research Awards Funded with Breast 

Cancer Research Stamp Proceeds 53

Appendix V: DOD Breast Cancer Research Awards Funded with Breast 

Cancer Research Stamp Proceeds 58

Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Postal Service 60

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Defense 62

Tables Table 1: Semipostal Stakeholders and Related Roles 9

Table 2: Examples of Promotional Efforts Undertaken by Breast 

Cancer Advocacy Groups to Support the Breast Cancer 

Research Stamp 17

Table 3: Examples of Service National Advertising, Promotional, 

and Partnership Efforts in Support of the Semipostals 22

Table 4: NIH and DOD Grants Using Breast Cancer Research Stamp 

Proceeds 25

Table 5: Select Research Findings from NIH and DOD Grants 

Funded with Breast Cancer Research Stamp Proceeds 27

Table 6: ACF Grants Using Stop Family Violence Stamp 

Proceeds 28

Table 7: FEMA Grants Using Heroes of 2001 Stamp Proceeds 30
Contents

Page ii GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

Table 8: Agencies, Advocacy Groups, and Organizations that GAO 

Interviewed About Factors Affecting Semipostal Sales 42

Table 9: Semipostal Costs Incurred and Recovered by the Service, 

through March 31, 2005 45

Table 10: Breast Cancer Research Stamp Costs Incurred and 

Recovered by the Service from Inception through March 

31, 2005 46

Table 11: Heroes of 2001 Stamp Costs Incurred and Recovered by 

the Service from Inception through March 31, 2005 47

Table 12: Stop Family Violence Stamp Costs Incurred and Recovered 

by the Service from Inception through March 31, 2005 48

Table 13: Insight Awards to Stamp Out Breast Cancer Funded with 

Proceeds, as of April 2005, from Breast Cancer Research 

Stamp Sales 53

Table 14: Exceptional Opportunities in Breast Cancer Research 

Funded with Proceeds, as of April 2005, from Breast 

Cancer Research Stamp Sales 56

Table 15: Idea Awards for Breast Cancer Research Funded with 

Proceeds, as of April 2005, from Breast Cancer Research 

Stamp Sales 58

Figures Figure 1: Number of Semipostals Sold Annually, in Millions, 

through May 31, 2005 5

Figure 2: Breast Cancer Research, Heroes of 2001, and Stop Family 

Violence Stamps 9

Figure 3: Authorized Sales Period of the Three Semipostals 10

Figure 4: Number of Semipostals Sold by Quarter, in Millions, 

through May 31, 2005 13

Figure 5: Heroes of 2001 Stamp Featured on NASCAR Busch Series 

Professional Stock Car 15

Figure 6: Service Counter Card Showing the Semipostals and 

Information about How Proceeds Would Be Used 20

Figure 7: Photos of White House Kickoff Events for Each of the 

Semipostals 23

Figure 8: The Breast Cancer Research, Heroes of 2001, and Stop 

Family Violence Stamps 51
Contents

Page iii GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

Abbreviations

ACF Administration for Children and Families

BBB Better Business Bureau

DOD Department of Defense

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

NCI National Cancer Institute

NIH National Institutes of Health

OMB Office of Management and Budget

Win ABC Women’s Information Network Against Breast Cancer

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-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

September 30, 2005 Letr

The Honorable Susan M. Collins

Chairman

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Tom Davis

Chairman

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives

Since 1998, Congress has called for the U.S. Postal Service (Service) to 

issue the first three fund-raising stamps in the nation’s history. These 

stamps, called “semipostals,” are First-Class postage stamps that are sold at 

a premium over their postage value, in order to help provide funding for a 

designated charitable cause. The semipostal proceeds are transferred from 

the Service to designated federal agencies that administer the funds.1

 The 

three semipostals include the following: 

• the Breast Cancer Research stamp, issued in 1998, which funds breast 

cancer research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the 

Department of Defense (DOD); 

• the Heroes of 2001 stamp, issued in 2002 to assist the families of 

emergency relief personnel who were killed or permanently disabled in 

the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, through a program 

administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); 

and

1

Prior to transferring the proceeds to agencies, the Service is to deduct costs attributable to 

the semipostals that would not normally be incurred for comparable stamps.
Page 2 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

• the Stop Family Violence stamp, issued in 2003 to fund domestic 

violence prevention programs at the Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS).2

Although each of the three existing semipostals was mandated by 

Congress, the Semipostal Authorization Act of 2000 gave the Service the 

authority to issue and sell semipostals on its own “in order to advance such 

causes as the Service considers to be in the national public interest and 

appropriate.”3

 This act and the related regulations establish the criteria for 

such things as selecting causes, establishing prices, and reporting annually 

on how the money is being used. The existing semipostals were not issued 

under this authority and only certain provisions of this act apply to them. 

Although the Service has not yet exercised this authority, new semipostals 

continue to be proposed by Congress, and advocates and fund-raising 

experts view semipostals as an easy way for the public to contribute funds 

to charitable causes.

The Stamp Out Breast Cancer Act required that we issue a report to 

Congress on the Breast Cancer Research stamp no later than 3 months 

before the end of the stamp’s authorized sales period.4

 We issued our first 

report under this requirement in April 2000, and Congress has subsequently 

extended the sales period for the stamp three times, resulting in a follow-on 

report in September 2003 and this study.5

 The authorized sales period for 

the Breast Cancer Research stamp is currently scheduled to expire 

December 31, 2005. However, legislation is currently pending that would 

extend the sales period for the Breast Cancer Research stamp until

2

The Stamp Out Breast Cancer Act (P.L. 105-41) required that the Service issue a Breast 

Cancer Research stamp. The 9/11 Heroes Stamp Act of 2001 and the Stamp Out Domestic 

Violence Act of 2001 mandated that the Service issue semipostals for these causes. Both the 

Heroes of 2001 and Stop Family Violence stamps were authorized as part of the Treasury 

and General Government Appropriations Act, 2002 (P.L. 107-67).

3

P.L. 106-253.

4

P.L. 105-41.

5

GAO, Breast Cancer Research Stamp: Millions Raised for Research, but Better Cost 

Recovery Criteria Needed, GAO/GGD-00-80 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 28, 2000) and Breast 

Cancer Research Stamp: Effective Fund-Raiser, but Better Reporting and Cost-Recovery 

Criteria Needed, GAO-03-1021 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2003).
Page 3 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

December 31, 2007.6 To provide additional information to Congress, we 

have expanded this current study to all three semipostals. Accordingly, this 

report examines (1) the amount of money raised by the semipostals and 

what factors appear to have affected sales; (2) how the designated federal 

agencies used funds raised by the semipostals and how they reported 

results; and (3) the lessons learned from these semipostals for the Service, 

agencies receiving semipostal proceeds, and other stakeholders. Appendix 

II of this report also provides information on the costs associated with the 

semipostal program and the status of our recommendations regarding costrecovery criteria made to the Postmaster General in our September 2003 

report. 

To address these objectives, we obtained detailed sales and cost 

information from the Service on each of the three semipostals and gathered 

information from a broad spectrum of federal officials, fund-raising 

experts, and advocacy groups, about each of the semipostals and the 

related charitable causes. We interviewed officials from the Service and the 

federal agencies receiving semipostal proceeds and gathered and reviewed 

agency documents pertaining to semipostal programs. We consulted 

organizations with fund-raising expertise, such as the Association of 

Fundraising Professionals, the American Red Cross, and the Better 

Business Bureau’s (BBB) Wise Giving Alliance, about fund-raising patterns 

and factors that influence fund-raising efforts for different charitable 

causes. In addition, we identified and interviewed key national advocacy 

groups affiliated with breast cancer, emergency personnel affected by the 

terrorist attacks of September 11, and domestic violence prevention 

regarding their opinions about and experiences with the semipostals. See 

appendix I for more details regarding our scope and methodology. 

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Service, 

Administration for Children and Families (ACF), DOD, FEMA, HHS and 

NIH. The Service and DOD provided written comments, which are 

reprinted in appendixes VI and VII, respectively. ACF, FEMA, HHS and NIH 

did not provide comments on this report. We conducted our review from 

January 2005 through August 2005 according to generally accepted 

government auditing standards. 

6

On September 28, 2005, the Senate passed S. 37, which reauthorizes P.L. 105-41 through 

December 31, 2007.
Page 4 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

Results in Brief Over $56 million has been raised through sales of semipostals to date, and 

several key factors likely affected sales. Individually, the Breast Cancer 

Research stamp has raised $44 million, the Heroes of 2001 stamp over $10.5 

million, and the Stop Family Violence stamp nearly $2 million as of June 30, 

2005. The sales patterns and levels for each of the semipostals differed 

greatly, with the Breast Cancer Research stamp remaining at a comparably 

high sales level for several years, while the Heroes of 2001 and Stop Family 

Violence stamp have experienced drop-offs in sales after the first few 

months (see fig. 1). The higher sales total for the Breast Cancer Research 

stamp partly reflects the fact that it has been for sale longer than the other 

semipostals. In addition, on the basis of our discussions with the various 

agencies and organizations involved, four other key factors appear to have 

affected sales for the three semipostals. These key factors are (1) the fundraising causes, including the degree to which people were aware of the 

cause and motivated to support it; (2) the promotional capabilities and 

activities of affiliated advocacy groups; (3) the designs of the semipostals; 

and (4) the promotional activities of the Service. These factors play central 

roles in the lessons learned from evaluating sales of these semipostals.
Page 5 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

Figure 1: Number of Semipostals Sold Annually, in Millions, through May 31, 2005 

The designated federal agencies that receive semipostal proceeds currently 

award or plan to distribute the funds through grants; and, while the 

agencies have information on how these funds are used, none of the 

agencies had reported specifically on their use of semipostal proceeds, 

including grant outcomes, to Congress, other stakeholders, or the public. 

Breast Cancer Research stamp proceeds provide funding for research 

grants administered by NIH and DOD. As of May 31, 2005, the NIH had 

awarded about $16 million for research grants that have produced such 

results as patents on antitumor drugs and new cancer detection methods, 

and the DOD had awarded about $11 million in grants intended to 

encourage innovative approaches to breast cancer research. No grants had 

yet been awarded with the proceeds from the other two semipostals. FEMA 

intends to make grants available to eligible families of emergency relief 

personnel who were killed or permanently disabled as a result of the 

September 11 terrorist attacks with the proceeds from the Heroes of 2001 

stamp. FEMA made a decision that it would wait until it received all 

semipostal proceeds before making funds available to eligible families. 

FEMA had to establish a new mechanism for distributing the funds, given 

0

10

20

30

40

50

Stop Family Violence

Heroes of 2001

Breast Cancer Research

Q4Q1

Q2

Q3Q4

Q1

Q2Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2Q3

Q4

Q1Q2

Q3Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2Q3Q4Q1

Q2

Number of semipostals sold in millions

Source: U.S. Postal Service.

Year

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Page 6 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

that the cause addresses a unique event. HHS, which began receiving 

proceeds from the Stop Family Violence stamp in May 2004, plans to use 

the proceeds to fund projects focused on the enhancement and distribution 

of services for children exposed to domestic violence. The Semipostal 

Authorization Act calls for annual reports on the use of proceeds, but these 

three semipostals were not issued under this act, and the reporting 

requirement does not apply. Both NIH and DOD provide limited reporting 

on the use of Breast Cancer Research stamp funds through reports on 

research programs in general, though these reports do not focus on 

semipostal proceeds. In part as a result of our work, FEMA recently 

provided Congress with information about the amount of proceeds that the 

agency has received through sales of the Heroes of 2001 stamp and stated 

the agency will provide a report summarizing the program next year. HHS 

plans to report specifically on its use of Stop Family Violence stamp 

proceeds. 

Key lessons that emerge from the three semipostals stem both from the 

factors affecting sales and the agency uses of semipostal proceeds:

• Charitable causes selected for a semipostal can greatly affect the 

arc of the fund-raising effort and other results achieved. 

Semipostal sales reflected differences among disaster response, ongoing 

social and health fund-raising causes, as well as among causes with 

greater or lesser amounts of appeal. For example, the Heroes of 2001 

stamp—which dealt with a catastrophic, high-visibility event that stirred 

strong emotional reaction among a wide portion of the population—had 

over 50 percent of its sales within the initial two-quarters. The Breast 

Cancer Research stamp, which deals with an ongoing health issue, has 

never achieved a quarterly sales level matching the highest sales levels 

of the Heroes of 2001 stamp, but has continued to see steady sales 

throughout the 7 years it has been available and has higher average sales 

over time. Likewise, the popularity of charitable causes can affect the 

amounts raised by semipostals addressing such issues. For example, the 

Breast Cancer Research stamp addresses a charitable cause with a high 

profile and has had high sales levels over time, while the Stop Family 

Violence stamp—which raises money for a cause that may generate a 

more complex response—has had average sales that are less than onefourth of those of the Breast Cancer Research stamp.

• Early and continued involvement of advocacy groups helps 

sustain semipostal support. After committing about $1 million to 

each advertising campaign for the Breast Cancer Research and Heroes 
Page 7 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

of 2001 stamps, the Service experienced budget reductions and 

consequently implemented a new policy to no longer advertise 

individual stamps, including semipostals. Additionally, none of the 

agencies receiving semipostal proceeds has contributed to a formal 

advertising campaign. Absent a formal campaign, advocacy groups and 

individuals involved with a charitable cause are the best source of 

promotion for semipostals. For example, the Susan G. Komen Breast 

Cancer Foundation has featured the Breast Cancer Research stamp in 

its publications and newsletter, which is sent to one million people. On 

the contrary, large national advocacy groups addressing issues of family 

violence or victims of September 11 have not had enduring efforts to 

promote the other semipostals. 

• Stamp design, how extensively a semipostal is promoted, and 

information about the use of proceeds can greatly affect the 

extent to which consumers support the semipostal. While some 

consumers may be well informed and supportive enough of a cause to 

buy semipostals, regardless of how the stamp looks or how the proceeds 

will be spent, many other potential consumers may need to be informed 

about the semipostal and may consider these factors in their decision of 

whether to purchase a semipostal. Support may be further enhanced if 

the semipostal or the available promotional information clearly 

indicates how the money will be used. For example, the Breast Cancer 

Research stamp provides a clear indication of how proceeds will be 

used, while the fund-raising causes benefiting from the Stop Family 

Violence stamp may not be as apparent.

• Semipostals generate proceeds immediately upon issuance, but 

the logistics of using the moneys raised takes much longer. 

Uncertainty surrounding the amount of funds that a semipostal will 

raise, together with the amount of time required to establish new 

programs to distribute semipostal funds can lead to a time lag before 

agencies use semipostal proceeds. Using existing agency processes and 

procedures for grant programs may ease administration and expedite 

the distribution of semipostal proceeds. For example, DOD treats Breast 

Cancer Research stamp proceeds the same as all other funds in its 

Breast Cancer Research Program, which allowed the agency to 

incorporate the semipostal funds into its regular grant cycle within a 

year. In contrast, FEMA, which is developing a new program for 

administering Heroes of 2001 stamp proceeds, has taken nearly 3 years 

to award any semipostal funds.
Page 8 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

• A reporting approach, such as the one included in the Semipostal 

Authorization Act, can enhance accountability. In the Semipostal 

Authorization Act, Congress took steps to ensure that reporting on the 

use of funds would be a part of any Service initiated semipostals. 

However, the three existing semipostals were all authorized separately 

from this act, and the agencies that receive proceeds from these 

semipostals are not required to report on the use of the funds. 

Additionally, program reporting is an important standard for ensuring 

accountability of charitable proceeds, and for the semipostal causes, 

many advocacy groups were unclear as to specifically how semipostal 

proceeds were being used. In the case of the Stop Family Violence 

stamp, this resulted in reduced support for the stamp by advocacy 

groups. Reporting can make information about grant goals and 

accomplishments more transparent.

We are recommending that the agencies receiving semipostal proceeds 

improve reporting of how the funds are being used by issuing annual 

reports to the congressional committees with jurisdiction over the Service. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Service generally agreed with 

the four key factors that appear to affect semipostal sales but suggested 

that stamp design and its promotion of the stamps seem to be of less 

importance to a semipostal’s success as a fund-raiser. We continue to 

believe that stamp design and the Service’s promotional efforts were key 

factors in semipostal sales, based on our discussion with advocacy groups 

and fund-raising experts. For example, fund-raising experts agreed that in 

most cases there is a connection between the amount invested and the 

amounts raised. DOD concurred with our recommendation to improve 

reporting of how semipostal proceeds are used.

Background The three stamps issued thus far in the nation’s semipostal program have 

all been authorized through separate congressional acts pertaining solely to 

those stamps. The Stamp Out Breast Cancer Act required that the Service 

issue a Breast Cancer Research stamp, the nation’s first semipostal. Two 

additional semipostals—the Heroes of 2001 and Stop Family Violence 

stamps—were mandated by Congress in the 9/11 Heroes Stamp Act of 2001 

and the Stamp Out Domestic Violence Act of 2001.7

 Figure 2 shows the 

three semipostals. 

7

Both acts were included as part of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2002 (P.L. 107-67).
Page 9 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

Figure 2: Breast Cancer Research, Heroes of 2001, and Stop Family Violence 

Stamps

Following the authorization of these semipostals by Congress, a number of 

stakeholders became involved with the semipostals, including the Service, 

designated federal agencies, and advocacy groups. For example, after 

Congress mandated the semipostals, the Service issued the stamps and 

then transferred semipostal proceeds to the designated federal agencies, 

which then directed the funds toward the identified causes. Additionally, 

advocacy groups involved with the charitable causes have assisted in 

promoting the semipostals. Table 1 identifies the various stakeholders and 

summarizes their primary roles related to the semipostals. 

Table 1: Semipostal Stakeholders and Related Roles 

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by the U.S. Postal Service and agencies.

Stakeholder Role

Postal Service Establish the postage rate for semipostals, make semipostals 

available to the public, deduct reasonable costs from semipostal 

proceeds, and transfer the remaining funds to designated federal 

agencies.

Designated agencies Administer the semipostal proceeds contributed to the designated 

charitable cause.

Advocacy groups No official role, but various groups have individually participated in 

promoting semipostals.

Source: U.S. Postal Service.
Page 10 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

Authorized for 2 years in 1998, the Breast Cancer Research stamp has 

subsequently been reauthorized three times, and there are proposals in 

Congress to further extend the sales period through December 31, 2007. 

The Breast Cancer Research stamp raises money for breast cancer 

research programs at NIH and DOD, with the former receiving 70 percent 

of the funds raised and the latter receiving the remaining 30 percent. The 

Heroes of 2001 stamp was offered for sale from June 7, 2002, to December 

31, 2004, and funds raised were transferred to FEMA to provide assistance 

to the families of emergency relief personnel who were killed or 

permanently disabled in the line of duty in connection with the terrorist 

attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001. The Service 

started selling the Stop Family Violence stamp on October 8, 2003, and it is 

scheduled to expire on December 31, 2006. Proceeds from the Stop Family 

Violence stamp are being transferred to HHS for domestic violence 

programs. For a period of just over 1 year, between October 8, 2003, and 

December 31, 2004, all three semipostals were on sale simultaneously. 

Figure 3 shows the authorized sales periods for each of the semipostals.

Figure 3: Authorized Sales Period of the Three Semipostals

Separately from the provisions that authorized the three semipostals, the 

Semipostal Authorization Act gave the Service the authority to issue 

semipostals that it considers to be appropriate and in the national public 

Authorized sales period for the semipostals

Source: U.S. Postal Service.

Breast Cancer Research

July 1998 - December 2005

Heroes of 2001

June 2002 - December 2004

Stop Family Violence

October 2003 - December 2006 (future)

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

7.5 years

2.5 years

3.25 years
Page 11 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

interest; however, the Service has not yet exercised this authority. Further, 

the Service has indicated that it does not plan to issue any semipostals 

under its own authority until sales of the Breast Cancer Research stamp 

and other congressionally authorized semipostals have concluded. 

However, legislative proposals to establish new semipostals continue to be 

made. In the 109th Congress, for example, a bill has been introduced to 

establish a new semipostal to benefit the Peace Corps.8 In February 2005, 

the House Committee on Government Reform, the oversight committee for 

the Service, adopted a rule that stated that the Committee will not give 

consideration to legislative proposals specifying the subject matter of new 

semipostals. That rule also stated that the Service should determine the 

subject matter of new semipostals. In September 2005, a bill was 

introduced to establish a semipostal to provide disaster relief for residents 

of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama who were affected by Hurricane 

Katrina. The proceeds are to be transferred to the American Red Cross 

Disaster Relief Fund for Hurricane Katrina, which is not a government 

entity. This contrasts with the existing semipostals that transfer their 

proceeds to designated federal agencies.9

In our previous work, we reported that the Breast Cancer Research stamp 

has been an effective fund-raiser and that funds raised through sales of the 

stamp had contributed to key insights and approaches for the treatment of 

breast cancer. Most of the key stakeholders we spoke with and, according 

to our survey, members of the public viewed the stamp as an appropriate 

way of raising funds for a nonpostal purpose. We expressed some 

concerns, however, about the Service’s identification and recovery of costs 

associated with carrying out the act. We recommended that the Service 

reexamine and, as necessary, revise its Breast Cancer Research stamp costrecovery regulations. We also suggested that Congress consider 

establishing annual reporting requirements for NIH and DOD.

8

H.R. 560 was introduced on February 2, 2005.

9

H.R. 3750 was introduced on Septembert 13, 2005.
Page 12 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

Semipostals Have 

Raised Over $56 

Million, with Several 

Factors Likely 

Affecting Sales

Semipostals have raised over $56 million to date, and sales were likely 

impacted by several factors. In addition to variations in the amounts raised 

by each of the semipostals, sales patterns were also different, and on the 

basis of our discussions with Service officials, advocacy groups, and other 

stakeholders, we identified four key factors that affected sales, including 

(1) fund-raising cause, (2) support of advocacy groups, (3) stamp design, 

and (4) Service promotional activities. 

Semipostal Proceeds and 

Sales Patterns Varied 

Substantially

The funds raised by the semipostals vary from $44 million for the Breast 

Cancer Research stamp to over $10.5 million for the Heroes of 2001 stamp 

and nearly $2 million for the Stop Family Violence stamp, totaling over $56 

million. The length of time that each semipostal has been sold affected the 

amounts raised: the Breast Cancer Research stamp has been available for 

7 years, the Heroes of 2001 stamp was available for just over 21⁄2 years, and 

the Stop Family Violence stamp has been available for under 2 years.

Semipostal sales patterns reveal marked differences. Breast Cancer 

Research stamp sales have fluctuated since the semipostal’s issuance in 

1998 but have remained at a comparably high level over time (see fig. 4). 

The Heroes of 2001 and Stop Family Violence stamps each had initial sales 

surges—although at much different levels—with subsequent declines. 

Sales of the Breast Cancer Research stamp have averaged over 22 million 

semipostals per quarter since it was issued in 1998, with total sales of 606.8 

million semipostals by May 31, 2005.10 Sales of the Heroes of 2001 stamp 

averaged over 13 million semipostals per quarter throughout its sales 

period and totaled 132.9 million, although over 50 percent of total sales 

occurred in the first two-quarters after issuance in 2002. Finally, as of May 

31, 2005, sales of the Stop Family Violence stamp have averaged over 4 

million semipostals per quarter and total 25.3 million since issuance. 

10For purposes of analyzing semipostal sales over time, we used the Service’s fiscal calendar.
Page 13 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

Figure 4: Number of Semipostals Sold by Quarter, in Millions, through May 31, 2005

Sales Patterns Were 

Influenced by Several Key 

Factors

Fund-Raising Cause: Awareness, 

Appeal, and Staying Power

Public awareness about the fund-raising causes represented by the 

semipostals likely affected sales levels. The two semipostals addressing 

causes with high levels of public awareness—finding a cure for breast 

cancer and supporting the families of September 11 emergency 

personnel—had higher sales than the Stop Family Violence stamp, which 

raises funds for domestic violence programs, a cause that, while well 

known, has a lower profile. An official with the Komen Foundation pointed 

out that in the case of the Breast Cancer Research stamp, the fact that 

about one in eight women are affected by breast cancer keeps the subject 

in the public spotlight. Likewise, the national significance of the events 

surrounding the September 11 terrorist attacks ensured a high level of 

public awareness regarding the cause represented by the Heroes of 2001 

0

10

20

30

40

50

Stop Family Violence

Heroes of 2001

Breast Cancer Research

Q4

 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

 Q1

 Q2 Q3

 Q4

 Q1

 Q2 Q3

 Q4

 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

 Q1

 Q2

 Q3

 Q4

 Q1

 Q2 Q3 Q4

Q1

Q2

Number of semipostals sold in millions

Source: U.S. Postal Service.

Year

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Page 14 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

stamp. In contrast, Service officials pointed to the lack of general coverage 

about domestic violence, which may have limited sales of the Stop Family 

Violence stamp.

The appeal of the particular fund-raising cause was also a factor affecting 

semipostal sales. While the Breast Cancer Research and Heroes of 2001 

stamps were associated with causes that generate a strong and supportive 

response, the Stop Family Violence stamp deals with a cause that may 

evoke a more complex response. Officials with the Association of 

Fundraising Professionals noted that certain causes generate a greater 

response than others, regardless of fund-raising methods. According to an 

official with the BBB Wise Giving Alliance, for example, four popular fundraising causes currently are cancer, children’s issues, relief efforts, and 

animals, although the popularity of fund-raising causes fluctuates over 

time. Such an impact can be particularly acute for campaigns that use 

affinity fund-raising, whereby donors demonstrate their support for a 

specific cause with a public sign of their commitment. Fund-raising experts 

we spoke with at the Association of Fundraising Professionals stated that 

semipostals are examples of this kind of effort, and officials with the 

American Red Cross noted that other well-known examples of such 

marketing include the Lance Armstrong Foundation’s LiveStrong yellow 

bracelets and pink breast cancer awareness ribbons. Such branding can be 

problematic, however, for causes that, for a variety of reasons, may be 

more difficult to embrace. For example, officials with the National 

Coalition Against Domestic Violence and the Service mentioned that 

consumers may be reluctant to use the Stop Family Violence stamp given 

that the fund-raising cause is particularly sensitive. Service officials noted 

that some consumers pay close attention to the ways in which stamps can 

send intended or unintended messages about the sender or receiver of 

letters.

The difference in appeal between fund-raising causes can also be seen in 

the degree to which they readily attract support or promotion by 

businesses or organizations. In the case of the semipostals, American 

Express and NASCAR approached the Service about partnership 

promotions for the Breast Cancer Research and Heroes of 2001 stamps, 

respectively. The partnerships resulted in promotion for the semipostals, 

done largely at the expense of the Service’s partners, who were able to 

affiliate themselves with these popular causes. American Express 

advertised the Breast Cancer Research stamp in print and inserts, while 

NASCAR placed an image of the Heroes of 2001 stamp prominently on a 

stock car at very little cost to the Service (see fig. 5). The Service did not 
Page 15 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

receive any comparable offers in support of the Stop Family Violence 

stamp.

Figure 5: Heroes of 2001 Stamp Featured on NASCAR Busch Series Professional 

Stock Car

While awareness and appeal may affect the size of the response, the length 

of the response may be related to another characteristic: whether the fundraising cause is for an episodic event, such as a disaster, or for an ongoing 

concern, such as finding a cure for a disease. The Heroes of 2001 stamp 

sales reflected the dramatic emotional spike typically associated with 

episodic events, with fund-raising efforts building quickly and then 

declining as events begin to retreat from the public spotlight or become 

affected by subsequent developments, according to officials with the 

American Red Cross and the BBB Wise Giving Alliance. These 

organizations pointed to the fund-raising efforts generated by the 

December 2004 tsunami as an example of another episodic event, noting 

that the tsunami fund-raising surge lasted about 30 days. Officials with the 

Association of Fundraising Professionals told us that such fund-raising 

spikes are common for one-time events. More specifically, many September 

11 fund-raising efforts experienced the same initial surge and the 

subsequent decline that the Heroes of 2001 stamp experienced, according 

to representatives with the New York City Police Foundation, the 

September 11th Families Association, and the National Association of 

Fallen Firefighters. By contrast, ongoing causes, such as finding a cure for 

breast cancer, are more likely to have staying power over time, according 

to fund-raising experts.

Source: Brewco Motorsports, Inc.
Page 16 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

Advocacy Groups: Capacity and 

Activities Undertaken

Sales of the semipostals were likely affected by the capacity of advocacy 

groups working to promote them. Several of the breast cancer advocacy 

groups supporting the Breast Cancer Research stamp have large networks 

of members and have promoted the semipostal at events involving 

thousands of participants. For example, the Komen Foundation, an active 

supporter of the semipostal, has more than 80,000 individuals in an online 

advocacy group involved in lobbying to extend sale of the semipostal. The 

foundation also conducts “Race for the Cure” events around the world, 

with more than 1 million walkers or runners participating each year since 

2000; and a partnership effort between the Komen Foundation and Yoplait 

(and its parent company General Mills) has contributed over $14 million to 

the breast cancer cause over 7 years. In contrast, family violence 

prevention groups tend to be smaller, according to officials with the 

Association of Fundraising Professionals. The National Resource Center on 

Domestic Violence noted that it has a mailing list of about 5,000 to which it 

has sent information about the Stop Family Violence stamp; and another 

group, the National Domestic Violence Hotline, provided information about 

the semipostal to over 100 local domestic violence programs. Further, an 

official with the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence described a 

cell phone donation program that earned about $2 million over 6 or 7 years. 

Finally, Service officials noted that there were no organized groups to 

coordinate with when the Heroes of 2001 stamp was developed.

Beyond the capacity of advocacy groups, the specific efforts undertaken in 

support of the semipostals by such groups over time likely affected sales. 

Several breast cancer advocacy groups have actively supported the Breast 

Cancer Research stamp since its issuance, while comparatively less was 

done by advocacy groups to support the Heroes of 2001 or Stop Family 

Violence stamps, which may account for their declining sales trends. 

Service officials link semipostal sales to the support of advocacy groups. 

• Several breast cancer advocacy groups that we spoke with mentioned 

carrying on activities to promote the Breast Cancer Research stamp. 

(Table 2 provides examples of these activities.) Likewise, Service 

officials stated that grassroots support given to the Breast Cancer 

Research stamp helps to explain its long-term success, pointing to the 

organized support of the semipostal by breast cancer advocacy groups 

and individuals, which has included use by doctors’ offices, sponsored 

walks and runs, and activities surrounding Breast Cancer Awareness 

Month. 
Page 17 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

Table 2: Examples of Promotional Efforts Undertaken by Breast Cancer Advocacy 

Groups to Support the Breast Cancer Research Stamp 

Source: GAO presentation of information provided by breast cancer advocacy groups and the U.S. Postal Service.

a

Dr. Bodai is credited with conceiving the idea for the Breast Cancer Research stamp. He and Ms. 

Mullen lobbied Congress for the Breast Cancer Research stamp originally. See appendix III for 

additional information about how the stamp was developed.

• None of the advocacy groups affiliated with emergency personnel 

affected by the terrorist attacks of September 11 that we spoke with 

regarding the Heroes of 2001 stamp had engaged in promotional 

activities for the semipostal. The advocacy groups we spoke with were 

aware that the funds raised through sales of the semipostal were to be 

directed to September 11 emergency responders in some capacity, but 

they were unaware of the specifics of how the proceeds would be used. 

Like the Stop Family Violence stamp, sales of the Heroes of 2001 stamp 

did not have the boosts in sales seen periodically with the Breast Cancer 

Research stamp, although its initial sales were higher. The semipostal’s 

limited staying power may have reflected the lack of advocacy group 

activity on behalf of the semipostal.

• Several domestic and family violence advocacy groups mentioned that 

while they had intended to support the Stop Family Violence stamp with 

promotional activities, they have done less than originally planned. 

Confusion about how Stop Family Violence stamp proceeds would be 

Breast cancer advocate Promotional effort

Cure Breast Cancer Dr. Ernie Bodai, CEO of Cure Breast Cancer, Inc., 

presented the stamp in San Francisco with Senator 

Feinstein and other activists in July 2000. He has also had 

numerous speaking engagements on behalf of the Breast 

Cancer Research stamp and been featured in articles for 

magazines such as Glamour and Women’s Day. 

Susan G. Komen Breast 

Cancer Foundation

Hundreds of Race for the Cure events have partnered with 

local post offices to promote the Breast Cancer Research 

stamp. The stamp was also featured at the 1998 

Washington, D.C. race, at which Vice President Gore was a 

guest speaker.

Women’s Information 

Network Against Breast 

Cancer 

Women’s Information Network Against Breast Cancer (WIN 

ABC) President Betsy Mullen threw out the first pitch at a 

San Diego Padres baseball game as the Breast Cancer 

Research stamp image was projected on the field. WIN ABC 

is currently coordinating with the National Needle Arts 

Association for the Stitch to Win Program to create five wall 

hangings of the Breast Cancer Research stamp in a project 

traveling around the country.a
Page 18 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

used led some domestic and family violence advocacy groups to limit 

their promotional activities on behalf of the semipostal. As a result, 

although some local advocacy groups carried out promotional activities 

with local post offices, such as semipostal unveiling ceremonies, the 

national domestic or family violence groups that we spoke with typically 

limited their promotional activities to articles in newsletters or features 

on group Web sites. Some domestic and family violence advocacy 

groups acknowledged that they could have done more to promote the 

Stop Family Violence stamp and that the semipostal’s sales were likely 

adversely affected by this lack of promotion. 

Stamp Design: Image and 

Message Clarity

The designs of both the Breast Cancer Research and Heroes of 2001 stamps 

were lauded by stakeholders; however, there was concern that the design 

of the Stop Family Violence stamp may have negatively affected sales of 

that semipostal. Both the Breast Cancer Research and Heroes of 2001 

stamps had designs that were praised by stakeholders as having inspiring 

images that conveyed some information about where proceeds would be 

directed. Consumers could assume that funds would go to breast cancer 

research or September 11 emergency personnel in some capacity, 

according to officials with the American Red Cross. However, officials with 

the Association of Fundraising Professionals noted that the exact use of the 

funds was not clearly spelled out on either semipostal. Further, in-store 

messaging also provided limited information. (See fig. 6 for an example of 

an in-store counter card featuring the semipostals.) In contrast, although 

the design of the Stop Family Violence stamp won an international award,11

and the story behind the design was described as inspiring by some 

advocacy groups,12 advocates with such organizations as the Family 

Violence Prevention Fund and the National Network to End Domestic 

Violence questioned how likely postal customers would be to buy the 

stamp to use on their mail, given the image of a crying child. In addition, the 

semipostal’s design and information provided by the Service on in-store

11The Stop Family Violence stamp was chosen by an international jury at the 34th Asiago 

International Prize for Philatelic Art as the most beautiful social awareness-themed stamp 

issued during 2003. The award was announced under the High Patronage of the President of 

the Republic of Italy.

12See appendix III for information about each of the semipostal designs.
Page 19 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

materials are less clear regarding how semipostal proceeds are to be 

used,referring to both domestic and family violence, which are viewed by 

some as separate causes.13

13The Family Violence Prevention and Services Act defines family violence as any act or 

threatened act of violence, including any forceful detention of an individual, which results 

or threatens to result in physical injury; and is committed by a person against another 

individual (including an elderly person) to whom such person is or was related by blood or 

marriage or otherwise legally related or with whom such person was lawfully residing. 

Advocacy groups we spoke with defined domestic violence as violence committed by an 

intimate partner against another intimate partner (i.e., spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend, or 

past partner), noting that family violence may not include those without a legal family 

relationship. 
Page 20 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

Figure 6: Service Counter Card Showing the Semipostals and Information about 

How Proceeds Would Be Used

Source: U.S. Postal Service.
Page 21 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

The Service’s Promotional 

Efforts

Both the Breast Cancer Research and Heroes of 2001 stamps had extensive 

Service advertising campaigns. The Service spent nearly $900,000 to 

advertise the Breast Cancer Research stamp and more than $1.1 million for 

the Heroes of 2001 stamp. This advertising included a billboard in Times 

Square for the Breast Cancer Research stamp and a national print 

advertising campaign for the Heroes of 2001 stamp. The Service also 

received the Gold “Reggie” award from the Promotion Marketing 

Association for the Service’s efforts in promoting the Breast Cancer 

Research stamp.14

As the result of an overall reduction in the Service’s budget, advertising for 

all stamps, including semipostals, has been limited to in-store messaging 

since 2003. As a consequence, Service officials determined that all funds 

spent to advertise semipostals would be deducted from the totals raised 

through their sales. This policy change had a marked impact on 

promotional activities for the Stop Family Violence stamp, which was 

issued in October 2003. While advertising costs associated with the Breast 

Cancer Research and Heroes of 2001 stamps had been paid by the Service, 

all advertising costs for the Stop Family Violence stamp were to be 

deducted from the stamp’s proceeds. In light of these limitations, the 

Service met with HHS before the Stop Family Violence stamp was issued. 

At this meeting the Service proposed spending $1.5 million or more on an 

advertising campaign that would be funded by the future semipostal 

proceeds. Because of uncertainty about how much money would be raised 

through sales of the Stop Family Violence stamp, HHS decided that the 

proposed advertising campaign not be pursued. In lieu of such a campaign, 

the Service and HHS looked to the advocacy groups to promote the 

semipostal. The Service and HHS officials met with advocacy group 

representatives and provided them with examples of the types of 

promotional activities that breast cancer advocacy groups had done to help 

publicize the Breast Cancer Research stamp and a poster for use in 

promotional activities. Through March 31, 2005, the Service spent about 

$77,000 to advertise the Stop Family Violence stamp, and this amount was 

recovered from semipostal proceeds. Table 3 provides examples of Service 

promotional efforts and partnerships in support of the semipostals.

14According to the Promotion Marketing Association, the Reggie awards—with a name 

derived from “cash register”—identify and honor the best promotional programs each year. 

The Service received a Reggie for its Breast Cancer stamp promotional campaign in 1999. 
Page 22 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

Table 3: Examples of Service National Advertising, Promotional, and Partnership 

Efforts in Support of the Semipostals

Source: GAO presentation of information provided by the U.S. Postal Service.

Service officials said that differences in sales among the three semipostals 

were not the result of the level of actions on the part of the Service. They 

said a semipostal’s success is dependent on the support provided by 

external groups or individuals. Service officials point out that for each 

semipostal, the Service issued a field and press kit and met with officials 

from the agencies receiving semipostal proceeds. In addition, the Service 

initiated kickoff events for each of the semipostals at the White House, 

with involvement from either the President or First Lady (see fig. 7). 

Finally, Service officials noted that local post offices are available to 

sponsor local events at the discretion of the postmaster. For example, the 

Service’s South Georgia District employees established the “Circle of Hope”

Semipostal 

National advertising, promotional, and partnership 

effort

Breast Cancer Research 

stamp

Stamp unveiled at the 1998 Revlon Run/Walk for Women in 

Los Angeles. Additional promotion carried out at Revlon 

Run/Walk events in New York and Los Angeles in 1999.

Times Square billboard showed the Breast Cancer 

Research stamp image and the slogan “Help stamp out 

Breast Cancer!”

National newspaper and magazine advertising campaign in 

USA Weekend, Reader’s Digest, Better Homes and 

Gardens, Southern Living, Parade, TV Guide and People.

Partnership promotion with American Express at five 

Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA) games in 

1998. 

In 2003, the Safeway supermarket chain purchased more 

than $1 million of Breast Cancer Research stamps as part 

of its community caring program. In addition to the more 

than $180,000 this purchase represented in stamp 

proceeds, Safeway sold sheets of 20 stamps, normally 

priced at $9, for $10 with the extra dollar going to local 

breast cancer research.

Heroes of 2001 stamp National print advertising campaign included USA Today

and additional advertising in the New York area included the 

New York Times.

Displayed on a stock car at an inaugural NASCAR event at 

the Daytona International Speedway in 2002.

Stop Family Violence 

stamp

Advertisements for the Stop Family Violence stamp 

appeared in individual issues of Parent’s and The Week

magazines at no charge to the Service.
Page 23 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

campaign to promote and raise funds for the Breast Cancer Research 

stamp. In 2004, the campaign raised an estimated $21,000 in proceeds 

through stamp sales. Likewise, the Cardiss Collins Postal Facility in 

Chicago held a rededication ceremony for the Stop Family Violence stamp 

on August 2, 2005, in collaboration with the Illinois Secretary of State and 

officials from the Chicago Abused Women Coalition and the Chicago Police 

Department. 

Figure 7: Photos of White House Kickoff Events for Each of the Semipostals

Semipostal Proceeds 

Will Be Used for 

Grants, with Limited 

Reporting on Specific 

Uses

The federal agencies receiving semipostal proceeds currently award or 

plan to award these funds using grants, and although each agency has 

collected and maintained information on semipostal proceeds, none has 

reported specifically on their use of proceeds thus far. NIH and DOD use 

Breast Cancer Research stamp proceeds to award research grants under 

existing programs. HHS has not distributed any proceeds from the Stop 

Family Violence stamp, but officials reported that they have established 

Sources: U.S. Postal Service, White House.

The Breast Cancer Research stamp was 

officially issued by former First Lady Hillary 

Rodham Clinton and former Postmaster 

General William Henderson at the White 

House. 

President Bush unveiled the Heroes of 2001 stamp 

with Postmaster General Jack Potter; Firefighters Billy 

Eisengrein and George Johnson; U.S. Rep. Gary 

Ackerman; Firefighter Dan McWilliams; and 

photographer Thomas Franklin, who took the photo 

featured on the stamp.

After signing a proclamation recognizing 

October as Domestic Violence Month, 

President George W. Bush shakes hands 

with Monique Blais, 7, the young artist who 

designed the Stop Family Violence stamp.
Page 24 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

new grants within an existing program to award grants for domestic 

violence programs. While the other semipostals address ongoing causes, 

the Heroes of 2001 stamp raised funds for an episodic event without an 

established mechanism for distributing such funds. As a result, FEMA is 

establishing a new program and accompanying regulations for distributing 

Heroes of 2001 stamp proceeds to families of emergency relief personnel 

who were killed or permanently disabled in the line of duty in connection 

with the September 11 terrorist attacks. The laws authorizing these three 

specific semipostals do not include reporting requirements such as those of 

the Semipostal Authorization Act. Of the four agencies, FEMA and HHS 

have plans to report specifically as to the use of semipostal proceeds.

Breast Cancer Research 

Stamp and Stop Family 

Violence Stamp Proceeds 

Are Used for Grants within 

Established Programs

NIH and DOD: Grants for Breast 

Cancer Research Under Way

Both NIH and DOD reported that they began receiving Breast Cancer 

Research stamp proceeds from the Service in November 1998, and breast 

cancer research grants have been awarded using established programs at 

both agencies since June 2000 and June 1999, respectively.15 NIH initially 

directed these proceeds to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) to award 

high-risk research grants through the “Insight Awards to Stamp Out Breast 

Cancer” initiative.16 This initiative was specifically designed for the Breast 

Cancer Research stamp proceeds, but exists within NCI’s grants program. 

One example of these grants includes funding research related to the 

development of a potential antitumor drug. In 2003, NIH approved new 

Breast Cancer Research stamp grants through the “Exceptional 

Opportunities in Breast Cancer Research” initiative, also administered by 

NCI, which uses semipostal proceeds to fund more traditional research. 

According to NIH officials, this change was made when it was determined 

that there were highly meritorious research applications outside the 

15Upon receiving the proceeds from the Service, these funds were incorporated into NIH and 

DOD’s normal grant cycles.

16High-risk research refers to research that does not require extensive preliminary data and 

includes the exploration and testing of novel ideas and approaches.
Page 25 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

funding ability of NCI, and they noted that many outstanding grant 

applications would remain unfunded without the use of semipostal 

proceeds. Exceptional Opportunities awards have covered breast cancer 

research areas that include prevention, diagnosis, biology, and treatment. 

DOD uses Breast Cancer Research stamp proceeds to fund innovative 

approaches to breast cancer research through “Idea Award” grants under 

its existing Breast Cancer Research Program, which is administered by the 

U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command. The scope of the 

grants has not changed since DOD began awarding them in 1999. Table 4 

contains additional information about these initiatives and the size and 

number of grants awarded with Breast Cancer Research stamp proceeds.

Table 4: NIH and DOD Grants Using Breast Cancer Research Stamp Proceeds

Source: GAO presentation of information provided by NIH and DOD.

Agency

Grant

(award years) Grant mission

Number of grants awarded 

and amounts Grant selection and evaluation

NIH Insight Awards to 

Stamp-Out Breast 

Cancer

(2000–2002)

Fund high-risk 

exploration by scientists 

employed outside the 

federal government who 

conduct research at their 

own institutions. 

Awarded for a 2-year 

period.

Awarded 86 Insight Awards 

that totaled about $9.5 million 

and averaged $111,242. 

Most Insight Awards were for 

a 2-year period, and NIH 

distributed the last Insight 

Awards in 2002. 

Program announcements are released 

through the NIH Guide for Grants and 

Contracts and NCI’s Web site. Grant 

applications undergo two levels of peer 

review that evaluate scientific and 

technical merit. 

Grants are monitored annually and are 

given a final review at their conclusion. 

Criteria used to measure progress 

include publications and patent filings.

Exceptional 

Opportunities in 

Breast Cancer 

Research

(2003–present)

Fund well-established 

research that would not 

have been funded 

otherwise. Awarded for a 

maximum of 4 years.

NIH has awarded 20 

Exceptional Opportunities 

Awards that total about $6.6 

million. Individual awards 

averaged $330,763. 

(Same as above)

DOD Idea Awards

(1999–present)

Fund innovative highrisk/high-return 

research.

DOD has awarded 27 Idea 

Awards using Breast Cancer 

Research stamp proceeds at 

a total of about $11 million, 

and grants have averaged 

$400,405. 

Program announcements are posted 

online. Applications undergo two tiers 

of review. The first tier is peer review 

that evaluates technical and scientific 

merit. The second tier is programmatic 

review that compares applications to 

each other. 

Grants are monitored annually. Criteria 

used to measure progress include 

publications, presentations, patents, 

and products.
Page 26 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

Since NIH and DOD both apply Breast Cancer Research stamp proceeds to 

established grant programs the agencies used existing procedures and 

regulations for awarding grants funded with the proceeds. For example, 

both agencies use existing review procedures to evaluate grant 

applications with input from advocacy groups. NIH and DOD officials 

stated that advocacy groups play an important role, and both agencies 

involve advocacy groups in their grants processes. 

Grants funded by NIH and DOD using Breast Cancer Research stamp 

proceeds have produced significant findings in breast cancer research. The 

first NIH Exceptional Opportunities Awards funded with Breast Cancer 

Research stamp proceeds were distributed in fiscal year 2003 and are 

awarded for a maximum of 4 years; therefore, it is still too early to report 

results from these awards. Both NIH and DOD use existing programs and 

processes such as monitoring grantees and requiring annual grantee 

reporting, which has made measuring grant performance and tracking 

grant outcomes relatively straightforward. Officials at each agency were 

pleased to gain new sources of funding and pleased that there have been 

some significant findings in the field of breast cancer research resulting 

from these awards. Table 5 provides select examples of research findings 

from NIH Insight Awards and DOD Idea Awards funded with Breast Cancer 

Research stamp proceeds. 
Page 27 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

Table 5: Select Research Findings from NIH and DOD Grants Funded with Breast Cancer Research Stamp Proceeds

Source: GAO presentation of information provided by NCI, NIH, and the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, DOD. 

HHS: Grants Planned for 

Domestic Violence Programs 

Aimed at Children’s Services

HHS began receiving Stop Family Violence stamp proceeds from the 

Service in May 2004, and, as of July 2005, HHS has not yet awarded any 

grants using semipostal proceeds.17 HHS is using an established grant 

program, the Family Violence and Prevention Services Program, to make 

the proceeds available at the end of fiscal year 2005 for grants aimed at 

enhancing services to children exposed to domestic violence. As of June 

30, 2005, the Service had transferred about $1.8 million to HHS, and the 

Agency Principal investigator and institution Research finding

NIH 

Insight Awards

James A. Bennett, Ph.D.

Albany Medical College

A new chemically engineered synthetic peptide that, in animal studies, 

appears to be effective against certain tumors. It has potential alone or 

in combination as an antitumor drug.

Felix R. Fernandez-Madrid, M.D., Ph.D.

Wayne State University

Part of the difficulty in both the diagnosis and treatment of cancer is 

identifying surface molecules unique to the transformed or cancer cell. 

Through the methodical screening of 1,300 breast cancer sera, this 

research has resulted in the identification of 12 new proteins not 

previously identified as autoantigens of breast cancer. Autoantigens 

represent important targets because the body has elicited an immune 

response, suggesting that there is some aspect of the tumor recognized 

as foreign by the body. This has broad implications both in research into 

the biology of the tumor as well as its diagnosis.

Stephen Byers, Ph.D.

Georgetown University

A certain gene has proved to be a clinically important in the 

identification of colon cancer. This research has demonstrated that a 

related gene family member is deleted in many breast and ovarian 

cancers. This would classify it as a new tumor suppressor gene. The 

research team is currently developing an assay to detect this alteration 

for use in breast and ovarian cancer prognosis.

DOD

Idea Awards

Kermit Carraway, Ph.D.

University of California

This research led to the discovery of a new molecule that inhibits the 

activity of epidermal growth factor, a molecule that encourages cell 

growth. This molecule has potential as a new form of therapeutic agent.

Roger Daly, Ph.D.

Garvan Institute

The research studied a protein called cortactin that seems to be 

involved in the growth and spread of cancer cells. Dr. Daly has applied 

for patents on work involving protein complexes comprising cortactin 

and their uses. 

Lihong Wang, Ph.D.

Texas A&M University

Development of imaging techniques to detect breast cancer early 

without the use of ionizing radiation (which is used in mammography). 

Dr. Wang has applied for patents on this technology, and clinical testing 

of this imaging method has begun.

17HHS officials indicated that the program announcement for the grants was undergoing 

internal review during this period and would be announced with other discretionary 

programs in the spring of 2005.
Page 28 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

agency has directed these proceeds to ACF, which is responsible for 

distributing the funds. In June 2005, ACF released an announcement for the 

grants, and ACF officials stated that they expect the first grants to be 

awarded during the end of fiscal year 2005. The purpose of the grants is to 

provide enhanced services and support to children who have been exposed 

to domestic violence in order to mitigate the impact of such exposure and 

increase the opportunities for these children to lead healthy lives as adults. 

Grant applicants are required to collaborate with a state’s domestic 

violence coalition and the state agency responsible for administering family 

violence programs. According to agency officials, it has always been ACF’s 

intention to use Stop Family Violence proceeds for enhanced services to 

children. Table 6 provides additional information about the ACF grants, to 

be awared including the size and number of awards.

Table 6: ACF Grants Using Stop Family Violence Stamp Proceeds

Source: GAO presentation of information provided by ACF, HHS.

According to ACF officials, the agency used an established program to 

develop its grants to award Stop Family Violence stamp proceeds. The 

officials stated that ACF is using existing competitive review procedures to 

evaluate grant applications. These review procedures are described in the 

Agency Grant Grant mission

Number of grants and 

amounts Grant selection and evaluation

ACF Demonstration of 

Enhanced Services to 

Children and Youth 

Who Have Been 

Exposed to Domestic 

Violence

To provide enhanced 

services and support to 

children and youth 

exposed to domestic 

violence in order to 

mitigate the impact of 

that exposure and 

increase the opportunity 

of these children and 

youth to lead healthy, 

nonviolent, and safe 

lives as adults.

ACF anticipates awarding 

four to five grants with a 

maximum amount of 

$130,000 per budget period. 

These grants will be awarded 

to organizations that plan to 

provide the services through 

collaboration with a state 

domestic violence coalition 

and the state agency 

responsible for administering 

family violence prevention 

programs and services. 

Grant announcements are released 

through ACF’s Web site and 

http://www.grants.gov, an online 

repository of federal grant 

opportunities managed by HHS.

Grant applications are evaluated on 

a weighted set of criteria made 

available to applicants in the 

program announcement.

Grantees are monitored 

semiannually through required 

progress and financial reports and 

are given a final review once the 

grant project is completed. 

Grantees are required to state how 

they will determine the extent to 

which the project has achieved its 

stated objectives and the extent to 

which accomplishments can be 

attributed to the project.
Page 29 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

grant announcement, which was developed through ACF’s existing grant 

application process and made available on ACF’s Web site. ACF also plans 

to use its existing project grant reporting system to monitor grantee 

performance (see table 6). ACF consulted with domestic violence advocacy 

groups, state agencies, and state domestic violence coalitions on the 

current distribution of children’s services offered by domestic violence 

organizations and solicited their input on a fair and equitable method for 

grant participation. Although ACF involved advocacy groups in developing 

the way that semipostal funds could be used initially, many groups that we 

spoke with in the spring of 2005 expressed concern about how the Stop 

Family Violence stamp proceeds would be spent. Some national domestic 

violence groups reported that they were unaware of ACF’s intentions for 

semipostal proceeds because no semipostal grants have been announced 

and no funds had been spent.18

FEMA: New Program Being 

Developed to Distribute 

Heroes of 2001 Stamp 

Proceeds 

FEMA started receiving Heroes of 2001 stamp proceeds from the Service in 

November 2002, and FEMA has not yet distributed any of the semipostal 

proceeds. To determine the total amount of funds available, FEMA officials 

stated that the agency made a decision to wait until the Service had 

transferred all semipostal proceeds—in May 2005—before finalizing its 

grants program. Following the final transfer, FEMA had received over $10.5 

million in semipostal proceeds. FEMA is establishing a program to make 

grants available to eligible emergency relief personnel who are 

permanently disabled or to the families of emergency relief personnel who 

were killed as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11. According 

to FEMA officials, while distributing funds to disaster victims is within the 

scope of FEMA’s mission, distributing the semipostal proceeds is not within 

the scope of its disaster authority. As a result, FEMA has had to establish a 

new program with new regulations for semipostal proceeds, which 

includes establishing the mechanism through which the funds would be 

distributed. After undergoing regulatory review at the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), FEMA’s interim rule for their assistance 

program under the 9/11 Heroes Stamp Act of 2001 was made publicly

18On June 8, 2005, ACF released an announcement for its grants utilizing the Stop Family 

Violence stamp proceeds.
Page 30 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

available on July 26, 2005.19 The interim rule states that FEMA intends to 

distribute all Heroes of 2001 stamp proceeds equally among all eligible 

claimants. Table 7 provides additional information about the FEMA grants.

Table 7: FEMA Grants Using Heroes of 2001 Stamp Proceeds

Source: GAO presentation of information provided by FEMA.

When designing its program and regulations, FEMA officials stated that the 

agency considered the findings resulting from the Department of Justice 

September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001, which provided over

$7 billion in compensation to victims of the terrorist attacks. One of the 

observations detailed in the Final Report of the Special Master for the 

September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 is that there are 

serious problems posed by a statutory approach mandating individualized 

awards for each eligible claimant and that a better approach might be to 

provide the same amount for all eligible claimants. Prior to publicizing its 

interim rule, FEMA had informal discussions with stakeholder groups, and 

FEMA officials also stated that the program regulation would be available 

for public comment.20 New York City police, firefighter, and representatives 

19FEMA reported that Executive Order 12866 requires that it follows this rule-making 

process, including submission to OMB.

Agency Grant Grant mission

Number of grants and 

amounts Grant selection and evaluation

FEMA Assistance Program 

Under the 9/11 

Heroes Stamp Act of 

2001

To benefit the families of 

emergency relief 

personnel who were 

killed or permanently 

disabled while serving in 

the line of duty in 

connection with the 

terrorist attacks against 

the United States on 

September 11, 2001. 

FEMA estimates 

approximately 1,000 eligible 

claimants and will attempt to 

distribute funds equally. 

FEMA anticipates grants in 

the amount of approximately 

$10,000 for each eligible 

claimant. Final amounts to be 

paid out to claimants will only 

be determined after the total 

number of eligible claims filed 

has been determined. 

Applications are available from 

FEMA upon request. They can also 

be downloaded from FEMA’s Web 

site.

Eligible applicants include those 

who have been permanently 

physically disabled in the line of 

duty, and personal representatives 

of emergency relief personnel who 

were killed and in the line of duty, 

while serving at the World Trade 

Center, Pentagon, or Shanksville, 

PA site in connection with the 

terrorist attacks on September 11, 

2001.

20The interim rule was released for 30 days of public comment on July 26, 2005.
Page 31 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

of victims’ foundations whom we spoke with expressed some concern 

regarding FEMA’s use of the proceeds, because they were unaware if FEMA 

planned to allocate the Heroes of 2001 stamp proceeds through assistance 

programs or grants to individual families. These groups also noted that 

since the September 11 terrorist attacks, there has been an evolving set of 

needs that have little funding support, including long-term programs such 

as counseling and health care for emergency relief personnel involved in 

the September 11 recovery and clean-up efforts.

Agencies Have Not 

Reported Specifically on the 

Proceeds’ Use

None of the designated federal agencies receiving semipostal proceeds is 

required to issue a report to Congress detailing how these funds are used or 

any accomplishments resulting from semipostal-funded grants. The 

agencies would face such a reporting requirement if the three existing 

semipostals had been authorized under the Semipostal Authorization Act. 

Specifically, the act contains an accountability mechanism consisting of 

annual reports to include (1) the total amount of funding received by the 

agency, (2) an accounting of how proceeds were allocated or otherwise 

used, and (3) a description of any significant advances or accomplishments 

during the year that were funded—in whole or in part—with funds 

received.21 However, the laws that created the three semipostals did not 

specify any reporting requirements, and the agencies themselves have 

decided to take varying actions in this regard. 

• NIH and DOD do not report specifically on the use of semipostal 

proceeds, though the agencies do collect information that, if necessary, 

could be assembled for such a report. To help manage their respective 

grant programs, NIH and DOD require award recipients to provide 

periodic reports on research progress and any breakthroughs achieved. 

Research findings from grants funded by Breast Cancer Research stamp 

proceeds can be found in some NIH publications, but the agency does 

not report specifically on its use of these funds. DOD provides limited 

information on its Idea Awards through annual reports on its 

Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs. This reporting is 

limited to the number of Idea Awards and does not provide information 

on which awards are funded with Breast Cancer Research stamp 

proceeds.

2139 U.S.C. 416 note.
Page 32 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

• ACF plans to monitor grantee performance and to report on its use of 

semipostal proceeds through HHS’ grants system and will make an 

additional report available to Congress.

• Although FEMA initially indicated to us that the agency was not 

required to report on its use of semipostal proceeds, FEMA recently 

provided information to Congress—in part as a result of our work—on 

the total proceeds received from the sales of the Heroes of 2001 stamp. 

FEMA officials have indicated that once proceeds have been distributed, 

a report will be provided to Congress on the status of the 9/11 Heroes 

Stamp Act of 2001. According to FEMA officials, the report will 

summarize the agency’s Heroes of 2001 stamp program including 

information on its development, the process undertaken, and who is 

receiving the semipostal proceeds.

Various fund-raising organizations that we spoke with indicated that 

program reporting is a useful accountability tool and may lead to greater 

fund-raising success. For example, the BBB Wise Giving Alliance, a charity 

watchdog group, recommends reporting requirements, in the form of 

annual reports, for charitable organizations to ensure that representations 

to the public are accurate, complete, and respectful. These reports should 

be made available to all, on request, and should include the organization’s 

mission, a summary of the past year’s accomplishments, and financial 

information. Further, officials with the American Red Cross stated that 

disclosure provides transparency, allowing consumers to determine if the 

cause is the best use of their money, and Association of Fundraising 

Professional officials noted that such reporting can even secure additional 

support by encouraging more people to contribute to the effort.

Lessons Learned from 

Existing Semipostals

While many of the agency officials, fund-raising groups, and charitable 

organizations that we contacted believe that the semipostals have been 

good fund-raisers, nearly all of them also believe that there were lessons 

learned. For the past several years, there have been multiple proposals 

introduced in Congress to establish new semipostals. For example in the 

108th Congress, proposals had been introduced for semipostals promoting 

childhood literacy, the Peace Corps, and prevention of childhood drinking. 

Each of these proposals expired in committee, and—so far—the Peace 

Corps semipostal proposal has been reintroduced in the 109th Congress. 

Any lessons learned from the existing semipostals may be especially 

relevant for any future semipostals, whether congressionally mandated or 
Page 33 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

issued under the Service’s authority. The lessons we identified from these 

three semipostals related primarily to five areas:

• charitable cause selected,

• advocacy group support,

• promotional efforts,

• use of funds raised, and

• agency reporting.

Lesson Learned: The 

Charitable Cause Selected 

Can Greatly Affect the Arc 

of the Fund-Raising Effort 

and Other Results Achieved

The existing semipostals have been issued for a minimum 2-year sales 

period, and one—the Breast Cancer Research stamp—has been extended 3 

times. The experience with the three existing semipostals indicates that the 

particular nature of the charitable causes may be important in how much 

money is raised, how long consumers continue to purchase the semipostal, 

and other results achieved. Among these differences are the following:

• One-time charitable causes, such as response to a major disaster, may 

provide a substantial immediate response but may also have limited 

staying power as ongoing fund-raisers. The Heroes of 2001 stamp was 

issued in 2002, while various national organizations were still raising 

funds for victims of the families of emergency relief personnel killed or 

disabled in the line of duty. Sales were highest for the initial twoquarters, followed by a dramatic drop. By contrast, the Breast Cancer 

Research stamp, which raises funds for an ongoing health issue, has had 

sales that have remained at a high level over its entire sales period. 

• Considering a cause’s appeal in drawing affinity support is important in 

setting fund-raising expectations. Some charitable causes are simply 

less popular than others, and recognition of these differences can aid in 

forming assumptions about how much money will be raised through 

semipostal sales. For some consumers, applying a postage stamp serves 

as a symbol of loyalty to a particular charitable cause; therefore, it can 

be anticipated that the magnitude of a particular cause’s base of support 

will be reflected in semipostal sales. Association of Fundraising 

Professionals officials noted that certain causes generate a greater 

response than others, regardless of fund-raising methods. That is, breast 

cancer is a pervasive and ongoing concern; the September 11 terrorist 
Page 34 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

attacks were a popular concern, but also an event likely to fade in 

intensity over time; and family violence, while an ongoing concern, is 

likely to engender less appeal. According to Association of Fundraising 

Professionals officials, the amounts raised by each semipostal are 

consistent with the popularity of the type of fund-raising cause 

represented on the stamps.

• In some cases, a growth in cause awareness may be a success that 

transcends the amount of money raised. In addition to raising funds, the 

semipostal program provides an avenue for increased exposure for 

particular charitable causes. While the amount of funds raised may not 

be as high for some causes, there are additional benefits of having a 

semipostal representing a particular cause visible and for sale in post 

offices throughout the country. Organizations and individuals whom we 

spoke with agreed that for all of the semipostals, heightened awareness 

of the cause was one benefit of having a semipostal. One Breast Cancer 

Research stamp supporter commented that the contribution that the 

semipostal has made to breast cancer awareness is priceless and more 

precious than the funds raised. Likewise an official from the National 

Fallen Firefighters Foundation stated that the Heroes of 2001 stamp has 

helped raise public awareness about the fire service.22

Lesson Learned: Early and 

Continued Involvement of 

Advocacy Groups Helps to 

Sustain Semipostal Support

Support of advocacy groups is an important marketing device for 

semipostals. American Red Cross and BBB Wise Giving Alliance officials 

told us that advocacy groups are the most useful tool for getting the word 

out about charitable causes and fund-raising efforts, and Service officials 

agreed. Broad supportive networks of private organizations that are willing 

and capable of assisting in local and national marketing help sustain 

semipostal awareness and sales. Where it is not possible to do aggressive 

private-sector style marketing, as is the case with semipostals, advocacy 

groups can fill this gap. In the case of the Breast Cancer Research stamp, 

for example, the Service no longer has a budget to advertise stamps, which 

includes semipostals, but there are numerous advocacy groups that 

publicize the Breast Cancer Research stamp on their Web sites, at events 

they sponsor, and through letters to members and legislators.

22The fire service is one of the emergency services, which deals with fires, the other services 

address crime and injury.
Page 35 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

To sustain support from advocacy groups, the Service must cultivate this 

support, and the agency receiving the semipostal proceeds must sustain 

this support. Organizations involved with charitable causes told us that due 

to their multitude of priorities, if their input and support are not solicited 

and they are not kept informed about issues related to the relevant 

semipostal, including fund usage and program outcomes, group support for 

the semipostal will wane. For example, several advocacy groups associated 

with the domestic violence cause told us that immediately following launch 

of the Stop Family Violence stamp there was uncertainty as to how HHS 

was going to use the proceeds because the public announcement at the 

stamp’s kickoff event differed from the groups’ expectations. These 

advocacy groups told us that as a result of this confusion, they did not 

aggressively promote the semipostal.

Lesson Learned: The Stamp 

Design, How Extensively It 

Is Promoted and 

Information About the Use 

of Proceeds Can Greatly 

Affect the Extent to Which 

Consumers Support the 

Semipostal

Semipostal design is one of the variables that can affect whether 

consumers are willing to signal their support for a cause. We received 

comments from numerous stakeholders, for example, that the design of the 

Stop Family Violence stamp, while certainly drawing attention, may not 

create a positive response—or affinity—because of its tone. A semipostal’s 

design can evoke emotion, and the emotional reaction to the image may be 

important in a consumer’s decision to purchase a semipostal and use it on a 

letter to make a statement. For example, the Heroes of 2001 stamp 

provided an image that was not only recognizable but inspiring. By 

contrast, the image on the Stop Family Violence stamp may create a more 

complex reaction, and result in a consumer’s decision not to buy the 

semipostal. 

The extent of promotion and advertising of a semipostal can also greatly 

affect sales. Fund-raising organizations that we spoke with agreed that in 

most cases, there is a connection between the amount invested in a fundraising effort and the amounts raised. Although a direct correlation has not 

been determined, it should be noted that as a result of a Service budget 

reduction, which eliminated stamp advertising, the Stop Family Violence 

stamp did not benefit from a million-dollar promotional campaign as the 

two other semipostals did, and sales have remained lower in comparison 

for the stamp. 

Support may be further enhanced if the semipostal or the available 

marketing information clearly indicates how the proceeds will be used. 

Transparency is critical to fund-raising efforts, and semipostals are no 

exception. According to the BBB Wise Giving Alliance, one of the standards 
Page 36 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

for charity accountability is to clearly disclose how the charity benefits 

from the sale of product or services. American Red Cross officials also 

emphasized that providing this information to consumers is critical to fundraising efforts like semipostals. We found widespread confusion among 

advocacy groups about specifically how the Stop Family Violence stamp 

proceeds would be used. Officials added that the disclosure of where 

funding is to be directed is particularly important, given that consumers are 

increasingly savvy, and people have become increasingly skeptical about 

the distribution of charitable funds. 

Lesson Learned: 

Semipostals Generate 

Revenues Immediately 

Upon Issuance, but the 

Logistics of Using the 

Moneys Raised Takes 

Longer 

The time lag between when funds are first raised and when they are 

distributed can be considerable, depending on the type of program that the 

agency implements for distributing semipostal proceeds. Semipostal sales 

generate revenues immediately upon going on sale at post offices, and 

semipostal revenues are distributed by the Service to designated agencies 

biannually, after the Service’s reasonable costs are deducted. However, it 

can then take an additional 2 years, or longer, for the funds to be used. For 

example, the Breast Cancer Research stamp, which was authorized in 

August 1997, was first sold in July of 1998, and the initial grants resulting 

from the proceeds were awarded by DOD in June of 1999 and by NIH in 

June of 2000 (nearly 1 and 2 years after issuance); the Heroes of 2001 stamp 

was first sold in June of 2002, and the proceeds raised have not yet been 

awarded by FEMA (3 years after the stamp was issued); and the Stop 

Family Violence stamp was first available in October of 2003, and no funds 

have yet been awarded by ACF (nearly 2 years after issuance). 

When semipostals are used as a fund-raising vehicle, the time lag is a 

consideration. Agencies awarding semipostal proceeds may need to 

consider this time lag in deciding how to apply the funds, particularly for 

episodic events that may involve a fund-raising surge and short-term or 

evolving needs. For example, program and funding priorities may change 

from the time that a semipostal is launched to the time proceeds are 

actually distributed. This time lag can result in consumer skepticism of or 

disagreement with the original program selection, resulting from changing 

or new funding priorities. For example, FEMA’s plan for distributing the 

Heroes of 2001 stamp proceeds has taken about 3 years to finalize, and 

while it is clear that the initial intent of the semipostal was to “provide 

financial assistance to the families of emergency relief personnel killed or 

permanently disabled in the terrorist attacks of September 11,” other 

organizations working with these families suggested that currently, the 
Page 37 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

most prevalent needs of this group are programs and services directed at 

addressing the long-term effects of the terrorist attacks. 

The amounts raised by semipostals vary, and it is difficult to determine how 

much money will be raised by semipostal sales. For example, FEMA and 

ACF, which receive proceeds from the Heroes of 2001 and Stop Family 

Violence stamps respectively, reported to us that they delayed spending in 

these programs due to the uncertainty of how much money would be 

raised. ACF officials told us they initially expected the Stop Family 

Violence stamp to raise considerably more than it has. Once ACF officials 

realized that the amounts raised may not be sufficient to cover the planned 

programs, officials revisited their plans for the proceeds. Further, FEMA 

waited until all semipostal proceeds were received from the Service before 

pursuing its grant program. Due to the uncertainties surrounding how 

much money will be raised by semipostals, establishing a program that will 

be funded solely by semipostal proceeds may present challenges. In 

addition, attaching funds to already established mechanisms, such as 

existing grant guidelines or programs, may ease administration and allow 

for additional flexibility. For example, both the Breast Cancer Research 

and Stop Family Violence stamp proceeds are being used to distribute new 

grants within existing programs, which has allowed the agencies to make 

grants available using semipostal proceeds without developing and 

establishing the rules and regulations for new programs.

Lesson Learned: A 

Reporting Approach, Such 

as the One Included in the 

Semipostal Authorization 

Act, Can Enhance 

Accountability

Program reporting is an important standard for ensuring accountability. In 

general, we found that organizations we spoke with were unclear as to how 

semipostal proceeds were being used or would be used, and we found that 

none knew of any outcomes resulting from these funds. The Semipostal 

Authorization Act, which does not specifically apply to these three existing 

semipostals, requires that the agencies receiving funds under the act report 

to the congressional committees with jurisdiction over the Service about 

the semipostal funds received and used. Fund-raising organizations we 

spoke with, including the American Red Cross and the BBB Wise Giving 

Alliance, also recommend such reporting, pointing to the need to inform 

consumers about how proceeds have been used. Additionally, annual 

reporting may make information about program goals, plans, or funding 

mechanisms available to Congress, advocacy groups, and others earlier, 

thereby addressing some of the uncertainty that may arise between the 

initial issuance of the semipostal and the actual distribution of funds. 

Currently, none of the agencies administering the three semipostals are 

providing this degree of disclosure for semipostal programs. Agency 
Page 38 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

reporting for these semipostals is either subsumed in reports about the 

larger programs to which the proceeds are applied or has not yet been 

produced. However, these agencies do collect and track this information 

and could report it with little difficulty. 

Conclusion We found widespread agreement among most parties involved that the 

Breast Cancer Research, Heroes of 2001, and Stop Family Violence stamps 

were a success. Success can be measured in terms of funds raised, but also 

in less tangible ways, such as increased public awareness of an important 

issue. If the definition of semipostals success is narrowed specifically to 

the funds raised, however, the differences among these three make it all the 

more important to pay attention to the lessons learned, which can help in 

setting expectations for further semipostal sales.

Given that new semipostals have been proposed in Congress and the 

Service is authorized to issue additional semipostals, the potential is 

always there for new semipostals, and therefore the lessons learned may be 

helpful in any future considerations. One of these lessons—the need for 

accountability—involves actions that can still be taken on these 

semipostals, rather than just applied to future semipostals. Through the 

Semipostal Act and its related regulations, Congress and the Service have 

taken measures to develop criteria for the selection of semipostal issues, 

identification of recipient agencies, and reporting of program operations, 

but these criteria have thus far been largely bypassed due to the provisions 

that have authorized these three semipostals. These three semipostals lie 

outside the Semipostal Authorization Act, and may benefit from applying 

the reporting requirement. Additionally, if any future semipostals are 

authorized by Congress separately from this act, this type of requirement 

could be included as part of the legislation in order to ensure greater 

accountability and greater support for the semipostals.

Recommendation for 

Executive Action

To enhance accountability for semipostal proceeds, we recommend that 

the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Homeland Security, and Secretary of 

Health and Human Services annually issue reports to the congressional 

committees with jurisdiction over the Service, as is currently required for 

agencies that are to receive semipostal proceeds under the Semipostal 

Authorization Act. Reports should include information on the amount of 

funding received, accounting for how the funds were allocated or 

otherwise used, and any significant advances or accomplishments that 
Page 39 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

were funded, in whole or in part, out of the funds received through the 

semipostal program. 

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Service, ACF, 

DOD, FEMA, HHS, and NIH. The Service and DOD provided written 

comments, which are summarized below and reprinted in appendix VI and 

VII, respectively. ACF, FEMA, HHS, and NIH did not provide comments on 

this report.

The Service stated in its comments on the draft report that it generally 

agreed with the four key factors that we cited as affecting stamp sales. The 

Service agreed that the fund-raising cause and support of advocacy groups 

were key factors in the stamps’ success. However, the Service suggested 

that stamp design and its promotion of the stamps seem to be of less 

importance to a semipostal stamp’s success as a fund-raiser. The Service 

said that its experience indicates that a semipostal’s design plays little role 

in its effectiveness as a fund-raiser. We based our conclusion, that stamp 

design affects the extent to which consumers support the semipostal, on 

our discussions with advocacy groups and fund-raising experts who 

expressed concern that the design of the Stop Family Violence stamp—an 

image of a crying child—may have negatively affected the sales of that 

semipostal. Therefore, we continue to believe that the design was a factor 

in the stamp’s sales. 

Regarding promotional activities for specific semipostals, the Service 

correctly noted that its current policy requires that promotional costs be 

deducted from the funds raised, which can lead to the federal agencies 

receiving less semipostal proceeds. We acknowledge that HHS chose not to 

have the Service develop an extensive advertising campaign after the 

Service changed its policy on semipostal promotional costs, and our 

finding is not meant as a criticism of the Service. Nevertheless, the striking 

differences in results leads us to conclude that the Service’s promotional 

efforts can make a difference: the Service spent about $1 million to 

promote the Breast Cancer Research stamp, which raised $44 million in

7 years; it spent about $1 million to promote the Heroes of 2001 stamp, 

which raised over $10.5 million in 2.5 years; and it spent about $77,000 to 

promote the Stop Family Violence stamp, which has raised nearly 

$2 million in 1.6 years. Our conclusion was reinforced by the fund-raising 

experts that we spoke with who agreed that in most cases there is a 

connection between the amount invested in a fund-raising effort and the 

amounts raised. 
Page 40 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

DOD concurred with our recommendation to improve reporting of how 

semipostal proceeds are used. DOD explained that the Army will include in 

its annual report to Congress on “Congressionally Directed Medical 

Research Programs” a section on DOD’s use of Breast Cancer Research 

stamp proceeds. It noted that this report will highlight significant advances 

or accomplishments that were funded, in whole or in part, through these 

proceeds.

We are sending copies of this report to Senators Dianne Feinstein and Kay 

Bailey Hutchison and Representative Joe Baca because of their interest in 

the Breast Cancer Research stamp; Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and 

Charles E. Schumer because of their interest in the Heroes of 2001 stamp; 

the Postmaster General; the Chairman of the Postal Rate Commission; and 

other interested parties. We will make copies available to others upon 

request. This report will also be available on our Web site at no charge at 

http://www.gao.gov.

If you have any question about this report, please contact me at

(202) 512-2834 or at siggerudk@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. Key contributors to this report included Gerald P. Barnes, 

Assistant Director; Kathleen Gilhooly; Molly Laster; Heather MacLeod; 

Joshua Margraf; Stan Stenersen; and Gregory Wilmoth.

Katherine A. Siggerud

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Page 41 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

To determine the amount of money raised by the semipostals, we analyzed 

semipostal sales data provided to us by the U.S. Postal Service (Service). 

For each semipostal, these data included the amount of quarterly stamp 

sales and the amount of proceeds transferred to the designated federal 

agencies. The data also included administrative costs deducted by the 

Service from the total sales amounts, which we have reported in appendix 

II.1

 To determine the reliability of the data we received, we obtained and 

reviewed specific information on the Service’s data collection methods, 

including data storage and system controls. We determined that the data 

were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report.

To identify potential factors affecting the patterns of fund-raising sales for 

each of the semipostals, we asked stakeholders for their opinions regarding 

such factors and identified common trends. As part of this effort, we spoke 

with Service officials; the American Philatelic Society; professional fundraising organizations; and national advocacy groups affiliated with breast 

cancer, emergency relief personnel affected by the terrorist attacks of 

September 11, and domestic violence. We also spoke with Dr. Ernie Bodai, 

who is credited with conceiving the idea for the Breast Cancer Research 

stamp, and Ms. Betsy Mullen, who along with Dr. Bodai lobbied Congress 

for the stamp. Additionally, we gathered information about Service and 

advocacy group efforts to promote each of the semipostals. Table 8 

identifies the stakeholders whom we spoke with.

1

Appendix II also includes a summary of changes to the Service’s cost recovery regulations, 

since our 2003 report. 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 42 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

Table 8: Agencies, Advocacy Groups, and Organizations that GAO Interviewed About Factors Affecting Semipostal Sales

Source: GAO.

To determine how the designated federal agencies have used semipostal 

proceeds and reported results, we interviewed key officials from each 

agency receiving funds. These agencies included the National Cancer 

Institute (NCI) within the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Army 

Medical Research and Materiel Command within the Department of 

Defense (DOD), the Federal Emergency Management Agency within the 

Department of Homeland Security, and the Administration for Children and 

Families within the Department of Health and Human Services. We also 

obtained and reviewed available agency documentation about grant 

programs funded with semipostal proceeds, including grant program 

development, purpose and goals, award and program guidelines, the 

number and amounts of awards, reporting requirements, performance 

measures, and grant outcomes. We did not assess each agency’s semipostal 

grant program as this was not included in the scope of our work, nor did we 

evaluate grant performance measures that might be included in agency 

reporting. 

Organizations interviewed

Breast Cancer Research Stamp Women’s Information Network Against Breast Cancer

The National Breast Cancer Coalition

The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation

The National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute

U.S. Department of Defense, Army Medical Research and Materiel Command

Heroes of 2001 Stamp The National Fallen Firefighters Foundation

The New York City Police Foundation

The September 11th Families Association

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency

Stop Family Violence Stamp The Family Violence Prevention Fund

The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence

The National Domestic Violence Hotline

The National Network to End Domestic Violence

The National Resource Center on Domestic Violence

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families

Fund-raising organizations The Association of Fundraising Professionals

The American Red Cross

The Better Business Bureau, Wise Giving Alliance
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 43 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

Finally, to describe the monetary and other resources expended by the 

Service in operating and administering the semipostal program, we 

obtained and analyzed the Service’s data on costs of administering 

semipostals as well as what costs the Service has recovered. We also 

interviewed officials in the Service’s Offices of Stamp Services and Finance 

to determine what progress the Service has made in revising its regulations. 

We spoke with officials from the Service’s Legal Counsel to determine 

whether the Service has established baseline costs for the semipostal 

program as per our prior recommendation. 
Page 44 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

Appendix II

Postal Service Semipostal Costs and 

Semipostal Cost Recovery Regulation 

Changes ApendxiI

The Service has incurred over $16.5 million on operating and administering 

the Breast Cancer Research, Heroes of 2001, and Stop Family Violence 

stamps. Of this amount, the Service has recovered about $1.8 million from 

semipostal proceeds, with the remainder recovered through the First-Class 

postage rate. The Service’s costs related to the Breast Cancer Research 

stamp have by far eclipsed costs of the other two semipostals, reflecting 

the amount of time that the stamp has been offered for sale and other 

factors. In our previous work, we expressed concern over the Service’s cost 

recovery regulations. Since our 2003 report, the Service has taken several 

steps to revise its cost recovery regulations, and has established baseline 

costs to identify and recover the Service’s reasonable costs related to the 

semipostals.

Monetary Resources 

Devoted to the Semipostals

According to Service policy, cost items recoverable from the funds raised 

by semipostals include, but are not limited to, packaging costs in excess of 

those for comparable stamps, printing costs for flyers or special receipts, 

costs of changes to equipment, costs of developing and executing 

marketing and promotional plans in excess of those for comparable 

stamps, and other costs that would not normally have been incurred for 

comparable stamps.1

 Specifically, the Service has identified 13 cost 

categories that it uses to track semipostal costs.2

 These categories include 

the following:

• stamp design;

• stamp production and printing;

• shipping and distribution;

• training;

• selling stamps;

• withdrawing stamps from sale;

• destroying unsold stamps;

1

39 C.F.R. part 551.

2

USPS June 25, 2004, report to Congress.
Appendix II

Postal Service Semipostal Costs and 

Semipostal Cost Recovery Regulation 

Changes 

Page 45 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

• advertising;

• packaging stamps;

• printing flyers and special receipts;

• equipment changes;

• developing and executing marketing and promotional plans; and

• other costs (legal, market research, and consulting).

Costs reported by the Service totaled $16.5 million through March 31, 2005 

(see table 9). Costs for the Breast Cancer Research stamp accounted for 

more than $11 million of this amount. The Service determined that about 

$1.8 million of the total costs related to the three stamps represented costs 

that were attributable specifically to the semipostals and would not 

normally have been incurred for comparable stamps, and therefore needed 

to be recovered. The recovered amounts ranged from over $1 million for 

the Breast Cancer Research stamp, to just over $200,000 for the Stop 

Family Violence stamp. The Service reported that the majority of costs 

incurred by the semipostals were covered by the First-Class postage rate, 

and not recovered from the proceeds. Table 9 describes the semipostal 

costs incurred and recovered by the Service. 

Table 9: Semipostal Costs Incurred and Recovered by the Service, through March 31, 2005

Source: U.S. Postal Service.

The specific costs recovered from surcharge revenues varied by semipostal 

not only in amount, but to a degree, in the type of expenditure as well (see

Semipostal

Total costs incurred by the

Service

Costs covered by FirstClass postage rateCosts recovered from

semipostal proceeds

Breast Cancer Research $11,160,838 $ 10,068,875 $1,091,963

Heroes of 2001 4,287,821 3,764,214 523,607

Stop Family Violence 1,085,370 861,801 223,569

Total $16,534,029 $14,694,890 $1,839,139
Appendix II

Postal Service Semipostal Costs and 

Semipostal Cost Recovery Regulation 

Changes 

Page 46 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

tables 10 to 12, which show costs for each semipostal).3 For example, when 

the Breast Cancer Research and Heroes of 2001 stamps were issued, the 

Service had a budget to advertise stamps. Both semipostals incurred 

advertising costs of about $1 million, and because advertising costs would 

be incurred for comparable stamps, the Service did not recover those costs. 

When the Stop Family Violence stamp was issued, the Service reduced its 

overall budget and eliminated, among other things, all stamp advertising, 

including that for semipostals. Subsequently, the Service established a 

policy that all costs incurred for advertising semipostals would be 

deducted from the applicable semipostal’s surcharge revenue. Therefore, 

the advertising costs incurred ($77,000) for this semipostal were recovered 

from the surcharge revenue. While policies changed for some cost 

categories, they remained consistent for others such as design and 

production and printing.

Table 10: Breast Cancer Research Stamp Costs Incurred and Recovered by the Service from Inception through March 31, 2005

3

The surcharge revenue is the amount paid above the First-Class postage rate by a 

semipostal consumer. 

Cost item Cost

Cost covered by FirstClass postage rateCost recovered from

surcharge revenue

Stamp design $40,000 $40,000 $0

Stamp production and printing 4,221,890 4,221,890 0

Shipping and distributiona 4,289 4,289 0

Training 612,000 612,000 0

Selling stamps (including employee salaries and benefits)b 0 00

Withdrawing stamp from salec 166,440 0 166,440

Destroying unsold stampsc 0 00

Advertising 888,000 888,000 0

Packaging stamps 3,510,496 3,219,696 290,800

Printing flyers and special receiptsd 238,000 0 238,000

Equipment changes 359,000 176,000 183,000

Developing and executing marketing and promotional plans 1,006,000 851,000 155,000

Other costs 

 Legal 22,000 0 22,000

 Market research 56,000 56,000 0

 Consulting 8,000 0 8,000
Appendix II

Postal Service Semipostal Costs and 

Semipostal Cost Recovery Regulation 

Changes 

Page 47 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

Source: U.S. Postal Service.

a

The process of distributing Breast Cancer Research stamps would not normally differ from those 

incurred for comparable stamps; therefore, the Service does not withhold distribution costs from the 

surcharge revenue.

b

The Service currently does not have a system in place to track the costs of selling stamps, and 

because Breast Cancer Research stamps are a small percentage of total stamp sales, it would be 

extraordinarily difficult and costly to attempt to study, analyze, and measure these costs in a live 

environment. Moreover, existing data indicate that there is no material difference in the costs for selling 

semipostal and other stamps at the retail window. 

c

Costs were incurred due to the temporary removal and later redeployment of the Breast Cancer 

Research stamp from vending machines from December 31, 2003, to January 26, 2004 (pending 

congressional authorization to extend sales of the stamp). However, the procedures for withdrawal of 

stamps from sale are the same for all stamp stock, regardless of whether the stamp is a 

commemorative, special, or semipostal; therefore, additional costs would not be incurred for normal 

withdrawal of the Breast Cancer Research stamp (until the stamp is permanently withdrawn from sale), 

and the costs will not be recovered. 

d

Receipts initially were a different format than the standard postal receipt, and the cost was recovered. 

Receipts now used are a standard form available for general use. The printing cost is no longer 

specific to the Breast Cancer Research stamp, and costs are not recovered.

Table 11: Heroes of 2001 Stamp Costs Incurred and Recovered by the Service from Inception through March 31, 2005

 Field promotion events > $3,000 28,723 0 28,723

Total $11,160,838 $10,068,875 $1,091,963

(Continued From Previous Page)

Cost item Cost

Cost covered by FirstClass postage rateCost recovered from

surcharge revenue

Cost item Cost

Cost covered by FirstClass postage rateCost recovered from

surcharge revenue

Stamp design $44,250 $44,250 $0

Stamp production and printing 1,468,600 1,468,600 0

Shipping and distributiona 0 00

Training 0 0 0

Selling stamps (including employee salaries and benefits)b

 0 00

Withdrawing stamp from sale 0 0 0

Destroying unsold stamps 0 0 0

Advertising 1,109,461 1,109,461 0

Packaging stamps 1,288,758 995,857 292,901

Printing flyers and special receipts 0 0 0

Equipment changes 0 0 0

Developing and executing marketing and promotional plans 330,084 146,046 184,038

Other costs

 Legal 0 0 0

 Market research 0 0 0
Appendix II

Postal Service Semipostal Costs and 

Semipostal Cost Recovery Regulation 

Changes 

Page 48 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

Source: U.S. Postal Service.

a

The process of distributing the Heroes of 2001 stamps would not normally differ from those incurred 

for comparable stamps. Therefore after reviewing the costs associated with shipping and distribution of 

the Heroes of 2001 stamp, there are no material differences or specific additional expenses as a result 

of providing the Heroes of 2001 stamp to postal units and, therefore, the Service does not withhold 

distribution costs from the surcharge revenue. The Service does not track shipping and distribution 

costs by stamp issue.

b

The Service does not have a system in place to track the cost of selling stamps, and because Heroes 

of 2001 stamps are a small percentage of total stamp sales, it would be extraordinarily difficult and 

costly to attempt to study, analyze and measure these costs in a live environment. Moreover, existing 

data indicate that there is no material difference in the costs for selling semipostal and other stamps at 

the retail window.

Table 12: Stop Family Violence Stamp Costs Incurred and Recovered by the Service from Inception through March 31, 2005

Source: U.S. Postal Service.

 Consulting $0 $0 $0

 Field promotion events > $3,000 46,668 0 46,668

Total $4,287,821 $3,764,214 $523,607

(Continued From Previous Page)

Cost item Cost

Cost covered by FirstClass postage rateCost recovered from

surcharge revenue

Cost item Cost

Cost covered by FirstClass postage rateCost recovered from

surcharge revenue

Stamp design $39,750 $39,750 $0

Stamp production and printing 285,000 285,000 0

Shipping and distributiona

 0 00

Training 0 00

Selling stamps (including employee salaries and benefits)b 0 00

Withdrawing stamp from sale 0 0 0

Destroying unsold stamps 0 0 0

Advertisingc 77,069 0 77,069

Packaging stamps 663,873 523,873 140,000

Printing flyers and special receipts 0 0 0

Equipment changes 0 0 0

Developing and executing marketing and promotional plans 13,178 13,178 0

Other costs

 Legal 0 00

 Market research 0 0 0

 Consulting 0 0 0

 Field promotion events > $3,000 6,500 0 6,500

Total $1,085,370 $861,801 $223,569
Appendix II

Postal Service Semipostal Costs and 

Semipostal Cost Recovery Regulation 

Changes 

Page 49 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

a

The process of distributing Stop Family Violence stamps would not normally differ from those incurred 

for comparable stamps. Therefore after reviewing the costs associated with shipping and distribution of 

the Stop Family Violence stamp there are no material differences or specific additional expenses as a 

result of providing the Stop Family Violence stamp to postal units and, therefore, the Service does not 

withhold distribution costs from the surcharge revenue. The Service does not track shipping and 

distribution costs by stamp issue.

b

The Service does not have a system in place to track these costs and because Stop Family Violence 

stamps are a small percentage of total stamp sales it would be extraordinarily difficult and costly to 

attempt to study, analyze, and measure these costs in a live environment. Moreover, existing data 

indicate that there is no material difference in the costs for selling semipostal and other stamps at the 

retail window.

c

Advertising costs are recovered from the differential revenue only for the Stop Family Violence stamp. 

Beginning in 2003, the Service made a determination not to advertise comparable commemorative 

stamps. As a result, the advertising costs for the Stop Family Violence stamp have been recovered 

from differential revenue because they were incurred after the policy became effective. All of these 

costs are recovered, because the cost for this line item for comparable stamps would be zero. 

Advertising costs for previously issued semipostals were not deducted from differential revenue 

because they were incurred before the policy became effective. 

Progress in Revising 

Regulations Related to 

Costs 

In our September 2003 report on the Breast Cancer Research stamp, we 

recommended that the Service reexamine and, as necessary revise its costrecovery regulations to ensure that the Service establishes baseline costs 

for comparable stamps and uses these baselines to identify and recover 

costs from the Breast Cancer Research stamp’s surcharge revenue. The 

Service has taken several steps to revise its regulations including the 

following:

1. The final rule in 39 C.F.R. §551.8, in effect since February 5, 2004, 

clarifies Service cost offset policies and procedures for the semipostal 

program. Specific changes include

• expanding the types of “comparable stamps” that could be used in 

conducting cost comparisons to allow other types of stamps (such as 

definitive or special issue stamps) to serve as a baseline for cost 

comparisons;

• allowing for the use of different comparable stamps for specific cost 

comparisons; 

• clarifying that costs that do not need to be tracked include not only 

costs that are too burdensome to track, but also those costs that are 

too burdensome to estimate; and

• clarifying that several types of costs could be recovered when they 

materially exceed the costs of comparable stamps.
Appendix II

Postal Service Semipostal Costs and 

Semipostal Cost Recovery Regulation 

Changes 

Page 50 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

2. The Service also amended the regulation 39 C.F.R. §551.8(e) effective 

February 9, 2005, to delete the word “may” from the cost items 

recoverable from the surcharge revenue, making the recovery of the 

costs listed mandatory rather than optional.

Additionally, we have recommended that the Service establish and publish 

baseline costs to provide assurance that the Service is recovering all 

reasonable costs of the Breast Cancer Research stamp from the surcharge 

revenue. In response, on June 25, 2004, the Service provided a copy of its 

baseline analysis to both Congress and GAO in a report entitled United 

States Postal Service: Response to the General Accounting Office 

Recommendations on the Breast Cancer Research Stamp. In this analysis, 

the Office of Stamp Services and Office of Accounting identified 

comparable stamps and created a profile of the typical costs 

characteristics, thereby establishing a baseline for Breast Cancer Research 

stamp cost recovery. Additionally, Service officials reported that they 

would use the baseline for the other semipostals.
Page 51 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

Appendix III

Semipostal Design ApendxiI

Congress has selected the subject matter for the three semipostals issued 

to date. In each case, the Service has then applied the same design process 

used for regular commemorative stamps. According to Service officials, 

most subjects that appear on commemorative stamps are the result of 

suggestions sent in by the public, which number about 50,000 annually. In 

the case of commemorative stamps, the Postmaster General determines 

what stamps will be produced with the assistance of the Citizens’ Stamp 

Advisory Committee (CSAC), which works on behalf of the Postmaster 

General to evaluate the merits of all stamp proposals and selects artwork 

that best represents the subject matter. Since the three existing semipostals 

were mandated by Congress, the Service and CSAC were not involved in 

selecting the subject matter. However, the rest of the stamp design process 

was the same, with CSAC determining what design would be used, and the 

Postmaster General giving final approval. Figure 8 shows the three 

semipostals.

Figure 8: The Breast Cancer Research, Heroes of 2001, and Stop Family Violence Stamps

Source: U.S. Postal Service.
Appendix III

Semipostal Design

Page 52 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

Breast Cancer Research 

Stamp

The Breast Cancer Research stamp was designed by Ethel Kessler of 

Bethesda, MD, and features the phrases "Fund the Fight" and "Find a Cure." 

Whitney Sherman of Baltimore provided the illustration of Diana, mythical 

goddess of the hunt, who is reaching behind her head to pull an arrow from 

her quiver to fend off an enemy—in this case, breast cancer. This image 

reflects the same position that a woman assumes for a breast self 

examination and mammography. The various colors represent the diversity 

of Americans affected by breast cancer. 

Heroes of 2001 Stamp The Heroes of 2001 stamp was designed by Derry Noyes of Washington, 

D.C., and features a detail of a photograph by Thomas E. Franklin. The 

photograph shows three firefighters, each of whom participated in the 

September 11 rescue efforts, raising the U.S. flag in the ruins of the World 

Trade Center at Ground Zero in New York. The flag had been discovered in 

a boat near the area and was raised on a pole found in the rubble. The 

space between the foreground and background of the picture, which was 

about 100 yards, helps convey the enormity of the debris and the task at 

hand. According to the photographer, the raising of the flag symbolizes the 

strength of the firefighters and of the American people battling the 

unimaginable. All three firefighters and the photographer attended the 

stamp’s unveiling ceremony, which marked the 6-month anniversary of the 

September 11 terrorist attacks.

Stop Family Violence Stamp When art director Carl T. Herrman selected Monique Blais, a six-year-old 

from Santa Barbara, CA, to model for a photograph that was to be the 

original design of the Stop Family Violence stamp, his intention was to 

photograph Blais erasing a domestic violence image from a chalkboard—

symbolizing eradication of the issue. During a break in the photo session, 

however, and without prompting, Blais began drawing her own picture of 

what she thought best represented domestic violence. Photographed by 

Philip Channing, Blais’s drawing became the basis for the final Stop Family 

Violence stamp design, which was later selected by a jury at the 34th Asiago 

International Prize for Philatelic Art, in Asiago, Italy as the most beautiful 

social awareness-themed stamp issued during 2003. The young artist 

attended the stamp’s unveiling ceremony at the White House in 2003.
Page 53 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

Appendix IV

NIH Breast Cancer Research Awards Funded 

with Breast Cancer Research Stamp Proceeds ApendxiIV

As of April 2005, NIH had awarded 106 breast cancer research grants 

totaling about $16.1 million using proceeds from the Breast Cancer 

Research stamp. Individual awards ranged from $47,250 to $616,010 and 

averaged about $151,652. Funds received from sales of the Breast Cancer 

Research stamp were initially used to fund breast cancer research under 

NCI’s “Insight Awards to Stamp Out Breast Cancer” initiative, according to 

NIH officials. In 2003, NCI’s Executive Committee decided to direct the 

funds to a newly approved Breast Cancer Research stamp initiative entitled 

“Exceptional Opportunities in Breast Cancer Research.” Grants awarded 

under each program are listed below.

Insight Awards The Insight Awards were designed to fund high-risk exploration by 

scientists who are employed outside the federal government and who 

conduct breast cancer research at their institutions. NCI distributed 86 

Insight Awards at a total of about $9.5 million. Most of the awards were for 

2-year periods. Individual awards ranged from $47,250 to $142,500 and 

averaged $111,242, discounting a one-time supplement of $4,300. Table 13 

provides information about each Insight Award funded with Breast Cancer 

Research stamp proceeds, including the fiscal year of the award, 

sponsoring institution, principal investigator, research area, and the 

amount of the award.

Table 13: Insight Awards to Stamp Out Breast Cancer Funded with Proceeds, as of April 2005, from Breast Cancer Research 

Stamp Sales

Fiscal year Institution Principal investigator Research area Amount

2000 Albany Medical College Bennett Treatment $116,250

2000 Baylor College of Medicine Rosen Metastasis 78,488

2000 Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Junghans Biology 130,500

2000 Center for Molecular Medicine and 

Immunology/Garden State Cancer Center

Blumenthal Treatment 142,500

2000 Clemson University Chen Biology/metastasis 105,000

2000 Columbia University Health Sciences Swergold Mutagenesis 127,875

2000 Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Kufe Biology/ tumorigenesis 126,138

2000 Fox Chase Cancer Center Russo Tumorigenesis 126,866

2000 Georgetown University Wong Biology/diagnosis 116,950

2000 Hadassah University Hospital Vlodavsky Metastasis 61,000

2000 Henry M. Jackson Foundation Lechleider Biology/metastasis 74,000
Appendix IV

NIH Breast Cancer Research Awards Funded 

with Breast Cancer Research Stamp Proceeds

Page 54 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

2000 Institute for Cancer Research Yeung Prevention/biology $126,866

2000 Long Island Jewish Medical Center Shi Treatment/nutrition 116,616

2000 Massachusetts General Hospital Haber Tumorigenesis 129,500

2000 Mount Sinai School of Medicine Kretzschmar Metastasis 125,387

2000 Schepens Eye Research Institute D’Amore Biology/ tumorigenesis 121,500

2000 State University of New York Muti Treatment/nutrition 68,950

2000 Thomas Jefferson University Sauter Diagnosis 117,851

2000 University of California, Irvine Blumberg Treatment 105,946

2000 University of California, San Francisco Collins Treatment 110,625

2000 University of Hawaii Gotay Treatment 101,000

2000 University of Illinois at Chicago Westbrook Metastasis 116,475

2000 University of Massachusetts, Amherst Jerry Biology/tumorigenesis 115,125

2000 University of Melbourne Thompson Metastasis 75,000

2000 University of Pennsylvania Lemmon Biology/treatment 118,875

2000 University of Pennsylvania Radice Metastasis 118,875

2000 University of Pittsburgh Nichols Biology/treatment 112,500

2000 University of Utah Grissom Treatment 112,125

2000 University of Vermont Krag Treatment 113,250

2000 Virginia Mason Research Center Nelson Biology/treatment 47,250

2000 Wake Forest University Shelness Treatment 108,750

2000 Yale University Zhang Biology/ tumorigenesis 122,625

2001 Albany Medical College of Union University Bennett Treatment 116,250

2001 Baylor College of Medicine Rosen Metastasis 109,322

2001 Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Junghans Biology 128,509

2001 Clemson University Chen Biology/metastasis 105,000

2001 Columbia University Health Sciences Fisher Treatment 127,875

2001 Columbia University Health Sciences Swergold Mutagenesis 127,875

2001 Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Garber Prevention 128,750

2001 Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Kufe Biology/ tumorigenesis 99,297

2001 Fox Chase Cancer Center Russo Tumorigenesis 126,133

2001 Garden State Cancer Center Blumenthal Treatment 142,500

2001 Georgetown University Dickson Tumorigenesis 116,600

2001 Georgetown University Byers Prognosis/biology 116,550

2001 Georgetown University Wong Biology/diagnosis 116,400

2001 Hadassah University Hospital Vlodavsky Metastasis 61,000

2001 Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the 

Advancement of Military Medicine

Lechleider Biology/metastasis 74,000

(Continued From Previous Page)

Fiscal year Institution Principal investigator Research area Amount
Appendix IV

NIH Breast Cancer Research Awards Funded 

with Breast Cancer Research Stamp Proceeds

Page 55 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

2001 Institute for Cancer Research Yeung Prevention/biology $126,133

2001 Johns Hopkins University Fedarko Metastasis 122,750

2001 Long Island Jewish Medical Center Shi Treatment/nutrition 117,050

2001 Massachusetts General Hospital Haber Tumorigenesis 127,500

2001 Medical Diagnostic Research Foundation Chance Diagnosis 92,500

2001 Mount Sinai School of Medicine of New York 

University

Kretzschmar Metastasis 127,125

2001 Northwestern University Jordan Prevention 110,250

2001 Schepens Eye Research Institute D’Amore Biology/tumorigenesis 121,500

2001 Stanford University Contag Diagnosis/ metastasis 119,597

2001 Thomas Jefferson University Sauter Diagnosis 119,148

2001 University of California, Irvine Radany Biology 112,800

2001 University of California, Irvine Blumberg Treatment 112,800

2001 University of California, San Francisco Collins Treatment 110,625

2001 University of Hawaii, Manoa Gotay Treatment 99,411

2001 University of Illinois Westbrook Metastasis 115,959

2001 University of Massachusetts, Amherst Jerry Biology/tumorigenesis 112,431

2001 University of Melbourne Thompson Metastasis 75,000

2001 University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Sheaff Biology/prevention 111,375

2001 University of Pennsylvania Lemmon Biology/treatment 118,875

2001 University of Pennsylvania Radice Metastasis 118,875

2001 University of Pittsburgh Nichols Biology/treatment 112,323

2001 University of Utah Grissom Treatment 112,500

2001 University of Vermont and State Agricultural 

College

Krag Treatment 112,302

2001 Virginia Mason Research Center Nelson Biology/treatment 47,250

2001 Wake Forest University Shelness Treatment 108,375

2001 Wayne State University Fernandez-Madri Diagnosis 111,750

2001 Whitehead Institute for Biomed Res Weinberg Biology 116,250

2001 Yale University Zhang Biology/tumorigenesis 122,625

2002 Columbia University Health Sciences Fisher Treatment 122,799

2002 Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Garber Prevention 128,375

2002 Fox Chase Cancer Center Russo Tumorigenesis 4,300

2002 Georgetown University Dickson Tumorigenesis 116,400

2002 Georgetown University Byers Prognosis/biology 116,400

2002 Johns Hopkins University Fedarko Metastasis 114,274

2002 Medical Diagnostic Research Foundation Chance Diagnosis 103,350

(Continued From Previous Page)

Fiscal year Institution Principal investigator Research area Amount
Appendix IV

NIH Breast Cancer Research Awards Funded 

with Breast Cancer Research Stamp Proceeds

Page 56 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

Sources: NCI, NIH.

Exceptional Opportunity 

Awards

The Exceptional Opportunities were designed to advance breast cancer 

research by funding high-quality, peer-reviewed, breast cancer grant 

applications that are outside the current funding ability of NCI. When NIH 

began awarding these grants, the number of annual awards decreased from 

about 29 per year to 10, while the average amount tripled. In all, NCI 

dispersed Breast Cancer Research stamp proceeds to 20 Exceptional 

Opportunities awards, each funded for a maximum of 4 years. The awards 

totaled about $6.6 million and covered research areas that included 

prevention, diagnosis, biology, and treatment. Individual awards ranged 

from $81,000 to $616,010 and averaged $330,763. Table 14 provides 

information about each Exceptional Opportunities Award, including the 

fiscal year of the award, sponsoring institution, principal investigator, 

research area, and the amount of the award.

Table 14: Exceptional Opportunities in Breast Cancer Research Funded with Proceeds, as of April 2005, from Breast Cancer 

Research Stamp Sales

2002 University of California, Irvine Radany Biology $112,800

2002 University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Sheaff Biology/prevention 111,375

2002 Wayne State University Fernandez-Madrid Diagnosis 111,750

2002 Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research Weinberg Biology 116,250

Total insight awards $9,459,871

(Continued From Previous Page)

Fiscal year Institution Principal investigator Research area Amount

Fiscal year Institution Principal investigator Research area Amount

2003 Columbia University Health Sciences Harlap Prevention $616,010

2003 Johns Hopkins University Ouwerkerk Diagnosis 154,852

2003 Northwestern University Huang Diagnosis/Biology 389,482

2003 St. Vincent's Institute of Med. Res. Price Biology/treatment 108,000

2003 University of California Irvine Neuhausen Biology/prevention 545,271

2003 University of Pennsylvania Lee Treatment/Biology 198,759

2003 University of Pittsburgh at Pittsburgh Niener Diagnosis 405,009

2003 University of Texas Medical Br Galveston Lu Prevention/Biology 532,409

2003 University of Toronto Vogel Biology/treatment 81,000

2003 University of Wisconsin Madison Schuler Biology/treatment 268,791

2004 Columbia University Health Sciences Harlap Prevention 604,299
Appendix IV

NIH Breast Cancer Research Awards Funded 

with Breast Cancer Research Stamp Proceeds

Page 57 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

Sources: NCI, NIH.

2004 Johns Hopkins University Ouwerkerk Diagnosis $157,176

2004 Northwestern University Huang Diagnosis/Biology 389,522

2004 St. Vincent's Institute of Med. Res. Price Biology/treatment 108,000

2004 University of California Irvine Neuhausen Biology/prevention 545,576

2004 University of Pennsylvania Lee Treatment/Biology 198,759

2004 University of Pittsburgh at Pittsburgh Niener Diagnosis 410,688

2004 University of Texas Medical Br. Galveston Lu Prevention/Biology 566,037

2004 University of Toronto Vogel Biology/treatment 81,000

2004 University of Wisconsin Madison Schuler Biology/treatment 254,625

Total exceptional opportunities $6,615,265

(Continued From Previous Page)

Fiscal year Institution Principal investigator Research area Amount
Page 58 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

Appendix V

DOD Breast Cancer Research Awards Funded 

with Breast Cancer Research Stamp Proceeds ApendxiV

As of April 2005, DOD had awarded 27 breast cancer research grants 

totaling about $11 million using proceeds from the Breast Cancer Research 

stamp. Individual awards ranged from $5,000 to $767,171 and averaged 

$400,405. DOD applies Breast Cancer Research stamp proceeds to its 

Breast Cancer Research Program in order to fund Idea Awards, which are 

grants that focus on innovative approaches to breast cancer research and 

cover research areas such as genetics, biology, imaging, epidemiology, 

immunology, and therapy. According to DOD officials, about $500,000 of 

the transferred funds had been used for overhead costs.1

 Table 15 provides 

information about each Idea Award funded with Breast Cancer Research 

stamp proceeds, including the fiscal year of the award, sponsoring 

institution, principal investigator, research area, and the amount of the 

award.

Table 15: Idea Awards for Breast Cancer Research Funded with Proceeds, as of April 2005, from Breast Cancer Research Stamp 

Sales 

1

In fiscal year 2001, DOD started to deduct overhead costs from the surcharge revenue. DOD 

estimates overhead costs at 8 percent annually. Any savings in overhead are added to the 

funds available to research. Overhead costs have averaged about 5.6 percent since DOD 

started recovering them. DOD’s standard policy is to deduct administrative costs from all 

sources of funding used for its Breast Cancer Research Program.

Fiscal 

year Institution Principal investigator Research area Amount

1999 University of Texas, SW Medical Center White Molecular Biology $334,094

1999 University of Arkansas Shah Cell Biology 279,000

1999 University of California, Davis Heyer Molecular Biology 111,444

1999 Garvan Institute Daly Cell Biology 283,649

1999 Garvan Institute Musgrove Cell Biology 222,652

1999 Texas A&M University Wang Imaging 317,510

1999 Scripps Institute Deuel Molecular Biology 5,000

1999 Tel Aviv University Wreschner Cell Biology 225,000

2000 Burnham Institute Adamson Cell Biology 578,183

2000 University of Arizona Akporiaye Immunology 454,500

2000 University of Toronto Penn Molecular Biology 296,142

2001 University of California, Davis Carraway Cell Biology 427,225

2001 Purdue University Geahlen Cell Biology 425,425

2001 St. Luke’s – Roosevelt Hospital Center Rosner Cell Biology 454,181
Appendix V

DOD Breast Cancer Research Awards Funded 

with Breast Cancer Research Stamp Proceeds

Page 59 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

 Sources: U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, DOD.

2001 University of Texas, SW Medical Center Chaudhary Cell Biology $312,434

2001 Vanderbilt University Cai Epidemiology/Genetics 560,144

2002 University of South Florida Dou Therapy 491,999

2002 Fox Chase Cancer Center Godwin Genetics 504,000

2002 Yale University Perkins Genetics 490,500

2003 International Agency for Cancer Research Kaaks Epidemiology/Genetics 367,639

2003 University of California, San Francisco Ziv Epidemiology/Genetics 767,171

2003 Yale University Chung Diagnostics 490,447

2003 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Yaswen Molecular Biology 508,790

2004 Vanderbilt University Giorgio Diagnosis 453,000

2004 Northern California Cancer Center Clarke Epidemiology/Genetics 588,738

2004 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Bissell Cell Biology 386,569

2004 University of Pennsylvania Lemmon Therapy 475,500

Total $10,810,936

(Continued From Previous Page)

Fiscal 

year Institution Principal investigator Research area Amount
Page 60 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

Appendix VI

Comments from the U.S. Postal Service ApendxiVI
Appendix VI

Comments from the U.S. Postal Service

Page 61 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps
Page 62 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps

Appendix VII

Comments from the Department of Defense ApendxiVI
Appendix VII

Comments from the Department of Defense

(542056) Page 63 GAO-05-953 Fund-Raising Stamps
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.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

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.”

Order by Mail or Phone 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

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Congressional 

Relations

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

Public Affairs 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