Report to the Subcommittees on 

Homeland Security, Senate and House 

Committees on Appropriations 

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO

May 2004 COAST GUARD 

Station Spending 

Requirements Met, but 

Better Processes 

Needed to Track 

Designated Funds 

GAO-04-704 
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-704.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Margaret 

Wrightson at (415) 904-2200 or 

wrightsonm@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-704, a report to the 

Subcommittees on Homeland Security, 

Senate and House Committees on 

Appropriations 

May 2004

COAST GUARD

Station Spending Requirements Met, But 

Better Processes Needed to Track 

Designated Funds

According to our analyses of available data, and anecdotal and other 

information, it appears that the Coast Guard spent at least $15.7 million 

more to improve readiness at its multimission stations in fiscal year 2003 

than it did the previous year. However, this statement cannot be made with 

certainty, because the Coast Guard’s databases do not fully identify 

expenditures at the station level. GAO worked with the Coast Guard to 

develop expenditure estimates for the stations, using budget plans and 

available expenditure data, and this effort produced full or partial estimates 

for three of the four categories—staffing, personal protection equipment, 

and personnel retention efforts. For these three categories, fiscal year 2003 

expenditure estimates were at least $20.5 million more than the previous 

year, or about $4.8 million more than the $15.7 million designated 

appropriation. Although estimates could not be developed for training 

expenditures, other available information indicates that training levels 

increased in fiscal year 2003. Taken together, these results suggest that the 

Coast Guard complied with Congress’ direction to increase spending for 

stations by $15.7 million. 

Federal management guidelines and internal control standards call for 

greater accountability for designated—earmarked—appropriations than was 

provided by the processes the Coast Guard had in place to track these funds. 

The purpose of an earmark is to ensure agencies spend a certain amount of 

their appropriated funds for a specific purpose. Guidelines and standards 

indicate that agencies should account for the obligation and expenditure of 

earmarked appropriations—a step the Coast Guard thoroughly implemented 

only for personal protection equipment. Coast Guard officials developed a 

plan showing how they planned to spend the earmark, but such a plan, while 

useful as an indication of an agency’s intentions, is not sufficient to show 

that the earmark was expended in accordance with congressional direction.

Coast Guard Response Boat and a Multimission Station 

Source: GAO. Source: Coast Guard.

The Coast Guard conducts 

homeland security and search and 

rescue operations from nearly 200 

shoreside stations along the 

nation’s coasts and waterways. 

After several rescue mishaps that 

resulted in the deaths of civilians 

and station personnel, Congress 

recognized a need to improve 

performance at stations and 

appropriated additional funds to 

increase stations’ readiness levels. 

For fiscal year 2003, the Coast 

Guard received designated funds of 

$15.7 million specifically to 

increase spending for stations’ 

staffing, personal protection 

equipment (such as life vests and 

cold weather protection suits), 

personnel retention, and training 

needs. Congress directed GAO to 

determine if the Coast Guard’s 

fiscal year 2003 outlays for stations 

increased by this amount over 

fiscal year 2002 expenditure levels. 

GAO also assessed the adequacy of 

the processes used by the Coast 

Guard to account for the 

expenditure of designated funds. 

To provide greater assurance that 

appropriated funds are spent as 

Congress directs, GAO 

recommends that the Coast Guard 

develop processes to accurately 

and completely account for the 

obligation and expenditure of 

designated appropriations. The 

Coast Guard agreed with the need 

for such processes and said it 

would examine ways to implement 

them. 
Page i GAO-04-704 Coast Guard Stations 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 3

Expenditures for Stations Cannot Be Fully Determined, but 

Estimates Appear to Exceed the Required Increase 5

Better Accountability of Expenditures Is Needed to Ensure That 

Earmarks Are Appropriately Spent 9

Conclusions 11

Recommendation for Executive Action 11

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 12

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 13 

Appendix II Estimated Costs and Fiscal Year Differences for Stations 

by Earmark Category 17 

Fiscal Year 2003 Station Estimated Expenditures by Category 17

Increases in Levels of Effort from Fiscal Year 2002 to Fiscal Year 

2003 Indicate Earmark Compliance 22

Appendix III GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 25 

GAO Contacts 25

Staff Acknowledgments 25

Tables 

Table 1: Comparison of Levels of Effort at Stations, Fiscal Years 

2002 and 2003 8

Table 2: Cost of Basic and Cold Weather PPE Used by Station 

Personnel 19

Table 3: Examples of Indirect Retention Efforts by Stations in 

Fiscal Year 2003 22

Table 4: Comparison of Number and Cost of Active Duty Personnel 

Assigned to Stations, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 22

Figures 

Figure 1: Station Crew Member Wearing Cold Weather PPE 20

Contents 
Page ii GAO-04-704 Coast Guard Stations 

Abbreviations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

OIG Office of Inspector General, Department of Transportation 

PPE Personal Protection Equipment 

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

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
Page 1 GAO-04-704 Coast Guard Stations 

May 28, 2004 

The Honorable Thad Cochran 

Chairman 

The Honorable Robert C. Byrd 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Homeland Security 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Harold Rogers 

Chairman 

The Honorable Martin Olav Sabo 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Homeland Security 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 

The nearly 200 Coast Guard multimission stations that dot the nation’s 

coastline and interior waterways play an important role in two main Coast 

Guard missions—finding and rescuing mariners in danger on the water 

and protecting the nation’s coastline as part of the overall homeland 

security effort. In 2001, a review conducted after a series of search and 

rescue mishaps found that readiness at these stations was decreasing.1

 In 

response, Congress began a multiyear funding effort designed to increase 

staffing, training, and equipment levels at the stations. As part of this 

effort, Congress provided a $15.7 million earmark2

 in the Coast Guard’s 

fiscal year 2003 appropriation specifically to support multimission station 

operations. In doing so, Congress also directed us to review Coast Guard 

expenditures to determine if fiscal year 2003 outlays (levels of effort) for 

stations had increased compared with fiscal year 2002 levels by this 

 1

Office of Inspector General, Department of Transportation, Audit of the Small Boat 

Station Search and Rescue Program, MH-2001-094 (Washington, D.C.: September 14, 2001) 

and June 13, 2001, Testimony by the Honorable Kenneth M. Mead, Inspector General, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, CC-2001-184. 

2

An earmark refers to funds set aside within an appropriation for a specified purpose. In 

addition to setting aside funds, the earmark might also provide spending floors by stating 

that not less than a certain amount must be used for the specified project. 

United States General Accounting Office 

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-04-704 Coast Guard Stations 

amount.3 This report discusses the results of our analysis of Coast Guard 

spending in four categories of station activity—staffing,4

 personal 

protection equipment,5

 personnel retention efforts, and training. It also 

provides our assessment of the adequacy of the processes used by the 

Coast Guard to account for earmarked expenditures. This report is the 

first of two reviews looking at multimission station operations. The 

second, which focuses on station readiness issues, will be issued in the 

summer of 2004. 

Our work is based on an analysis of Coast Guard budget and expenditure 

data, including special data runs prepared by the Coast Guard, surveys of 

field units, and verification of supporting information from a selected 

sample of multimission stations. As discussed below, the resulting data 

were limited in a number of respects. However, we did determine that, 

where available, the data were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of 

providing general estimates of expenditures. Appendix I explains in more 

detail the scope of our work, the methodology we used, and the ways in 

which we went about assessing the reliability of the data. We conducted 

our work from August 2003 to April 2004 and did so in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Based on our analysis of available quantifiable data—actual and 

estimated—as well as anecdotal and other qualitative information we were 

able to obtain, it appears that the Coast Guard spent at least $15.7 million 

 3

P.L. 108-7, Division 1, Title 1 (Consolidated Appropriation Resolution, 2003). The specific 

language for the appropriation reads as follows: “Not less than $15,686,000 shall be used 

solely to increase staffing at search and rescue stations, surf stations and command 

centers; increase the training and experience level of individuals serving in said stations 

through targeted retention efforts; revise personnel policies and expand training programs; 

and to modernize and improve the quantity and quality of personal safety equipment, 

including survival suits, for personnel assigned to said stations.” The specific language for 

our review reads as follows: “The Comptroller General of the United States shall audit and 

certify to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that the funding described 

in the preceding proviso is being used solely to supplement and not supplant the Coast 

Guard’s level of effort in this area in fiscal year 2002.” 

4

Staffing costs include estimated salary, travel, medical, training, and administrative 

expenses. 

5

Coast Guard personnel use personal protection equipment to protect against various 

dangers, such as inclement weather and cold water exposure. Personal protection 

equipment includes items such as life vests, helmets, goggles, gloves, cold weather 

protection suits, thermal underwear, and electronic location devices. 

Results in Brief 
Page 3 GAO-04-704 Coast Guard Stations 

more to improve readiness at its multimission stations in fiscal year 2003 

than it did the previous year. However, this statement cannot be made 

with certainty, because the Coast Guard’s databases do not fully identify 

expenditure data at the station level. Lacking such data, we worked with 

the Coast Guard to develop expenditure estimates through the use of 

budget plans and available estimated and actual expenditure information. 

This effort produced full or partial estimates for three of the four 

categories—staffing, personal protection equipment, and personnel 

retention efforts. A comparison of these estimates for fiscal years 2002 and 

2003 indicated that the fiscal year 2003 total was at least $20.5 million 

more than the total for the previous year, or about $4.8 million more than 

the $15.7 million earmark. The Coast Guard was not able to develop 

estimates for the fourth category—training—despite extensive efforts to 

do so. However, available anecdotal information indicates that the amount 

of training provided to station personnel in fiscal year 2003 increased. 

Taken together, these results suggest—but do not clearly demonstrate—

that the Coast Guard complied with the mandate. 

Federal management guidelines and internal control standards call for 

greater accountability for earmarked appropriations than was 

demonstrated by the Coast Guard. These guidelines and standards indicate 

that agencies should account for the obligation and expenditure of 

earmarked appropriations both as a sound accounting practice and to 

demonstrate compliance in the event of an audit. Although the Coast 

Guard had taken steps to account for personal protection equipment 

expenditures, it did not have adequate processes in place to account for 

earmarked funds spent on station staffing and training. Coast Guard 

officials had also developed a plan to show how they intended to spend 

the earmark, but such a plan, while useful as an indicator of Coast Guard 

intentions, is not sufficient to show that the earmark was expended in 

accordance with congressional direction. 

We are recommending that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland 

Security direct the Commandant of the Coast Guard to develop, in 

accordance with fiscal year 2004 departmental guidelines, processes to 

accurately and completely account for the obligation and expenditure of 

earmarked appropriations. In commenting on a draft of this report, Coast 

Guard officials generally agreed with this recommendation. 

Multimission stations, formerly referred to as small boat stations, are 

involved in all Coast Guard missions, including search and rescue, 

recreational and commercial fishing vessel safety, marine environmental 

response, and law enforcement activities such as drug and migrant 

Background 
Page 4 GAO-04-704 Coast Guard Stations 

interdiction. Search and rescue has traditionally been the stations’ top 

priority. However, after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the 

Coast Guard elevated the maritime homeland security mission to a level 

commensurate with the search and rescue mission. 

Congress’s actions to provide the Coast Guard with an additional $15.7 

million for these stations in fiscal year 2003 was part of a longer-standing 

effort to address readiness concerns. In 2001, Congress directed the 

Department of Transportation’s Office of Inspector General (OIG)6

 to 

conduct a thorough review of the operational readiness capability of 

stations, following a series of accidents involving search and rescue efforts 

initiated at these stations.7

 The OIG reported that readiness levels at 

stations had been deteriorating for more than 20 years and were 

continuing to decline. In response, Congress provided an earmarked 

appropriation in fiscal year 2002 and directed the Inspector General to 

review the use of the earmarked funds.8

 The OIG found that the Coast 

Guard generally complied with the intent of the earmark but also 

concluded that improving operational readiness at stations would require 

a substantial and sustained investment. The OIG also recommended that 

to improve congressional oversight of expenditures, the Coast Guard 

should make improvements to its accounting system to allow for the 

tracking of certain station expenditures.9

Since the additional funding efforts began, in fiscal year 2002, Coast Guard 

officials told us they have, among other actions, added approximately 

1,100 personnel10 to stations, increased levels of personal protection 

equipment for station personnel, and started to replace old and 

nonstandard boats with new standard boats. In December 2002 the Coast 

 6

The Coast Guard was located within the Department of Transportation until it was 

transferred to the Department of Homeland Security on March 1, 2003. 

7

House of Representatives Conference Report 106-940, Department of Transportation and 

Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001, (P.L. 106-346). At the time, the Coast Guard 

was a Department of Transportation agency. 

8

P.L. 107-87, Title I, (Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations 

Act, 2002). 

9

Office of Inspector General, Department of Transportation, Audit of the Use of Fiscal Year 

2002 Funds to Improve the Operational Readiness of Small Boat Stations and Command 

Centers, MH-2003-028 (Washington, D.C.: March 3, 2003). 

10This figure reflects the number of active duty personnel assigned to stations, rather than 

the number of authorized positions. 
Page 5 GAO-04-704 Coast Guard Stations 

Guard also developed, in response to a recommendation from the OIG in 

its 2001 report11 and at the direction of the Senate Appropriations 

Committee,12 a draft strategic plan to guide the recruiting and hiring of 

personnel. In its 2002 report, the OIG criticized the plan for being too 

general in nature, specifically regarding how and when the Coast Guard 

will increase staffing, training, equipment, and experience levels at 

stations. 

Because the Coast Guard’s automated databases are not set up in such a 

way that they can fully identify expenditure data at the station level, we 

were unable to fully determine expenditures for all four categories. 

However, through a combination of data runs and unit surveys performed 

at our request, the Coast Guard was able to estimate staffing and 

personnel retention expenditures, and develop actual expenditure data for 

personal protection equipment (PPE). Within these three categories, the 

Coast Guard estimates it spent at least $291 million in fiscal year 2003. The 

information available by category was as follows: 

• Staffing: The Coast Guard incurred estimated costs of $277.6 million13

for 5,474 active duty personnel14 assigned to stations during fiscal year 

2003. 

 11OIG, MH-2001-094, p. iii. 

12Senate Report 107-38, Senate Committee on Appropriations, in report accompanying the 

Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002 (P. L. 107-

87). 

13This estimate was developed using a personnel cost formula, which the Coast Guard uses 

to budget for future personnel costs. The formula produces an average cost per person per 

pay grade. 

Expenditures for 

Stations Cannot Be 

Fully Determined, but 

Estimates Appear to 

Exceed the Required 

Increase 
Page 6 GAO-04-704 Coast Guard Stations 

This figure does not include costs for the 1,657 reserve personnel assigned 

to stations, or an unknown number of auxiliary personnel. 

• PPE: Reported expenditures for this category totaled $7.5 million.15

• Personnel retention: Expenditure data for all aspects of this category 

are not available. However, in one specific category—reenlistment 

bonuses—the Coast Guard expended $5.9 million for bonuses to 

boatswain’s mates and machinists assigned to stations. 

 14This figure does not reflect the Coast Guard’s authorized staffing level for multimission 

stations, which is significantly lower (4,589 positions). At the end of fiscal year 2003, the 

Coast Guard had assigned 885 personnel, or 16.2 percent of total personnel at the stations, 

without placing them in authorized, permanent positions. We did not review the impact of 

this personnel management practice on Coast Guard’s overall staffing structure. However, 

because the assignment of these personnel to stations is potentially more temporary than 

that of other personnel, there is no assurance that the Coast Guard will maintain staffing 

levels in the future. The Coast Guard, in fact, could not assure us that the fiscal year 2003 

staffing level of 5,474 would be maintained at stations. Although the Coast Guard’s goal is 

to have a one-to-one match between personnel and positions, it has been necessary to 

assign a greater number of less experienced staff to the stations, above authorized staffing 

levels, to develop required numbers of senior staff (Coast Guard officials estimate it takes 

three junior personnel to produce one senior crew member). Officials told us the Coast 

Guard staffs stations above authorized levels in order to (1) “grow” junior personnel into 

more senior positions by providing “operational” on-the-job training opportunities, and (2) 

compensate for staff attrition. Many of the less experienced staff will eventually leave the 

agency or be reassigned. According to officials, the Coast Guard is adding about 300 

additional authorized positions to stations in fiscal year 2004, and if staffing levels remain 

constant, this action will reduce the number of personnel assigned without an authorized 

position to approximately 585 personnel. In its 2002 report, the OIG questioned this 

practice and noted that the temporary status of such personnel makes it unclear whether 

they will continue to serve as dedicated station resources. The Coast Guard agreed with 

this conclusion. The Coast Guard could not assure us that the staffing level of 5,474 

personnel would be maintained at stations. 

15From a statistical perspective, this figure is best presented as an estimate due to 

indications of minor errors in Coast Guard's recording of PPE expenditure amounts for 

fiscal year 2003 (see appendix I). 
Page 7 GAO-04-704 Coast Guard Stations 

• Training:

16 Coast Guard officials attempted to identify estimated costs 

of training station personnel at national training centers during fiscal 

year 2003 but could not provide reliable data for this category. Officials 

told us the Coast Guard has separate databases that track costs 

incurred by the national training centers, but do not have a database 

that can identify training costs expended on personnel after they have 

been assigned to stations. Further, expenditures incurred by stations in 

providing on-the-job training (a significant component of total training 

provided to station personnel) were not available because the Coast 

Guard, like many agencies, does not track time spent on this type of 

training. 

Using fiscal year 2002 data derived through similar analyses, we 

determined that estimated station expenditures for fiscal year 2003 

exceeded fiscal year 2002 levels by at least $20.5 million—or $4.8 million 

more than the $15.7 million earmarked appropriation. Table 1 shows the 

differences in estimated expenditures (levels of effort) by fiscal year for 

the three categories that had available data.17 Only partial data were 

available on personnel retention, and no data were available on training 

expenditures. Although expenditure data for all personnel retention efforts 

were not available, the Coast Guard was able to provide annual 

expenditure data for reenlistment bonuses offered to selected 

multimission station personnel. Other information we gathered in 

discussions with Coast Guard personnel indicates that the Coast Guard’s 

levels of effort in station training also increased during fiscal year 2003. In 

fiscal year 2003, the Coast Guard increased the number of instructors and 

classrooms at two national training centers, which provide training to 

station and other personnel, in order to increase the number of total 

students graduated. Appendix I describes our methodology for developing 

these estimates, and appendix II contains a more detailed description of 

the data in each category. 

 16We focused on training completed by station personnel after they were assigned to 

stations, which did not include basic training (boot camp). 

17Because of data limitations, complete 2-year comparative cost estimates are available 

only for staffing and PPE. Partial cost estimates are available for personnel retention 

activities in the form of selected reenlistment bonuses, and no estimated data are available 

on station training costs. 
Page 8 GAO-04-704 Coast Guard Stations 

Table 1: Comparison of Levels of Effort at Stations, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 

Dollars in millions 

Category 

Fiscal year 2002 

estimated costs 

Fiscal year 2003 

estimated costs Difference

Staffing $263.2a $277.6a $14.4

PPE 2.5b7.5c5.0

Retention 4.8d5.9d 1.1

Total $270.5 $291.0 $20.5

Source: Coast Guard.

a

Data based on a personnel cost formula. 

b

Data based on budget estimates. 

c

Data based on survey of PPE expenditures by stations, groups, and districts. 

d

Partial data—reflects amount of reenlistment bonus expenditures distributed to station boatswain’s 

mates and machinists. 

Because complete comparative data could not be identified for all four 

categories, we cannot say with certainty that Coast Guard expenditures 

for multimission stations in fiscal year 2003 were at least $15.7 million 

above fiscal year 2002 levels. However, we believe this is a reasonable 

conclusion based on the following: 

• Although the staffing data provided to us are based on budget cost 

formulas, we determined that the data are sufficiently reliable for the 

purpose of demonstrating increases in staffing levels between the two 

years. 

• Discussions with station officials indicate that station personnel have 

sufficient levels of PPE. In its fiscal year 2002 audit, the OIG reported 

that the Coast Guard did not provide PPE for 69 percent of the 

personnel added to stations during fiscal year 2002. Our visits to a 

limited number of stations—8 out of 188 stations—and discussions 

with station personnel, indicated that all active and reserve personnel 

assigned to these stations—even newly assigned personnel—had 

received what they considered to be an appropriate level of PPE (basic 

and cold weather).18

 18Station officials told us that many of the auxiliary personnel who volunteer at these 

stations have also received PPE. 
Page 9 GAO-04-704 Coast Guard Stations 

• Although available quantitative data were limited for this category, over 

the past few years the Coast Guard has implemented a variety of 

financial incentives aimed at improving personnel retention. 

• Training officers at the 8 stations we visited indicated that training for 

station personnel did not decrease in fiscal year 2003 compared with 

the prior year. In addition, in fiscal year 2003 the Coast Guard 

increased training resources in two areas—the boatswain’s mate 

training school increased its training output by over a third, and unit 

training provided by headquarters to station personnel also increased. 

The Coast Guard did not have adequate processes in place to sufficiently 

account for the expenditure of the entire $15.7 million earmarked fiscal 

year 2003 appropriation or to provide assurance that these earmarked 

funds were used appropriately, as set forth by federal management and 

internal control guidelines. The purpose of an earmark is to direct an 

agency to spend a certain amount of its appropriated funds for a specific 

purpose. Federal guidelines and government internal control standards 

indicate that agencies should account for the obligation and expenditure 

of earmarked appropriations both as a sound accounting practice and to 

demonstrate compliance in the event of an audit. The expectation that 

agencies will be able to effectively demonstrate compliance in their use of 

earmarked funds stems from the following: 

• Office of Management and Budget Circulars:19 These circulars hold that 

agencies’ management controls should reasonably ensure that laws and 

regulations are followed. 

• The Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act:20 This act establishes 

specific requirements regarding management controls and directs 

agency heads to establish controls to reasonably ensure that 

obligations and costs comply with applicable laws. 

• Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government:

21 These 

standards specify that internal controls should provide reasonable 

 19Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-11, Section 150.3, and Circular No. A123. 

20P.L. 97-255. 

21U.S. General Accounting Office, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 

Better Accountability 

of Expenditures Is 

Needed to Ensure 

That Earmarks Are 

Appropriately Spent 
Page 10 GAO-04-704 Coast Guard Stations 

assurance that an agency is in compliance with applicable laws and 

regulations. They also direct that internal controls and transactions 

should be clearly documented and the documentation should be readily 

available for examination. 

Further, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the parent agency 

for the Coast Guard, recently issued budget execution guidance that 

encourages component agencies to identify the obligation and expenditure 

of earmarked funds separately from other appropriated funds.22 (This 

guidance was issued in fiscal year 2004 after the Coast Guard had 

obligated the fiscal year 2003 earmark.) In response to a recommendation 

made in our recent report on the reprogramming of Federal Air Marshal 

Service funds,23 DHS has agreed to make this a requirement. 

The Coast Guard told us at the onset of our review that it did not have 

adequate processes in place to collect data with respect to earmarked 

expenditures. Although officials had taken steps to account for PPE 

expenditures (because purchase receipts could be easily tracked),24 they 

did not have adequate processes in place to account for earmarked funds 

spent on staffing and training needs at the station level. Consequently, the 

Coast Guard could not demonstrate conclusively that it was complying 

with the earmark. Basically, the Coast Guard’s databases were not 

designed for this purpose and would have to be modified to provide actual 

expenditure data for stations, according to Coast Guard officials. On the 

basis of lessons learned from the OIG’s audit in fiscal year 2002, which 

faulted the Coast Guard for not having cost accounting systems in place to 

allow for the tracking of certain multimission station expenditures, Coast 

Guard officials developed a plan to show how various allocations would 

 22Department of Homeland Security, Budget Execution Guidance for Fiscal Year 2004, p. 

8. 

23In our March 31, 2004, report we recommended that the Secretary of Homeland Security 

require component agencies to separately identify obligations and expenditures of 

earmarked funds, which they must be able to report. In response, DHS stated that it agreed 

with “the essence of GAO’s suggestions regarding the tracking of earmarked funds with 

special codes and will incorporate this into [the Department’s] fiscal year 2005 Budget 

Execution guidance. In addition, [the Department is] taking this requirement into 

consideration in the development of new financial management systems.” See U.S. General 

Accounting Office, Budget Issues: Reprogramming of Federal Air Marshal Service Funds 

in Fiscal Year 2003, GAO-04-577R (Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2004). 

24The Coast Guard did request station personnel to retain receipts of PPE expenditures for 

fiscal year 2003. However, because the data were not stored in a centralized location, it 

required a special data call to stations, at our request, to obtain the information. 
Page 11 GAO-04-704 Coast Guard Stations 

add up to $15.7 million if expended. The plan, although useful as an 

indicator of the Coast Guard’s intentions, is not sufficient to show that the 

Coast Guard had expended the earmarked appropriation as directed. 

Coast Guard officials also told us that, in response to the OIG’s 2002 

recommendation to allow for the tracking of certain station expenditures, 

they are assisting DHS in developing a new enterprise-wide financial 

system called “electronically Managing enterprise resources for 

government effectiveness and efficiency” (eMerge2

). As part of the overall 

system requirements, the Coast Guard expects that eMerge2

 will be able to 

identify, track, and report costs related to earmarked appropriations. 

However, as of April 2004 the system was still in design25 and the Coast 

Guard was unable to provide us with system specifications prior to the 

issuance of this report. 

On the basis of available data and other information, the Coast Guard 

appears to have met the Congress’s requirement to spend at least $15.7 

million more on multimission stations in fiscal year 2003 than in fiscal year 

2002. However, the Coast Guard does not have adequate processes in 

place to track actual expenditures related to earmarks. Rather, agency 

officials could provide only estimates for much of the station 

expenditures. Without the ability to accurately and completely account for 

these expenditures, the Coast Guard cannot assure that it complied with 

the earmark. Moreover, Congress’s ability to hold the Coast Guard 

accountable for future earmarks is seriously diminished. In light of our 

recent recommendation to DHS on the need to track earmarks—and its 

subsequent concurrence—we believe the Coast Guard should take 

immediate steps to ensure that future accounting systems include the 

capability to track earmarks. 

To improve the Coast Guard’s ability to respond to congressional 

oversight and to provide greater assurance that earmarked funds are used 

appropriately, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security 

direct the Commandant of the Coast Guard to develop, in accordance with 

the fiscal year 2004 departmental guidelines, processes to accurately and 

 25Officials told us DHS expects to complete the design phase—during which the component 

agencies will finalize their requirements—by the end of June 2004. Implementation of the 

system is scheduled for October 2004 through 2006. 

Conclusions 

Recommendation for 

Executive Action 
Page 12 GAO-04-704 Coast Guard Stations 

completely account for the obligation and expenditure of earmarked 

appropriations. 

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretary of 

Homeland Security or his designee. On May 14, 2004, Coast Guard 

officials, including the Chief, Office of Budget and Programs, provided us 

with oral comments, with which the DHS GAO Liaison concurred. Coast 

Guard officials generally agreed with the facts and our recommendation to 

better track earmarked expenditures. We did not review the Coast Guard’s 

financial databases to determine if modifications to them would be 

necessary to better track earmarked expenditures (obligations). Coast 

Guard officials, however, expressed concern that developing better 

procedures to track some station expenditures (obligations), such as those 

for staffing or training, will prove challenging and could be costly due to 

the need to significantly modify their financial systems. Officials stated 

that accounts are centrally managed and specific expenditures would not 

be easily tracked at the station level. The Coast Guard officials said they 

plan to explore this issue more thoroughly and to examine how 

organizations with comparable activities have overcome similar obstacles 

to tracking earmarked funds. The officials also provided a number of 

technical clarifications, which we incorporated where appropriate. 

 

We will send copies of this report to interested congressional committees 

and subcommittees. We will also make copies available to others on 

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

Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report or wish to 

discuss the matter further, please contact me at (415) 904-2200 or 

Randall B. Williamson at (206) 287-4860. Additional contacts and key 

contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. 

Margaret T. Wrightson 

Director, Homeland Security 

 and Justice Issues 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 13 GAO-04-704 Coast Guard Stations 

We used a variety of approaches in our work to determine the amount of 

the general appropriation the Coast Guard expended on multimission 

stations in fiscal year 2003 across the four areas covered by the earmark—

staffing, personal protection equipment (PPE), personnel retention and 

training—and whether this amount exceeded by $15.7 million the level of 

effort expended in fiscal year 2002. Because Congress directed that we 

review the amount of general appropriations expended on station 

readiness needs, we did not review expenditures of funds received 

through supplemental appropriations. We determined at the outset of our 

work that Coast Guard databases did not contain information that would 

allow us to fully report on station expenditures for the four earmark 

categories. To identify available information and possible limitations of 

the information, we worked extensively with Coast Guard headquarters 

officials from the Offices of Budget and Programs; Financial Analysis; Boat 

Forces; Resource Management; Workforce Management; Personnel 

Command; and Workforce Performance, Training and Development. We 

also obtained documentation from headquarters, stations, groups, and 

districts. 

After reviewing the reliability of available data and the feasibility of Coast 

Guard officials’ proposals for gathering additional data, we agreed on a 

combination of expenditure and allocation data, which would be collected 

through special data runs, analyses, and unit surveys. Coast Guard officials 

provided data for three of the four categories. Although officials attempted 

to develop information on training costs, they were not able to produce 

reliable data. Some of the information we needed was obtained not at 

headquarters but at specific Coast Guard sites, which we judgmentally 

selected according to size, location, and type.1

The specific data and analyses used to develop estimates on each of the 

four categories, were as follows: 

• Staffing: To determine the number and cost of personnel assigned to 

multimission stations, we requested Coast Guard personnel 

expenditure data for fiscal years 2002 and 2003, but we were told that 

expenditure data were not available at the station level. To develop 

 1

We conducted site visits to the following stations: Los Angeles-Long Beach, San Francisco, 

Golden Gate, and Vallejo in California; Cape Disappointment in Washington; Tillamook Bay 

in Oregon; New York City in New York; and Sandy Hook in New Jersey. We also visited the 

following groups: Los Angeles-Long Beach and San Francisco in California; Astoria in 

Oregon; and Activities New York in New York. 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 14 GAO-04-704 Coast Guard Stations 

estimated staffing costs, Coast Guard officials merged information 

from personnel and position databases to identify the number of 

personnel assigned to stations2

 and then applied a personnel cost 

formula3

 to arrive at total estimated costs. Developing estimates was 

complicated because the fiscal year 2002 data were developed from a 

different database than the fiscal year 2003 data, and because the Coast 

Guard has more personnel assigned to stations than actual authorized 

(or funded) positions, a variance that requires periodic adjustment of 

the databases. However, after discussing these factors at length with 

Coast Guard officials, we determined that the data developed by the 

Coast Guard were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of providing 

estimates of expenditures for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. The 

methodology and process for developing the data were contributed to 

by the following Coast Guard offices: Budget and Programs, Resource 

Management, Workforce Management, and Personnel Command. 

• PPE: To obtain fiscal year 2003 expenditure data for this category, we 

asked the Coast Guard to survey all 188 stations and their oversight 

units. Each station and unit was asked to provide the total amount of 

fiscal year 2003 funds spent on PPE for personnel assigned to the 

station during the year. These totals included expenditures made for 

station personnel at the group and district levels as well. To verify the 

accuracy of these data, we reviewed original expenditure 

documentation for a judgmentally selected sample of 29 stations.4

 On 

the basis of this documentation, we independently quantified PPE 

 2

This was necessary because no single Coast Guard database could identify (1) where 

personnel were located (for example, at a station or at headquarters), (2) the number of 

positions funded through general appropriations, and (3) the number of new and upgraded 

station positions actually filled. The Coast Guard is pursuing efforts to merge its data 

systems by fiscal year 2005 to allow data regarding location of personnel, position, and 

associated costs to be obtained with one query. 

3

The personnel cost formula produces estimates that are an aggregate of the average costs 

incurred by individuals within a pay grade. The formula averages each of the costs (salary, 

travel, medical, training, and administrative) necessary to support an individual in a 

position at a specific pay grade. The average cost figure for each pay grade includes a range 

of actual costs that vary depending on individuals’ length of service, time in grade, etc. 

4

At the beginning of fiscal year 2003 Coast Guard headquarters officials directed all stations 

to retain receipts of PPE purchases in the event of a GAO audit. We requested that each of 

the 29 stations selected submit supporting documentation for all fiscal year 2003 PPE 

purchases (we did not ask for supporting documentation for purchases made for these 

stations by their group or district). Our criteria for selecting the 29 stations were based on 

number of personnel, location (for example, cold or warm weather station), and operation 

hours expended per mission. 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 15 GAO-04-704 Coast Guard Stations 

expenditures for each station. Our count of total PPE purchases at the 

29 stations was 9 percent higher than the total provided by the Coast 

Guard (our count was 4 percent less than the Coast Guard’s after 

removing expenditures for one outlier station). Coast Guard officials 

attributed the difference to errors made by station personnel when 

compiling the expenditure data. As a result of these differences, 

however, we refer to the total expenditure for fiscal year 2003 as an 

estimate. Because Coast Guard officials considered gathering 

expenditure data for fiscal year 2002 as too labor intensive for station 

personnel, given their current workloads, we used the Coast Guard’s 

data on planned PPE expenditures for fiscal year 2002. After reviewing 

possible limitations in the PPE data provided, we determined that the 

data provided were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of providing 

estimates of expenditures. The PPE planning data were provided to us 

by the Offices of Boat Forces and Budget and Programs. 

• Personnel retention: We were not able to determine total retention 

expenditures because the Coast Guard does not specifically track these 

costs, and retention efforts encompass a diverse array of direct and 

indirect activities. We were able to identify certain direct activities—

selective reenlistment bonus expenditures for multimission stations 

and various financial incentives available to Coast Guard personnel—

and some indirect incentives. After reviewing how data provided by the 

Personnel Services Center on selective reenlistment bonus 

expenditures were collected and maintained, we determined that the 

data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. The 

personnel retention expenditure data were provided to us by the Office 

of Budget and Programs. 

• Training: The Coast Guard was unable to provide actual or estimated 

expenditure data for training multimission station personnel in fiscal 

years 2002 and 2003. Officials from the Office of Budget and Programs 

and the Office of Workforce Performance, Training, and Development 

told us at the outset of our review that they would not be able to 

identify total training costs because the Coast Guard does not track the 

amount of time station personnel devote to on-the-job training (which 

accounts for a significant amount of total training). Headquarters 

officials attempted to obtain data on the estimated annual costs for 

training station staff at the Coast Guard’s national training centers by 

cross-referencing data from multiple databases and applying a cost 

formula. However, Coast Guard officials identified a number of serious 

anomalies in the data and concluded the data were too unreliable to be 

used. 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 16 GAO-04-704 Coast Guard Stations 

To determine whether the Coast Guard had adequate processes in place to 

account for the expenditure of the $15.7 million earmarked appropriation, 

we interviewed and obtained documentation from stations, groups, and 

districts. We also interviewed and obtained documentation from officials 

in the following headquarters offices: Boat Forces, Budget and Programs, 

and Financial Analysis. Further, we studied the Coast Guard’s funding 

plan, which showed how the earmark was intended to be spent. We also 

reviewed federal management guidelines and government internal control 

standards to identify earmark accountability requirements that apply to 

agencies. 
Appendix II: Estimated Costs and Fiscal Year 

Differences for Stations by Earmark Category 

Page 17 GAO-04-704 Coast Guard Stations 

The $15.7 million earmark presented to the Coast Guard in its fiscal year 

2003 appropriation called for funds to be spent across four categories of 

multimission station needs—staffing, PPE, personnel retention, and 

training. In determining the amount of funds spent by the Coast Guard in 

2003 on station needs and whether this amount exceeded the fiscal year 

2002 level of effort by $15.7 million, we also developed cost information 

for three of the four categories. Coast Guard officials attempted but were 

unable to develop reliable data on the cost of training station personnel 

during fiscal years 2002 and 2003. This appendix has two main sections. 

The first presents additional information about estimated station 

expenditures in the areas of staffing, PPE, and personnel retention in fiscal 

year 2003, and the second contains additional information about the 

changes that occurred between fiscal years 2002 and 2003. 

Using a combination of estimated and actual expenditure data, we 

determined that estimated fiscal year 2003 costs for staffing, PPE, and 

personnel retention efforts at stations amounted to at least $291 million. 

The Coast Guard could not provide us with the actual amount of fiscal 

year 2003 appropriation funds spent on station staffing because the 

agency’s automated databases do not fully identify personnel expenditures 

at the station level.1

 However, using a combination of budget and 

personnel data, officials were able to estimate that in fiscal year 2003 the 

Coast Guard incurred costs of $277.6 million2

 to support 5,474 active duty 

station personnel.3

 This estimate does not include costs for the 1,657 

 1

No one Coast Guard database can provide data on general appropriation amounts spent 

for personnel assigned to stations. 

2

This figure includes only funds expended from Coast Guard’s fiscal year 2003 general 

appropriation; it does not include expenditures from other funding sources, such as 

homeland security appropriations. According to Coast Guard officials, fiscal year 2002 

general appropriations were not available in fiscal year 2003 because Coast Guard expends 

virtually all appropriation funds in the first year. 

3

This figure reflects the number of personnel assigned to stations; as of September 30, 2003, 

4,589 positions were authorized for stations. 

Appendix II: Estimated Costs and Fiscal Year 

Differences for Stations by Earmark Category

Fiscal Year 2003 

Station Estimated 

Expenditures by 

Category 

Staffing 
Appendix II: Estimated Costs and Fiscal Year 

Differences for Stations by Earmark Category 

Page 18 GAO-04-704 Coast Guard Stations 

reserve personnel4 assigned to stations in fiscal year 2003, nor does it 

include the costs of volunteer auxiliary personnel who assisted in station 

operations during the year.5

 The Coast Guard did not calculate estimated 

expenditures for reservists because of the complex and labor-intensive 

nature of the analysis. 

Coast Guard officials determined that the agency spent approximately $7.5 

million in fiscal year 2003 on PPE for station personnel. As shown in table 

2, the cost of a total basic PPE outfit in fiscal year 2003 was $1,296. The 

cost of a cold weather PPE outfit, which is used by personnel working at 

stations where the outdoor temperature falls below 50 degrees Fahrenheit, 

was $1,431. (Figure 1 shows a station crew member in cold weather PPE.) 

A May 2002 Coast Guard Commandant directive emphasized the 

importance of proper supplies and use of PPE as one of the top priorities 

of Coast Guard management. In this directive, the Commandant cited an 

internal research report that attributed 20 percent of the total risk facing 

boat personnel to exposure to extreme weather conditions. The directive 

also states that the use of appropriately maintained PPE could improve 

Coast Guard’s operational capability. 

 4

As of September 30, 2003, reserve personnel at multimission stations made up 

approximately 23 percent of the stations’ workforce. 

5

Approximately 36,000 auxiliary personnel Coast Guard-wide participate in activities 

ranging from search and rescue to boating safety education. Coast Guard officials could 

not identify the total number of auxiliary personnel who assist at stations because of the 

dynamic and fluid nature of this volunteer group. 

Personal Protection 

Equipment 
Appendix II: Estimated Costs and Fiscal Year 

Differences for Stations by Earmark Category 

Page 19 GAO-04-704 Coast Guard Stations 

Table 2: Cost of Basic and Cold Weather PPE Used by Station Personnel 

Item Cost

Basic PPE 

Electronic location device $285

Anti-exposure suit 232

Protective footwear 139

Life vest 125

Rain gear 120

Strobe light 70

Survival vest 60

Helmet 53

Sunglasses 45

Deck shoes 44

Parachute bag 35

Goggles 27

Work gloves 22

Survival knife 18

Personal marker light 8

Signal mirror 8

Whistle 5

Subtotal $1,296

Cold weather PPEa

Dry suit $750

Thermal underwear 480

Glove system 89

Thermal socks 35

Insulated footwear 31

Neoprene hoodb 28

Balaclavac18

Subtotal $1,431

Total $2,727

Source: Coast Guard.

a

According to the Coast Guard, personnel at 135 (72 percent) of the 188 multimission stations require 

cold weather PPE in addition to basic PPE. 

b

Worn by crewmembers when entering water that is 50 degrees Fahrenheit or lower. 

c

Fleece or polypropylene head covering worn by crewmembers when additional thermal protection is 

required. 

Note: Costs are for fiscal year 2003. 
Appendix II: Estimated Costs and Fiscal Year 

Differences for Stations by Earmark Category 

Page 20 GAO-04-704 Coast Guard Stations 

Figure 1: Station Crew Member Wearing Cold Weather PPE 

The Coast Guard provided data demonstrating how it promotes personnel 

retention through a variety of direct and indirect incentives. Direct 

incentives include financial benefits that personally benefit the individual, 

while indirect incentives include projects, such as facility improvements, 

that may indirectly contribute to retention by increasing staff morale. 

Coast Guard officials provided expenditure data for selected direct 

incentives provided to station personnel in fiscal year 2003 because 

officials could not quantify the total amount of funds expended on direct 

incentives. Likewise, the total amount expended on indirect incentives 

cannot be readily identified because of the numerous and varied nature of 

the efforts. 

Coast Guard’s direct financial incentives include selective reenlistment 

bonuses. During fiscal year 2003, the Coast Guard spent $5.9 million on 

312 selective reenlistment bonuses for station personnel—$4.2 million of 

this went to boatswain’s mates while the remaining $1.7 million went to 

machinery technicians. A variety of other financial benefit improvements 

were also recently implemented: 

• Between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 the Coast Guard 

increased the surfman6

 pay premium by 33 percent. 

 6

A surfman is a coxswain—boat driver—who is qualified to pilot boats in heavy weather 

and high surf conditions. 

Personnel Retention 

Source: Coast Guard.
Appendix II: Estimated Costs and Fiscal Year 

Differences for Stations by Earmark Category 

Page 21 GAO-04-704 Coast Guard Stations 

• Since fiscal year 2000 the average portion of housing costs paid by 

personnel has decreased annually, going from 18.3 percent in fiscal 

year 2000 to 3.5 percent in 2004; in 2005 this expense will be reduced to 

zero. 

• Since fiscal year 2002 enlisted personnel have been entitled to a basic 

allowance for food. Before fiscal year 2002 they received no funds for 

food purchased outside of a Coast Guard galley (kitchen). 

• Since fiscal year 2002 first-term enlisted personnel have received a 

“dislocation allowance” that provides funds for rental deposits and 

other incidentals that may occur when personnel are required to move. 

• Since fiscal year 2003 junior personnel have been able to ship greater 

weights of household goods when transferring stations. 

• During fiscal year 2004 the death gratuity issued to assist survivors of 

deceased Coast Guard active personnel doubled.7

Multiple indirect Coast Guard efforts also serve as personnel retention 

tools by improving staff morale. At our request, Coast Guard officials 

asked 29 (15 percent) of the 188 multimission stations to provide data on 

estimated expenditures incurred for projects that indirectly contributed to 

staff retention. For the 24 stations that responded, infrastructure and 

lifestyle improvements totaled over $350,000 in fiscal year 2003. 

Improvements cited by multimission stations include such items as new 

furniture, sports equipment, televisions, satellite TV service, and 

entertainment systems. According to a Coast Guard official, the source of 

funds for these improvements can be station, group, or district operating 

budgets or donations by Coast Guard support groups. Table 3 shows 

examples of some of the projects cited by the 24 survey respondents. 

 7

National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2004 (P.L. 108-136). 
Appendix II: Estimated Costs and Fiscal Year 

Differences for Stations by Earmark Category 

Page 22 GAO-04-704 Coast Guard Stations 

Table 3: Examples of Indirect Retention Efforts by Stations in Fiscal Year 2003 

StationsaImprovement Cost

A Barbecue grill; sports equipment; and galley, foyer and barracks 

furniture $62,691

B New barbecue, television and entertainment system, learning 

center computer, furniture $10,003

C Fitness center memberships, cable television service, carpeting 

and radio for weight room, common room computer $6,422

D Physical fitness equipment $2,656

Source: Coast Guard. 

a

Stations are assigned pseudonyms A – D. 

While we could not determine with certainty the difference in estimated 

expenditures (levels of effort) expended on stations between fiscal years 

2002 and 2003 because of financial system limitations, the information 

available suggests that the difference amounted to at least $20.5 million. 

The following discusses estimated differences in fiscal year 2002 and 2003 

staffing, PPE, and personnel retention costs for multimission stations. 

As shown in Table 4, the Coast Guard increased staffing at multimission 

stations by an estimated 466 personnel (9.3 percent) in fiscal year 2003. 

The estimated cost of this staffing increase was $14.4 million above the 

level of effort expended for staffing in fiscal year 2002. 

Table 4: Comparison of Number and Cost of Active Duty Personnel Assigned to 

Stations, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 

Dollars in millions 

Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003 Difference

Number of personnel 5,008 5,474 466

Estimated total cost $263.2 $277.6 $14.4

Source: Coast Guard. 

According to the Coast Guard, the agency estimates it spent approximately 

$5 million more for PPE than it planned to spend during fiscal year 2002. 

We used fiscal year 2002 planned allocation data for this expenditure 

Increases in Levels of 

Effort from Fiscal 

Year 2002 to Fiscal 

Year 2003 Indicate 

Earmark Compliance 

Staffing 

Personal Protection 

Equipment 
Appendix II: Estimated Costs and Fiscal Year 

Differences for Stations by Earmark Category 

Page 23 GAO-04-704 Coast Guard Stations 

comparison because Coast Guard officials considered a survey of stations 

to collect fiscal year 2002 expenditure data—similar to the survey 

conducted for the fiscal year 2003 expenditure data—too burdensome for 

station personnel, given their current workload. 

Coast Guard officials told us that historically the amount of funds 

allocated for station PPE at the beginning of a fiscal year is not enough to 

fund PPE for all station personnel estimated to need it during the year. 

The Coast Guard’s method for allocating PPE funds to stations uses the 

number of positions authorized to stations as a primary factor in 

determining the amount of funds allocated to individual stations. Because 

Coast Guard stations have more personnel assigned to them than 

authorized positions, in the past personnel not assigned to an authorized 

position were typically not included in PPE allocation calculations. To 

address this shortfall, the Coast Guard initially planned to allocate $3 

million of the earmarked funds in fiscal year 2003. During 2003 the Coast 

Guard had added another $2.6 million of the earmarked funds, bringing the 

total to $5.6 million. 

Reenlistment bonuses issued to boatswain’s mates and machinery 

technicians assigned to stations increased by $1.1 million from fiscal year 

2002 to fiscal year 2003. During fiscal year 2002, the Coast Guard issued 

$4.8 million in bonuses to the two classes of station personnel; the amount 

issued in fiscal year 2003 rose to $5.9 million. Expenditures for other, more 

indirect, forms of retention activities, such as station infrastructure 

improvements, are not tracked annually and therefore are not available for 

comparative purposes. 

The Coast Guard was not able to identify training costs for multimission 

station personnel for fiscal year 2002 or fiscal year 2003 despite extensive 

efforts. Officials told us the Coast Guard has separate databases in place 

to track training costs by national training center, but it does not have a 

database that identifies costs for station personnel. The Coast Guard 

conducted several queries from available databases but the resulting data 

Personnel Retention 

Training 
Appendix II: Estimated Costs and Fiscal Year 

Differences for Stations by Earmark Category 

Page 24 GAO-04-704 Coast Guard Stations 

were not accurate.8 The lack of available training cost data precluded us 

from making a comparison of annual expenditure data in this area. 

However, some information indicates that levels of effort expended on 

training station personnel increased in fiscal year 2003. For example, 

Coast Guard’s boatswain’s mate training school increased its training 

output by over a third in fiscal year 2003. 

 8

Coast Guard officials told us that their Yorktown Training Center (which provides training 

for boatswain’s mates and boat drivers) is developing a pilot model that will identify costs 

for training students according to unit, asset, and mission. This model may serve as a 

template for future accounting systems used by training centers at Petaluma (which 

provides administrative support training) and Cape May (which provides basic training to 

new personnel). 
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 25 GAO-04-704 Coast Guard Stations 

Margaret T. Wrightson (415) 904-2200 

Randall B. Williamson (206) 287-4860 

In addition to those named above, Cathleen A. Berrick, Barbara A. Guffy, 

Dorian R. Dunbar, Ben Atwater, Joel Aldape, Marisela Perez, 

Stan G. Stenersen, Michele C. Fejfar, Casey L. Keplinger, 

Denise M. Fantone, and Shirley A. Jones made key contributions to this 

report. 

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contacts 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(440231) 
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal 

government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; 

evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

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

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail 

alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading. 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A 

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. 

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a 

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs