a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Committees

September 2003 BREAST CANCER 

RESEARCH STAMP

Effective Fund-Raiser, 

but Better Reporting 

and Cost-Recovery 

Criteria Needed

GAO-03-1021
Although the U.S. Postal Service (the Service) has not tracked or estimated 

all costs associated with the BCRS program, it reported that the bulk of 

BCRS costs, from inception through May 16, 2003, were about $9.5 million. 

In April 2000, GAO recommended that the Service issue BCRS cost-recovery 

regulations and make available cost data and analyses to provide postal 

ratepayers assurance they were not involuntarily subsidizing BCRS costs. 

The Service issued regulations in July 2000, but it has not yet submitted the 

recommended data and analyses to Congress. Service officials attributed the 

lack of providing Congress with this information to administrative oversight 

and other factors, but said they would provide Congress with this 

information as soon as practicable. In 2001, the Service amended its BCRS 

regulations stating that cost-recovery determinations would be made using 

baseline costs for comparable commemorative stamps. GAO, however, is 

concerned that the regulations can be interpreted as not requiring the 

Service to provide for baseline comparisons for certain BCRS costs, e.g., 

printing, sales, and distribution, although the Stamp Out Breast Cancer Act 

states that reasonable costs attributable to the BCRS in these areas should 

be recouped. The Service has not established baseline costs for these 

categories. Without these baselines, the Service lacks assurance that it is 

identifying and recouping excess costs from BCRS surcharge revenue. 

The BCRS continues to be an effective means of raising funds for breast 

cancer research. Sales have fluctuated, but the BCRS has raised over $30 

million for research since it was issued in July 1998. NIH and DOD—

recipients of research funds generated by the BCRS—are not subject to the 

same statutory reporting requirements as agencies that are to receive funds 

generated by semipostals issued under the Semipostal Authorization Act. 

Such agencies are required to submit an annual report to Congress on the 

amount of funds received, how the funds were used, and accomplishments. 

The public and key stakeholders GAO spoke with believe it is appropriate 

for the Service to issue semipostals. 

Breast Cancer Research Semipostal 

In America, breast cancer is 

reported as the second leading 

cause of cancer deaths among 

women. Given this statistic, the 

importance of finding a cure 

cannot be overemphasized. To 

supplement the billions of federal 

dollars being spent on breast 

cancer research, Congress passed 

legislation creating the Breast 

Cancer Research Semipostal 

(BCRS) to increase public 

awareness of the disease and allow 

the public to participate directly in 

raising funds for such research. 

Since the BCRS was the first 

semipostal issued by the Postal 

Service, Congress mandated, and 

GAO issued, a report in April 2000 

on the BCRS’ cost, effectiveness, 

and appropriateness as a fundraiser. After the report, Congress 

extended the BCRS sales period 

through 2003. As mandated, this 

report updates GAO’s prior work as 

Congress considers another 

extension to the BCRS sales period. 

GAO recommends that the Service 

reexamine and, as necessary, revise 

its BCRS cost-recovery regulations. 

Also, should Congress decide to 

extend the BCRS sales period, GAO 

suggests that Congress consider 

establishing annual reporting 

requirements for the National 

Institutes of Health (NIH) and the 

Department of Defense (DOD). In 

commenting on a draft of this 

report, the Service said it would 

reexamine its BCRS cost-recovery 

regulations. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-1021.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Bernard L. 

Ungar on (202) 512-2834 or at 

ungarb@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-03-1021, a report to the 

Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members 

of the Senate Committee on 

Governmental Affairs, and the House 

Committee on Government Reform 

September 2003

BREAST CANCER RESEARCH STAMP 

Effective Fund-Raiser, but Better 

Reporting and Cost-Recovery Criteria 

Needed 
Page i GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 4

Background 6

Reported Monetary and Other Resources Devoted to the BCRS 

Program 12

Effectiveness of the BCRS as a Fund-Raiser 22

Appropriateness of Using Semipostals as a Means of FundRaising 31

Conclusions 34

Matter for Congressional Consideration 36

Recommendations for Executive Action 36

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 36

Appendixes

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 38

Appendix II: National Institutes of Health Breast Cancer Research 

Awards Funded with Proceeds from the BCRS’ Surcharge 

Revenue 45

Appendix III: Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Awards 

Funded with Proceeds from the BCRS’ Surcharge Revenue 48

Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. Postal Service 49

Appendix V: Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 51

GAO Contact 51

Acknowledgments 51

Tables Table 1: Cost of Operating and Administering the BCRS Program, 

from Inception through May 16, 2003, as Reported by the 

Service 13

Table 2: BCRS Costs through May 16, 2003, and the Allocation of 

Those Costs between the First-Class Postage Rate and the 

BCRS’ Surcharge Revenue 15

Table 3: Transfers Made to NIH and DOD for Breast Cancer 

Research 30

Table 4: NIH/NCI Breast Cancer Research Awards Funded with 

Proceeds, as of April 2003, from BCRS Sales 45

Table 5: DOD Breast Cancer Research Awards Funded with 

Proceeds, as of April 2003, from BCRS Sales 48
Contents

Page ii GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

Figures Figure 1: Reproduction of the Breast Cancer Research 

Semipostal 9

Figure 2: Reproduction of the Heroes of 2001 Semipostal 10

Figure 3: Reproduction of the Stop Family Violence Semipostal 11

Figure 4: Various Postal Service Sources for Purchasing the 

BCRS 23

Figure 5: Number of BCRS and Heroes Semipostals Sold by Postal 

Quarter 25

Abbreviations

ASM Administrative Support Manual

CPS Current Population Survey

BCRS Breast Cancer Research Semipostal

DOD Department of Defense

ICR International Communications Research

NBCC National Breast Cancer Coalition

NCI National Cancer Institute

NIH National Institutes of Health

PQ Postal Quarter

RDD Random Digit Dial

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-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

September 30, 2003 Letr

The Honorable Susan M. Collins

Chairman

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Thomas M. Davis

Chairman

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives

In the United States, breast cancer is reported as the second leading cause 

of cancer deaths among women. There are more than 2 million women 

today in the United States who have been diagnosed with breast cancer, 

and it has been reported that another 1 million women do not know they 

have it. Annually, nearly $7 billion is spent on the treatment of breast 

cancer. Given these statistics, the importance of research to find a cure for 

breast cancer cannot be over emphasized. In the past 5 years alone, the 

federal government has spent about $3 billion on breast cancer research. 

To supplement these federal dollars, Congress passed legislation creating 

the Breast Cancer Research Semipostal (BCRS) to increase public 

awareness of the disease and allow the public to participate directly in 

raising funds for such research.1 

This report, mandated by Congress, is a follow-up to our April 2000 report 

on the Postal Service’s Breast Cancer Research Semipostal.2 The Stamp Out 

Breast Cancer Act, Public Law 105-41, August 13, 1997, mandated our 2000 

report. The act required that we issue a report to Congress on the BCRS’s 

effectiveness and appropriateness and the U.S. Postal Service’s (the 

Service) costs associated with carrying out the act. In general, we reported 

1

A semipostal is a stamp sold at a surcharge over postal value. The additional charge is for a 

special purpose, such as for breast cancer research.

2

U.S. General Accounting Office, Breast Cancer Research Stamp: Millions Raised for 

Research, but Better Cost Recovery Criteria Needed, GAO/GGD-00-80 (Washington, D.C.: 

Apr. 28, 2000). 
Page 2 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

that the BCRS had been an effective fund-raiser, and most of the public and 

key stakeholders viewed the BCRS 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. 

Soon after we issued our April 2000 BCRS report, Congress enacted the 

Semipostal Authorization Act, Public Law 106-253, dated July 28, 2000. 

Among other things, the act requires that we update Congress on the BCRS 

and address at least the same matters we addressed in our earlier report. 

This report responds to that mandate and addresses 

• the monetary and other resources the Service has expended in operating 

and administering the BCRS program,

• the effectiveness of using the BCRS as a means of fund-raising, and 

• the appropriateness of using the BCRS as a means of fund-raising.

We also provide information on the status of recommendations made to the 

Postmaster General in our April 2000 BCRS report. In essence, we 

recommended that the Service issue regulations formalizing its criteria for 

making BCRS cost-recovery decisions and make BCRS cost data and 

analyses available to assure postal ratepayers that they were not 

involuntarily contributing funds to breast cancer research. 

The BCRS was the first semipostal ever issued by the Postal Service. It 

currently sells for 45 cents, and is valid for the 37-cent, First-Class postage 

rate, leaving 8 cents as surcharge revenue. The Stamp Out Breast Cancer 

Act provides that the Service is to deduct from the surcharge revenue its 

reasonable costs incurred in carrying out the act. In general, the Service 

has interpreted reasonable costs to mean costs incurred that are over and 

above the costs normally incurred with a comparable commemorative 

stamp.3 After deducting its reasonable costs, the Service is to remit the 

remaining proceeds from the BCRS surcharge revenue to the National 

Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Department of Defense (DOD) for breast 

3

A commemorative stamp is a postage stamp that depicts the cultural and historical heritage 

of the United States; e.g., important people, events, places, or special subjects of national 

appeal or significance.
Page 3 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

cancer research. Seventy percent of the net proceeds go to NIH, with the 

remaining 30 percent going to DOD’s medical research program.

The use of semipostals to raise funds for specific purposes is on the rise. 

Since our April 2000 BCRS report, Congress has twice extended the sales 

period for the BCRS, required the introduction of two more semipostals, 

and given the Service specific authority to consider and issue future 

semipostals.4 Additionally, as of August 2003, Congress was considering 

legislation that would require introduction of two more semipostals and 

extend the sales period of the BCRS past its scheduled end date of 

December 31, 2003.5

In doing this work, we reviewed and updated the information included in 

our April 2000 BCRS report to reflect the current situation. For this report, 

we mainly focused on the Service’s efforts to identify and recoup its 

reasonable costs from the BCRS surcharge revenue and ensure that postal 

ratepayers were not subsidizing the BCRS. We also identified postal staff 

resources devoted to the BCRS and interviewed key stakeholders regarding 

the effectiveness and appropriateness of using the BCRS as a means of 

fund raising. Additionally, we commissioned a survey to obtain the public’s 

opinion regarding the BCRS, and semipostals in general; and we 

interviewed NIH and DOD officials about how funds generated from BCRS 

sales are being used for breast cancer research. Finally, we researched the 

U.S. Code and Postal Service regulations to identify changes that have 

occurred since our April 2000 report that either affected the BCRS directly 

or the semipostal program in general. Appendix I contains more 

information on our objectives, scope, and methodology. 

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

General. The Service’s comments are discussed at the end of this letter and 

reprinted in appendix IV. 

4

The Heroes of 2001 semipostal was introduced June 7, 2002; and the Stop Family Violence 

semipostal is to be introduced no later than January 1, 2004.

5

The semipostals currently under consideration are to help promote childhood literacy and 

the Peace Corps.
Page 4 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

Results in Brief Although the full cost of the BCRS program is not known, the Service 

reported that the bulk of BCRS costs from inception through May 16, 2003, 

were about $9.5 million. The Service does not track BCRS costs that it 

considers to be inconsequential, such as invoices less than $3,000.6 The 

Service also does not identify costs that it would have incurred whether or 

not the BCRS program had been established, such as overhead. 

Additionally, the Service reported that no staff have been hired because of 

the BCRS program, nor have any staff been dedicated to work full-time on 

the program. The Service also reported that $8.7 million of the $9.5 million 

in BCRS costs were recovered through the First-Class postage portion of 

the BCRS. The remaining $853,000 in BCRS costs was recouped from the 

BCRS’ surcharge revenue, and the net surcharge revenue—over $30 

million—was to be used to fund breast cancer research. In response to a 

recommendation we made in our April 2000 BCRS report, the Service 

issued BCRS regulations in July 2000. Those regulations specified that the 

Service was to recover incremental costs from the BCRS’ surcharge 

revenue. The Service amended those regulations in 2001, stating generally 

that the Service would recover from the BCRS’ surcharge revenue costs in 

excess of those normally incurred with comparable commemorative 

stamps, i.e., baseline costs. We are concerned, however, that the 

regulations can be interpreted as not requiring the Service to establish 

baseline comparisons for certain BCRS costs, e.g., printing, sales, and 

distribution, although the Stamp Out Breast Cancer Act specifically states 

that reasonable costs in these areas attributable to the BCRS should be 

recouped from the surcharge revenue. The Service believes its 2001 

amendments to its regulations already provide a means for recovering all 

excess costs. To support its view, the Service provided us with the printing 

costs for various commemorative stamps. However, the Service did not 

provide us with any baseline BCRS cost data. Without baselines, the 

Service lacks assurance that it is identifying and recouping excess costs 

from BCRS surcharge revenue. Additionally, in our April 2000 report, we 

recommended that the Service provide Congress with the BCRS cost data 

and analyses necessary to provide assurance that postal ratepayers are not 

involuntarily contributing funds to breast cancer research. Although the 

Service committed to Congress to provide it with the data and analyses, the 

Service has not yet done so. Service officials attributed the lack of 

6

An example of such a cost could be a local event that a post office participates in or hosts 

within its community to support sales of the BCRS. This could include events tied to walk-athons, marathons, races, breast cancer awareness month, mammogram screening 

awareness programs, etc.
Page 5 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

providing Congress with this information to administrative oversight and 

other factors. Service officials told us that they plan to reexamine their 

BCRS regulations and provide Congress with current BCRS cost data and 

analyses as soon as practicable.

The BCRS continues to be an effective means of raising funds for breast 

cancer research. Also, as provided for by the Stamp Out Breast Cancer Act, 

the BCRS has remained voluntary and convenient. It has remained 

voluntary because postal patrons have the option to purchase the BCRS at 

45 cents or a regular First-Class stamp at 37 cents. The BCRS has remained 

convenient for most of the public, according to our survey. Sales have 

fluctuated, but the BCRS has raised over $30 million for breast cancer 

research, net of costs, since it was issued in July 1998. Key stakeholders 

said that for the most part, they viewed the BCRS as an effective fundraiser, and the public’s view of the BCRS was generally positive as reflected 

in the results from our survey. As of September 2003, the Service had 

transferred to NIH and DOD about $30.8 million from funds raised by the 

BCRS for breast cancer research. These federal organizations reported to 

us that they have established programs to fund innovative breast cancer 

research conducted by various research institutions. The Semipostal 

Authorization Act, enacted after the Stamp Out Breast Cancer Act, requires 

that annual reports be made to Congress by agencies that are to receive 

funds from semipostals issued under the Semipostal Authorization Act. 

These reports are to include information on the amount of funds received, 

how the funds were used, and any accomplishments that were achieved. 

NIH and DOD are not subject to similar reporting requirements. 

Most key stakeholders we spoke with and, according to our survey, the 

members of the public believe it is appropriate for the Service to issue the 

BCRS, as well as other semipostals, to raise funds for worthwhile causes. 

The Service, although very supportive of the BCRS, remains generally 

opposed to the concept of using semipostals as a means of fund-raising. 

Since we issued our April 2000 BCRS report, Congress has (1) twice 

extended the sales period for the BCRS, (2) authorized two additional 

semipostals, and (3) authorized the Service to issue future semipostals. 

Also, as of August 2003, Congress was considering legislation establishing 

two more semipostals and extending the sales period for the BCRS until 

December 31, 2005. As of August 2003, the Service had not issued any 

semipostals of its own choosing under the authority of the Semipostal 

Authorization Act and had no plans to do so until the sales periods for 

congressionally mandated semipostals have ended. We believe this position 
Page 6 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

is consistent with the discretion afforded the Service under the Semipostal 

Authorization Act. 

We are offering one matter for Congress to consider as it debates whether 

to further extend the sales period for the BCRS. If Congress extends the 

BCRS sales period, it may wish to consider establishing annual reporting 

requirements for NIH and DOD similar to those required of any agency that 

was to receive funds generated from semipostals issued under the 

Semipostal Authorization Act. We reaffirm our previous recommendation 

that the Service make available BCRS cost data and analyses, and we also 

recommend that the Service reexamine and, as necessary, revise its costrecovery regulations. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Service indicated that it plans 

to take appropriate actions to address our recommendations. The Service 

said that it would reexamine its BCRS regulations with a view toward 

proposing revisions about what costs are to be identified and recouped 

from surcharge revenues. The Service also said that it would make 

available to Congress and us current BCRS cost data and analyses. 

Background The Stamp Out Breast Cancer Act (Pub. L. No. 105-41, Aug. 13, 1997) 

required that the Postal Service issue its first-ever semipostal—the BCRS. 

The Service issued the BCRS on July 29, 1998. The act required that the 

BCRS be available for sale for 2 years, but Congress has since extended the 

sales period through December 31, 2003. 

Semipostals are stamps sold with a surcharge above the First-Class postage 

rate with the net surcharge amount going to a designated cause. The act 

stipulated that the BCRS surcharge was not to exceed 25 percent of the 

First-Class postage rate, which, at the time of issuance, was 32 cents. The 

act further stipulated that after recovering its reasonable costs, the Service 

was to transfer 70 percent of the remaining surcharge revenue to NIH and 

30 percent to DOD for breast cancer research. The Service’s presidentially 

appointed governors initially set the price of the BCRS at 40 cents—32 

cents for First-Class postage plus the maximum 25-percent surcharge of 
Page 7 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

8 cents. Since that time, the price of First-Class postage has increased to 37 

cents, and the price of the BCRS is currently 45 cents.7

On the day the initial sales period for the BCRS was to end, the Semipostal 

Authorization Act (Pub. L. No. 106-253, July 28, 2000) was enacted, which 

extended the sales period for the BCRS through July 29, 2002, and granted 

the Service authority to issue future semipostals of its own choosing. 

Additionally, the act required that the Service issue regulations governing 

future semipostals aside from the BCRS. 

Another act, the Breast Cancer Research Stamp Act of 2001 (Pub. L. 107-67, 

Nov. 12, 2001) further extended the sales period for the BCRS and 

established new requirements governing the sales price of the BCRS.8 That 

act extended the BCRS’ sales period through December 31, 2003, and 

replaced the maximum 25 percent surcharge with a minimum 15 percent 

surcharge that, when added to the First-Class postage rate, is evenly 

divisible by five. That is, the BCRS must be sold for an amount evenly 

divisible by five and must cost at least 15 percent more than First-Class 

postage. Specifically, the BCRS is currently sold for 45 cents, which is 

evenly divisible by 5; with the 8-cent surcharge, it costs about 22 percent 

more than the 37-cent First-Class postage rate. Additional legislation is 

currently pending that would extend the sales period for the BCRS through 

December 31, 2005.

7

The postage rate for letters up to 1 ounce sent by First-Class Mail increased to 33 cents on 

January 10, 1999; to 34 cents on January 7, 2001; and to the current 37 cents on June 30, 

2002. The BCRS was sold for 40 cents until March 23, 2002, when its sales price was 

increased to its current price of 45 cents.

8

The Breast Cancer Research Stamp Act of 2001 was included as part of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations Act of 2002 (Pub. L. No. 107-67, Nov. 12, 2001).
Page 8 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

Since the BCRS was issued in 1998, Congress has passed legislation 

establishing two additional semipostals. One semipostal is to provide 

assistance to the families of emergency relief personnel killed or 

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

attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001—commonly 

referred to as the Heroes of 2001 semipostal. The Service began selling the 

Heroes of 2001 semipostal on June 7, 2002, and its sales are scheduled to 

end no later than December 31, 2004, in accordance with the semipostal’s 

authorizing legislation.9 The other semipostal—commonly referred to as 

the Stop Family Violence semipostal—is to help fund domestic violence 

programs. Legislation requiring introduction of the Stop Family Violence 

semipostal specifies that sales are to begin no later than January 1, 2004, 

and end no later than December 31, 2006.10 Legislation was also pending in 

Congress at the end of August 2003 to establish semipostals to help 

promote childhood literacy and the Peace Corps.11 As of August 2003, the 

Service had issued no semipostals that had not been congressionally 

mandated.

Images of the BCRS, Heroes of 2001, and Stop Family Violence semipostals 

are reproduced as figures 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The Service plans to 

begin selling the Stop Family Violence semipostal in November 2003.

9

The 9/11 Heroes Stamp Act of 2001 was included as part of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act of 2002 (Pub. L. No. 107-67, Nov. 12, 2001).

10The Stamp Out Domestic Violence Act of 2001 was included as part of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations Act of 2002 (Pub. L. No. 107-67, Nov. 12, 2001).

11Legislation to establish a semipostal to help promote childhood literacy was introduced in 

the House of Representatives on January 7, 2003 (H.R. 126) and legislation to establish a 

semipostal to benefit the Peace Corps was introduced in the House on June 5, 2003 (H.R. 

2371).
Page 9 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

Figure 1: Reproduction of the Breast Cancer Research Semipostal
Page 10 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

Figure 2: Reproduction of the Heroes of 2001 Semipostal
Page 11 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

Figure 3: Reproduction of the Stop Family Violence Semipostal
Page 12 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

For more details about the BCRS and its background, see our April 2000 

BCRS report.12 That report also includes information on semipostals issued 

by foreign postal administrations.

Reported Monetary 

and Other Resources 

Devoted to the BCRS 

Program 

The full cost of the BCRS program is not known. The Service reported that 

the bulk of BCRS costs from inception through May 16, 2003, were about 

$9.5 million, most of which were recovered through the First-Class postage 

portion of the BCRS. The Service does not track BCRS costs that it 

considers to be inconsequential, such as invoices less than $3,000. The 

Service also does not identify costs that it would have incurred whether or 

not the BCRS program had been established, such as overhead. 

Additionally, the Service reported that no staff have been hired because of 

the BCRS program, nor have any staff been dedicated to work full-time on 

the program. 

In response to a recommendation in our April 2000 BCRS report, the 

Service issued BCRS cost-recovery regulations in July 2000 and reported 

using these regulations, and amendments, to track and allocate BCRS 

costs. We are concerned, however, that the regulations can be interpreted 

as not requiring the Service to provide baseline comparisons for certain 

BCRS costs, e.g., printing, sales, and distribution, although the Stamp Out 

Breast Cancer Act specifically states that reasonable costs in these areas 

attributable to the BCRS should be recouped from the BCRS’ surcharge 

revenue. Additionally, in our April 2000 report, we recommended that the 

Service make available to Congress the BCRS cost data and analyses 

necessary to provide assurance that postal ratepayers are not involuntarily 

contributing funds to breast cancer research. Although the Service 

committed to Congress to provide it with the data and analyses, Service 

officials told us that for a number of reasons the Service has not yet done 

so. In August 2003, Service officials said that they plan to reexamine their 

BCRS regulations and, as soon as practicable, provide Congress with 

current BCRS data and analyses. 

Full BCRS Program Costs 

Unknown 

Although the full cost of the BCRS program is not known, the Service 

reported that the bulk of the program’s costs, from inception through May 

16, 2003, were about $9.5 million. These costs do not include (1) direct 

12GAO/GGD-00-80.
Page 13 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

costs for items the Service considers to be inconsequential, such as the 

cost of items that do not exceed $3,000 per invoice and (2) indirect costs 

that the Service would have incurred whether or not the BCRS program 

had been established, such as overhead. Additionally, the $9.5 million does 

not include any staffing-related costs because, according to postal officials, 

no staff were hired for the BCRS program nor were any staff dedicated fulltime to work on the program. These officials told us that all work 

associated with the BCRS was absorbed by existing staff and staff budget—

i.e., the Service incurred no additional staffing-related expenses because of 

the BCRS. They also told us that the Service, with the exception of the law 

department, has not tracked staff hours devoted to the BCRS because it 

was not cost-effective to quantify and recoup inconsequential costs 

associated with the BCRS. Because all costs associated with the BCRS 

were not identified and tracked, the full cost of operating and 

administering the BCRS program is not known.

The reported costs of the BCRS through May 16, 2003, are shown in table 1, 

broken down by type of cost. In addition to these costs, the Service could 

incur additional costs associated with the BCRS before its sales period 

ends, which is currently scheduled for December 31, 2003. 

Table 1: Cost of Operating and Administering the BCRS Program, from Inception 

through May 16, 2003, as Reported by the Service

Cost item Reported cost

Stamp design (including market research) $40,000

Stamp production and printing $3,597,000

Shipping and distribution $0a

Training $612,000

Selling stamps (including employee salaries and benefits) $0b

Withdrawing stamps from sale $0c

Destroying unsold stamps $0c

Advertising $888,000

Packaging stamps $2,723,000

Printing flyers and special receipts $238,000

Equipment changes $359,000

Developing and executing marketing and promotional plans $1,006,000
Page 14 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

Source: U.S. Postal Service.

a

The Service said that it does not attempt to identify these costs because shipping and distribution 

costs incurred for a semiposal are no different from those normally incurred for comparable stamps.

b

The Service said that it currently does not have a system in place to track these costs. According to 

the Service, it would be extraordinarily difficult and costly to attempt to study, analyze, and measure 

these costs in a live environment; and it also would be difficult to devise a methodology to estimate 

such costs because BCRS’ are a small percentage of total stamp sales.

c

The Service said that it believes these costs would be the same as those incurred for comparable 

stamps, but it has not yet incurred any costs associated with withdrawing stamps from sale or 

destroying unsold stamps because the BCRS continues to be offered to the public.

Allocation of BCRS Program 

Costs between the Postage 

Portion and Surcharge 

Revenue

Under the cost-recovery regulations the Service applies to the BCRS, the 

Service determined that $8.7 million, about 91 percent, of the $9.5 million in 

BCRS costs were recovered through the First-Class postage rate. The 

Service also determined that the remaining $853,000 in costs were not 

those normally incurred with a comparable commemorative stamp and 

therefore were recovered through the BCRS’ surcharge revenue. That is, 

about 9 percent of BCRS program costs were recovered through the 

surcharge revenue. Table 2 identifies, by cost item, the Service’s reported 

cost of operating and administering the BCRS program, from inception 

through May 16, 2003; and the allocation of those costs between those 

covered by the First-Class postage rate and costs that were recouped from 

the BCRS’ surcharge revenue.13

Cost item Reported cost

Other cost:

Legal $22,000

Market research $56,000

Consulting $8,000

Total $9,549,000

(Continued From Previous Page)

13The Service recast the BCRS costs that we had included in our April 2000 BCRS report 

using its current cost recovery criteria. Our April 2000 report included BCRS costs from 

inception through December 31, 1999. Recasting the data did not change the total BCRS 

costs we reported through December 31, 1999, nor did it change the total costs we reported 

as being recouped from the BCRS’ surcharge revenue. It did, however, result in the 

renaming and regrouping of some individual cost items that we previously reported.
Page 15 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

Table 2: BCRS Costs through May 16, 2003, and the Allocation of Those Costs between the First-Class Postage Rate and the 

BCRS’ Surcharge Revenue 

Source: U.S. Postal Service.

a

The Service recast BCRS costs included in our April 2000 BCRS report into the current cost item 

categories and updated costs through May 16, 2003.

b

The Service said that it does not attempt to identify these costs because shipping and distribution 

costs incurred for a semiposal are no different than those normally incurred for comparable stamps.

c

The Service said that it currently does not have a system in place to track these costs. According to 

the Service, it would be extraordinarily difficult and costly to attempt to study, analyze, and measure 

these costs in a live environment; and it also would be difficult to devise a methodology to estimate 

such costs because BCRS’ are a small percentage of total stamp sales.

d

The Service said that it believes these costs would be the same as those incurred for comparable 

stamps, but it has not yet incurred any costs associated with withdrawing stamps from sale or 

destroying unsold stamps because the BCRS continues to be offered to the public.

e

The Service said that receipts initially used were in a format different from standard postal receipts, 

and the costs were recouped from the BCRS’ surcharge revenue. However, according to the Service, 

receipts now used are universally supplied to all offices for general use, and the printing cost is not 

considered incremental. Therefore, costs associated with receipts are no longer recouped from the 

BCRS’ surcharge revenue.

Allocation of reported cost

Cost itema Reported cost

Amount reported as 

having been covered 

by the First-Class 

postage rate

Amount reported as 

recouped from the 

BCRS’ surcharge 

revenue

Stamp design (including market research) $40,000 $40,000 $0

Stamp production and printing $3,597,000 $3,597,000 $0

Shipping and distribution $0b $0b $0b

Training $612,000 $612,000 $0

Selling stamps (including employee salaries and 

benefits) $0c $0c $0c

Withdrawing stamps from sale $0d $0d $0d

Destroying unsold stamps $0d $0d $0d

Advertising $888,000 $888,000 $0

Packaging stamps $2,723,000 $2,476,000 $247,000

Printing flyers and special receipts $238,000 $0 $238,000e

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

Total $9,549,000 $8,696,000 $853,000
Page 16 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

Service’s Approach to Cost 

Recovery Has Evolved

In response to a recommendation in our April 2000 BCRS report, the 

Service issued BCRS cost-recovery regulations in July 2000, which it 

subsequently amended in 2001. At the time of our April 2000 report, the 

Service was using informal, evolving criteria to make decisions about 

which costs would be recouped from the BCRS’ surcharge revenue and had 

not issued regulations in this area. In July 2000, the Service issued a 

revision to its Administrative Support Manual (ASM) that specified a 

“Cost Recovery Policy for the Breast Cancer Research Semipostal Stamp.” 

The ASM provisions, which are viewed by the Service as part of its 

regulations, specified that the Service was to recover BCRS costs that are 

determined to be incremental costs from its surcharge revenue.14 The 

regulations described some types of costs that the Service had determined 

to be incremental to the BCRS. Examples of such costs included (1) design 

and production costs in excess of the cost to produce equivalent stamps; 

(2) packaging costs in excess of the cost to package equivalent stamps; and 

(3) printing costs for items other than stamps that are specific to the BCRS, 

such as flyers and special receipts. 

In June 2001, the Service published in the Federal Register its regulations 

covering semipostals issued under the Semipostal Authorization Act. 

Among those regulations was 39 C.F.R. 551.8, which established 

procedures for determining costs to be offset from semipostal differential 

revenue. On December 27, 2001, the Postal Service published a similar 

version of this regulation in section 645 of the ASM. The ASM regulations 

were made applicable to semipostals issued under the Semipostal 

Authorization Act, as well as the BCRS. The December 2001 revision to the 

ASM (hereafter referred to as regulations) no longer refer to “incremental 

costs,” as was done in the July 2000 version. The December 2001 

regulations state that the Service is to recover BCRS costs that are 

determined to be in excess of the costs normally incurred for 

commemorative stamps having similar sales; physical characteristics; and 

marketing, promotional, and public relations activities. These regulations 

prescribe that on the basis of judgment and available information, the 

Service is to identify stamp(s) comparable with the BCRS and create a 

profile of selected cost characteristics, thereby establishing a baseline for

14Under 39 C.F.R. 211.2, the Service states that the regulations of the Service include the 

ASM. Accordingly, hereafter, we will refer to the ASM provisions as Postal Service 

regulations.
Page 17 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

cost comparison purposes.15 According to the regulations, BCRS costs that 

exceed the baseline costs for comparable commemorative stamps are to be 

recovered from the BCRS’ surcharge revenue. In May 2003, we asked the 

Service to provide us the baseline costs for the comparable stamps being 

used to determine what costs are to be recovered from the BCRS’ 

surcharge revenue. In July 2003, the Service provided us with what it 

referred to as costs above comparable stamp costs that were recouped 

from the BCRS’ surcharge revenue and updated that information in August 

2003. However, the Service did not provide us with the actual baselines 

used in making the determinations about which costs were to be recouped 

from the BCRS’ surcharge revenue.

The Service’s December 2001 regulations provide guidance regarding its 

BCRS cost-recovery criteria. The regulations state that cost items 

recoverable from the BCRS’ surcharge revenue may include, but are not 

limited to, the following: 

• packaging costs in excess of the cost to package comparable stamps,

• printing costs of flyers and special receipts,

• costs of changes to equipment,

• costs of developing and executing marketing and promotional plans in 

excess of the cost for comparable stamps, and

• other costs specific to the BCRS that would not normally have been 

incurred for comparable stamps. 

In addition, the Service’s regulations state that BCRS costs that meet the 

following criteria will not be tracked:

• costs that the Service determines to be inconsequentially small, which 

include those cost items not exceeding $3,000 per invoice;

15In implementing its regulations, the Service reported that it had identified the BCRS’ 

comparable stamps as the commemorative stamp issues featuring the images of Warner 

Brothers characters issued in 1997, 1998, and 1999. These stamp issues included the images 

of Bugs Bunny (first issued in 1997), Sylvester and Tweety (1998), and Daffy Duck (1999).
Page 18 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

• costs for which the cost of tracking would be burdensome (e.g., costs 

for which the cost of tracking exceeds the cost to be tracked);

• costs attributable to mail to which the BCRS is affixed (i.e., costs that 

are attributable to the appropriate class and/or subclass of mail); and

• administrative and support costs that the Service would have incurred 

whether or not the BCRS program had been established.

The regulations further identify the following BCRS costs—those the 

Service would normally incur for comparable stamps—as recovered 

through the First-Class postage portion of the BCRS stamp price. 

Therefore, baselines have not been established for these costs, which are 

as follows: 

• stamp design (including market research);

• stamp production and printing;

• stamp shipping and distribution;

• estimated training for field staff, except for special training associated 

with semipostals;

• stamp sales (including employee salaries and benefits);

• withdrawal of the stamp issue from sale;

• destruction of unsold stamps; and

• incorporation of semipostal images into advertising for the Postal 

Service as an entity.

BCRS Cost-Recovery 

Regulations May Not Allow 

the Service to Identify and 

Recoup All Costs 

Attributable to the BCRS

The Stamp Out Breast Cancer Act specifically recognizes that printing, 

sales, and distribution costs attributable to the BCRS are among the types 

of reasonable costs the Service should recover from the BCRS’ surcharge 

revenue. Section 414 (c) (2) of the act states that the Service must recover 

from the BCRS’ surcharge revenue “an amount sufficient to cover 

reasonable costs . . . in carrying out this section, including those 

attributable to the printing, sale, and distribution of stamps under this 

section.” The Service has determined, and we have no basis to challenge its 
Page 19 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

discretion in this regard, that “reasonable costs” are costs in excess of 

those normally incurred for a comparable stamp. However, we are 

concerned that the regulations the Service issued to implement this 

requirement can be interpreted as not requiring the Service to provide 

baseline comparisons for certain BCRS costs, e.g., printing, sales, and 

distribution, although the Stamp Out Breast Cancer Act specifically states 

that reasonable costs in these areas attributable to the BCRS should be 

recouped from the BCRS’ surcharge revenue. Our concerns with the 

regulations include the following:

BCRS printing costs: The Service’s December 2001 regulations can be 

interpreted as not requiring baseline comparisons for BCRS printing costs. 

The regulations could be interpreted to mean that all BCRS printing costs 

are covered by the First-Class postage portion and comparisons with 

baseline costs are not necessary. This interpretation is supported by the 

fact that, as of August 2003, the Service had not established a baseline cost 

for comparable stamps against which to compare BCRS printing costs. The 

Service did, however, provide information showing that the BCRS’ printing 

costs between 1998 and 2003 ranged from $3.35 per thousand stamps to 

$7.39 per thousand. The Service also provided information on printing 

costs for the three stamps that it considers comparable with the BCRS. The 

printing costs for these three stamps ranged from $11.52 per thousand in 

1999 to $14.34 per thousand in 1997. Additionally, the Service provided 

printing costs for various commemorative stamps in 1998 through 2002. 

That information would tend to support the view that printing costs for the 

BCRS have not exceeded the printing costs for other commemoratives. 

Nevertheless, the Service did not establish a baseline for making BCRS 

printing cost comparisons. Therefore, the Service has not demonstrated 

that its regulations establish an adequate process for ensuring that excess 

semipostal costs are identified and recouped from surcharge revenues. 

Following its regulations, the Service reported that it did not recoup from 

the BCRS’ surcharge revenue any of the $3,597,000 it incurred in BCRS 

printing costs. Without a comparison between actual BCRS printing costs 

and the baseline printing costs for comparable stamps, the Service lacks 

assurance that it is identifying and recouping excess costs from BCRS 

surcharge revenue. 

BCRS sales costs: The Service’s December 2001 regulations can be 

interpreted as not requiring baseline comparisons for BCRS sales costs. 

The regulations can be interpreted to mean that all BCRS sales costs are 

covered by the First-Class postage portion and comparisons with baseline 

costs are not necessary. As of August 2003, the Service had not established 
Page 20 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

a baseline cost for comparable stamps against which to compare BCRS 

sales costs. Unlike BCRS printing costs, the Service reported that it did not 

track BCRS sales costs because they were “minimal,” but it was unable to 

provide documentation supporting this position. The Service has reported 

that the BCRS was available for sale at over 27,000 post offices across the 

country, where salaries and benefits for its clerks average about $30 per 

hour. Service officials told us that no staff were hired for the BCRS 

program nor were any staff dedicated full-time to work on the program. 

However, the Service commented in July 2003 that each semipostal 

generates sales costs that it would not incur for commemorative stamps, 

such as time spent responding to customer questions about the fund-raising 

involved. In addition, the Service has reported that stamp sales costs are 24 

cents per dollar for stamps sold at the window, compared with 14 cents for 

stamps sold at vending machines. However, the Service has more recently 

taken the position that stamp sales costs are substantially less than 

previously calculated. In September 2003, the Service was in the process of 

reviewing its stamp sales costs, but revised stamp sales figures were not 

yet available. Therefore, it is unclear whether the Service has incurred sales 

costs for the BCRS that are greater than those incurred for comparable 

commemorative stamps. Without a comparison between actual or 

estimated BCRS sales costs and the baseline sales costs for comparable 

stamps, the Service lacks assurance that it is identifying and recouping 

excess costs from surcharge revenue. 

In addition to these examples, we have similar concerns regarding other 

BCRS costs that are being handled in a manner similar to that described for 

BCRS printing, as well as sales. These other costs include stamp design, 

shipping, and distribution; estimated training for field staff, except for 

special training associated with the BCRS; withdrawal of the stamp issue 

from sale; destruction of unsold stamps; and incorporation of BCRS images 

into advertising for the Postal Service as an entity. 

We discussed our concerns about the Service’s cost-recovery regulations 

and their impact with Service officials, especially in light of statements 

made by Service officials in June 2001 that the issuance of multiple 

semipostals at the same time could significantly increase the administrative 

burden on the Service and ultimately burden existing staff and limited 

resources. Service officials said that their overriding concern in developing 

the cost-recovery regulations was to avoid having to establish cost-tracking 

systems that would cost more to develop and implement than the 

surcharge revenue to be collected from semipostals, including the BCRS. 

We pointed out that the Service already performs a number of cost-related 
Page 21 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

studies that could possibly be used or modified to capture or estimate 

incremental semipostal costs, or that new approaches to capture or 

estimate such information might be possible and not be cost prohibitive. 

Service officials also said that in developing the regulations, they had not 

intended to preclude the Service from recovering excess costs in the 

printing, sales, and distribution categories, and they believe they can do so 

under the existing regulations. However, we remain concerned that the 

regulatory provisions do not require the Service to do so. In fact, the 

Service has not established baseline costs that would allow it to identify 

and recoup excess costs for printing, sales, and distribution. Therefore, we 

continue to believe that a reassessment of the regulatory provisions would 

be warranted. In view of our concerns, Service officials told us, in August 

2003, they were planning such a reassessment. 

The Service Has Not Yet Met 

Its Commitment to 

Congress to Provide It with 

BCRS Cost Data and 

Analyses 

In our April 2000 BCRS report, we recommended that the Service make 

available the data and analysis showing which BCRS costs have been 

recovered through the First-Class postage rate to provide assurance that 

postal ratepayers are not involuntarily contributing funds to breast cancer 

research. In a letter addressed to Chairman John M. McHugh of the former 

Subcommittee on the Postal Service, House Committee on Government 

Reform,16 the Service committed to provide, within 60 days of the 

conclusion of the BCRS’ initial 2-year sales period (i.e., September 28, 

2000), an analysis of the BCRS costs that the Service recovered through the 

base First-Class Mail, single-piece, first-ounce postage rate. The letter 

further stated that the analysis would demonstrate that the BCRS’ 

incremental costs have been recovered solely from the surcharge revenue, 

and that its nonincremental costs have been recovered through the base 

postage rate.

As of August 12, 2003, the Service had not yet provided the recommended 

BCRS cost data and analysis to Congress. Service officials explained that 

an administrative oversight, as well as subsequent events, led to the 

Service’s not making this information available to Congress. The officials 

acknowledged that a consultant had drafted an internal paper that 

presented and analyzed fiscal year 1999 cost data on the BCRS. However, 

the officials noted that this paper had not been reviewed by postal 

management and was drafted more than 2 years ago, before the Service 

16Representative McHugh is now Chairman of the Special Panel on Postal Reform and 

Oversight, House Committee on Government Reform.
Page 22 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

issued its current regulations on BCRS cost recovery. As we previously 

recommended, we continue to believe that the Service should prepare and 

make available the data and analyses of BCRS costs in order to provide 

ratepayers assurance that they are not involuntarily contributing funds to 

breast cancer research. Further, we believe that making available current 

data and analyses are even more important now than before, given that 

additional semipostals have been authorized; and more semipostals are 

likely in the future. More specifically, Congress has authorized two 

additional semipostals; and in August 2003, it was considering legislation 

authorizing two more semipostals and extending the sales period for the 

BCRS. Congress has also given the Postal Service specific authority to 

issue semipostals of its own choosing. Service officials told us in August 

2003 they were planning a reassessment of the earlier BCRS internal paper 

and would provide Congress and us with the results of that reassessment as 

soon as practicable. 

Effectiveness of the 

BCRS as a Fund-Raiser

The BCRS has continued to be an effective means of raising funds for 

breast cancer research. Although neither the Stamp Out Breast Cancer Act 

nor amendments to the act provide quantitative measures for evaluating 

the effectiveness of the BCRS as a fund-raiser, the act did provide that the 

BCRS was to provide the public a voluntary and convenient way of raising 

funds for breast cancer research. We reported in April 2000 that the BCRS 

had been successful to those ends. Since then, the BCRS has continued to 

be a voluntary and convenient way for the public to contribute millions of 

dollars for breast cancer research. BCRS sales have fluctuated over time; 

however, the BCRS has raised over $30 million for breast cancer research 

since it was issued in July 1998. Additionally, most key stakeholders told us 

that for the most part, they viewed the BCRS as an effective fund-raiser; 

and the public’s view of the BCRS was generally positive, as reflected in the 

results from our survey. As of September 2003, the Service had transferred 

to NIH and DOD about $30.8 million from funds raised by the BCRS for 

breast cancer research. These federal organizations reported to us that 

they have established programs to fund innovative breast cancer research 

conducted by various research institutions. NIH and DOD are not required 

to issue reports to Congress detailing how BCRS-generated funds were 

used or the accomplishments that resulted from the BCRS-funded 

research. 
Page 23 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

The BCRS Remains 

Voluntary and Convenient 

and Has Raised Millions of 

Dollars for Research

The BCRS has remained voluntary and convenient, as provided for by the 

act, and has raised over $30 million for breast cancer research since it was 

issued in July 1998. Postal patrons have the choice of purchasing regular 

First-Class postage stamps at 37 cents each or contributing to breast cancer 

research by purchasing the BCRS at 45 cents each. The BCRS remains 

convenient in that it is available for purchase from a variety of postal 

sources, including post offices, although two stakeholders reported 

instances when some post offices in their areas did not have the BCRS 

when they visited. Figure 4 shows the various sources from which the 

BCRS can be purchased.

Figure 4: Various Postal Service Sources for Purchasing the BCRS 

Our public opinion surveys—including our current 2003 survey and our 

earlier 1999 survey, both conducted by the same firm—indicate that about 

70 percent of the public views semipostals as a convenient way to 

contribute to designated causes. These and other estimates from our 2003 

survey are subject to sampling errors of less than +/- 6 percentage points 

(95 percent confidence level), as well as to additional errors of unknown 

magnitude due to the 89 percent nonresponse rate for the survey as 

discussed in appendix I. 

As envisioned by the act, the BCRS has raised a substantial amount of 

money for breast cancer research. Postal officials report that since the 

BCRS was issued on July 29, 1998, the Service has sold over 450 million of 

this semipostal, generating over $30 million, net of costs, for breast cancer 

research. If BCRS sales continue at the rate it has been selling in fiscal year 

2003, about 486 million will have been sold by the time BCRS sales are 
Page 24 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

scheduled to end on December 31, 2003—generating approximately

$35 million in surcharge revenue.

BCRS Sales Have Fluctuated 

Over Time

Quarterly BCRS sales fluctuated considerably between 1998 and 2003 but 

have generally trended lower after reaching a high point of almost 40 

million sales in quarter 3, 2000.17 During the early years that the BCRS was 

for sale—quarter 4, 1998 through quarter 4, 2000—quarterly sales varied 

from a low of 18.3 million to a high of 39.8 million, with average quarterly 

sales of 26.4 million. During the latter years—from quarter 1, 2001, through 

quarter 3, 2003, sales ranged from 14.9 million to 27.8 million, with average 

quarterly sales of 19.5 million. To help shed additional light on the 

continued effectiveness of the BCRS as a means of fund-raising, we also 

looked at quarterly sales data for the Heroes of 2001 semipostal to see if 

there was a discernable decline in BCRS sales during the quarters when 

both semipostals were being sold simultaneously. 

Although sales of the BCRS trended somewhat lower during the 4 quarters 

the Heroes semipostal was for sale, postal officials and other stakeholders 

did not believe there was a strong correlation. Postal officials pointed out 

that although BCRS sales declined during the period from quarter 4, 2002, 

through quarter 2, 2003, they did not drop nearly as precipitously as the 

sales of the Heroes semipostal—which fell from 45.4 million in quarter 4, 

2002, to 11.0 million in quarter 3, 2003. Also, some postal officials and other 

stakeholders believed that over the long term, postal patrons who 

repeatedly purchase semipostals tend to support causes that have 

organized, nationwide support bases. For example, some postal officials 

and other stakeholders believe many people who purchase BCRSs know 

someone who is fighting breast cancer or fought it in the past. Likewise, 

postal patrons who repeatedly purchase BCRSs are likely to be aware that 

the BCRS is supported by many of the national breast cancer organizations 

or their affiliates. 

However, some postal officials and other stakeholders speculated that the 

Heroes of 2001 semipostal may have initially been purchased by a large, 

diverse population eager to provide assistance to the families of emergency 

relief personnel killed or permanently disabled in connection with the 

terrorists attacks on September 11, 2001. However, these postal officials 

17The postal fiscal year consists of 13, 4-week accounting periods. A postal quarter (PQ) 

consists of three consecutive accounting periods except for PQ 4, which covers the last four 

accounting periods of the fiscal year.
Page 25 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

and other stakeholders suspected that large initial sales figures for the 

Heroes semipostal were not sustainable because that semipostal did not 

benefit from the support of a long-established, well-organized, nationwide 

network of organizations to keep the Heroes semipostal in the pubic eye. 

Figure 5 shows the number of BCRSs sold since date of issuance through 

quarter 3, 2003, as well as the number of Heroes of 2001 semipostals sold 

from date of issuance through quarter 3, 2003.

Figure 5: Number of BCRS and Heroes Semipostals Sold by Postal Quarter 

Key Stakeholders Believe 

the BCRS Has Been an 

Effective

Fund-Raiser

The key stakeholders we spoke with that expressed a view about the 

effectiveness of the BCRS believed it had been effective in raising funds for 

breast cancer research. Some of the stakeholders who did not express a 

view on the effectiveness of the BCRS provided other comments about 

semipostals.
Page 26 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

Opinions of Key Stakeholders 

Who Expressed View That the 

BCRS Has Been an Effective 

Fund-Raiser

Key stakeholders who believed the BCRS has been an effective fund-raiser 

included the Postal Service; Dr. B.I. Bodai (the individual credited with 

conceiving the idea for the BCRS and who, along with Ms. Betsy Mullen, 

lobbied Congress for the BCRS); Ms. Betsy Mullen (the Women’s 

Information Network Against Breast Cancer), the Susan G. Komen Breast 

Cancer Foundation; the American Cancer Society; and the American 

Philatelic Society. 

According to postal officials, the effectiveness of the BCRS as a means of 

fund-raising is self-evident for two particular reasons. First, the BCRS has 

raised over $30 million for breast cancer research since it was issued in 

July 1998. Second, more than 450 million BCRS’s had been sold through 

quarter 3, 2003, making the BCRS very popular when compared with the 

Service’s best-selling commemorative stamps. Postal officials note that 

although BCRS sales have periodically waxed and waned, yearly sales 

totals have remained strong since the BCRS was issued. 

Dr. B.I. Bodai believed the BCRS has been a more effective, consistent 

fund-raiser than expected. He said no one anticipated that the pennies 

generated from the sale of each BCRS across the country would, over time, 

total well over $30 million. Dr. Bodai said the BCRS was popular with 

families affected by breast cancer, but he believed sales could have been 

significantly higher if the Service and the various breast cancer 

organizations had even more vigorously and consistently promoted the 

BCRS over the past 5 years.

Ms. Betsy Mullen of the Women’s Information Network Against Breast 

Cancer stated she believed the BCRS had been a very effective fund-raiser. 

Further, she noted that the BCRS’ effectiveness wasn’t just limited to 

raising funds, but was also extremely effective at raising awareness of 

breast cancer and the fight to eradicate it. Ms. Mullen also stated that the 

Women’s Information Network Against Breast Cancer had worked very 

closely with Congress to ensure that money raised by the BCRS not 

supplant congressional appropriations for breast cancer research, and she 

believed money raised by the BCRS had not been used to supplant 

congressional appropriations to NIH and DOD for breast cancer research. 

She stated that from an educational perspective, the BCRS has been 

“priceless” in its role of promoting breast cancer awareness as a women’s 

health issue. She said she believed that because of the BCRS, many more 

women have gotten mammograms than otherwise would have, and many 

lives therefore have been saved. 
Page 27 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation stated that the BCRS has 

consistently been an effective means of raising funds since it was issued in 

1998. The foundation expressed the belief that over the years, the BCRS has 

proven to be even more successful than anyone had initially anticipated. 

The foundation reiterated its earlier position that the BCRS has been a 

unique and innovative fund-raising tool and has raised breast cancer 

awareness on a global scale. Further, the foundation stated that if anything, 

it has become an even stronger supporter of the BCRS over the years. The 

foundation and its 118 affiliates across the country have found the BCRS to 

be not only a great means for raising awareness, but also an excellent 

promotional tool that has helped stimulate breast cancer organizations’ 

fund-raising activities—particularly at the local level. 

The American Cancer Society believed that time has proven the BCRS to be 

an effective means of raising funds for breast cancer research. As we 

reported in 2000, the American Cancer Society’s position had been that it 

was too early to label the BCRS as either effective or ineffective. However, 

the society stated that the BCRS has since shown that it has effectively 

raised money for breast cancer research. Society officials recalled that they 

had previously been concerned that the BCRS might take momentum away 

from federal funding for breast cancer research or adversely affect fundraising organizations’ ability to raise research funds. They stated, however, 

that they had seen no evidence, over the past 5 years, to indicate that the 

BCRS had taken momentum away from federal funding for breast cancer 

research or adversely affected the American Cancer Society’s ability to 

raise research funds. The society said that it still believes vigilance is in 

order to ensure that the BCRS does not affect research funding or fundraising, but otherwise it has no concerns about the BCRS. Society officials 

said that the BCRS fits well with the society’s goals—one of which is to 

increase awareness of breast cancer. The society stated that it supports the 

BCRS. 

American Philatelic Society officials stated that they had been surprised at 

stamp collectors’ acceptance of the BCRS in particular, and semipostals in 

general. As we reported in 2000, the society was opposed to semipostals 

and believed they were a tax on the hobby of stamp collecting. Over time, 

however, the society has come to believe that the BCRS’ strong sales 

indicate that semipostals are now widely accepted, making them effective 

fund-raisers. Nevertheless, the officials cautioned that although stamp 

collectors are now accepting of semipostals, they do not want to see more 

than one or two new semipostal issues per year. Otherwise, stamp 
Page 28 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

collectors would be forced to buy too many of the higher priced semipostal 

issues each year in order to maintain complete stamp collections.

Comments Made by Other Key 

Stakeholders

The National Breast Cancer Coalition (NBCC) stated that its position on 

the BCRS had not changed since our April 2000 BCRS report. Officials 

stated that NBCC still believes there are more effective ways of raising 

money for research than using semipostals. NBCC stated that a better 

gauge of the BCRS’ effectiveness would be how well the surcharge revenue 

was spent on research rather than simply how much money the BCRS 

raised. NBCC continues to believe that effectively lobbying Congress holds 

the most promise for raising significant amounts of money for breast 

cancer research. 

The Chairperson of the Citizen’s Stamp Advisory Committee stated that it 

was outside the scope of the committee’s role to evaluate or take a position 

on the effectiveness of the BCRS. The Citizen’s Stamp Advisory Committee 

is a 15-member group of citizens appointed by and serving at the pleasure 

of the Postmaster General for the primary purpose of providing the Postal 

Service with a “breadth of judgment and depth of experience in various 

areas that influence subject matter, character and beauty of postage 

stamps.” Under Postal Service regulations implementing the Semipostal 

Authorization Act, the committee is also responsible for reviewing eligible 

semipostal proposals and making recommendations to the Postmaster 

General on worthy cause(s) and executive agency(ies) eligible to receive 

funds raised by semipostals. The Chairperson emphasized that Postal 

Service management decides policy, administrative, and operational 

matters related to semipostals—not the Citizen’s Stamp Advisory 

Committee. She stated that the committee’s primary function is to review 

proposals for stamps and select subjects for recommendation to the 

Postmaster General that are both interesting and educational.

Survey Respondents View 

Semipostals in a Positive 

Light

To determine the public’s awareness of the BCRS and its view of 

semipostals in general, we included pertinent questions in our survey of the 

public. We asked the same question about awareness of the BCRS that we 

asked in our August 1999 survey to look for evidence about whether the 

public had become more aware of the BCRS over time.

The survey results suggest that about 29 percent of adults were aware of 

the BCRS at the time of our recent inquiry—which occurred almost 5 years 

after the BCRS was issued. About 37 percent of women and about 19 

percent of men were aware of the BCRS. The survey results from our 
Page 29 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

August 1999 survey, which was conducted about 1 year after the BCRS 

went on sale, indicated that about 24 percent of adults were aware of the 

BCRS at that time. About 29 percent of women and about 18 percent of 

men were aware of the BCRS in 1999. We are unable to determine whether 

the changes in our awareness estimates are due to genuine changes in 

awareness or to sampling errors and other nonsampling errors related to 

the 89 percent nonresponse rate, as discussed in appendix I.

To help gauge the public’s experience with the BCRS, we also asked the 

survey participants whether they had ever purchased a BCRS. About 12 

percent report they had purchased the BCRS. We did not ask a similar 

question in our 1999 public opinion survey.

Transfers of Surcharge 

Revenue to NIH and DOD 

for Breast Cancer Research

As of September 2003, the Service had transferred to NIH and DOD about 

$30.8 million from funds raised by the BCRS for breast cancer research. 

NIH and DOD reported to us that they have established programs to award 

funds for innovative breast cancer research conducted by various research 

institutions. 

As noted in our April 2000 BCRS report, the act specifies that after 

deducting its reasonable costs, the Service is to transfer 70 and 30 percent 

of the remaining surcharge revenue generated by the BCRS to NIH and 

DOD, respectively. The act also specifies that such transfers be made at 

least twice yearly under arrangements as agreed to between the Service 

and those agencies. Further, the act specifies that NIH and DOD are to use 

transferred BCRS surcharge revenues for breast cancer research. Unlike 

any agency that was to receive funds generated from semipostals issued 

under the Semipostal Authorization Act, NIH and DOD are not subject to 

annual reporting requirements. Agencies that receive funds from 

semipostals issued under the Semipostal Authorization Act are required to 

submit annual reports to Congress that include (1) the total amount of 

funds received during the year; (2) an accounting of how the funds were 

allocated or otherwise used; and (3) a description of any significant 

advances or accomplishments made during the year that were funded, in 

whole or in part, out of amounts received. 

Information currently reported to Congress on NIH’s and DOD’s use of 

research funds generated by the BCRS does not adequately support 

congressional oversight. As mandated, our periodic reports to Congress 

focus primarily on the BCRS’ costs, effectiveness, and appropriateness; not 

on how NIH and DOD use BCRS surcharge revenues for breast cancer 
Page 30 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

research and the accomplishments resulting from such research. To help 

manage their respective BCRS funded research programs, NIH and DOD 

require award recipients to provide periodic reports on the progress being 

made and breakthroughs achieved. This is the same information that 

Congress requires of agencies receiving surcharge revenues generated by 

semipostals issued under the Semipostal Authorization Act; and this readily 

available information could be, if required, submitted by NIH and DOD to 

Congress on an annual basis.

To date, the Service has complied with the requirements in the Stamp Out 

Breast Cancer Act regarding the transfers of BCRS surcharge revenue to 

NIH and DOD. NIH and DOD are using BCRS surcharge revenue 

transferred to them to fund breast cancer research. Table 3 shows the 

transfers, by fiscal year, that have been made since the BCRS was issued in 

July 1998.

Table 3: Transfers Made to NIH and DOD for Breast Cancer Research 

Source: NIH, DOD, and U.S. Postal Service.

Breast Cancer Research Funded 

with BCRS Surcharge Revenue 

Transferred to NIH and DOD

NIH and DOD officials said that, as required by the Stamp Out Breast 

Cancer Act, they have been using transferred BCRS surcharge revenue to 

fund breast cancer research. NIH officials said that revenue received from 

the BCRS surcharge revenue has been used to fund breast cancer research 

under the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) “Insight Awards to Stamp Out 

Breast Cancer” initiative. The officials said that this program was designed 

to fund high-risk exploration by scientists who are employed outside the 

federal government and conduct breast cancer research at their 

institutions. They reported that 86 awards had been made as of April 2003, 

and most of the awards were for 2-year periods with several projects still 

alive. Discounting a single, one-time supplement for $4,300, individual 

awards ranged from $47,250 to $142,500 and averaged about $111,000. The 

Fiscal year Amount transferred to NIH Amount transferred to DOD 

Total transferred to NIH and 

DOD 

1999 $4,150,210 $1,778,661 $5,928,871

2000 3,101,033 1,329,014 4,430,047

2001 5,556,225 2,381,240 7,937,465

2002 3,594,621 1,540,552 5,135,173

2003 5,175,938 2,218,259 7,394,197

Total $21,578,027 $9,247,726 $30,825,753
Page 31 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

officials stated that these insight awards were innovative and high-risk 

projects; and many have been successful in leading to new insights and 

approaches in the biology, diagnosis, and treatment of breast cancer. The 

officials stated that NCI is currently considering additional research 

projects to be funded using BCRS surcharge revenue not yet committed. 

Detailed information provided by NIH/NCI on breast cancer research 

awards funded with proceeds from BCRS surcharge revenue is reprinted in 

appendix II.

DOD officials told us that revenue received from the BCRS’ surcharge 

revenue had been used to fund “DOD Breast Cancer Research Program 

Idea Awards,” which are administered by the U.S. Army Medical Research 

and Materiel Command. Idea Awards are intended to encourage innovative 

approaches to breast cancer research. DOD officials told us that 19 awards 

had been made as of April 2003. Individual awards ranged from $5,000 to 

$578,000 and averaged about $356,500. These awards have focused on 

research into such areas as the biology of cancer cell growth and tumor 

formation, immunotherapy, and new areas of breast cancer detection. The 

officials stated that DOD plans to continue investing money received from 

BCRS surcharge revenue into programs that will encourage innovative 

approaches to breast cancer research. The officials also stated that about 

$256,000 of the transferred funds had been used for management expenses. 

Detailed information provided by DOD on breast cancer research awards 

funded with proceeds from BCRS surcharge revenue is reprinted in 

appendix III.

Appropriateness of 

Using Semipostals as a 

Means of Fund-Raising

Most of the key stakeholders we spoke with and the public believe it is 

appropriate for the Postal Service to sell the BCRS, as well as other 

semipostals, to raise funds for worthwhile causes. When we issued our 

April 2000 report, the BCRS was the only semipostal available from the 

Postal Service. However, since that time, Congress has passed legislation 

mandating two additional semipostals and is currently considering 

legislation requiring two more semipostals and extending the sales period 

for the BCRS. 

Opinions of the Postal 

Service, Key Stakeholders, 

and Others Regarding 

Appropriateness

The Service, NBCC, and the Citizens Stamps Advisory Committee generally 

viewed using semipostals to raise funds for designated causes as 

inappropriate; Dr. B.I. Bodai, Ms. Betsy Mullen, the Susan G. Komen Breast 

Cancer Foundation, the American Cancer Society, and the American 
Page 32 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

Philatelic Society viewed using semipostals to raise funds as appropriate. 

The public also believes that it is appropriate to use semipostals as fundraisers. 

Views of the Postal Service and 

Other Key Stakeholders

The Postal Service has historically been opposed to semipostals. The 

Service believes that fund-raising through the sale of semipostals is an 

activity outside the scope of the Service’s mission as defined by the Postal 

Reorganization Act. The Service also remains concerned that the 

popularity of the BCRS does not necessarily portend the success of future 

semipostals, whether mandated by Congress or initiated by the Postal 

Service, and that future semipostals might generate only modest amounts 

of revenue while still requiring substantial postal expenditures. Postal 

officials are further concerned that too many semipostals not be on the 

market at the same time. The BCRS, initially slated for a 2-year sales 

period, has been twice extended by Congress and has been on sale for over 

5 years. Postal officials worry that if semipostals are mandated but not 

retired, the market for semipostals might become oversaturated to the 

detriment of individual semipostals as well as the semipostal program in 

general.

The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation stated that the BCRS was 

appropriate when issued and remains appropriate today. The foundation 

continues to support the BCRS wholeheartedly. Further, the foundation 

believed that the BCRS provides an easy and convenient way for the public 

to support and contribute to breast cancer research. The foundation stated 

that during the 5 years the BCRS has been for sale, it has become “a 

unifying symbol of the fight to find a cure for breast cancer which has 

become woven into the fabric of America.” When feasible, the foundation 

uses the BCRS on both mass mailings and individual pieces of 

correspondence.

The American Cancer Society continues to believe that it is appropriate to 

use the BCRS as a means of fund-raising. The society has held this opinion 

since the BCRS was first issued. 

The American Philatelic Society stated that its position on the 

appropriateness of the BCRS has moderated over time. The society no 

longer believes it is inappropriate for the Service to issue semipostals, 

changing its view because of the wide public acceptance of the BCRS. 

Society officials also told us that although BCRS costs are not identified 

and tracked with precision, they are in the ballpark given the regulations 

that the Service has issued for tracking and allocating costs.
Page 33 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

NBCC stated that its opinion regarding the appropriateness of using the 

BCRS as a means of fund-raising had not changed since our April 2000 

BCRS report. NBCC still had reservations about the appropriateness of the 

BCRS, and officials stated that they were still concerned that the BCRS 

might be more of a symbolic gesture, on Congress’ part, than an all-out 

commitment to fund whatever research is needed to eradicate breast 

cancer in the shortest possible time. 

The Chairperson of the Citizen’s Stamp Advisory Committee stated that the 

committee’s position has always been that semipostals are inappropriate 

because fundraising is outside the scope of the Postal Service’s mission. 

The Chairperson noted that the committee had been against the Semipostal 

Authorization Act. The act mandated that the Service establish a 

semipostal program, and select causes to be represented by semipostals 

and agencies to receive funds raised through the sale of semipostals. The 

committee found it interesting that after giving the Service responsibility 

for selecting semipostals, Congress has continued to mandate additional 

semipostals. The committee is concerned that if Congress continues to 

mandate new semipostals without retiring old ones, a situation could 

eventually develop where semipostals, which are essentially 

commemorative stamps with a surcharge, might begin to “crowd out” the 

Service’s regular commemorative stamp program. This could present a 

nationwide problem in post offices because there is limited space in 

window clerks’ stamp drawers for different stamp issues. Because the 

Service requires that semipostals be available in all post offices at all times, 

the number of regular commemorative stamp issues might have to be 

limited to accommodate semipostals unless the number of semipostals for 

sale at any one time is limited. 

Dr. B.I. Bodai reiterated his belief that using the Postal Service to issue 

semipostals for worthy, nonpostal causes is very appropriate and is an 

example of what good government is all about. Dr. Bodai stated that the 

BCRS has not only been appropriate from the standpoint of raising money 

for breast cancer research but has also been extremely valuable as a tool 

for raising breast cancer awareness on a nationwide basis. He noted that 

the BCRS is so popular that some states, such as Georgia, have 

incorporated its image into specialty automobile license plates. 

Ms. Betsy Mullen of the Women’s Information Network Against Breast 

Cancer believes that the BCRS is very appropriate, as would be other 

semipostals that raise funds for worthwhile causes. Ms. Mullen believes 

that the Service can successfully sell two or more semipostals at the same 
Page 34 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

time. She said that the Service has a long and successful history of 

concurrently selling multiple commemorative stamps, and the American 

public has demonstrated over the years its philanthropic support for 

multiple worthwhile causes. She also said that concurrently selling two or 

more semipostals is not a detriment to the semipostal program, but rather 

an enhancement because multiple semipostals cross-promote each other’s 

sales. She noted that the Service is cross-promoting the sale of the BCRS 

and Heroes semipostals through its advertisements of these semipostals at 

post offices. Finally, she stated that the Women’s Information Network 

Against Breast Cancer uses the BCRS on all of its correspondence, and, 

because of the BCRS, research is now being done that otherwise would not 

have been done.

The Public’s View The public continues to believe that it is appropriate to use semipostals to 

raise funds for nonpostal purposes. Our public opinion survey conducted 

by International Communications Research (ICR) indicated that about 71 

percent believe it is very or somewhat appropriate to use semipostals 

issued by the Postal Service, such as the BCRS, to raise funds for nonpostal 

purposes and about 23 percent believe it is somewhat or very 

inappropriate. Six percent had no opinion, said they didn’t know, or 

volunteered the answer that it would depend on the cause for which the 

semipostal was being used to raise money. Statistically, these opinions 

about the appropriateness of semipostals are not large enough to be 

significantly different from the findings of our 1999 survey. 

Statutory Authorities and 

Constraints

On the legislative front, several laws have been enacted since our April 

2000 BCRS report that affect the BCRS specifically or semipostals in 

general. These laws have (1) twice extended the sales period for the BCRS, 

(2) authorized two additional semipostals, and (3) authorized the Service to 

issue future semipostals. Also, as of August 2003, Congress was 

considering legislation establishing two more semipostals and extending 

the sales period for the BCRS until December 31, 2005. As of August 2003, 

the Service had not issued any semipostals of its own choosing and had no 

plans to do so until the sales period for congressionally mandated 

semipostals have ended. We believe this position is consistent with the 

discretion afforded the Service under the Semipostal Authorization Act. 

Conclusions We are concerned that the Service’s BCRS regulations can be interpreted as 

not requiring the Service to provide baseline comparisons for certain BCRS 
Page 35 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

costs, e.g., printing, sales, and distribution, although the Stamp Out Breast 

Cancer Act specifically states that reasonable costs in these areas 

attributable to the BCRS should be recouped from its surcharge revenue. 

Although the Service has provided printing costs for various 

commemorative stamps, it has not established baseline costs for certain 

BCRS costs. Without these baselines, the Service lacks assurance that it is 

identifying and recouping excess costs from the BCRS’ surcharge revenue. 

If the Service does not recoup costs for items that exceed those of 

comparable stamps, the Service could be subsidizing BCRS costs. 

Furthermore, without having baseline cost information for comparable 

stamps for the cost categories that the Service does track for the BCRS, it is 

impossible to determine whether the Service has recouped all reasonable 

costs of the BCRS that exceed those for comparable stamps in such cost 

categories. Further, the Service has not met its commitment to Congress to 

provide it with BCRS cost data and analyses, as we had previously 

recommended, to assure postal ratepayers that they are not involuntarily 

contributing to breast cancer research. Without current BCRS cost data 

and analyses, Congress and the public continue to lack assurance that 

postal ratepayers are not involuntarily contributing funds to breast cancer 

research. 

Nearly all of the stakeholders that we spoke with consider the BCRS to be a 

success, particularly given its sales performance to date. According to NIH 

and DOD, millions of dollars in BCRS surcharge revenue have contributed 

to important new insights and approaches in the biology, diagnosis, and 

treatment of breast cancer, as well as in other areas of research. NIH and 

DOD provided us information regarding their use of BCRS surcharge 

revenue as well as advances or accomplishments they achieved. However, 

NIH and DOD are not required to submit annual reports to Congress like 

agencies that are to receive funds from semipostals issued under the 

Semipostal Authorization Act. Congress has twice extended the sales 

period for the BCRS and is currently considering a third extension. 

Therefore, establishing annual reporting requirements for NIH and DOD, 

similar to the statutory reporting requirements established for any agency 

that would receive funds from semipostals issued under the Semipostal 

Authorization Act, would prove valuable by providing information on the 

amount of funds received, how the funds were used, and any 

accomplishments resulting from the use of those funds, should Congress 

decide to further extend the BCRS sales period. 
Page 36 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

Matter for 

Congressional 

Consideration

If Congress decides to extend the sales period for the BCRS past its 

scheduled end date of December 31, 2003, it may wish to consider 

establishing a requirement that NIH and DOD annually report to Congress, 

similar to the requirement for agencies that are to receive surcharge 

revenues generated from semipostals issued under the Semipostal 

Authorization Act. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

We are reaffirming our recommendation made in April 2000 that the 

Postmaster General direct postal management to make available the cost 

data and analyses showing which BCRS costs have been recovered through 

the First-Class postage rate to provide assurance that postal ratepayers are 

not involuntarily contributing funds to breast cancer research. 

We also recommend that the Postmaster General reexamine and, as 

necessary, revise the Service’s December 2001 cost-recovery regulations to 

ensure that the Service establishes baseline costs for comparable 

commemorative stamps and uses these baselines to identify and recoup 

excess costs from the BCRS’ surcharge revenue. As part of that process, 

the Postmaster General should publish the baseline costs it is using. This 

would help provide assurance that the Service is recouping all reasonable 

costs of the BCRS from the surcharge revenue.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

The Postal Service provided comments on a draft of this report in a letter 

from the Senior Vice President, Government Relations dated September 10, 

2003. These comments are summarized below and are reprinted as 

appendix IV. Postal officials also provided technical and clarifying 

comments, which we have incorporated into the report where appropriate.

The Senior Vice President indicated that the Service plans to take 

appropriate actions to address our specific recommendations. He stated 

that the Service never intended that its BCRS cost-recovery regulations be 

interpreted as not requiring establishment of adequate baselines for 

comparing certain categories of costs. However, he acknowledged that the 

regulations might need to be revised to make the Service’s intent clearer. 

Regarding the establishment of baselines, he noted that comparisons 

between the BCRS and comparable commemoratives could involve 

different facets in various areas. For example, he noted that printing cost 

comparisons could be difficult because they may involve differing time 

periods, different graphic designs, and different print runs. Nonetheless, he 
Page 37 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

said that the Service would reexamine its semipostal regulations with a 

view toward proposing revisions about what costs are to be identified and 

recouped from surcharge revenues. 

In commenting on our reaffirmed recommendation that the Service make 

available BCRS cost data and analyses, the Senior Vice President stated the 

Service plans to reassess the earlier analysis it had commissioned on 

recovery of BCRS costs through the First-Class Mail postage rate in light of 

the cost-recovery issues raised in our report. He stated that the Service 

would provide Congress and us with the results of that reassessment upon 

completion. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman and Ranking Minority 

Member, Subcommittee on Health, House Committee on Energy and 

Commerce; and to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International 

Relations, House Committee on Government Reform because of their 

involvement in passage of the Stamp Out Breast Cancer Act. We are also 

sending copies of this report to Senator Dianne Feinstein and 

Representative Joe Baca because of their expressed interest in the BCRS; 

the Postmaster General and Chief Executive Officer, United States Postal 

Service; the Chairman of the Postal Rate Commission; and other interested 

parties. Copies will also be made available to others upon request. In 

addition, this report will be available at our Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. If you or your staffs 

have any questions about this letter or the appendixes, please contact me at 

(202) 512-2834 or E-mail at ungarb@gao.gov.

Bernard L. Ungar

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues 
Page 38 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology AAppenednxideIxsi

Our objectives for this report were to fulfill our legislative mandate to 

update Congress on (1) the monetary and other resources the Postal 

Service has expended in operating and administering the Breast Cancer 

Research Semipostal (BCRS) program, (2) the effectiveness of using the 

BCRS as a means of fund-raising, and (3) the appropriateness of using the 

BCRS as a means of fund-raising. We also provide information on the status 

of recommendations made to the Postmaster General in our April 2000 

BCRS report. In essence, we recommended that the Service formalize its 

criteria for making BCRS cost recovery decisions and make BCRS cost data 

and analyses available to assure postal ratepayers that they were not 

involuntarily subsidizing BCRS costs.

To describe the monetary and other resources the Service has expended in 

operating and administering the BCRS program, we updated pertinent 

information presented in our April 2000 report to reflect current 

conditions. To do this, we interviewed officials in the Service’s Offices of 

Stamp Services and Finance responsible for administering the BCRS 

program and tracking its costs. We gathered and analyzed data on the 

surcharge revenue raised by the BCRS as well as data on the costs and 

resources the Service used in operating and administering the BCRS 

program. We also identified and reviewed the Service’s criteria for 

determining which costs are to be recouped from the BCRS’ surcharge 

revenue and, as necessary, discussed with finance officials the application 

of the Service’s criteria for certain cost items. 

To determine if the BCRS has been an effective means of fund-raising, we 

obtained and analyzed BCRS sales data and discussed with finance and 

stamp services officials how certain events may have affected sales. We 

obtained similar information for the Heroes of 2001 semipostal and 

compared sales for the two semipostals. We also obtained information on 

how much BCRS generated funds had been transferred to the National 

Institutes of Health (NIH) and Department of Defense (DOD) for breast 

cancer research, and obtained information on how the money was being 

used to further breast cancer research. We did not evaluate or assess NIH’s 

and DOD’s process for determining who would be awarded BCRS research 

funds, nor did we evaluate any of the individual awards. Additionally, we 

did not independently verify any of the financial data provided by NIH and 

DOD. Further, we interviewed all but one of the key stakeholders that we 

had interviewed for our April 2000 report to determine if their views on the 

BCRS’ effectiveness as a fund-raiser have changed since our last report. 

The key stakeholders interviewed included representatives of (1) the 

American Cancer Society, (2) the National Breast Cancer Coalition 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 39 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

(NBCC), (3) the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, (4) Dr. B. I. 

Bodai, and (5) the American Philatelic Society. We did not interview the 

current Curator of the Smithsonian Institution’s National Philatelic 

Collection for this report. We had interviewed the former Curator for our 

April 2000 report, but the current Curator said that it was not within his 

personal expertise to evaluate the effectiveness or appropriateness of the 

BCRS, or semipostals in general, and it would not be proper for him to 

comment in his role as an official of the Postal Museum. For this report, we 

also interviewed Betsy Mullen, who is the founder of the Women’s 

Information Network Against Breast Cancer, and who, along with Dr. B.I. 

Bodai, lobbied Congress to pass legislation creating the BCRS. Further, we 

interviewed the Chairperson of the Citizens Stamp Advisory Committee 

because, since our last BCRS report, the committee has been given the 

responsibility for reviewing semipostal candidates and making 

recommendations to the Postmaster General. We did not update the 

information included in our April 2000 report on foreign postal 

administration’s semipostal activities because of the time and resources 

that such work would have required and the limited new information that it 

likely would have yielded. 

To determine if the BCRS has been an appropriate means of fund-raising, 

we interviewed the same key stakeholders identified above to solicit their 

current views on the appropriateness of using the BCRS to raise funds. We 

also researched and analyzed applicable sections of the U. S. Code and 

Postal Service regulations to identify changes that have occurred since our 

April 2000 report that either affected the BCRS directly or the semipostal 

program in general. Additionally, we identified and analyzed pending 

legislation that would affect the Service’s semipostal program. 

We conducted our review at Postal Service Headquarters in Washington, 

D.C., from February through August 2003 in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. 

Public Opinion Survey To obtain the public’s opinion of the BCRS in 2003, we contracted with 

International Communications Research (ICR) of Media, Pa. ICR included 

five questions about the BCRS and semipostals in its national omnibus 

telephone survey, conducted on 5 days, from June 27 and July 1, 2003 

(Friday through Tuesday). Omnibus surveys of this type also collect 

demographic information and include questions for other clients on other 

topics. For our previous survey in 1999, ICR followed the same survey 

procedures when it asked four of the five questions that we used in 2003. In 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 40 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

2003, interviews were completed with respondents at 1,038 of the 

estimated 9,046 eligible sampled households, for a response rate of about 

11 percent1. These survey procedures yield a nonprobability sample of 

members of the population of the contiguous United States (48 states and 

the District of Columbia) who are 18 years or older, speak English, and 

reside in a household with a residential, land-based telephone. The 89 

percent nonresponse rate means that estimates in the report are subject to 

nonsampling errors of unknown magnitude. 

Selection of Households and 

Respondents

Random digit dial (RDD) equal probability selection methods were 

followed to identify telephone numbers using the GENESYS Sampling 

System. The GENESYS system draws numbers from those active banks of 

telephone exchanges that have at least two household numbers listed and 

are accessed through land lines. Exchanges assigned to cellular telephones 

are not included.

The interviewers selected a member from each household, using a mixture 

of random and systematic procedures. Because adult males are more 

difficult to contact and interview in telephone surveys, ICR took the 

following measures to meet the specification of at least 500 completed 

male interviews, or approximately half of the sample. An interviewer first 

attempted to interview the adult male (aged 18 or older) with the most 

recent birthday. If that male was not present in the household at the time of 

the telephone call, then any other male present in the household at that 

time was selected; if no male was present, then an adult female was 

selected, with first preference being for the female present with the most 

recent birthday. Because the specifications were still not met, only males 

were interviewed during the closing phase of the survey. Although routine 

procedures specify five attempts to locate a respondent in each household, 

many households did not receive five calls and had not been contacted by 

the end of the interview period after one or more calls ended in a busy 

signal, no answer, or inability to complete a callback attempt. The 

respondent selection procedures eliminated interviewer judgment from the 

selection process, but did not yield a random, probability sample of the U.S. 

population. For example, these procedures exclude females who are 

1

This is based on the Response Rate 3 (RR3) convention defined by the American 

Association of Public Opinion Research: 

http://www.aapor.org/default.asp?page=survey_methods/standards_and_best_practices/sta

ndard_definitions. This response rate is calculated on the assumption that telephone numbers 

that were never contacted would have yielded eligible households at the same rate (24.8 

percent) as that experienced with the contacted households.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 41 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

present in households at the time when a willing male is present. The 

procedures also exclude any household members who are not at home at 

the time the interviewer contacts the household.

Survey respondents are weighted in our analyses so that age, sex, 

education, and regional estimates from our survey will match U.S. data 

from the March 2002 Current Population Survey (CPS) on these 

demographic characteristics for the adult population (18 years of age and 

older) of the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia. The number 

of telephone numbers in the household and number of household members 

were also considered in the weighting process.

Sampling Errors As with all sample surveys, this survey is subject to both sampling and 

nonsampling errors. The effects of sampling errors, due to the selection of 

a sample from a larger population, can be expressed as confidence 

intervals based on statistical theory. The effects of nonsampling errors, 

such as nonresponse and errors in measurement, may be of greater or 

lesser importance, but cannot be quantified on the basis of the available 

data.

Sampling errors occur because we use a sample to draw conclusions about 

a much larger population. The survey’s sample of telephone numbers is 

based on a probability selection procedure. As a result, the sample was 

only one of a large number of samples that might have been drawn from the 

total telephone exchanges throughout the country. If a different sample had 

been taken, the results might have been different. To recognize the 

possibility that other samples might have yielded other results, we express 

our confidence in the precision of our particular sample’s results as a 95 

percent confidence interval. For all the percentages presented in this 

report, we are 95-percent confident that when only sampling errors are 

considered, the results we obtained are within +/- 6 percentage points or 

less of what we would have obtained if we had surveyed the entire study 

population. For example, our survey estimates that 70 percent of the 

population feels that it is very or somewhat convenient to use special 

stamps to raise funds. The 95 percent confidence interval due to solely 

sampling errors for this estimate is between approximately 66 percent and 

73 percent.

Nonsampling Errors In addition to the reported sampling errors, the practical difficulties of 

conducting any survey introduce other types of errors, commonly referred 

to as nonsampling errors. For example, questions may be misinterpreted, 

some types of people may be more likely to be excluded from the study, 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 42 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

errors could be made in recording the questionnaire responses into the 

computer-assisted telephone interview software, and the respondents’ 

opinions may differ from those of people in the sampled households we did 

not successfully interview.

For this survey, the 11 percent response rate is a potential source of 

nonsampling error; we do not know if the respondents’ answers are 

different from the 89 percent who did not respond. With the available 

information we cannot estimate the impact of the nonresponse on our 

results. Our results will be biased to the extent that the people at the 89 

percent of the telephone numbers that did not yield an interview have 

different opinions about or experiences with the BCRS than did the 11 

percent of our sample who responded.

Once a respondent agreed to participate, the nonresponse for any 

particular item was low. Unless otherwise noted, less than 4 percent of the 

weighted answers to each question are in the category of not knowing an 

answer or refusing to answer the particular question.

BCRS Questionnaire The section of the questionnaire that obtained information on BCRS issues, 

including the introduction and the five survey questions, follows:

Since 1998, at the direction of Congress, the U.S. Postal Service has been 

selling a Breast Cancer Research stamp at a price above the First-Class 

postage rate. The stamp currently sells for 45 cents, with 37 cents covering 

the First-Class postage rate and most of the remaining 8 cents going to 

breast cancer research. This stamp is available at post offices, postal 

stores, special breast cancer fund-raising events, and from rural carriers 

and some postal vending machines. In order to provide the Congress with 

the public’s views on this topic, we would like to ask you some questions.

BC-1. Prior to hearing what I just told you about the 45-cent Breast Cancer 

Research stamp, were you aware that the Postal Service was selling such a 

stamp?

1 Yes

2 No

D (DO NOT READ) Don’t Know

R (DO NOT READ) Refused
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 43 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

BC-2. In your opinion are special stamps with an added cost—such as the 

45-cent Breast Cancer Research stamp—a convenient way for you to 

contribute to a special purpose? 

(READ LIST. ENTER ONE ONLY) 

4 Definitely yes

3 Probably yes

2 Probably no

1 Definitely no

D (DO NOT READ) Don’t know/No opinion

R (DO NOT READ) Refused

BC-3. In your opinion, how appropriate or inappropriate is it to use special 

stamps issued by the Postal Service to raise funds nonpostal purposes? 

(READ LIST. ENTER ONE ONLY) 

4 Very appropriate

3 Somewhat appropriate

2 Somewhat inappropriate

1 Very inappropriate

5 (DO NOT READ) Would depend on cause/purpose

D (DO NOT READ) Don’t know/No opinion

R (DO NOT READ) Refused

(IF Q 3 = SOMEWHAT INAPPROPRIATE OR VERY INAPPROPRIATE, 

CONTINUE; ELSE SKIP TO Q 5) 

BC-4. Please briefly explain why you believe it is inappropriate to use 

special stamps issued by the Postal Service to raise funds for nonpostal 

purposes. 

(TYPE IN RESPONSE; PROBE FOR CLARITY AND TO THE NEGATIVE) 

1. Response Given

D Don’t Know

R Refused
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 44 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

BC-5. Have you ever purchased a Breast Cancer Research Stamp? 

1 Yes

2 No

D (DO NOT READ) Don’t Know

R (DO NOT READ) Refused
Page 45 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

Appendix II

National Institutes of Health Breast Cancer 

Research Awards Funded with Proceeds from 

the BCRS’ Surcharge Revenue ApendIxi

As of April 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) reported that it had 

funded 86 breast cancer research awards using money transferred to NIH 

by the Postal Service from the BCRS’ surcharge revenue. The awards 

totaled about $9.5 million and covered research areas that included 

prevention, nutrition, biology, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, metastasis, 

tumorigenesis, and mutagenesis. Discounting a single, one-time 

supplement for $4,300, individual awards ranged from $47,250 to $142,500 

and averaged $111,395. Thirty-two of the 86 awards were noncompetitive 

continuations of previous BCRS funded awards. According to NIH officials, 

they were in the process of awarding the remaining funds that had been 

transferred to NIH for breast cancer research. Table 4 identifies pertinent 

information about each award, including the amount of the award, research 

area, principal investigator, sponsoring institution, and the fiscal year of the 

award.

Table 4: NIH/NCI Breast Cancer Research Awards Funded with Proceeds, as of April 2003, from BCRS Sales

Fiscal year Institution Principal investigator Research area Amount 

2000 Hadassah University Hospital Vlodavsky Metastasis $61,000

2000 Clemson University Chen Biology/metastasis $105,000

2000 Mount Sinai School of Medicine Kretzschmar Metastasis $125,387

2000 Institute for Cancer Research Yeung Prevention/biology $126,866

2000 University of Pennsylvania Lemmon Biology/treatment $118,875

2000 University of California, Irvine Blumberg Treatment $105,946

2000 Fox Chase Cancer Center Russo Tumorigenesis $126,866

2000 University of Melbourne Thompson Metastasis $75,000

2000 University of Hawaii Gotay Treatment $101,000

2000 University of Pennsylvania Radice Metastasis $118,875

2000 Wake Forest University Shelness Treatment $108,750

2000 Henry M. Jackson Foundation Lechleider Biology/metastasis $74,000

2000 Virginia Mason Research Center Nelson Biology/treatment $47,250

2000 Georgetown University Wong Biology/diagnosis $116,950

2000 Columbia University Swergold Mutagenesis $127,875

2000 Baylor College of Medicine Rosen Metastasis $78,488

2000 Thomas Jefferson University Sauter Diagnosis $81,089

2000 Center for Molecular Medicine and 

Immunology/Garden State Cancer Center

Blumenthal Treatment $142,500

2000 University of Pittsburgh Nichols Biology/treatment $112,500
Appendix II

National Institutes of Health Breast Cancer 

Research Awards Funded with Proceeds from 

the BCRS’ Surcharge Revenue

Page 46 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

Fiscal year Institution Principal investigator Research area Amount 

2000 University of Illinois at Chicago Westbrook Metastasis $116,475

2000 Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Kufe Biology/tumorigenesis $119,915

2000 Albany Medical College Bennett Treatment $116,250

2000 Yale University Zhang Biology/tumorigenesis $122,625

2000 Long Island Jewish Medical Center Shi Treatment/nutrition $116,616

2000 University of California, San Francisco Collins Treatment $110,625

2000 University of Massachusetts, Amherst Jerry Biology/tumorigenesis $115,125

2000 University of Vermont Krag Treatment $113,250

2000 State University of New York Muti Treatment/nutrition $77,000

2000 University of Utah Grissom Treatment $112,125

2000 Schepens Eye Research Institute D’Amore Biology/tumorigenesis $121,500

2000 Massachusetts General Hospital Haber Tumorigenesis $129,500

2000 Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Junghans Biology $130,500

2001 Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research Weinberg Biology $116,250

2001 Medical Diagnostic Research Foundation Chance Diagnosis $92,500

2001 Columbia University Health Sciences Fisher Treatment $127,875

2001 Georgetown University Dickson Tumorigenesis $116,600

2001 University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Sheaff Biology/prevention $111,375

2001 Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Garber Prevention $128,750

2001 Johns Hopkins University Fedarko Metastasis $122,750

2001 Northwestern University Jordan Prevention $110,250

2001 Stanford University Contag Diagnosis/metastasis $119,597

2001 University of California, Irvine Radany Biology $112,800

2001 Georgetown University Byers Prognosis/biology $116,550

2001 Wayne State University Fernandez-Madri Diagnosis $111,750

2001 Hadassah University Hospital Vlodavsky Metastasis $61,000

2001 Clemson University Chen Biology/metastasis $105,000

2001 Mount Sinai School of Medicine of New York 

University

Kretzschmar Metastasis $127,125

2001 Institute for Cancer Research Yeung Prevention/biology $126,133

2001 University of Pennsylvania Lemmon Biology/treatment $118,875

2001 University of California, Irvine Blumberg Treatment $112,800

2001 Fox Chase Cancer Center Russo Tumorigenesis $126,133

2001 University of Melbourne Thompson Metastasis $75,000

2001 University of Hawaii, Manoa Gotay Treatment $101,000

2001 University of Pennsylvania Radice Metastasis $118,875

2001 Wake Forest University Shelness Treatment $108,375

(Continued From Previous Page)
Appendix II

National Institutes of Health Breast Cancer 

Research Awards Funded with Proceeds from 

the BCRS’ Surcharge Revenue

Page 47 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

Source: NCI, NIH.

Fiscal year Institution Principal investigator Research area Amount 

2001 Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the 

Advancement of Military Medicine

Lechleider Biology/metastasis $74,000

2001 Virginia Mason Research Center Nelson Biology/treatment $47,250

2001 Georgetown University Wong Biology/diagnosis $116,400

2001 Columbia University Health Sciences Swergold Mutagenesis $127,875

2001 Baylor College of Medicine Rosen Metastasis $109,322

2001 Thomas Jefferson University Sauter Diagnosis $119,148

2001 Garden State Cancer Center Blumenthal Treatment $142,500

2001 University of Pittsburgh Nichols Biology/treatment $112,500

2001 University of Illinois Westbrook Metastasis $116,475

2001 Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Kufe Biology/tumorigenesis $125,862

2001 Albany Medical College of Union University Bennett Treatment $116,250

2001 Yale University Zhang Biology/tumorigenesis $122,625

2001 Long Island Jewish Medical Center Shi Treatment/nutrition $117,050

2001 University of California, San Francisco Collins Treatment $110,625

2001 University of Massachusetts, Amherst Jerry Biology/tumorigenesis $115,125

2001 University of Vermont and State Agricultural 

College

Krag Treatment $113,250

2001 University of Utah Grissom Treatment $112,500

2001 Schepens Eye Research Institute D’Amore Biology/tumorigenesis $121,500

2001 Massachusetts General Hospital Haber Tumorigenesis $127,500

2001 Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Junghans Biology $130,500

2002 Fox Chase Cancer Center Russo Tumorigenesis $4,300

2002 Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research Weinberg Biology $116,250

2002 Medical Diagnostic Research Foundation Chance Diagnosis $103,350

2002 Columbia University Health Sciences Fisher Treatment $127,875

2002 Georgetown University Dickson Tumorigenesis $116,400

2002 University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Sheaff Biology/prevention $111,375

2002 Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Garber Prevention $128,375

2002 Johns Hopkins University Fedarko Metastasis $122,625

2002 University of California, Irvine Radany Biology $112,800

2002 Georgetown University Byers Prognosis/biology $116,400

2002 Wayne State University Fernandez-Madrid Diagnosis $111,750

Total $9,472,843

(Continued From Previous Page)
Page 48 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

Appendix III

Department of Defense Breast Cancer 

Research Awards Funded with Proceeds from 

the BCRS’ Surcharge Revenue ApendIxi

As of April 2003, the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command 

reported that it had funded 19 breast cancer research awards using money 

transferred to DOD by the Postal Service from the BCRS’ surcharge 

revenue. The awards totaled about $6.8 million and covered research areas 

that included genetics, imaging, biology, epidemiology, immunology, and 

therapy. Individual awards ranged from $5,000 to $578,183 and averaged 

$356,478. According to DOD officials, about $256,000 of the transferred 

funds had been used for management expenses, and DOD was in the 

process of awarding the remaining funds. Table 5 identifies pertinent 

information about each award, including the amount of the award, research 

area, principal investigator, sponsoring institution, and the fiscal year of the 

award.

Table 5: DOD Breast Cancer Research Awards Funded with Proceeds, as of April 2003, from BCRS Sales

Source: U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, DOD.

Fiscal year Institution Principal investigator Research area Amount

1999 Garvan Institute Daly Cell biology $283,649

1999 Scripps Institute Deuel Molecular biology $5,000

1999 University of California, Davis Heyer Molecular biology $111,444

1999 Garvan Institute Musgrove Cell biology $222,652

1999 University of Arkansas Shah Cell biology $279,000

1999 Texas A&M University Wang Imaging $317,510

1999 University of Texas, SW Medical Center White Molecular biology $334,094

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 Vanderbilt University Cai Epidemiology/genetics $560,144

2001 University of California, Davis Carraway Cell biology $427,225

2001 University of Texas, SW Medical Center Chaudhary Cell biology $312,434

2001 Purdue University Geahlen Cell biology $425,425

2001 St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center Rosner Cell biology $454,181

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

Total $6,773,082
Page 49 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

Appendix IV

Comments from the U.S. Postal Service ApendVIxi
Appendix IV

Comments from the U.S. Postal Service

Page 50 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp
Page 51 GAO-03-1021 Breast Cancer Research Stamp

Appendix V

Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendVxi

GAO Contact Gerald P. Barnes (202) 512-2834 

Acknowledgments Alan N. Belkin, Kathleen A. Gilhooly, Kenneth E. John, Stuart M. Kaufman, 

Roger L. Lively, Jill P. Sayre, and Charles F. Wicker made key contributions 

to this report. 

(543052)
GAO’s Mission 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.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

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.

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. 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

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

Public Affairs 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

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00