Report to the Senate and House 

Committees on Armed Services 

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO 

September 2003 MILITARY 

RECRUITING 

DOD Needs to 

Establish Objectives 

and Measures to 

Better Evaluate 

Advertising's 

Effectiveness 

GAO-03-1005 
Since the late 1990s, DOD has revamped its recruiting advertising programs 

and nearly doubled the funding for recruiting advertising. The military 

services have revised many of their advertising campaigns and focused on 

complementing traditional advertising, such as by increasing the use of the 

Internet, and participating in more promotional activities, such as sports car 

racing events. DOD’s total advertising funding increased 98 percent in 

constant dollars from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2003—from $299 

million to $592 million. The advertising cost per enlisted recruit has nearly 

tripled and is now almost $1,900. The military services agree that the revised 

strategies and increased investments have energized their advertising 

campaigns and better positioned them to recruit in an increasingly 

competitive marketplace. Today, almost all of the active and reserve 

components are meeting their overall recruiting goals in terms of the quality 

and quantity of new recruits. 

DOD does not have clear program objectives and adequate outcome 

measures to evaluate the effectiveness of its advertising as part of its overall 

recruiting effort. Thus, DOD cannot show that its increased advertising 

efforts have been a key reason for its overall recruiting success. Isolating the 

impact of advertising on recruiting efforts is inherently difficult because 

joining the military is a profound life decision. Moreover, DOD has not 

consistently tracked key information, such as public awareness of military 

recruiting advertising and the willingness of young adults to join the military. 

Such data could be used to help evaluate the effectiveness of advertising. 

Without sufficient information on advertising’s effectiveness, DOD cannot 

determine the return on its advertising funding or make fact-based choices 

on how its overall recruiting investments should be allocated. 

DOD’s Total Recruiting Advertising Funding for Fiscal Years 1998 to 2003 

a

In-year estimate. 

The Department of Defense (DOD) 

must convince more than 200,000 

people each year to join the 

military. To assist in recruiting, the 

military services advertise on 

television, on radio, and in print 

and participate in other 

promotional activities. In the late 

1990s, some of the services missed 

their overall recruiting goals. In 

response, DOD added recruiting 

resources by increasing its 

advertising, number of recruiters, 

and financial incentives. By fiscal 

year 2003, DOD’s total recruiting 

budget was approaching $4 billion 

annually. 

At the request of Congress, GAO 

determined the changes in DOD’s 

advertising programs and funding 

trends since the late 1990s and 

assessed the adequacy of measures 

used by DOD to evaluate the 

effectiveness of its advertising. 

GAO recommends that DOD set 

clear, measurable advertising 

objectives; develop outcome 

measures to evaluate advertising 

programs’ performance; and use 

these measures to monitor 

advertising’s performance and 

make choices on recruiting 

investments. 

In its comments on this report, 

DOD concurred with the 

recommendations and stated that it 

will develop a DOD advertising 

strategic framework to provide 

overall direction. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-1005.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Derek B. 

Stewart at (202) 512-5559 or 

stewartd@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-03-1005, a report to the 

Senate and House Committees on Armed 

Services 

September 2003

MILITARY RECRUITING 

DOD Needs to Establish Objectives and 

Measures to Better Evaluate Advertising's 

Effectiveness 
Page i GAO-03-1005 Military Recruiting 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 4

DOD Has Revised Advertising Programs and Increased Funding 6

DOD Does Not Adequately Measure Advertising’s Effectiveness 14

Conclusions 20

Recommendations for Executive Action 21

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 22

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 24 

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Defense 26 

Related GAO Products 31 

Tables 

Table 1: DOD’s Advertising Campaign Slogans, Program 

Descriptions, and Examples of Key Changes 7

Table 2: Summary of DOD’s Recruiting Advertising Funding 14

Figures 

Figure 1: Army-Sponsored Sports Racing Car 9

Figure 2: Total DOD Recruiting Advertising Funding for Fiscal 

Years 1998 to 2003 10

Figure 3: Total Recruiting Investment per Enlisted Recruit for 

Fiscal Years 1990 to 2003 12

Figure 4: The Use of Advertising throughout the Recruiting Process 18

Contents 
Page ii GAO-03-1005 Military Recruiting 

Abbreviations 

DOD Department of Defense 

GAO General Accounting Office 

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act 

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-03-1005 Military Recruiting 

September 19, 2003 

The Honorable John W. Warner 

Chairman 

The Honorable Carl Levin 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter 

Chairman 

The Honorable Ike Skelton 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

House of Representatives 

To meet its human capital needs, the Department of Defense (DOD) must 

convince about 200,000 people each year—the majority of them recent 

high school graduates—to join the military. To assist in this recruiting 

effort, the military services advertise on television, on radio, in print, and 

on the Internet; sponsor sports teams; and participate in other 

promotional activities. Such advertising is designed primarily to raise 

awareness of the military as a career option and help recruiters meet their 

goals for new recruits. During the exceptionally strong U.S. economy of 

the late 1990s, most of the services missed their overall recruiting goals. In 

response, DOD put additional resources into recruiting by increasing 

advertising, the number of recruiters, and various incentives, such as 

enlistment bonuses. By fiscal year 2003, DOD’s total recruiting budget was 

approaching $4 billion annually. 

The Senate Committee on Armed Services directed that we examine 

DOD’s growing investments in military recruitment advertising.1

 As agreed 

with your committees, the objectives of this report were to (1) determine 

the changes in DOD’s advertising programs and funding trends since the 

late 1990s and (2) assess the adequacy of the measures used by DOD to 

evaluate the effectiveness of its advertising. In March 2003, we provided 

your committees with an interim briefing that described the trends in 

 1

S. Rep. 107-151, at 300 (2002). 

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-03-1005 Military Recruiting 

advertising funding requests since fiscal year 2000 and DOD’s justifications 

for those requests. 

This report updates the information discussed in the interim briefing and 

provides our analysis of the other issues in your request. To determine the 

changes in DOD’s advertising programs and funding trends since the late 

1990s, we reviewed the changes in the services’ advertising programs, 

DOD’s and the services’ congressional justification books, and DOD 

funding data. To assess the adequacy of DOD’s outcome measures, we 

used established management guidance provided in the Government 

Performance and Results Act2

 (GPRA) and in Office of Management and 

Budget guidance. Our scope included DOD’s active duty services, reserve 

components, and joint advertising program. We conducted our review 

from October 2002 through July 2003 in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. (See appendix I for more 

detailed information on our scope and methodology.) 

Since the late 1990s, DOD has revamped its recruiting advertising 

programs and nearly doubled the funding devoted to recruiting 

advertising. The active duty military services, except for the Marine Corps, 

substantially revised their advertising campaigns and selected new 

advertising agencies as contractors. Long-time and well-recognized 

advertising slogans such as the Army’s “Be All You Can Be” were 

abandoned in favor of campaigns designed to better appeal to today’s 

young adults. The military services agree that these revised strategies and 

increased investments have energized their advertising campaigns and 

better positioned them to recruit young adults in an increasingly 

competitive marketplace. Today, almost all of the active and reserve 

components report that they are meeting their overall recruiting goals, 

both in terms of the quality and quantity of recruits. To better reach 

today’s young adults, the services have focused on complementing 

traditional advertising by increasing funding for events marketing, public 

relations, and the Internet. The expenditures for paid television, which 

remains the single largest advertising cost, and other national media have 

declined as a percentage of total advertising funding. DOD’s total 

advertising funding increased 98 percent from fiscal year 1998 through 

fiscal year 2003—from $299 million to $592 million.3

 Today, DOD is 

 2

Pub. L. No. 103-62, Aug. 3, 1993. 

3

All dollars are in constant fiscal year 2003 dollars unless otherwise indicated. 

Results in Brief 
Page 3 GAO-03-1005 Military Recruiting 

spending $1,900 in advertising per enlisted recruit, which is almost three 

times as much as it did in fiscal year 1990. The increases in funding have 

not been evenly distributed across DOD’s advertising programs. The size 

of each service’s advertising programs varies greatly. The Army has the 

largest advertising programs; its active and reserve components account 

for nearly half of the total advertising funding. 

DOD does not have adequate outcome measures to evaluate the 

effectiveness of its advertising as part of its overall recruiting effort. Thus, 

DOD cannot show that its increased advertising efforts have been a key 

reason for its overall recruiting success. Evaluating advertising’s 

effectiveness requires that DOD establish clear program objectives and 

outcome measures. DOD has not established such objectives and outcome 

measures for two reasons. First, isolating the impact of advertising on 

recruiting efforts is inherently difficult because joining the military is a 

profound life decision influenced by many factors, including the 

opportunities available in college or in the job market. Second, even 

though DOD has developed recruiting goals to ensure that it meets its 

human capital needs, these goals do not directly relate to or measure the 

effectiveness of advertising. Owing to the absence of program objectives 

and outcome measures, DOD has not consistently tracked key 

information, such as public awareness of military recruiting advertising 

and changes in the willingness of young adults to join the military. Such 

information could be used to help evaluate the effectiveness of 

advertising. In our 2000 report, we recommended that DOD and the 

services assess the relative success of their recruiting strategies, including 

how the services can create the most cost-effective mix of recruiters, 

enlistment bonuses, college incentives, advertising, and other recruiting 

tools.4

 Although DOD acknowledges the need for such information, 

current DOD guidance does not require the measurement of outcomes or 

reports on advertising’s effectiveness. Without sufficient information on 

advertising’s effectiveness, DOD cannot determine the return on its 

advertising funding or make fact-based choices on how its overall 

recruiting investments should be allocated. 

We are making recommendations to DOD to improve its guidance to better 

evaluate recruiting advertising’s effectiveness. We are recommending that 

 4

U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Personnel: Services Need to Assess Efforts to 

Meet Recruiting Goals and Cut Attrition, GAO/NSIAD-00-146 (Washington, D.C.: June 23, 

2000). 
Page 4 GAO-03-1005 Military Recruiting 

DOD set clear, measurable advertising objectives for its advertising 

programs and develop outcome measures to evaluate the performance of 

its advertising programs. We are also recommending that DOD use these 

outcome measures to monitor its advertising programs’ performance and 

make fact-based choices about advertising funding as part of the overall 

recruiting investment. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with all of our 

recommendations. DOD stated in its comments that it will implement the 

recommendations by developing a DOD advertising strategic framework to 

provide overall direction for its advertising programs and by conducting 

research initiatives intended to advance the measurement of the 

performance of recruiting and advertising. 

Most of the military services’ active and reserve components faced 

recruiting difficulties during the strong economic climate of the late 1990s. 

As a result, the services stepped up their recruiting to ensure that they 

would have enough recruits to fill their ranks. Recruiting efforts focus on 

three initiatives. First, a “sales force” of more than 15,000 recruiters, who 

are mostly located in the United States, recruit from the local population. 

Second, these recruiters have financial and other incentives that they can 

use to convince young adults to consider a military career. Such incentives 

include enlistment bonuses and college benefits. Finally, the services use 

advertising to raise the public’s awareness of the military and help the 

sales force of recruiters reach the target recruiting population and 

generate potential leads for recruiters. This advertising can include 

television and radio commercials, Internet and printed advertisements, 

and special events. 

DOD believes that advertising is increasingly critical to its recruiting effort 

because convincing young adults to join the military is becoming more 

difficult. In 2001, over 70 percent of polled young adults said that they 

probably or definitely would not join the military, compared with 57 

percent in 1976.5

 The number of veterans is declining, which means that 

fewer young adults have influencers—a relative, coach, or teacher—who 

have past military experience. Compounding these difficulties, 

 5

J.G. Bachman, L.D. Johnston, and P.M. O’Malley, Monitoring the Future: Questionnaire 

Responses from the Nation’s High School Seniors (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Institute for Social 

Research, 2001). 

Background 
Page 5 GAO-03-1005 Military Recruiting 

proportionally more high school graduates are attending college. Finally, 

the perception that service in the military is arduous—and possibly 

dangerous—can inhibit recruiting efforts. DOD believes that these factors 

together make the military an increasingly harder sell as a career choice 

and life-style option for young adults. 

The Office of the Secretary of Defense is responsible for establishing 

policy and providing oversight for the military recruiting and advertising 

programs of the active and reserve components. Within the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness is 

responsible for developing, reviewing, and analyzing recruiting policy, 

plans, and resource levels. The office provides policy oversight for 

advertising programs and coordinates them through the Joint Marketing 

and Advertising Committee. DOD’s strategic plan for military personnel 

human resources emphasizes the need to recruit, motivate, and retain 

adequate and diverse numbers of quality recruits.6

DOD’s recruiting and advertising programs are not centrally managed. All 

of the active components and some of the reserve components manage 

their separate advertising programs and work closely with their own 

contracted advertising agencies.7

 DOD and the services believe that this 

decentralized approach better differentiates between the service “brands” 

(i.e., Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines). The Joint Advertising, Market 

Research, and Studies program, which is funded separately by DOD, exists 

to address common DOD requirements, such as conducting market 

research and obtaining and distributing lists of potential leads. The joint 

program has developed a DOD-wide advertising campaign to target the 

adult influencers of potential recruits, but this program had not been fully 

implemented at the time of our review. 

 6

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Military Personnel 

Human Resources Strategic Plan (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 2002). 

7

The Navy and Naval Reserve have separate advertising programs; however, their recruiting 

programs were recently reorganized under one commander. 
Page 6 GAO-03-1005 Military Recruiting 

After most of the services experienced recruiting shortfalls in the late 

1990s, DOD reviewed its advertising programs and identified opportunities 

for improvement. The services, except the Marine Corps, substantially 

revised their advertising campaigns and slogans and contracted with new 

advertising agencies. The services told us that their revised campaigns 

place them in a better position to recruit today’s young adults. Currently, 

almost all of the services and reserve components are achieving their 

recruiting goals, and advertising funding has almost doubled since fiscal 

year 1998. The increases in funding have not been used to buy more 

national media, such as television commercials. Rather, the funding 

increases are being directed to other types of advertising, such as special 

events marketing and the Internet, that are intended to better reach 

today’s young adults. Advertising funding for DOD increased from $299 

million in fiscal year 1998 to $592 million in fiscal year 2003, an increase of 

98 percent.8

Recruiting shortfalls in the late 1990s led to an examination and revision of 

DOD’s advertising programs. The Army, Navy, and Air Force missed their 

recruiting quantity goals, while some of the reserve components fell short 

of both their quantity and quality goals.9

 Following these recruiting 

shortfalls, Congress asked the Secretary of Defense to review DOD’s 

advertising programs and make recommendations for improvements.10

DOD has revamped its advertising programs. The active-duty services, 

except for the Marine Corps, substantially revised their advertising 

campaigns and selected new advertising agencies as their contractors. 

They produced new advertising strategies and campaigns, complete with 

new slogans and revised television, print, and radio advertisements, along 

with new brand images defined by distinct logos, colors, and music. The 

services, in conjunction with their advertising agencies, conducted new 

 8

These amounts are in fiscal year 2003 constant dollars using DOD’s Operation and 

Maintenance funding deflators. In nominal dollars, DOD’s advertising funding increased 

from $271 million in fiscal year 1998 to $592 million in fiscal year 2003—an increase of 118 

percent. 

9

“Quantity” is the total number of recruits needed in a given fiscal year. “Quality” is the 

achievement of high school diplomas and adequate scores on the Armed Forces 

Qualification Test. 

10Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Force Management Policy), A New Focus for 

Military Advertising and Market Research (Washington, D.C.: March 2000) and Rand 

Corporation, A Report on the Audit of the Armed Services Recruitment Advertising 

(Santa Monica, Calif.: 2002). 

DOD Has Revised 

Advertising Programs 

and Increased 

Funding 

Military Services Have 

Revised Their Advertising 

Campaigns to Better 

Attract Today’s Young 

Adults 
Page 7 GAO-03-1005 Military Recruiting 

research on young adults—their primary target market. During this period, 

the joint program developed an advertising campaign to target influencers 

of prospective recruits, as recommended in DOD’s review. 

In addition to their overall campaigns, all of the services have specialized 

campaigns to target diverse segments of the young adult population. For 

instance, the Navy created a Web site, called El Navy, which is designed to 

better communicate with the Hispanic market, and the Army has 

specifically tailored radio advertisements to reach the African American 

market. The services also incorporated a greater variety of public relations 

and promotional activities, such as participating in job fairs and 

sponsoring sports car racing teams, as an integral part of their advertising 

programs. As shown in table 1, there are essentially nine advertising 

programs that are managed separately by the military services, reserve 

components, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. 

Table 1: DOD’s Advertising Campaign Slogans, Program Descriptions, and Examples of Key Changes 

Components 

Current campaign slogans 

(year established) Program descriptions and examples of key changes 

Army, Army Reserve An Army of One (2001) 

Army National Guard You Can (1997) 

• Army and Army Reserve combined programs. 

• Army National Guard program independently managed. 

• Largest active and reserve recruiting mission and advertising 

budget. 

• New advertising campaigns and contractors. 

• Advertises in all national media venues. 

• Engages in promotional events, such as sports car racing 

sponsorship, high school sports, and video games. 

• Initiated on-line recruiting. 

Navy Accelerate Your Life (2001) 

Naval Reserve Stay Strong (2001) 

• Separate advertising programs for Navy and Naval Reserve 

(reorganized recruiting under one commander). 

• Second largest active duty recruiting mission. 

• New advertising campaigns and contractors. 

• Advertises in all major media. 

Air Force Cross into the Blue (2001) 

Air Force Reserve Above and Beyond (1998) 

Air National Guard Fuel Your Future (1999) 

• Three independent advertising programs. 

• Third largest active duty recruiting mission. 

• New advertising campaigns and contractors. 

• Active Air Force emphasizing promotional activities and 

events, such as traveling recruiting trucks and sports car 

racing. 

• Initiated a national television campaign for the active Air Force. 

• Increased use of Internet recruiting across the active and 

reserve components. 
Page 8 GAO-03-1005 Military Recruiting 

Components 

Current campaign slogans 

(year established) Program descriptions and examples of key changes 

Marine Corps, Marine Corps 

Reserve 

Marines, The Few, The Proud 

(1986) 

• Marine Corps and Marine Corps reserve integrated programs. 

• Smallest recruiting mission of the services. 

• Marine Corps brand image not changed for 30 years and same 

advertising contractor for 56 years. 

• Emphasis on television, especially sports programming. 

Joint Program Today’s Military—See It for 

What It Really Is (2003) 

• Developed advertising campaign to target influencers of 

prospective recruits that includes magazine advertisements, 

use of Web site, and television public service announcements. 

• New advertising contractor. 

• Conducts market research and studies for DOD’s advertising 

programs. 

• Provides other support for DOD’s advertising programs. 

Source: DOD. 

The active services told us that they are pleased with their new advertising 

campaigns and agencies, and they believe that the revised and betterfunded campaigns have placed them in a more competitive position to 

recruit young adults. The sluggish U.S. economy has also narrowed 

employment options and is considered to be an important factor in easing 

the recruiting challenge. Today, all of the active services are meeting or 

exceeding their overall recruiting goals. Most of the reserve components 

are also achieving their recruiting goals. As of June 2003, the Army 

National Guard was falling short of its recruiting goals because of 

extensive overseas deployments and the implementation of stop loss 

(restrictions on leaving the military). Army National Guard officials stated 

that they expect to meet their goals by the end of fiscal year 2003. Some 

reserve officers expressed concerns about the negative impact of the 

recent high deployment rates on future recruiting. The services, especially 

the reserve components, continue to face challenges in recruiting 

individuals with some types of specific training or skills, such as medical, 

legal, and construction, and they have developed some specialized 

advertising campaigns targeted to recruit them. 

Since fiscal year 1998, the services have changed how they allocate 

advertising funding, according to the figures provided by DOD. Grouped 

into three broad categories, advertising funding includes: (1) events 

marketing, public affairs and public relations, Internet, and other; (2) 

national media; and (3) direct mail and miscellaneous recruiting support. 

One of the categories—events marketing, public affairs and public 

relations, Internet, and other—has shown the greatest increase as a 

percentage of the total budget, nearly tripling from around 10 percent in 

fiscal year 1998 to 29 percent in fiscal year 2003. This increase was used 
Page 9 GAO-03-1005 Military Recruiting 

partly to create and produce new advertising campaigns and strategies. 

Service officials told us that event marketing and public relations activities 

provide recruiters with greater opportunities to interact with potential 

recruits and supplement their national media campaigns and other 

methods of advertising. One example is the Army’s sponsorship of a sports 

racing car. (See fig. 1.) Internet and Web-site recruiting have also 

increased significantly from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2003. All of 

the active military services have increased the amount of advertising on 

the Internet and have used interactive Web sites to complement their 

traditional recruiting and advertising methods. 

Figure 1: Army-Sponsored Sports Racing Car 

The expenditures for the national media category, which includes paid 

television, radio, and magazine advertisements, have remained relatively 

constant. This means that this category’s proportion of the growing total 

advertising budgets has actually declined. Specifically, expenditures for 

the national media in fiscal year 1998 were more than half of the 

advertising budget; currently, it represents about 40 percent. Television 

advertising—which offers tremendous reach to target audiences—

dominates this category. Television advertising has remained the single 

largest advertising expenditure: paid television is still about a quarter of 

the total advertising budget for all of the military components. 
Page 10 GAO-03-1005 Military Recruiting 

DOD’s advertising funding has nearly doubled in the years since 1998 and 

most of these increases occurred in the earlier years. (See fig. 2.) Total 

advertising funding for all of the services increased 98 percent, from $299 

million in fiscal year 1998 to $592 million in fiscal year 2003.11 The total 

DOD advertising budget request to Congress for fiscal year 2004 was 

$592.8 million. 

Figure 2: Total DOD Recruiting Advertising Funding for Fiscal Years 1998 to 2003 

Note: The funding amounts were taken from DOD’s and the services’ congressional budget 

justification books (adjusted to account for inflation). 

a

In-year estimate. 

Since fiscal year 1998, DOD’s advertising funding, which is included in 

DOD’s operation and maintenance appropriations, has increased at a 

significantly higher rate than the total of all of DOD’s operation and 

maintenance funding. DOD officials cite media inflation as one reason for 

increased advertising funding. Inflation for some types of media, especially 

for television commercials, has been higher than general inflation. 

However, this is not the reason for all of the increases in advertising 

funding during this period because not all of the advertising funding is 

used for media advertising. For example, only about a quarter of 

 11In nominal dollars, DOD’s total recruiting advertising funding for fiscal years 1998-2002, 

consecutively, was $271 million, $379 million, $450 million, $501 million, and $595 million. 

DOD Has Significantly 

Increased Funding for 

Advertising 
Page 11 GAO-03-1005 Military Recruiting 

advertising funds are currently spent to buy time to run television 

commercials. 

Growing advertising costs are only part of a rapidly increasing total 

investment in recruiting. The rising advertising and overall recruiting costs 

can be seen in the investment per enlisted recruit—an important bottomline measure that shows the amount of money spent to enlist each recruit. 

Today, the services are spending almost three times as much on 

advertising per recruit than in fiscal year 1990. We examined data 

collected by DOD from the services, and it showed that the total 

advertising investment per enlisted recruit rose from approximately $640 

to $1,900 between fiscal year 1990 and fiscal year 2003. As a proportion of 

the total recruiting investment, advertising has increased from 8 percent in 

fiscal year 1990 to 14 percent in fiscal year 2003. Bonuses and incentives to 

enlist have also increased substantially during this same period. The total 

recruiting investment per recruit increased almost 65 percent, from 

approximately $8,100 in fiscal year 1990 to $13,300 in fiscal year 2003. Very 

steep growth occurred between fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 2002. This 

is shown in figure 3. 
Page 12 GAO-03-1005 Military Recruiting 

Figure 3: Total Recruiting Investment per Enlisted Recruit for Fiscal Years 1990 to 

2003 

The increases are not evenly distributed across the services’ advertising 

programs. (See table 2.) The Army has the largest advertising budget, and 

the Army active and reserve components account for nearly half (about 

$295 million) of the total advertising funding. The Marine Corps, at just 

under $50 million, has the smallest advertising budget. The Air Force has 

experienced the most significant increase in funding, in part owing to the 

creation of its first national television campaign. The Navy’s advertising 

funding has also increased, but this is primarily due to the addition of 

costs related to the Blue Angels12 and a program to test recruiting kiosks at 

public locations. 

 12The Blue Angels, the Navy’s flight demonstration team, performs at air shows and special 

events. The recruiting advertising budget funds the operation and maintenance costs 

related to the team. 
Page 13 GAO-03-1005 Military Recruiting 

DOD’s Joint Advertising, Market Research, and Studies Program is 

responsible for (1) providing market research and studies for recruiting 

and (2) developing an advertising campaign to target adult influencers, 

such as parents, coaches, and career counselors. Currently, the joint 

program is conducting market research and studies and providing other 

support for the services’ advertising programs, such as purchasing lists of 

high school students and recent graduates for use in mailing 

advertisements. In addition, the program is implementing a limited print 

advertising campaign targeting influencers in fiscal year 2003. 

The joint advertising campaign has not had consistent funding. Program 

managers told us that the current funding level is insufficient to fully 

implement the influencer advertising campaign they have developed. In 

past years, DOD cut funding for the joint advertising program because of 

concerns that the program office was not adequately executing its 

advertising budget. For fiscal year 2003, Congress provided the joint 

advertising program with less funding than DOD requested, and DOD 

subsequently reallocated part of the remaining joint advertising funding to 

a program that it considered a higher priority. 
Page 14 GAO-03-1005 Military Recruiting 

Table 2: Summary of DOD’s Recruiting Advertising Funding 

Constant fiscal year 2003 dollars in millions 

Components 

1998

(actual)

2003 

(in-year estimate) 

Percentage 

change 

Army $113.7 $196.9 73 

Army Reserve 17.0 50.2 196 

Army National Guarda 23.2 48.2 108 

Navy 75.7 107 41 

Naval Reserve 2.4 7.4 208 

Air Force 18.3 90.5 395 

Air Force Reserve 4.6 13.5 193 

Air National Guarda 4.4 5.8 31 

Marine Corps 29.8 46.5 56 

Marine Corps Reserve 3.0 2.9 -3 

Joint Program 6.8 22.9b 237 

Totals $298.9 $591.8 98 

Source: DOD. 

Note: The funding amounts were taken from DOD’s and the services’ congressional budget 

justification books (adjusted to account for inflation). 

a

The advertising funding for the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard is for both recruiting 

and retention. These figures do not include the funding for recruiting and retention advertising done 

by the states and territories. 

b

DOD subsequently reallocated part of this funding. 

DOD does not have adequate outcome measures to evaluate the 

effectiveness of its advertising as part of its overall recruiting effort. 

Effective program management requires the establishment of clear 

objectives and outcome measures to evaluate the program, and DOD has 

established neither. This has been a long-standing problem for DOD 

primarily because measuring the impact of advertising is inherently 

difficult, especially for a major life decision such as joining the military. 

Owing to the absence of established advertising objectives and outcome 

measures, DOD has not consistently collected and disseminated key 

information that would allow it to better assess advertising’s contribution 

to achieving recruiting goals. This information would include public 

awareness of military recruiting advertising and the willingness of young 

adults to join the military. Rather, the services report outcome measures 

that focus on achieving overall recruiting goals instead of isolating the 

specific contribution of advertising. Without adequate information and 

DOD Does Not 

Adequately Measure 

Advertising’s 

Effectiveness 
Page 15 GAO-03-1005 Military Recruiting 

outcome measures, the Office of the Secretary of Defense cannot 

satisfactorily review the services’ advertising budget justifications nor can 

it determine the return on their advertising dollars as part of their overall 

recruiting investment. 

The Secretary of Defense is required by law to enhance the effectiveness 

of DOD’s recruitment programs through an aggressive program of 

advertising and market research targeted at prospective recruits and those 

who may influence them.13 DOD guidance requires the services, by active 

and reserve components, to report their resource inputs—how much they 

are spending on advertising.14 DOD guidance also requires the services to 

report on overall recruiting outcomes15—their recruit quantity and quality. 

However, the guidance does not require active and reserve components to 

report information specifically about the advertising programs’ recruiting 

effectiveness. 

Effective program management requires the establishment of clearly 

defined objectives and outcome measures to evaluate programs. The 

Government Performance and Results Act was intended to help federal 

program managers enhance the effectiveness of their programs.16 It 

requires agencies to establish strategic plans for program activities that 

include, among other things, a mission statement covering major functions 

and operations, outcome-related goals and objectives, and a description of 

how these goals and objectives are to be achieved. GPRA shifted the focus 

of accountability for federal programs from inputs, such as staffing and 

resource levels, to outcomes. This requires agencies to measure the 

outcomes of their programs and to summarize the findings of program 

evaluations in their performance reports. The Office of Management and 

Budget’s guidance implementing GPRA requires agencies to establish 

 1310 U.S.C. § 503. 

14DOD Instruction 1304.8, Military Procurement Resources Report, May 28, 1991. 

15DOD Instruction 7730.56, Monthly Report of Personnel Statistics, September 15, 1975. 

16Pub. L. No. 103-62, Aug. 3, 1993. 

Effective Management 

Requires Clear Program 

Objectives and Outcome 

Measures 
Page 16 GAO-03-1005 Military Recruiting 

meaningful program objectives and identify outcome measures that 

compare actual program results with established program objectives.17

DOD does not have adequate information to measure the effectiveness of 

its advertising as part of the overall recruiting effort. Measuring 

advertising’s effectiveness has been a long-standing problem, partly 

because it is inherently difficult to measure the impact that advertising has 

on recruiting. DOD has not established advertising program objectives and 

it lacks adequate outcome measures of the impact that advertising 

programs have on recruiting. Outcome measures are used to evaluate how 

closely a program’s achievements are aligned with program objectives, and 

to assess whether advertising is achieving its intended outcome. DOD 

currently requires the services and reserve components to report on inputs 

and outcomes related to overall recruiting. These measures are important 

in assessing DOD’s overall recruiting success; however, they do not assess 

advertising’s contribution to the recruiting process. 

In our 2000 report, we noted that the services do not know which of their 

recruiting initiatives—advertising, recruiters, or bonuses—work best.18

This prevented DOD from being able to effectively allocate its recruiting 

investment among the multiple recruiting resources. We recommended 

that DOD and the services assess the relative success of their recruiting 

strategies, including how the services can create the most cost-effective 

mix of recruiters, enlistment bonuses, college incentives, advertising, and 

other recruiting tools. In comments on that report, DOD stated that it 

intended to develop a joint-service model that would allow trade-off 

analyses to determine the relative cost-effectiveness of the various 

recruiting resources. This has not been done, and the current DOD cost 

performance trade-off model does not support analyses across the 

services’ budgets. 

Similarly, a 2002 Office of Management and Budget assessment, known as 

the Program Assessment Rating Tool, found that DOD’s recruiting 

program had met its goal of enlisting adequate numbers of recruits; 

however, since there were no measures of program efficiency, the overall 

 17Office of Management and Budget, Preparation and Submission of Strategic Plans, Annual 

Performance Plans, and Annual Program Performance Reports, Circular No. A-11, Part 6, 

June 2002. 

18GAO/NSIAD-00-146. 

Lack of Adequate Outcome 

Measures Limits DOD’s 

Ability to Effectively 

Allocate Its Recruiting 

Investments 

Measuring Advertising’s 

Effectiveness Is a Longstanding and Difficult Problem 
Page 17 GAO-03-1005 Military Recruiting 

rating for the recruiting program was only “moderately effective.” In its 

assessment, the Office of Management and Budget noted the inability of 

the recruiting program to assess the impact of individual resources, such 

as advertising and recruiters. The services continually adjust the mix of 

funding between advertising and other recruiting resources to accomplish 

their program goals. They have generally increased spending on 

advertising, added recruiters, and increased or added bonuses at the same 

time, making it impossible to determine the relative value of each of these 

initiatives. Other studies have reached similar conclusions. In 2000, a 

review of DOD’s advertising programs resulted in a recommendation that 

they be evaluated for program effectiveness.19 More recently, the National 

Academy of Sciences also cited the need to evaluate advertising’s direct 

influence on actual enlistments.20 The academy is now doing additional 

work on evaluating DOD’s advertising and recruiting. 

The lack of adequate information is partly attributable to the inherent 

difficulty in measuring advertising’s affect on recruiting. Measuring 

advertising’s effectiveness is a challenge for all businesses, according to 

advertising experts. Private-sector organizations cannot attribute 

increases in sales directly to advertising because there are many other 

factors influencing the sale of products, such as quality, price, and the 

availability of similar products. Many factors impact recruiting as well, 

such as employment and educational opportunities, making it especially 

difficult to isolate and measure the effectiveness of advertising. Enlisting 

in a military service is a profound life decision. Typically, an enlistment is 

at least a 4-year commitment and can be the start of a long military career. 

Another complicating factor in measuring advertising’s effectiveness is 

that it consists of different types and is employed differently throughout 

the recruiting process to attract and enlist potential recruits. Figure 4 

displays the recruiting process and demonstrates the role of advertising 

while a young adult may be considering enlisting in the military. 

 19Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management Policy), A New Focus for 

Military Advertising and Market Research (March 2000). 

20National Research Council, Attitudes, Aptitudes, and Aspirations of American Youth: 

Implications for Military Recruitment (Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 

2003). 
Page 18 GAO-03-1005 Military Recruiting 

Figure 4: The Use of Advertising throughout the Recruiting Process 

As the figure shows, the use of multiple types of advertising at various 

stages in the recruiting continuum makes it difficult to assess the 

effectiveness of specific types of advertising. A single recruit may be 

exposed to some or all of these advertising types. Traditional advertising 

in the national media, such as television and magazines, is intended to 

disseminate information designed to influence consumer activity in the 

marketplace. The services typically use such national media to make 

young people aware of a military service, the career options available in a 

service, and other opportunities the services have to offer them. Direct 

mail, special events, and the services’ Web sites are utilized to provide 

more detailed information about the services and the opportunities 

available for persons who enlist. These marketing resources give people 

the opportunity to let a recruiter know they are possibly interested in 

enlisting in a service. 

Another contributing factor to the absence of advertising objectives and 

outcome measures is the lack of DOD-wide guidance. Officials from the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense view their role as overseeing the 

decentralized programs managed by the individual services and reserve 

components. They scrutinize the quality and quantity of recruits and 

gather data about the uses of advertising funds. However, they told us they 

were reluctant to be more prescriptive because of a concern about 

appearing to micromanage the successful recruiting programs of the active 

DOD Lacks Guidance 

Establishing Advertising 

Programs’ Objectives and 

Outcome Measures 
Page 19 GAO-03-1005 Military Recruiting 

and reserve components. On the basis of our work, their sensitivity is 

warranted. The active and reserve components tend to guard their 

independence, seeking to maintain their “brand” and arguing that the 

current decentralized structure allows them to be more responsive to their 

individual needs. The Office of the Secretary of Defense seeks to 

coordinate the active and reserve components’ activities through joint 

committees and to centralize research that can be utilized by all. 

Defining exactly what to measure may be difficult, but it is not impossible. 

DOD and the services, as well as their contracted advertising agencies, 

generally agree that there are at least two key advertising outcomes that 

should be measured: (1) the awareness of recruiting advertising and (2) 

the willingness or “propensity” to consider joining the military. However, 

this is not clearly stated in any program guidance. Current DOD guidance 

requires only that the services provide information on funding for 

advertising, the quality and quantity of recruits, and the allocation of 

resources to the various advertising categories.21 Although this information 

is valuable—in fact, critical—it is not sufficient to evaluate and isolate the 

effectiveness of the services’ advertising programs. 

DOD’s efforts thus far to measure the awareness of recruiting advertising 

and willingness to join the military have met with problems. Inconsistent 

funding for the Joint Advertising, Market Research, and Studies program 

has hampered consistent collection of this information. DOD has 

sponsored an advertising tracking study designed to monitor the 

awareness of individual service campaigns since 2001. However, officials 

from the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps told us that they do not regularly 

use the research provided by this study. According to program officials, 

there were numerous problems with the advertising tracking study.22 DOD 

is implementing changes to the study that are intended to improve its 

usefulness to all of the active and reserve components. In the absence of 

reliable and timely advertising tracking, the Army implemented its own 

tracking study, and the Air Force is currently planning an experimental 

study to assess the effectiveness of its national television advertising 

campaign, according to program managers. To monitor the willingness to 

 21DOD Instruction 1304.8, Military Procurement Resources Report, May 28, 1991; and DOD 

Instruction 7730.56, Monthly Report of Personnel Statistics, September 15, 1975. 

22The advertising agency contracted by DOD’s joint program also identified several 

problems, including (1) having an extremely large sample size, (2) voluminous data but 

poor analysis, and (3) poor training for the services in using the data. 
Page 20 GAO-03-1005 Military Recruiting 

join the military, DOD sponsors youth and adult polls, which are designed 

to track changes in attitudes and young adults’ aspirations. These polls 

replaced the Youth Attitude Tracking Survey, which had been in place for 

a number of years and provided long-term trend data about the propensity 

of young adults to consider the military. The services expressed concern 

that the current polls ask questions that are significantly different from 

those asked in the prior survey, which makes the analysis of trends 

difficult. 

DOD officials also pointed to research indicating that advertising is a costeffective recruiting investment when compared with other recruiting 

initiatives. For example, a report that was done for DOD found that it was 

less expensive to enlist a recruit through increased investments in 

advertising than through increased investments in military pay for new 

recruits in the Army and Navy.23 Similarly, a study for DOD analyzed the 

marginal cost of different recruiting initiatives and concluded that, under 

certain conditions, it was more cost-effective to invest additional funds in 

advertising than in military pay for recruits or recruiters.24 DOD officials 

told us that these reports, which used data from the 1980s and early 1990s, 

provide the best research available on the topic. However, the situation 

has changed dramatically in recent years. DOD has altered its advertising 

and recruiting strategies and is spending much more on advertising. 

Advertising itself is also changing and is more fragmented with an 

expanding array of television channels and other media. Finally, media 

inflation, which has increased faster than general inflation even in the 

sluggish economy, has lessened buying power. 

Funding devoted to advertising has increased considerably since fiscal 

year 1998. Although the military services are now generally meeting their 

overall recruiting goals, the question of whether the significant increases 

in advertising budgets were a main contributor to the services’ recruiting 

successes remains open. During the same period, DOD also greatly 

increased funding for bonuses and other incentives to enlist recruits. At 

 23John Warner, Curtis Simon, and Deborah Payne, Enlistment Supply in the 1990s: A 

Study of the Navy College Fund and Other Enlistment Incentive Programs, Defense 

Manpower Data Center, report No. 2000-015 (April 2001), p. 45. 

24Jim Dertouzos and Steven Garber, Is Military Advertising Effective? An Estimation 

Methodology and Applications to Recruiting in the 1980s and 90s (Santa Monica, Calif.: 

Rand Corporation, 2003). 

Conclusions 
Page 21 GAO-03-1005 Military Recruiting 

the same time, the U.S. economy slowed dramatically, narrowing the other 

employment options available to young people. These factors make it 

difficult to disentangle the effects of the internal DOD investments made 

in recruiting from the changes in the external recruiting environment. 

Even though the effect of advertising is inherently difficult to measure, this 

issue needs to be addressed. This is crucial because DOD is now spending 

nearly $592 million annually on recruiting advertising, or about $1,900 per 

enlisted recruit. In addition, the total funding for all of DOD’s recruiting 

efforts is now almost $4 billion. 

DOD needs better advertising outcome measures to allow it to oversee and 

manage the advertising investment as part of its overall recruiting effort. 

DOD and the services have an understandable focus on the most 

important program outcome—to ensure that the military has enough 

quality recruits to fill its ranks. Judged by this short-term measure, the 

recruiting programs are successful. But now that DOD is meeting its 

recruiting goals, should it reduce advertising funding or continue at its 

current funding levels? DOD believes that continued investments in 

advertising are critical to keeping awareness up in the young adult 

population and combating the declining propensity among today’s young 

adults to join the military. However, DOD has neither stated these goals 

clearly in its guidance, nor consistently gathered information to ensure 

that these objectives are being met. Now that it is meeting its recruiting 

goals, DOD needs to turn its attention to program effectiveness and 

efficiency to ensure that the active and reserve components are getting the 

best return on their recruiting and advertising investments. 

To improve DOD’s ability to adequately measure the impact of its 

advertising programs on its recruiting mission, we recommend that the 

Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel 

and Readiness to issue guidance that would (1) set clear, measurable 

objectives for DOD’s advertising programs; (2) develop outcome measures 

for each of DOD’s advertising programs that clearly link advertising 

program performance with these objectives; and (3) use these outcome 

measures to monitor the advertising programs’ performance and make 

fact-based choices about advertising funding as part of the overall 

recruiting investment in the future. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 
Page 22 GAO-03-1005 Military Recruiting 

DOD concurred with all of our recommendations. In commenting on this 

report, DOD stated that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Personnel and Readiness, in concert with the services, will develop an 

advertising strategic framework to provide overall direction for DOD’s 

advertising programs. The framework, with associated outcome measures, 

would allow the office to monitor advertising results regularly and make 

fact-based decisions at a strategic level. It would provide an overarching 

structure within which each service would develop its own advertising 

program strategy, program objectives, and outcome measures. The 

framework would also direct the activities of the DOD joint program to 

ensure support to the services. DOD also commented that current 

research has not advanced to the point where models exist that adequately 

account for the many factors that affect recruiting as well as for the 

differences in the services. DOD stated that it will address this research 

gap through several initiatives intended to advance the measurement of 

the performance of recruiting and advertising. The National Academy of 

Sciences is currently developing an evaluation framework for recruiting 

and advertising and expects to publish a report in early 2004. 

DOD’s comments are provided in their entirety in appendix II. DOD 

officials also provided technical comments that we have incorporated as 

appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees; the Secretaries of Defense, the Army, the Navy, and the Air 

Force; and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. We will send copies to 

other interested parties upon request. In addition, the report will be 

available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 
Page 23 GAO-03-1005 Military Recruiting 

Please contact me at (202) 512-5559 if you or your staffs have any 

questions regarding this report. Key contributors to this report were John 

Pendleton, Lori Atkinson, Nancy Benco, Kurt Burgeson, Alan Byroade, 

Chris Currie, LaTonya Gist, Jim McGaughey, Charles Perdue, Barry 

Shillito, and John Smale. 

Derek B. Stewart 

Director, Defense Capabilities 

and Management 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 24 GAO-03-1005 Military Recruiting 

To describe the changes in the Department of Defense’s (DOD) advertising 

programs and advertising funding trends since the late 1990s, we reviewed 

advertising exhibits in the operation and maintenance congressional 

justification books as well as budget information provided by the Office of 

the Secretary of Defense. Since our objective was to look at broad funding 

trends, we did not reconcile these requested amounts with actual 

obligations or expenditures by the active and reserve components. We 

interviewed active and reserve component officials to understand program 

changes since the late 1990s. We obtained recruiting mission goals and 

actual accessions back to fiscal year 1990 from the Office of the Secretary 

of Defense and the services. We obtained information on the quality of 

accessions of each of the active and reserve components back to fiscal 

year 1990, as well as the investment per active enlisted accession back to 

fiscal year 1990. We reviewed information from the Defense Human 

Resources Activity and the Joint Marketing and Advertising Committee for 

discussions of advertising programs. The services provided additional 

information regarding the types of advertising media they use. 

To assess the adequacy of the measures used by DOD to evaluate the 

effectiveness of advertising, we reviewed information on outcome 

measures used to evaluate the effectiveness of advertising provided by 

each of the active and reserve components; the advertising agencies that 

are their contractors; and the DOD Joint Advertising, Market Research, 

and Studies program. We spoke with the advertising contractors to learn 

what measures of effectiveness they are aware of and use. We also 

reviewed the requirements for establishing program objectives and 

outcome measures in the Government Performance and Results Act and in 

Office of Management and Budget guidance. 

We interviewed DOD and advertising officials from each of the active and 

reserve components, as well as representatives from the services’ 

advertising agencies. We also reviewed their programs, procedures, and 

oversight activities. These interviews were conducted with officials in the 

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; 

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller/Chief Financial 

Officer); Defense Human Resources Activity, Joint Advertising, Market 

Research, and Studies Office; Army Accessions Command, Fort Knox, 

Kentucky; Air Force Recruiting Service, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas; 

Navy Recruiting Command, Millington, Tennessee; Marine Corps 

Recruiting Command, Quantico Marine Corps Base, Virginia; Army 

National Guard Recruiting and Retention Command, Arlington, Virginia; 

Naval Reserve Command, New Orleans, Louisiana; Air Force Reserve 

Command, Robins Air Force Base, Georgia; and the Air National Guard 

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

Page 25 GAO-03-1005 Military Recruiting 

Office of Recruiting and Retention, Arlington, Virginia. We also 

interviewed officials at the contracted advertising agencies for the joint 

program, the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Air Force. We 

reviewed reports on recruiting and advertising from DOD, the 

Congressional Research Service, the private sector, and others. We 

obtained recruiting advertising budget and funding data for types of 

advertising from the Office of the Secretary of Defense. We reviewed, but 

did not verify, the accuracy of the data provided by DOD. 

We conducted our review from October 2002 through July 2003 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 26 GAO-03-1005 Military Recruiting 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 27 GAO-03-1005 Military Recruiting 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 28 GAO-03-1005 Military Recruiting 

Note: Page numbers in 

the draft report may differ 

from those in this report. 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 29 GAO-03-1005 Military Recruiting 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 30 GAO-03-1005 Military Recruiting 
Related GAO Products 

Page 31 GAO-03-1005 Military Recruiting 

Program Evaluation: Strategies for Assessing How Information 

Dissemination Contributes to Agency Goals. GAO-02-923. Washington, 

D.C.: September 30, 2002. 

Military Personnel: Services Need to Assess Efforts to Meet Recruiting 

Goals and Cut Attrition. GAO/NSIAD-00-146. Washington, D.C.: June 23, 

2000. 

Military Personnel: First-Term Recruiting and Attrition Continue to 

Require Focused Attention. GAO/T-NSIAD-00-102. Washington, D.C.: 

February 24, 2000. 

Military Recruiting: DOD Could Improve Its Recruiter Selection and 

Incentive Systems. GAO/NSIAD-98-58. Washington, D.C.: January 30, 1998. 

Military Personnel: High Aggregate Personnel Levels Maintained 

Throughout Drawdown. GAO/NSIAD-95-97. Washington, D.C.: June 2, 

1995. 

Military Recruiting: More Innovative Approaches Needed. GAO/NSIAD95-22. Washington, D.C.: December 22, 1994. 

Military Downsizing: Balancing Accessions and Losses Is Key to 

Shaping the Future Force. GAO/NSIAD-93-241. Washington, D.C.: 

September 30, 1993. 

Related GAO Products 

(350274) 
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal 

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

evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

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

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

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

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

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

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

including charts and other graphics. 

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

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

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

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

alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading. 

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

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

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

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

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

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

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs