RETIREMENT SECURITY

Trends in Marriage, Work, 

and Pensions May Increase 

Vulnerability for Some 

Retirees

Statement of Barbara D. Bovbjerg, Managing Director 

Education, Workforce, and Income Security

Testimony 

Before the Special Committee on 

Aging, U.S. Senate

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 1:30 p.m. EST

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

GAO-14-272T

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-272T, a testimony 

before the Special Committee on Aging, U.S. 

Senate

March 5, 2014

RETIREMENT SECURITY

Trends in Marriage, Work, and Pensions May Increase 

Vulnerability for Some Retirees

Why GAO Did This Study

Over the past 50 years, poverty rates 

among older Americans have declined 

dramatically, in large part due to the 

availability and expansion of Social 

Security benefits. Social Security is 

now the most common type of income 

for retirees. Social Security retirement 

benefits are available not only to those 

who qualify based on their own work 

history, but also to spouses, 

widows/widowers, and in some cases 

former spouses of workers who qualify.

However, in recent decades, marriage 

has become less common, women 

have entered the workforce in greater 

numbers, and many employers have 

shifted from offering DB to DC plans.

In light of these trends, GAO is 

reporting on: (1) the trends in marriage 

and labor force participation in the 

American household and in the U.S. 

retirement system, (2) the effect of 

those trends on the receipt of 

retirement benefits and savings, and 

(3) the implications for vulnerable 

elderly populations and current 

challenges in assisting them. This 

statement draws from previously

issued GAO work and a recently 

issued report, which was based on an 

analysis of nationally representative 

survey data including the Survey of 

Consumer Finances, the Survey of 

Income and Program Participation, and 

the Current Population Survey (CPS); 

and a broad literature review. GAO 

also interviewed agency officials and a 

range of experts in the area of 

retirement security.

GAO is making no recommendations. 

What GAO Found

The decline in marriage, rise in women’s labor force participation, and transition 

away from defined benefit (DB) plans to defined contribution (DC) plans have 

resulted in changes in the types of retirement benefits households receive and 

increased vulnerabilities for some. Since the 1960s, the percentage of unmarried 

and single-parent families has risen dramatically, especially among low-income, 

less-educated individuals, and some minorities. At the same time, the percentage 

of married women entering the labor force has increased. The decline in 

marriage and rise in women’s labor force participation have affected the types of 

Social Security benefits households receive, with fewer women receiving spousal 

benefits today than in the past. In addition, the shift away from DB to DC plans 

has increased financial vulnerabilities for some due to the fact that DC plans 

typically offer fewer spousal protections. DC plans also place greater 

responsibility on households to make decisions and manage their pension and 

financial assets so they have income throughout retirement. As shown in the 

figure below, despite Social Security’s role in reducing poverty among seniors, 

poverty remains high among certain groups of seniors, such as minorities and 

unmarried women. These vulnerable populations are more likely to be adversely

affected by these trends and may need assistance in old age. 

Estimated Poverty Rates by Demographic Categories in 2012 for Individuals Age 65 and Over

Note: The category “White” refers to people who are white only, non-Hispanic. “Black” refers to 

people who are black only, non-Hispanic. “Asian” refers to people who are either Asian only, Pacific 

Islander only or Asian and Pacific Islander, and are non-Hispanic. Hispanic people may be any race.

Percentage estimates for poverty rates have margins of error ranging from 0.6 to 8.6 percentage 

points. See the hearing statement for more information on confidence levels and the data.

View GAO-14-272T. For more information, 

contact Barbara Bovbjerg at (202) 512-7215 or 

bovbjergb@gao.gov
 

Page 1 GAO-14-272T 

Chairman Nelson, Ranking Member Collins, and Members of the 

Committee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss financial vulnerabilities among 

our nation’s seniors. Over the past 50 years, poverty rates among older 

Americans have declined dramatically, in large part due to the availability 

and expansion of Social Security benefits. Social Security is now the most 

common type of income for retirees. In fact, according to the Social 

Security Administration, 35 percent of beneficiaries age 65 and older 

relied on Social Security for at least 90 percent of their income in 2011. 

Social Security retirement benefits are available not only to those who 

qualify based on their own work history, but also to spouses, 

widows/widowers, and in some cases former spouses of workers who 

qualify. However, many of the federal requirements governing Social 

Security benefits for spouses and survivors were developed at a time 

when family structures, work patterns, and pensions were very different 

than what they are today. In recent decades, marriage has become less 

common, more households have two earners rather than one, and many 

employers have shifted from offering defined benefit (DB) to defined 

contribution (DC) plans.

My testimony today examines the effects of these trends on retirement 

security in the United States, the subject of a report we prepared and 

recently issued at the request of this committee. In addition, this 

statement draws on past GAO work concerning the overall economic 

status of our nation’s seniors.1

 

1 GAO, Retirement Security: Trends in Marriage and Work Patterns May Increase 

Economic Vulnerability for Some Retirees, 

Specifically, this testimony will address (1) 

the trends in marriage and labor force participation in the American 

household and in the U.S. retirement system, (2) the effect of those 

trends on the receipt of retirement benefits and savings, and (3) the 

implications for vulnerable elderly populations and current challenges in 

assisting them.

GAO-14-33 (Washington D.C.: January 15, 

2014). This report focuses on the following types of retirement income: Old-Age and 

Survivors Insurance benefits under the Social Security Act, DC and DB plans subject to 

regulation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Internal 

Revenue Code, and individual retirement accounts (IRA) subject to the requirements of 

the Internal Revenue Code. 
 

Page 2 GAO-14-272T 

To address these questions, we analyzed several nationallyrepresentative datasets, conducted an extensive literature review, and 

consulted with a wide range of experts. Specifically, for our first objective 

we analyzed data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation 

(SIPP); the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS); and recent 

Census Bureau (Census) and Bureau of Labor Statistics publications. For 

our second objective, we analyzed the SIPP Gold Standard File—SIPP 

data that have been matched to administrative data from the Social 

Security Administration (SSA)—and the Survey of Consumer Finances 

(SCF).2 We also relied on projections based on simulations SSA 

conducted with the Modeling Income in the Near Term model, Version 6 

(MINT6). For our third objective, we reviewed past GAO work in the area 

of retirement security and human services. We assessed the reliability of 

selected IPUMS, SIPP, SCF, and MINT6 data and found, for the 

purposes of our analyses, them to be sufficiently reliable. Lastly, to 

deepen our understanding of our data analyses and to understand the 

implications of demographic trends for retirement security, we conducted 

an extensive literature review and interviewed 49 experts with a range of 

perspectives from federal agencies, academia, advocacy groups, think 

tanks, and the private sector.

3

We conducted this work in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan 

and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide 

a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 

objectives. We believe that the evidence we obtained provides a 

reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 

objectives.

In summary, we found that the decline in marriage, the rise in women’s 

labor force participation, and the transition away from DB plans to DC 

plans have resulted in changes in the types of retirement benefits 

households receive and increased vulnerabilities for some. Since the 

1960s, the percentage of unmarried and single-parent families has risen 

 

2 The analysis of the Gold Standard file SIPP data was made possible through the use of 

the SIPP Synthetic Beta data, which was funded by Census and SSA, with additional 

funding from NSF Grants #0427889 and #0339191. The Synthetic Data Server is funded 

through NSF grant SES-1042181.

3 For more details on our methods, see GAO-14-33.
 

Page 3 GAO-14-272T 

dramatically, especially among low-income, less-educated individuals and 

some minorities. At the same time, the percentage of married women 

entering the labor force has increased. The decline in marriage and rise in 

women’s labor force participation have affected the types of Social 

Security benefits households receive, with fewer women receiving 

spousal benefits today than in the past. In addition, the shift away from 

DB plans to DC plans has increased financial vulnerabilities for some due 

to the fact that DC plans typically offer fewer spousal protections. DC 

plans also place greater responsibility on households to make decisions 

and manage their pension and financial assets so they have income 

throughout retirement. Despite the important role Social Security benefits 

have played in reducing the poverty rate among seniors, poverty remains 

high among certain groups of seniors, such as minorities and unmarried 

women. These vulnerable populations are more likely to be adversely 

affected by these trends we have reported and may need assistance in 

old age.

Over the last 50 years, the composition of the American household has 

changed dramatically. During this period, the proportion of unmarried 

individuals in the population increased steadily as couples chose to marry 

at later ages and cohabit prior to marriage—and as divorce rates rose 

(see fig. 1). From 1960 to 2010, the percentage of single-parent families 

also rose. In fact, from 1970 through 2012, the estimated proportion of 

single-parent families more than doubled, increasing from 13 to 32 

percent of all families.

The Composition and 

Work Patterns of 

American Households 

and the U.S. 

Retirement System 

Have Changed Over 

Time
 

Page 4 GAO-14-272T 

Figure 1: Estimated Percentage of Population Age 15 and Older by Marital Status: 1960-2010

Note: All estimates in this figure have margins of error at the 95% confidence level that are less than 

or equal to 0.6 percentage points. These statistics represent a snap shot at a particular point in time. 

Therefore, those who were unmarried at one point in time might become married at a later point in 

time and vice versa. Percentages within the not married sub-categories may not sum to the not 

married total due to rounding.

The decline in marriage and rise in single parenthood over this period 

were more pronounced among low-income, less-educated individuals, 

and some minorities. For example, from 1960 to 2010, the proportion of 

married, 45- to 54-year old men in the highest income quintile declined 

modestly while the proportion of married men in the lowest income 

quintile declined from an estimated 71 to 27 percent (see fig. 2). Similarly, 

the percentage of single parents among 45- to 54-year-old men and 

women in the highest income quintile remained flat, while there was a 

steep rise in the percentage of single parents in the lowest income 

quintile, according to our estimates. In terms of education, among 

individuals age 18 years and older, the rise in single parenthood was 

steeper for those without a high school diploma in comparison to their 

counterparts with 4 or more years of college.
 

Page 5 GAO-14-272T 

Figure 2: Among People Age 45-54, Estimated Percentage of Married Men and Women, and Unmarried Parents, by Highest 

and Lowest Income Quintiles: 1960-2010

Note: Percentage estimates in this figure have margins of error at the 95% confidence level that are 

less than or equal to 1.7 percentage points. “Parents who are currently unmarried” refers to adults 

with their own children in the home and whose current marital status is divorced, separated, widowed, 

or never married.

Over the same period, the labor force participation rate of married women 

increased (see fig. 3). In 1960, labor force participation rates among 

married men, single men, married women, and single women ranged 

from 89 percent for married men to 32 percent for married women, 

according to our estimates. Since then, the differences in labor force 

participation rates for these four groups have narrowed, with labor force 

participation among married and single women within 3 percentage points 

in 2010. As a result of married women’s increasing labor force 

participation, the proportion of married couples with two earners has 

risen—along with the wives’ contributions to household income. 

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, from 1970 through 2010, 

women’s median contribution to household income rose from 27 to 38 

percent. Further, from 1987 through 2010, the percentage of households 

in which the wives’ earnings exceeded their husband’s rose from 24 to 38 

percent.

Trends in Labor Force 

Participation
 

Page 6 GAO-14-272T 

Figure 3: Estimated Labor Force Participation Rates by Sex and Marital Status: 

1960-2010

Note: Percentage estimates in this figure have margins of error at the 95% confidence level that are 

less than or equal to 1.2 percentage points. The categories for single men and single women include 

all unmarried people, including those who are divorced, widowed, or who were never married.

As marriage and workforce patterns have changed, the U.S. retirement 

system has undergone its own transition. Specifically, over the last two 

decades employers have increasingly shifted away from offering their 

employees traditional DB to DC plans, and roughly half of U.S. workers 

do not participate in any employer-sponsored pension plan. DB plans 

typically offer retirement benefits to a retiree in the form of an annuity that 

provides a monthly payment for life, including a lifetime annuity to the 

surviving spouse, unless the couple chooses otherwise. In contrast, under 

a DC plan, workers and employers may make contributions to individual 

accounts. Depending on the options available under the plan, at 

retirement DC participants may take a lump sum, roll their plan savings 

into an IRA, leave some or all of their money in the plan, or purchase an 

annuity offered through the plan. Further, many of the remaining DB plans 

now offer lump sums as one of the form-of-payment options under the 

plan. Participants who elect a lump sum forgo a lifetime annuity. Some 

Trends in the U.S. 

Retirement System
 

Page 7 GAO-14-272T 

DB plan sponsors have also begun offering special, one-time lump sum 

elections to participants who are already retired and receiving monthly 

pension benefits.4

Taken together, the trends in marriage and workforce participation have 

implications for the receipt of Social Security retirement benefits, 

especially for women. Specifically, the proportion of women who are not 

eligible to receive Social Security spousal benefits because they were 

either never married, or divorced after less than 10 years of marriage—

the length of time required for eligibility for Social Security divorced 

spouse benefits—has increased over the last two decades.5 The decline 

in the proportion of women with marriages that qualify them for spousal 

benefits—coupled with the rise in the percentage of women receiving 

benefits based on their own work record—has resulted in fewer women 

today receiving Social Security spousal and survivor benefits than in the 

past.6

 

4 JPMorgan Chase & Co., Pension Pulse (New York, N.Y.: Fall 2012).

For blacks, the rise in ineligibility for spousal or widow benefits has 

been more dramatic. In general, the trend away from women receiving 

spousal benefits is projected to continue, with the largest shift occurring 

among black women, according to SSA analyses. For many elderly, this 

shift is likely to be positive, reflecting their higher earnings and greater 

capacity to save for retirement. However, elderly women with low levels of 

lifetime earnings, who have no spouse or do not receive a spousal 

benefit—a group that is disproportionately represented by black women—

5 Howard M. Iams and Christopher R. Tamborini, “The Implications of Marital History 

Change on Women’s Eligibility for Social Security Wife and Widow Benefits, 1990-2009,” 

Social Security Bulletin, vol. 72, no.2 (2012).

6 Over the course of retirement, individuals may receive different types of Social Security 

retirement benefits, including retired worker, spouse-only, dually-entitled spouse, survivor, 

and dually-entitled survivor benefits. For more details on the eligibility requirements and 

benefit levels for each of these benefit types, see GAO-14-33. 

Trends in Marriage, 

Work and Pensions 

May Leave Some 

Americans Vulnerable

Social Security Benefits
 

Page 8 GAO-14-272T 

are expected to have correspondingly lower Social Security retirement 

benefits relative to those with higher incomes.

These trends have also affected household savings behavior and the 

financial risks households face in retirement. Households with DC plans 

have greater responsibility to save and manage their retirement savings 

so that they have sufficient income throughout retirement. However, our 

analysis of SCF data shows that many households approaching 

retirement still have no or very limited retirement savings (see fig. 4). 

Married households—in which many women now make significant 

contributions to retirement savings—are more likely to have retirement 

savings, but their median savings are low. The majority of single-headed 

households have no retirement savings. Single parents, in particular, tend 

to have fewer resources available to save for retirement during their 

working years and are less likely to participate in DC plans.7

Figure 4: Among All Households Age 50-64, Percentage of Households with 

Retirement Savings (in Defined Contribution Plans and Individual Retirement 

Accounts) and Among Households with Savings, the Median Levels of Savings in 

2010

 

7 GAO, Retirement Security: Women Still Face Challenges, GAO-12-699 (Washington, 

D.C.: July 19, 2012). 

Private Retirement 

Savings and Benefits
 

Page 9 GAO-14-272T 

Note: Median savings are expressed in 2010 dollars. All percentage estimates in this figure have 95 

percent confidence intervals within +/- 4.8 percentage points of the estimate itself. All median dollar 

estimates in this figure have 95 percent confidence intervals within +/- $13,071 of the estimate itself. 

Household retirement savings include the balance of all DC, IRA (Roth, traditional, and rollover), and 

Keogh accounts held by all members of the primary economic unit, as defined by the Survey of 

Consumer Finances. DB plans are not included in this measure of household savings.

In addition to challenges with accumulating sufficient savings for 

retirement, individuals may also find it difficult to determine how to invest 

their savings during their working years and spend down their savings 

when they reach retirement. During their working years, DC plan 

participants typically must determine the size of their contributions and 

choose among various investment options offered by the plan. At 

retirement or separation from their employer, plan participants must 

decide what to do with their plan savings. Participants in DB plans also 

face similar decisions if the plan offers a lump sum option, including

whether to take the annuity or lump sum, and if a lump sum is elected, 

how to manage those benefits. GAO has found that these decisions are 

difficult to navigate because the appropriate investment strategy depends 

on many different aspects of an individual’s circumstances, such as 

anticipated expenses, income level, health, and each household’s 

tolerance for risk.8 In addition, individuals with DC plans face challenges 

comparing their distribution options, in part due to a host of complicated 

factors that must be considered in choosing among such options. They 

may also lack objective information to inform these complicated 

decisions. 9 In fact, while financial experts GAO has interviewed typically 

recommended that retirees convert a portion of their savings into an 

income annuity, or opt for the annuity provided by an employer-sponsored 

DB pension instead of a lump sum withdrawal, we found that most 

retirees pass up opportunities for additional lifetime retirement income.10

 

8 GAO, Retirement Income: Ensuring Income throughout Retirement Requires Difficult 

Choices, 

These choices coupled with increasing life expectancy may result in more 

retirees outliving their assets.

GAO-11-400 (Washington D.C., June 17, 2011).

9 GAO, 401(K) PLANS: Labor and IRS Could Improve the Rollover Process for 

Participants, GAO-13-30 (Washington D.C.: March 7, 2013) and GAO, 401(K) PLANS: 

Improved Regulation Could Better Protect Participants from Conflicts of Interest, 

GAO-11-119, (Washington, D.C.: January 28, 2011).

10 See GAO-11-400. 
 

Page 10 GAO-14-272T 

Lastly, the transition from DB to DC plans has increased the vulnerability 

of some spouses due to differences in the federal requirements for 

spousal protections between these two types of retirement plans. For DB 

plans, spousal consent is required if the participant wishes to waive the 

survivor annuity for his or her spouse. In contrast, for DC plans, spousal 

consent is not required for the participant to withdraw funds from the 

account—either before or at retirement—and DC plans do not generally 

offer annuities at all, including those with a survivor benefit. While this 

may not be a concern among many couples, it is a concern for some, 

especially those who depend on their spouse for income.

While the trends described above have the potential to affect many 

Americans, it is likely that they will impact the nation’s most vulnerable 

more severely. Despite the role Social Security has played in reducing 

poverty among seniors, poverty remains high among certain groups (see 

fig. 5). These groups include older women, especially those who are 

unmarried or over age 80, and nonwhites.11

 

11 See GAO-12-699. 

Some Retirees May 

Need More 

Assistance from the 

Safety-Net System
 

Page 11 GAO-14-272T 

Figure 5: Estimated Poverty Rates by Demographic Categories in 2012 for Women 

and Men Age 65 and Over

Note: The poverty rate is the percentage of people in each category whose family income falls below 

the Census Bureau’s poverty index for 2012. Percentage estimates for poverty rates have margins of 

error at the 95 percent confidence level expressed in percentage points that fall at or under: 1.3 for 

men and women overall and within each detailed age group; 0.6 for married men and women; 1.8 for 

widowed men and women; 2.4 for divorced men and women; 5.7 for separated men; 8.6 for 

separated women; 3.7 for never-married men and women; 0.6 for white men and women; 2.2 for 

Black men and women; 3.3 for Asian men and women; 2.9 for Hispanic men and women; and 1.6 for 

individuals residing in urban or rural areas. The category “White” refers to people who are white only, 

non-Hispanic. “Black” refers to people who are black only, non-Hispanic. “Asian” refers to people who 

are either Asian only, Pacific Islander only, or Asian and Pacific Islander, and are non-Hispanic. 

Hispanic people may be any race. 

Moreover, individuals nearing retirement who experience economic 

shocks, such as losing a job or spouse, are also vulnerable to economic 

insecurity. During the 2007-2009 recession, unemployment rates doubled 
 

Page 12 GAO-14-272T 

for workers aged 55 and older.12 When older workers lose a job they are 

less likely to find other employment. In fact, the median duration of 

unemployment for older workers rose sharply from 2007 to 2010, more 

than tripling for workers 65 and older and increasing to 31 weeks from 11 

weeks for workers age 55 to 64.13 Prior GAO work has shown that longterm unemployment can reduce an older worker’s future retirement 

income in numerous ways, including reducing the number of years the 

worker can accumulate savings, prompting workers to claim Social 

Security retirement benefits before they reach their full retirement age, 

and leading workers to draw down their retirement assets.14

As a result of the trends described above, these vulnerable populations 

may face increasing income insecurity in old age and be in greater need 

of assistance. For example, during the 2007-2009 recession, the demand 

for food assistance rose sharply among older adults. Specifically, from 

fiscal year 2006 to 2009, the average number of households with a 

member age 60 or older participating in the Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program rose 25 percent, while the population in that age 

group rose by 9 percent.

Similarly, our 

past work has shown that divorce and widowhood in the years leading up 

to and during retirement have detrimental effects on an individual’s assets 

and income, and that these effects were more pronounced for women.

15

Our previous work, however, has identified weaknesses in assistance 

programs that deliver services to the elderly. For example, GAO has 

identified several issues with the administration of programs under the 

Older Americans Act of 1965 (OAA).16

 

12 GAO, Income Security: Older Adults and the 2007-2009 Recession,

OAA programs, in tandem with 

other government services such as Medicaid, are an important support 

mechanism for many older adults, helping them stay in their homes and 

communities and maintain dignity and independence. They provide 

services such as transportation, nutrition, and caregiver assistance. In our 

GAO-12-76 

(Washington, D.C.: October 17, 2011). 

13 ibid.

14 GAO, Unemployed Older Workers: Many Face Long-Term Joblessness and Reduced 

Retirement Security, GAO-12-742T (Washington D.C.: May 15, 2012).

15 See GAO-12-76.

16 Pub. L. No. 89-73, 79 Stat. 218 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 3001-3058ff).
 

Page 13 GAO-14-272T 

past work, we noted that the national funding formula used to allocate 

funding to states does not include factors to target older adults in greatest 

need, such as low-income older adults, although states are required to 

consider such factors when developing the intrastate formulas they use to 

allocate funds among their local agencies. We found that certain formula 

changes to better target states with elderly adults with the greatest need 

would have disparate effects on states, depending on their 

characteristics.17 We have also found that lack of federal guidance and 

data make it difficult to know whether those with the greatest need are 

being served.18

Our findings underscore how retirement security can be affected by 

changing circumstances in the American household and the economy. As 

the composition of the American family continues to evolve and as our 

retirement system transitions to one that is primarily account-based, 

vulnerable populations in this country will face increasing risk of saving 

sufficiently and potentially outliving their assets. For those with little or no 

pension or other financial assets, ensuring income in retirement may 

involve difficult choices, including how long to wait before claiming Social 

Security benefits, how long to work, and how to adjust consumption and 

lifestyle to lower levels of income in retirement. Poor or imprudent 

decisions may mean the difference between a secure retirement and 

poverty. Planning for these needs will be crucial if we wish to avoid 

turning back the clock on the gains we have achieved over the past 50 

years from Social Security in reducing poverty among seniors.

Chairman Nelson, Ranking Member Collins, and Members of the 

Committee, this completes my statement. I would be happy to answer any 

questions you might have.

 

17 In its comments on our report, the Department of Health and Human Services noted, for 

example, that rural states report that costs of providing and maintaining cost-effective 

nutrition and supportive systems are often driven up by large distances and lack of 

economies of scale, and that questions might be raised about how the funding formula 

accounts for the needs and characteristics of older Americans who reside in these areas. 

GAO, Older Americans Act: Options to Better Target Need and Improve Equity, 

GAO-13-74 (Washington, D.C.: November 30, 2012).

18 GAO, Older Americans Act: More Should Be Done to Measure the Extent of Unmet 

Need for Services, GAO-11-237 (Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2011).

Concluding 

Observations
Appendix I: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 14 GAO-14-272T 

Barbara D. Bovbjerg, (202) 512-7215 or bovbjergb@gao.gov

In addition to the above, Charlie Jeszeck, Director; Michael Collins, 

Assistant Director; Jennifer Cook, Erin M. Godtland, Rhiannon Patterson, 

and Ryan Siegel made significant contributions to this testimony and the 

related report. In addition, James Bennett, David Chrisinger, Sarah 

Cornetto, Courtney LaFountain, Kathy Leslie, Amy Moran Lowe, Sheila 

McCoy, Susan Offutt, Marylynn Sergent, Frank Todisco, and Shana 

Wallace made valuable contributions.

Appendix I: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(131295)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

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

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.