Federal Workforce: Recent Trends in Federal Civilian Employment and Compensation
Published: 2014-01-29T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Skilled federal workers are critical to the successful operation of government. At the same time, personnel costs for current and former federal civilian employees represented about 26 percent of total discretionary spending in 2012; these personnel costs are outlays from budget authority authorized by appropriations acts. Given the need to control agencies' personnel costs while also maintaining agencies' high performance, a thorough understanding of employment and compensation trends is a critical component of strategic workforce planning.
GAO was asked to provide data on federal employment and compensation trends. This report examines (1) employment trends of federal civilian personnel from 2004 to 2012 and some factors that affect these trends, and (2) the extent to which federal civilian employee compensation has changed (as a percentage of total discretionary spending) and some reasons for this change.
For this report, GAO analyzed government-wide executive branch civilian personnel data from 2004 to 2012. GAO also interviewed Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other selected agency officials. GAO also reviewed relevant literature, such as studies on attrition.
GAO is not making any recommendations in this report. GAO received technical comments on a draft of this report from OMB, OPM, and the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs; comments were incorporated as appropriate.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: From 2004 to 2012, the federal non-postal civilian workforce grew by 258,882 employees, from 1.88 million to 2.13 million (14 percent). Permanent career employees accounted for most of the growth, increasing by 256,718 employees, from 1.7 million in 2004 to 1.96 million in 2012 (15 percent). Three agencies--the Departments of Defense (DOD), Homeland Security (DHS), and Veterans Affairs (VA)--accounted for about 94 percent of this increase. At DOD, officials said that converting certain positions from military to civilian, as well as the growth of the agency's acquisition and cybersecurity workforce, contributed to this overall increase. At VA, officials said the increased demand for medical and health-related services for military veterans drove most of the growth in personnel levels. DHS officials said the increase in employment was due in large part to the nation's border security requirements. (In contrast, ten agencies had fewer career permanent employees in 2012 than they did in 2004). Government-wide, most of the increase in employment from 2004 to 2012 occurred within occupational categories that require higher skill and educational levels. These categories include professional occupations (e.g., doctors and scientists), and administrative occupations (e.g., financial and program managers), as opposed to clerical, technical, and blue collar occupations (which remained stable). In terms of turnover, retirement rates remained relatively flat (at around 3.5 percent) from 2004 until the start of the recession in December 2007. Retirement rates fell to a low of around 2.5 percent during the recession in 2009, and then increased to pre-recession rates in 2011 and 2012. With respect to retirement eligibility, of the 1.96 million permanent career employees on board as of September 2012, nearly 270,000 (14 percent) were eligible to retire. By September 2017, nearly 600,000 (around 31 percent) will be eligible to retire, government-wide.
Spending on total government-wide compensation for each full-time equivalent (FTE) position grew by an average of 1.2 percent per year, from $106,097 in 2004 to $116,828 in 2012. Much of this growth was driven by increased personnel benefits costs, which rose at a rate of 1.9 percent per year. Other factors included locality pay adjustments, as well as a change in the composition of the federal workforce (with a larger share of employees working in professional or administrative positions, requiring advanced skills and degrees). In terms of employee pay per FTE, spending rose at an average annual rate of 1 percent per year (a 7.9 percent increase overall). However, as a proportion of governmentwide federal discretionary spending, spending on compensation remained constant from 2004 to 2010 (at 14 percent), with slight increases in 2011 and 2012.
While the federal civilian workforce grew in size from 2004 to 2012, most of the growth was concentrated in three federal agencies and was driven by the need to address some of the nation's pressing priorities. At the same time--as GAO reported in February 2013--large numbers of retirement-eligible employees in the years ahead may be cause for concern: Their retirement could produce mission critical skills gaps if left unaddressed. As GAO reported in its February 2013 High Risk update, strategic human capital planning that is integrated with broader organizational strategic planning will be essential for ensuring that-- going forward--agenices have the talent, skill, and experience mix they need to cost-effectively execute their mission and program goals.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Current budget and long-term fiscal pressures demand that agencies  operate more strategically and efficiently than ever before, and this  includes cost-effective management of their human capital policies and  practices. Indeed, personnel costs for both current and former federal  civilian employees in 2012 represented about 26 percent of total  discretionary spending, outlays from budget authority provided by  appropriation acts. That said, skilled federal workers—including program  managers, scientists, engineers, and clerks—are critical to the successful  operation of government and need to be deployed at the right place, at  the right time, and in the right numbers in order to address such complex  national challenges as disaster response, national and homeland  security, economic stability, and other evolving national issues. As we  have previously reported, the government’s capacity to address these  challenges could be undermined by a potential wave of employee  retirements that could produce gaps in leadership and institutional  knowledge.
Given the need to control agencies’ personnel costs while also  maintaining agencies’ high performance, a thorough understanding of  employment and compensation trends is a critical component of strategic  workforce planning. This will help ensure agencies have the competency  and skill mix needed to execute their mission and program goals within  the constraints of available resources now, and into the future.
Because the Budget Committee needs information to help it study  proposals that improve analytical and systematic evaluation of existing  programs, you asked us to examine (1) employment trends of federal  civilian personnel from 2004 to 2012 and some factors that affect those  trends, and (2) the extent to which federal civilian employee  compensation has changed as a percentage of total discretionary  spending and some of the reasons for this change.
To examine employment trends, we used OPM’s Enterprise Human  Resources Integration (EHRI) Statistical Data Mart, which contains  information on personnel actions and other data for most federal civilian  employees, including employees of the 24 Chief Financial Officers (CFO)  Act agencies,Department of Defense) and most of the executive branch workforce.   which represent the major departments (such as the  We analyzed EHRI data starting with fiscal year 2004 because personnel  data for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—which was formed  in 2003 with a mix of new hires and transfers from other agencies—had  stabilized by 2004. We selected 2012 as the endpoint because it was the  most recent, complete fiscal year of data available during most of our  review.
We assessed the reliability of EHRI data through electronic testing to  identify missing data, out of range values, and logical inconsistencies. We  also reviewed our prior work assessing the reliability of these data and  interviewed OPM officials knowledgeable about the data to discuss the  data’s accuracy and steps OPM takes to ensure reliability. On the basis of  this assessment, we believe the EHRI data we used are sufficiently  reliable for the purpose of this report.
To assess the extent to which federal civilian employee compensation  (pay and benefits) has changed as a percentage of total discretionary  spending from fiscal years 2004 through 2012, we used the Office of  Management and Budget’s (OMB) MAX Information System (MAX), a  database that contains budgetary data, including compensation costs of  federal employees. We analyzed trends in discretionary outlays as well  as pay and benefits overall and pay and benefits per full-time equivalent  (FTE), based on the MAX database designation for FTEs.
To assess the reliability of the MAX data, we performed electronic testing  and cross-checked it against the numbers reported in the President’s  Budget. In addition, we interviewed OMB officials to understand any  discrepancies in the data. For example, we met with OMB officials and  provided them our initial results to determine whether we were accurately  representing spending on pay and benefits. Based on these discussions,  we made adjustments to our scope and methodology, as appropriate.
For both objectives, to determine the factors contributing to employment,  turnover, and compensation trends in the civilian workforce from 2004 to  2012, we interviewed officials at the three agencies the data showed were  responsible for some of the largest changes to these trends: the  Departments of Defense (DOD), Veterans Affairs (VA), and Homeland  Security (DHS). We also interviewed officials at two of the federal  government’s central management agencies, the Office of Personnel  Management (OPM) and OMB. (See appendix II for a more detailed  description of our objectives, scope, and methodology).
We conducted this performance audit from June 2012 to January 2014 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 obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: In our earlier work on studies comparing federal and non-federal pay, we  noted how the composition of the federal workforce has changed over the  past 30 years, with the need for clerical and blue collar roles diminishing,  and the need for professional, administrative, and technical roles  increasing. Today’s federal jobs require more advanced skills at higher  grade levels than federal jobs in years past. As a result, a key  management challenge facing the federal government in an era of fiscal  austerity is balancing the size and composition of the federal workforce so  it is able to deliver the high quality services that taxpayers demand, within  the budgetary realities of what the nation can afford.
As we have previously stated, inadequate planning prior to personnel  reductions jeopardizes the ability of agencies to carry out their missions. For example, in the wake of extensive federal downsizing in the 1990s— done largely without adequate planning or sufficient consideration of the  strategic consequences—agencies faced challenges deploying the right  skills when and where they were needed.
More recently, this management challenge has been exacerbated by the  fact that today’s federal workforce consists of a large number of  employees who are eligible for retirement. Various factors affect when  individuals actually retire. Some amount of retirement and other forms of  attrition can be beneficial because it creates opportunities to bring fresh  skills on board and allows organizations to restructure themselves in  order to better meet program goals and fiscal realities. But if turnover is  not strategically managed and monitored, gaps can develop in an  organization’s institutional knowledge and leadership as experienced  employees leave. We have previously reported that the needs and  missions of individual agencies should determine their approach to  workforce planning.
GAO-09-632T.
Our prior work has shown that strategic human capital management has  been a pervasive challenge facing the federal government, and has led to  government-wide and agency-specific skills gaps. Our February 2011  update to our high risk list noted that federal strategic human capital  management was a high risk area because current and emerging mission  critical skills gaps were undermining agencies’ abilities to meet their vital  missions. To help close these skills gaps, we reported that actions were  needed in three broad areas: planning, to identify the causes of, and solutions for, skills gaps and to  identify the steps to implement those solutions; implementation, to put in place corrective actions to narrow skills gaps  through talent management and other strategies; and measurement and evaluation, to assess the performance of initiatives  to close skills gaps.
Since our February 2011 update, OPM, individual agencies, and  Congress have taken a number of steps to close mission critical skills  gaps, but as we noted in our 2013 High Risk update, additional actions  were needed, as our work found that skills gaps were continuing in such  areas as cybersecurity, acquisition management, and aviation safety,  among others. These actions included reviewing the extent to which  new capabilities were needed, in order to give OPM and other agencies  greater visibility over government-wide skills gaps so that agencies could  take a more coordinated approach to remediating them. OPM agreed that  these were important areas for consideration.
Since our 2011 High Risk update, OPM’s efforts to address mission  critical skill gaps have included establishing the Chief Human Capital  Officers Council Working Group in order to identify and mitigate critical  skills gaps for both government-wide and agency-specific occupations  and competencies. Moreover, the Working Group’s efforts were  designated a cross-agency priority goal within the administration’s fiscal  year 2013 federal budget; OPM is partnering with the Chief Human  Capital Officer’s Council to create a government-wide Human Resources  Information Technology strategy that can provide greater visibility to OPM  and agencies regarding current and emerging skills gaps.
subsections: section_title: The Federal Civilian Workforce Grew by 14 percent from 2004 through 2012, and 14 percent of On Board Employees were Eligible to Retire in 2012
paragraphs: From 2004 to 2012, the non-postal civilian workforce grew from 1.88  million to 2.13 million, an increase of 14 percent, or 258,882 individuals.  Most of the total increase (94 percent) was from 2007 through 2012. The  number of permanent career executive branch employees grew by  256,718, from about 1.7 million in 2004 to 1.96 million in 2012 (an  increase of 15 percent). Of the 24 CFO Act agencies, 13 had more  permanent career employees in 2012 than they did in 2004, 10 had  fewer, and one agency was unchanged. Three agencies (DOD, DHS, and  VA) accounted for 94 percent of the growth between 2004 and 2012.  These three agencies employed 62 percent of all executive branch  permanent career employees in 2012. A number of factors contributed to  the overall growth of the civilian workforce: For example, at DOD,  according to agency officials, converting certain positions from military to  civilian, as well as the growth of the agency’s acquisition and  cybersecurity workforce contributed to this overall increase. At VA,  according to agency officials, approximately 80 percent of employees  hired from 2004 through 2012 were hired by the Veterans Health  Administration (VHA), primarily to meet increased demand for medical  and health-related services for military veterans. At DHS, the increase in  civilian permanent career employment was due to increased staffing to  secure the nation’s borders.
Employees in professional or administrative positions account for most of  the overall increase in federal civilian employment. For example, the  number of employees working in professional positions increased by  97,328 (from 394,981 in 2004 to 492,309 in 2012). This growth accounts  for nearly 38 percent of the 256,718 total government-wide increase in  permanent career employees during this period. In comparison,  employees in administrative positions increased by 153,914 (from  582,509 in 2004 to 736,423 in 2012). This growth accounts for 60 percent  of the total government-wide increase during this period. Technical,  clerical, blue collar, and other white collar positions accounted for the  remaining 2 percent of those full-time permanent positions added from  2004 to 2012.
The retirement rate of federal civilian employees rose from 3.2 percent in  2004 to a high of 3.6 percent in 2007 when, according to data from the  National Bureau of Economic Research, the recession began. During the  recession, the total attrition rate dropped to a low of 2.5 percent in 2009  before rebounding to pre-recession levels in 2011 and 2012. Beginning at  the end of 2007, the recession saw retirement rates decline to 3.3 percent  in 2008, 2.5 percent in 2009, and 2.7 percent in 2010, before increasing  again to 3.5 percent in 2012.
With respect to retirement eligibility, of the 1.96 million permanent career  employees on board as of September 2012, nearly 270,000 (14 percent)  were eligible to retire. By September 2017, nearly 600,000 (31 percent) of  on board staff will be eligible to retire. Not all agencies will be equally  affected. By 2017, 20 of the 24 CFO Act agencies will have a higher  percentage of staff eligible to retire than the current overall average of 31  percent. About 21 percent of DHS staff on board as of September 2012  will be eligible to retire in 2017, while over 42 percent will be eligible to  retire at both the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)  and the Small Business Administration (SBA). Certain occupations—such  as air traffic controllers and those involved in program management—will  also have particularly high retirement eligibility rates by 2017.
section_title: From 2004 through 2012, Federal Civilian Compensation Remained Relatively Constant as a Proportion of Total Discretionary Spending
paragraphs: With respect to pay and benefits as measured by each full-time  equivalent (FTE) position, total government-wide compensation grew by  an average of 1.2 percent per year from 2004 to 2012 ($106,097 to  $116,828—about a 10 percent overall increase). Much of this growth was  driven by increased cost of personnel benefits, which rose at a rate of 1.9  percent per year (a 16.3 percent increase overall). According to OMB, the  government’s contribution to the Federal Employee Health Benefits  (FEHB) program rose, on average, 5.2 percent from 2004 to 2011 and 4.7  percent from 2011 to 2012. One study showed that employer  contributions for premiums for family insurance coverage nationwide grew  by about 58 percent from 2004 through 2012, for an average annual  increase of around 5 percent.spending rose at an average annual rate of 1 percent per year (a 7.9  percent increase overall). While government-wide spending on pay and  benefits rose slightly, some agencies had significant increases in their  spending on compensation per FTE. For example, the Department of  State’s spending on pay and benefits per FTE increased by 4.5 percent  per year, on average, from 2004 through 2012. In total, government-wide  spending on pay and benefits increased by $51 billion, from $193.2 billion  to $244.3 billion (an average annual increase of 3 percent and an overall  increase of 26.4 percent) from 2004 to 2012.
In terms of employee pay per FTE,  Spending on pay and benefits as a proportion of the federal discretionary  budget remained relatively constant (at about 14 percent) from 2004 to  2010, with slight increases in 2011 and 2012. Specifically, the proportion  spent on pay increased by 0.6 percent and the proportion spent on  benefits increased by 0.5 percent from 2004 to 2012. According to OMB,  a portion of this increase can be attributed to an increase in the growth in  federal civilian employment at certain agencies, locality pay adjustments,  across-the-board pay increases, and (as previously stated) increases in  the government’s share of FEHB program premiums. Government-wide,  while the proportion of the discretionary budget spent on compensation  remained constant, certain agencies had increases from 2004 to 2012.
Three agencies—DOD, DHS, and VA—accounted for 77 percent of the  total government-wide increase in compensation from 2004 to 2012,  largely due to increased hiring. DOD increased its spending on  compensation by $19.9 billion (about 39 percent of the total increase), VA  increased its spending by $10.5 billion (about 21 percent of the total  increase), and DHS increased its spending by $8.8 billion (about 17  percent of the total increase).
With respect to occupational categories,increase in spending on pay from 2004 to 2012 was due to more  employees working in professional or administrative positions, which  often require specialized knowledge and advanced skills and degrees,  and thus, higher pay. Specifically, the percentage of those employees  grew from 56 percent of the federal civilian workforce in 2004 to 62  percent in 2012. Even if there had been no change in pay for the  occupations, the changing composition of the federal workforce alone  would have caused average federal pay to increase from $70,775 in 2004  to $73,229 in 2012, as opposed to the actual 2012 average of $75,947.   48 percent of the overall  Appendix I provides more detail on each of our objectives and related  findings.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: While the size of the civilian federal workforce grew moderately during the  period of our study, most of this growth was concentrated in a few large  agencies and reflects some of our nation’s pressing priorities. The cost of  compensating the civilian workforce has remained relatively constant as a  percentage of the discretionary budget during the past decade; however,  nearly half of the increased pay and benefits costs can be attributed to a  shift toward more employees serving in professional and administrative  capacities, in jobs that require specialized knowledge and higher levels of  education. Although employment levels have grown, large numbers of  retirement-eligible employees may be cause for concern among  agencies, decision-makers, and other stakeholders, because they could  produce mission critical skills gaps if turnover is not strategically managed  and monitored.
Replacing retiring workers, both in terms of training and hiring costs, and  in terms of the largely unquantifiable costs of losing experienced, high- level employees, could be problematic given the era of flat or declining  budgets that the government is experiencing. At the same time,  retirement-eligible employees present an opportunity for agencies to align  their workforces with current and future mission needs. Indeed, as the  federal government faces an array of current and future challenges,  agencies will be confronted with going beyond simply replacing retiring  individuals by engaging in broad, integrated planning and management  efforts that will bolster their ability to meet both current and evolving  mission requirements.
Combined, these challenges underscore the importance of strategic  workforce planning and early preparation to help ensure agencies  maintain their capacity to carry out their vital functions. Thus, as we have  reported in our prior work, agencies should (1) take such key steps as  determining the critical skills and competencies that will be needed to  achieve current and future programmatic results; (2) develop appropriate  talent management strategies to address any gaps in the number,  deployment, and alignment of skills; and (3) monitor and evaluate their  progress toward their human capital goals. In short, understanding the  dynamics of the federal workforce and the drivers of agencies’  compensation costs will help guide decision-making on workforce  composition and budgeting.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Director of OMB and the Director  of OPM for their review and comment. In addition, we provided sections  of this report to DOD, DHS, and VA. GAO received technical comments  on a draft of this report from OMB, OPM, DOD, DHS, and VA, which we  incorporated as appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to OMB, OPM, DOD, DHS,  VA, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at  no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-2757 or goldenkoffr@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Briefing Slides
section_title: Appendix II: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To analyze workforce and turnover trends, we used OPM’s Enterprise  Human Resources Integration Statistical Data Mart (EHRI-SDM), which  contains personnel action and on board data for most federal civilian  employees. We analyzed agency-level EHRI data for the 24 Chief  Financial Officers (CFO) Act agencies, which represent the major  departments (such as the Department of Defense) and most of the  executive branch workforce. We analyzed EHRI data starting with fiscal  year 2004 because personnel data for DHS (which was formed in 2003  with a mix of new hires and transfers from other agencies) had stabilized  by 2004. We selected 2012 as the endpoint because it was the most  recent, complete fiscal year of data available during most of our review.  We analyzed on board trends for most of the executive branch workforce,  including temporary and term limited employees. However, we focused  on career permanent employees in our analysis of separation trends,  retirement eligibility, and changes in occupational categories and  education levels because these employees comprise most of the federal  workforce and become eligible to retire with a pension, for which  temporary and term limited employees are ineligible. To calculate the  number of federal civilian employees, we included all on board staff,  regardless of their pay status. In addition, we excluded foreign service  workers at the State Department since those employees were not  included in OPM data for the years after 2004.
We examined on board, attrition, and retirement eligibility trends by  agency, occupation, and education level. Occupational categories include  Professional, Administrative, Technical, Clerical, Blue Collar, and Other  white-collar (PATCO) groupings and are defined by the educational  requirements of the occupation and the subject matter and level of  difficulty or responsibility of the work assigned. Occupations within each  category are defined by OPM and education levels are defined by OPM  as the extent of an employee’s educational attainment from an accredited  institution. We grouped education levels to reflect categories of degree  attainment, such as a bachelor’s or advanced degree.
To calculate attrition rates, we added the number of career permanent  employees with personnel actions indicating they had separated from  federal service (for example, resignations, retirements, terminations, and  deaths) and divided that by the 2-year on board average. To calculate  retirement eligibility for the next 5 years, we computed the date at which  the employee would be eligible for voluntary retirement at an unreduced  annuity, using age at hire, years of service, birth date, and retirement plan  coverage.
We assessed the reliability of the EHRI data through electronic testing to  identify missing data, out of range values, and logical inconsistencies. We  also reviewed our prior work assessing the reliability of these data and  interviewed OPM officials knowledgeable about the data to discuss the  data’s accuracy and the steps OPM takes to ensure reliability. On the  basis of this assessment, we believe the EHRI data we used are  sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report.
To assess the extent to which federal civilian employee compensation  has changed as a percentage of total discretionary spending from fiscal  year 2004 through 2012, we analyzed discretionary outlays from OMB’s  MAX Information System , which captures compensation costs as gross  obligations, hereafter referred to as “spending.” We analyzed spending  on employee compensation as a ratio of federal discretionary spending  (as opposed to other baseline measures, such as total federal spending  or gross domestic product) because discretionary spending—that is,  spending that is decided upon by Congress each fiscal year through  annual appropriations acts—includes personnel costs as well as other  operational and program expenses (such as equipment and contracts)  that agencies incur to carry out their mission. As a result, the ratio of  compensation to discretionary spending enabled us to compare  personnel costs to other agency spending. Moreover, using discretionary  spending as a baseline allowed us to present this information for both the  entire federal government as well as for an individual agency. Obligations  data are reported in object classes, which are categories that present  obligations by the type of expenditure. We analyzed the object class,  “personnel compensation and benefits,” for executive branch agencies in  our analysis.and discretionary spending categories when reporting on budget  obligations, we used outlays as a proxy for pay and benefits obligations.  According to a senior OMB official, this approach is appropriate for pay  and benefits spending categories because most (or all) of the budget  authority for these categories is obligated in the same year that it is  authorized, resulting in similar numbers between outlays and obligations.
Because OMB does not distinguish between mandatory  We analyzed pay and benefits per full time equivalent (FTE) based on the  MAX database designation for FTEs. To assess the reliability of the MAX  data, we performed electronic testing and cross-checked it against the  numbers reported in the President’s Budget. In addition, we interviewed  OMB officials to understand any discrepancies in the data. For example,  we met with OMB officials and provided them our initial results to  determine whether we were accurately representing spending on pay and  benefits. Based on these discussions, we made adjustments to our scope  and methodology, as appropriate. Based on our assessment, we believe  these data are sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report.
To determine the factors contributing to workforce, turnover, and  compensation trends in the civilian workforce from 2004 to 2012, we  interviewed officials at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM),  Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Department of Defense  (DOD), Veterans Administration (VA), and the Department of Homeland  Security (DHS).
We conducted this performance audit from June 2012 to January 2014 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 obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
paragraphs: Robert Goldenkoff, (202) 512-2757 or goldenkoffr@gao.gov.
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Robert Goldenkoff (Director), Trina Lewis (Assistant Director), and Chelsa  Gurkin (Assistant Director) managed this assignment. Jeffrey Schmerling  (Analyst-in-Charge) and Wesley Sholtes (Analyst) made key contributions  to all aspects of the work. Ben Bolitzer, Sara Daleski, and John Mingus  provided assistance with data analysis. Karin Fangman and Sabrina  Streagle provided legal support; Robert Gebhart provided key assistance  with message development and writing. Robert Robinson provided key  assistance with graphics and Rebecca Shea provided methodological  assistance.