2000 Census: Complete Costs of Coverage Evaluation Programs Are Not Available
Published: 2002-10-31T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: To assess the quality of the population data collected in the 2000 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau conducted the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (A.C.E.) program, which focused on a survey of housing units designed to estimate the number of people missed, counted more than once, or otherwise improperly counted in the census. GAO reviewed the life cycle costs of the A.C.E. program and its predecessor, the Integrated Coverage Measurement (ICM) program.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: GAO found that the original estimated cycle costs of conducting the ICM/A.C.E. programs were $400 million. The first evidence for the original $400 million estimate is in the original budget justifications for fiscal year 2000. The bureau based its estimates of ICM/A.C.E. costs on assumptions about the needs for personnel and benefits, contractual services, travel, office space, equipment, and other costs necessary to conduct and support operations of the programs. The budgeted amounts that GAO identified from bureau records for conducting the ICM/A.C.E. programs are $277 million through fiscal year 2003. The obligated costs that GAO identified from bureau records for conducting the ICM/A.C.E. programs are $207 million through fiscal year 2001. $58 million of budgeted funds for the ICM/A.C.E. programs that GAO identified from bureau records were not obligated through fiscal year 2001. The ICM/A.C.E. program-related costs that GAO identified from bureau records for the 1998 dress rehearsal were $11 million budgeted and $9 million obligated.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: To assess the quality of the population data collected in the 2000 Census,  the U.S. Census Bureau conducted the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation  (A.C.E.) program, which focused on a survey of housing units designed to  estimate the number of people missed, counted more than once, or  otherwise improperly counted in the census.  As agreed with your offices,  this report responds to your joint request to review A.C.E. life cycle costs.    Total life cycle costs for the 2000 Census cover a 13-year period from fiscal  year 1991 through fiscal year 2003 at an estimated cost of $6.5 billion,  adjusted to 2000-year dollars.  The A.C.E. program was first included in  bureau program documents in November 1998 and funded for fiscal years  2000 through 2003.  A predecessor program, Integrated Coverage  Measurement (ICM), began in May 1995 and was funded by the bureau for  fiscal years 1996 through 1999.  We considered both programs to be within  the scope of your request.
As agreed with your offices, we focused our review on the following seven  questions concerning ICM/A.C.E. program life cycle costs. 1. What were the original estimated life cycle costs for the ICM/A.C.E.  programs? 2. What was the source and support for $400 million in life cycle costs  reported by the bureau for the ICM/A.C.E. programs? 3. How were ICM/A.C.E. program costs estimated? 4. How much did the bureau budget for the ICM/A.C.E. programs? 5. What were the obligated life cycle costs for the ICM/A.C.E. programs? 6. Were any budgeted funds for the ICM/A.C.E. programs not used as of  the end of fiscal year 2001, and if so, how much? 7. What were the ICM/A.C.E. program-related costs for the bureau dress  rehearsal in fiscal year 1998?
This report is part of a series of GAO studies on the lessons learned from  the 2000 Census that can help in the planning and development effort now  occurring for the 2010 Census.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Early in the 2000 Census cycle, the U.S. Census Bureau was researching  coverage measurement options for the 2000 Census, including the Post  Enumeration Survey (PES) methods used in past decennial censuses.  The  bureau explored a number of design options aimed at improving data  accuracy while controlling costs.  In 1993, the bureau was also evaluating  the feasibility of conducting a one-number census, which combines the  features of both the traditional head count and statistical methods to  produce a single count before the mandated deadlines.
In May 1995, the bureau announced that it would conduct a sample survey  of 750,000 housing units, called Integrated Coverage Measurement (ICM),  to estimate how many housing units and people it would miss or count  more than once in the 2000 Census.  In this initial design for the 2000  Census, the bureau planned to use statistical methods to integrate the  results of this survey with the traditional census enumeration to provide a  one-number census by December 31, 2000.   The U.S. Supreme Court ruled  in January 1999 that 13 U.S.C. 195 prohibited the use of statistical sampling  to generate population data for reapportioning the U.S. House of  Representatives.  However, the court’s ruling did not prohibit the use of  statistical sampling for other purposes, such as adjusting formulas to  distribute billions of dollars of federal funding to state and local  governments.
Following the Supreme Court ruling, the bureau abandoned certain  statistical aspects of the ICM program, and announced the A.C.E. program  to assess the quality of the population data collected in the 2000 Census,  using a smaller sample of 300,000 housing units.  The bureau conducted  A.C.E., which corresponded to the PES in past censuses and the ICM in the  original 2000 Census Plan, to measure and correct the overall and  differential coverage of the U.S. resident population in the 2000 Census.   Although A.C.E. was generally implemented as planned, the bureau found  that A.C.E. overstated the census net undercount.  This was due, in part, to  errors introduced during matching operations and from other remaining  uncertainties.  The bureau has reported that additional review and analysis  would be necessary before any potential uses of A.C.E. data could be  considered.
Due to uncertainties or errors in the A.C.E. survey results, the acting  director of the bureau decided in separate decisions in March 2001 and  October 2001 that the 2000 Census tabulations would not be adjusted for  any purpose, including distribution of billions of dollars in federal funding.
These decisions were consistent with those for the 1990 Census, which was  not adjusted due to other problems.  According to senior bureau officials,  the bureau is continuing to evaluate issues related to A.C.E. and the census,  and the results of its evaluation are expected to influence the bureau’s  planning for the 2010 Census.
subsections: section_title: Bureau Appropriations and Accounting
paragraphs: The bureau receives two appropriations from the Congress:  (1) salaries  and expenses and (2) periodic censuses and programs.  The salaries and  expenses appropriation provides 1-year funding for a broad range of  economic, demographic, and social statistical programs.  The periodic  censuses and programs appropriation includes primarily no-year funding  to plan, conduct, and analyze the decennial censuses every decade and for  other authorized periodic activities.  Since fiscal year 1996, the bureau has  prepared its annual budget request for the 2000 Census in eight broad  frameworks of effort that were submitted to the Office of Management and  Budget (OMB) and the Congress.  For management, program, financial,  staffing, and performance purposes, frameworks are further divided by the  bureau into activities and then projects within these activities.
The bureau accounts for the costs of conducting the ICM/A.C.E. programs  in its Commerce Administrative Management System (CAMS), which  became operational in fiscal year 1997.  Bureau financial management  reports generated by CAMS have provided appropriated amounts,  expended and obligated amounts, and variances to a project level from  fiscal year 1997 to the current period.  The ICM/A.C.E. programs are an  activity comprised of eight projects contained within three frameworks.    Fiscal year 1996 was the first year the bureau set up a specific project code  to identify ICM program costs through fiscal year 1999.  However, it was  difficult to identify the change to the A.C.E. program beginning in fiscal  year 2000 because the bureau did not change many of the project  descriptions in CAMS from the ICM program.  As discussed in our  December 2001 report, we identified specific control weaknesses for fiscal  year 2000 related to the lack of controls over financial reporting and  financial management systems.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To meet the objective of responding to seven questions concerning  ICM/A.C.E. program life cycle costs, we reviewed and analyzed budget and  program data for all coverage measurement programs that existed during  the 2000 Census (for fiscal years 1991 to 2003), which included the ICM and  A.C.E. programs.  We did not audit budget and other financial data provided  by the bureau.  We also reviewed planning and methodology documents  and other available information in order to determine the history of the  programs.  Also, we identified ICM and A.C.E. project accounts and  analyzed amounts by fiscal year using the financial management reports  generated by CAMS.  We discussed the results of our analysis with senior  bureau officials and interviewed bureau officials to obtain their views and  observations regarding the ICM and A.C.E. programs.  It was not our  objective to assess the efficiency of expenditures and obligations against  planned budget appropriations.
We encountered several limitations in the scope of our work on this  assignment as follows.
We were unable to determine the complete life cycle costs of the  ICM/A.C.E. programs because the bureau considered any ICM/A.C.E.  related costs from fiscal years 1991 through 1995 as part of its general  research and development programs and thus did not separately track  these costs.  Although some costs were tracked in fiscal year 1996, the  bureau still considered these costs as research and development and did  not include these costs as ICM/A.C.E. program costs.
We were further unable to identify ICM/A.C.E. portions of costs, such as  evaluations and data processing, which the bureau included with other  2000 Census programs.
Our work was performed in Washington, D.C. and at U.S. Census Bureau  headquarters in Suitland, Maryland, from February 2002 through July 2002.    Our work was done in accordance with U.S. generally accepted  government auditing standards.  On November 17, 2002, the Department of  Commerce provided written comments on a draft of this report and we  have reprinted the comments in appendix II. Technical comments were  also provided by the department and incorporated into the report where  appropriate, but have not been reprinted.
section_title: Life Cycle Costs
paragraphs: Although the bureau tracked some costs of conducting the ICM/A.C.E.  programs, we found that the bureau did not identify the complete life cycle  costs of the programs due to the following three factors.
First, the bureau only tracked the costs of conducting the ICM/A.C.E.  programs, which covers the period from fiscal year 1997 through 2003.    Although life cycle costs for the 2000 Census cover a 13-year period from  fiscal years 1991 through 2003, senior bureau officials said that the  ICM/A.C.E. program was not viable for implementation until fiscal year  1997. Therefore, the bureau considered costs from earlier years as part of  its general research and development programs and the bureau did not  assign unique project codes to identify ICM/A.C.E. programs and related  costs in its financial management system.
Second, although $3.6 million of fiscal year 1996 obligated costs were  identifiable in the bureau’s financial management system as an ICM special  test, the bureau did not consider these costs as part of the ICM/A.C.E.  programs.   Instead, these costs were considered general research and  development.  However, because the bureau separately identified these  costs as ICM program costs, we have included the $3.6 million as part of the  ICM/A.C.E. program costs we could identify in this report.
Finally, we were unable to identify the ICM/A.C.E. portions of costs, such  as evaluations and data processing, which the bureau included with other  2000 Census programs.  For example, in late fiscal year 2000 and after, the  bureau did not separate A.C.E. evaluations from its other 2000 Census  evaluations in its financial management system.  Bureau officials stated  that the contracts for evaluations included overall 2000 Census and A.C.E.  evaluations, and did not have a separate code identifying A.C.E. costs.  Similarly, the bureau did not capture all costs for items such as data  processing by programs like ICM/A.C.E.   These type of operations were  conducted for the 2000 Census overall, were budgeted by framework, were  not separated by program in the bureau’s financial management system,  and were not allocated back to individual projects.  Therefore, we were  unable to identify these types of costs for the ICM/A.C.E. programs.
section_title: Seven Issues Related To ICM/A.C.E. Programs
paragraphs: Due to the limitations in the bureau’s data, our responses to the seven  specific questions identified in your request do not include all ICM/A.C.E.  life cycle costs and are limited to available cost information covering fiscal  years 1996 through 2003, except where indicated, and exclude such costs  as A.C.E. evaluations and some data processing.  The following sections  include our responses to the seven questions on ICM/A.C.E. program life  cycle costs. 1.  What were the original estimated life cycle costs for the ICM/A.C.E.  programs?
The bureau originally estimated the costs of conducting the ICM program  to be about $400 million when it planned to use statistical methods to  integrate the results of a survey based on 750,000 housing units with the  traditional census enumeration to provide a one-number census.  This  original estimate included fiscal years 1997 through  2003.  However, this  estimate was incomplete, as the bureau did not include program costs prior  to fiscal year 1997 because it considered them as general research and  development costs.  The bureau also combined costs for A.C.E. evaluation  and data processing with other program costs in different frameworks.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in January 1999 that statistical sampling  could not be used to generate population data for reapportioning the House  of Representatives.  As a result of the ruling, in June 1999, as part of its  amended fiscal year 2000 budget request, the bureau decreased the  ICM/A.C.E. program by about $214 million, due to a reduction in the sample  size from 750,000 to 300,000 housing units.  We could not identify from  bureau records an original estimate for only A.C.E. life cycle costs for  completing the scaled-back survey.  2.  What was the source and support for $400 million in life cycle costs  reported by the bureau for the ICM/A.C.E. programs?
In 1995, the bureau estimated life cycle costs for the 2000 Census in 13  frameworks; however, bureau documents did not break out the  frameworks into activities and projects.  The first evidence for the $400  million cost estimate for conducting the ICM/A.C.E. program for the 2000  Census was submitted as part of the original fiscal year 2000 budget  justification for overall census operations to the Congress in February  1999.  This original budget was prepared based on the initial design for  ICM, which planned to incorporate statistical methods to integrate the  results of a survey based on 750,000 housing units with the traditional  census enumeration to provide a one-number census.    3.  How were ICM/A.C.E. program costs estimated?
According to bureau officials, estimates of ICM/A.C.E. costs are based on  assumptions about the needs for headquarters and support staff and  related benefits, contractual services, travel, office space, and equipment  costs necessary to conduct and support operations of the program.  The  bureau used an electronic cost model to calculate many of the estimates for  the ICM/A.C.E. programs.
For personnel costs, the A.C.E. program costs were divided into costs for  data collection and costs for headquarters full-time equivalent (FTE) staff  and support staff as follows.
The A.C.E. field staff needed to conduct each A.C.E. data collection  operation included enumerators, crew leaders, field operations  supervisors, and assistants.  The cost model was designed to estimate  the number of field staff positions, hours, FTEs, salary costs, and  mileage costs.  In the cost model, each operation had its own distinct  production assumptions based on the data collection needs for that  operation.  Based on operational needs, the bureau determined the  assumptions for production rates, mileage rates, production and  training days, and hours worked per day.
The magnitude of the A.C.E field production labor was determined by  the A.C.E. field operation workload.  Based on the workload, the  number of A.C.E. enumerators was calculated for each operation.  Then,  based on the number of enumerators, the bureau determined the  number of crew leaders, field operations supervisors, and assistants  needed.  The number of production positions became the bureau’s basis  for the number of staff to be trained.  The number of positions, both  production and trainee, was then used to estimate the salary cost as a  function of the total production and trainee hours and applicable labor  rates.
Once labor rates were determined, a percentage was used to calculate  benefit costs.
For nonpersonnel costs, the bureau estimated the costs based on the  following.
Contract costs were estimated based upon procurement needs for  goods and services, including contractors hired to assess the feasibility  of A.C.E. operations and to evaluate the results of the program.
Travel costs were estimated using the numbers of production and  trainee positions to calculate the average miles per case and the mileage  reimbursement rate.
Office space estimates were based on the number of people who needed  space, the number of square feet per person, and the cost per square  foot.
Equipment and supply costs were based on the needs of each employee  and the specific needs of each A.C.E. operation.  This included laptop  computers that were provided to field data collection staff to conduct  interviews and to monitor the operational progress of the program. 4.  How much did Census budget for the ICM/A.C.E. programs?
As shown in figure 1, we identified from bureau records budgeted amounts  of $276.5 million for conducting the ICM/A.C.E. programs.  Of this amount,  $64.2 million was for the ICM program from fiscal year 1996 through 1999,  and $212.3 million was for the A.C.E. program from fiscal year 2000 through  2003.  Also, see table 1 in appendix I for additional details of ICM/A.C.E.  budgeted costs by framework and project. 5.  What were the obligated life cycle costs for the ICM/A.C.E. programs?
As shown in figure 2, we identified from bureau records obligated amounts  of $206.9 million, of which $58.4 million was for the ICM program from  fiscal year 1996 through 1999, and $148.5 million was for the A.C.E.  program for fiscal years 2000 and 2001.  We did not include obligated costs  for fiscal year 2002 as they are not yet final and fiscal year 2003 obligations  have yet to be incurred.  Also, see table 2 in appendix I for additional  details of obligated costs for the ICM/A.C.E. programs.
As shown in figure 3, of the $206.9 million of obligated ICM/A.C.E. program  costs through fiscal year 2001, 65 percent or about $135 million were for  salaries and benefits.   The next largest category was for contractual  services, which constituted about $22.3 million or 11 percent of ICM/A.C.E.  program costs.  The third largest category was for equipment, which  constituted about $22 million, or 11 percent of ICM/A.C.E. program costs.   Other costs - including office space, travel, and supplies - made up about  $27.6 million or 13 percent of program costs.  6.  Were there any budgeted funds for the ICM/A.C.E. programs not used as  of the end of fiscal year 2001, and if so, how much?
About $57.7 million of budgeted funds that we identified from bureau  records for the ICM/A.C.E. programs were not obligated through fiscal year  2001.
For fiscal years 1996 and 1997, there were no unused funds for the ICM  program.
For fiscal year 1998, about $2.7 million remained unobligated for the  ICM program because of the following reasons.   $1.5 million was due to the dress rehearsal housing unit follow-up  workload being smaller than anticipated; a bureau bonus program  not being implemented although budgeted; and less mileage  reimbursement than budgeted under project code 6205 (ICM Dress  Rehearsal).  $400,000 was due to unused budgeted funds for salaries related to  project code 6352 (ICM Coverage Measurement).  $400,000 was due to unused budgeted funds for salaries and a delay  in awarding contract services under project code 6444 (ICM  Procedures and Training).  $400,000 was due to unused budgeted funds for regional office  manager and assistant manager salaries and travel costs due to  delays in hiring under project code 6480 (ICM Collection).
For fiscal year 1999, about $3.6 million budgeted for the ICM program  remained unobligated due to the following reasons.
About $2.3 million related to project code 6480 (ICM Collection) was  not used, including $1.6 million due to unspent salaries related to  hiring delays, hiring fewer staff than authorized for selected  positions, and hiring qualified candidates at less than budgeted  levels.  Another $0.7 million was due to less mileage reimbursement  than budgeted.
About $1.2 million was due to equipment costs and hardware for 2000  being less than budgeted under project code 6608 (ICM Processing).
For fiscal year 2000, about $42.5 million remained unobligated for the  A.C.E. program, consisting of almost $40 million for project code 6480  (A.C.E. Collection), which was budgeted for the program but was not  used primarily because of the following reasons.
About $32 million was due to unspent salaries and benefits for office  staff in field offices from hiring fewer positions and hiring at lower  grades than budgeted and from lower data collection costs due to a  reduction in cases requiring personal visits.
About $4 million was due to the fact that contract obligations for  laptop computers and support services were less than budgeted.
About $2 million resulted from lower GSA rents than budgeted.
For fiscal year 2001, about $8.9 million of unobligated funds remained  for the A.C.E. program, consisting mostly of $6.4 million for project code  6480 (A.C.E., Collection), which was budgeted for the program but was  not used. 7.  What were the ICM/A.C.E. program-related costs for the bureau dress  rehearsal in fiscal year 1998?
As shown in appendix I, the ICM program-related costs for the 1998 dress  rehearsal were captured under project code 6205 (ICM Dress Rehearsal).   Of the total $10.8 million budgeted, we were able to identify obligations of  $9.4 million from bureau records.  Most of these obligations were incurred  in fiscal year 1998, with some follow-up amounts in the first quarter of  fiscal year 1999.  According to bureau officials, the dress rehearsal project  activities included data collection and case management, data processing,  and implementation of estimation operations.  This project also covered  the implementation of ICM and some elements of A.C.E. at the Sacramento,  California, and Menominee County, Wisconsin dress rehearsal sites.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: The Department of Commerce comments expressed disagreement with  how we presented answers to the seven questions in the report, but did not  comment on the substance of our answers.  It said that our report’s  conclusions imply financial management or reporting failures and suggest  specific control weaknesses in the bureau’s financial management systems.   It also said we inferred an inability to properly manage from large  unexplained discrepancies between budgeted and obligated amounts for  the ICM/A.C.E. programs.  Our answers were not prepared with the intent  of drawing conclusions beyond the information presented and we did not  make interpretive conclusions or qualitative judgments about the  ICM/A.C.E. programs.  Although not within the scope of this report, our  December 2001 report identified internal control weaknesses for fiscal year  2000 related to the bureau’s lack of controls over financial reporting and  financial management systems.
The department’s written comments and our more detailed evaluation of its  concerns are presented in appendix II.
As agreed with your offices, unless you announce its contents earlier, we  plan no further distribution of this report until 7 days after its issuance  date.  At that time, we will send copies to the Chairman and Ranking  Minority Member of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, the  House Committee on Government Reform, and the House Subcommittee  on Civil Service, Census, and Agency Organization.  We will also send  copies to the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau, the Secretary of  Commerce, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the  Secretary of the Treasury, and other interested parties.  This report will also  be available on GAO’s home page at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have any questions concerning this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-9095 or by e-mail at kutzg@gao.gov or Roger R. Stoltz, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-9408 or by e-mail at  stoltzr@gao.gov.  A key contributor to this report was Cindy Brown-Barnes.
section_title: Comments From the Department of Commerce
paragraphs: The following are GAO’s comments on the letter dated October 17, 2002,  from the Department of Commerce.
subsections: section_title: GAO Comments
paragraphs: 1. Our report does not make interpretive conclusions or qualitative  judgments about the ICM/A.C.E. programs.  With bureau assistance, we  compiled unaudited budgeted and obligated amounts for projects that  the bureau reported in its financial management system as being  ICM/A.C.E. related.  Our review of these reported costs indicated that  life cycle costs of the ICM/A.C.E. programs were not complete due to  three factors as discussed in the body of our report.  One of the factors  we cited that contributed to incomplete life cycle costs was $3.6 million  of fiscal year 1996 obligated costs for an ICM special test.  In its  comments, the bureau pointed out that prior to fiscal year 1996 it had  not defined the coverage measurement program, did not allocate any  expenditures to the ICM project codes, and could not identify any costs  prior to fiscal year 1996.  Thus, it was the bureau’s decision to not track  specific costs during this time period and to consider them as general  research.
We also stated that $57.7 million of budgeted funds were not obligated  or spent through fiscal year 2001, and, with input from bureau officials,  we obtained reasons why these funds were not spent.  The bureau did  not take exception to these facts in its response and we noted no  improprieties in this report.
Regarding a reference to specific control weaknesses in its financial  management systems, the scope of this report did not include an  assessment of internal control weaknesses in the bureau’s financial  management systems.  However, in a December 2001 report, we  identified specific internal control weaknesses for fiscal year 2000  related to the bureau’s lack of controls over financial reporting and  financial management systems.2. We still disagree with the bureau on this point, as we stated in the draft  report.  Because these costs were separately tracked by a specific ICM  project code in the bureau’s financial management system, we included  them in the costs of the ICM/A.C.E. programs that we could identify. 3. We did not cite discrepancies between the $400 million original cost  estimate of the ICM/A.C.E. programs provided in early 1999 and the  $277 million budgeted amount we identified for fiscal years 1996  through 2003.  An objective of our report was to determine what were  the original estimated life cycle costs for the ICM/A.C.E. programs.  The  earliest amount that we could identify from bureau records was $400  million and in our report we explained that this amount was estimated  by the bureau before the January 1999 Supreme Court decision.  As a  result of this decision and as disclosed in our report, the bureau  decreased the ICM/A.C.E. program by about $214 million due to a  reduction in the sample size from 750,000 to 300,000 housing units.   4. We did not suggest that the difference between  $277 million of  budgeted life cycle costs and $207 million of obligated life cycle costs  demonstrated the bureau’s inability to properly manage and record  expenditures relating to the ICM/A.C.E. programs.  As presented in our  report, the budgeted amount of $277 million included fiscal years 1996  through 2003 and the obligated amount of $207 million included  amounts for 2 fewer fiscal years (1996 through 2001).  As the bureau  pointed out in its response, it is too soon to determine obligated  amounts for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 that were budgeted for $12.5  million.  Variances for the remaining $57.7 million of unspent funds are  discussed in comment 1. 5. The bureau agreed that it did not capture the life cycle costs of  evaluations for the ICM/A.C.E. programs because evaluations for all  2000 Census programs were charged to one project code.  However, the  bureau believes that data processing costs were included in the life  cycle costs of the ICM/A.C.E. programs and stated that not being able to  identify portions of these costs is not demonstrative of a financial  management or reporting failure.  We agree with the bureau that some  data processing costs were captured in the life cycle costs of the  ICM/A.C.E. programs as evidenced by project codes for ICM/A.C.E.  data processing for procedures, training, and processing as part of  Framework 5.   However, we do not believe that all data processing  costs were included.  Similar to evaluation costs, the bureau attributed  much of its computer hardware and support costs to overall 2000  Census programs, and did not allocate costs to specific projects or  programs.
section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: The General Accounting Office, the 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.
section_title: Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
paragraphs: 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 full- text 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 daily E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports Order GAO  Products heading.
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Public Affairs