School Facilities: States' Financial and Technical Support Varies
Released: 1995-12-13T00:00:00

Letter

Background

Traditionally, financing the construction of public schools has been a function of local government. Until the 1940s, only 12 states provided any financial assistance for school construction. State participation increased during the baby boom of the 1950s, when local communities needed classrooms and states had surplus revenues. Even with such increases, however, localities were mainly responsible for school facilities construction.

Beginning in the 1970s, litigation in many states highlighted disparities in school districts’ ability to raise money for public education. Court decisions resulted in many states increasing funding levels and playing a larger role in lessening financial disparities between rich and poor districts. Although these decisions have pertained mainly to the state’s role in providing for instruction rather than to a focus on buildings, the past 20 years have seen a general increase in state involvement with facilities-related matters. By 1991, state funding for school facilities totaled more than $3 billion or about 20 percent of all funds used for public school construction.

Increasingly, the physical condition of school buildings has become a concern in school finance litigation. In 1994, for example, the Arizona Supreme Court found the state’s school funding system unconstitutional on the basis of disparities in the condition of its schools. Also, court challenges in Texas and Ohio have focused on inequities in districts’ abilities to make capital expenditures and the importance of suitable facilities for a constitutionally acceptable education system. School finance experts expect disparities in facilities to be a continued aspect of litigation. Meanwhile, states face pressure from other rising budget expenditures, such as for health care and prisons.

Nearly All States Involved, Several Comprehensively

Forty-eight states reported participating in at least one of the three areas of state involvement in school facilities that we identified. State involvement ranged from participation in all three areas to participation in just one or none of the areas. (State-by-state involvement as reported by SEAs is summarized in app. II, table II.1.) In all,

40 states reported providing ongoing facilities funding,

44 states reported participating in technical assistance or compliance

23 states reported collecting and maintaining information about the condition of school facilities. (See fig. 1.)

We characterized 13 states as having comprehensive facilities programs: Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, and West Virginia. Our review of state programs addressed the extent of state involvement and did not evaluate program effectiveness. We considered programs comprehensive if they had a facilities program framework in place that provided ongoing funding, conducted a variety of technical assistance and compliance review activities, maintained current information on the condition of school buildings statewide, and had one or more FTE staff working on facilities matters. Although a total of 19 SEAs reported activities in all three areas, for some states the level of activity reported in at least one of these areas was limited in some way. For example, Pennsylvania participated in all three areas, including collecting information on the condition of facilities; however, officials reported that the information was updated only when a LEA applied for project funding.

Since the interval between these updates may be as much as 20 years, the information maintained by the state may be out of date.

Kentucky is an example of a state we characterized as having a comprehensive program. A facilities official reported that the SEA Division of Facilities Management provided guidance to LEAs in implementing locally developed 4-year facility plans that included detailed information on the condition of school buildings. Eight professional staff and three support staff provided the LEAs with information and guidance throughout the planning, budgeting, and building of school facilities. Staff also reviewed building plans for compliance with education specifications. The state had three funding assistance programs and reported providing about $66 million in state financial assistance for facilities in state fiscal year 1994—mostly through a $100 per student capital outlay allotment paid as part of the state foundation funding. The SEA reviewed all major LEA construction and renovation projects, whether or not state funding was used.

Another 21 states reported activities in two of the three areas. Most of them provided funding and technical assistance and compliance review but did not collect and maintain information on the condition of school facilities. For example, an Indiana official reported that the state provided funding through three programs, and the SEA staff reviewed architectural plans for compliance with state education administrative codes and advised local officials on funding and other processes related to facilities planning and construction.

Eight states reported participation in just one area. For example, an Illinois official reported that while the state did not have an ongoing funding program or collect condition data, the SEA facilities staff did provide technical assistance and compliance review for certain locally funded projects to correct life/safety code violations.

Along with the variation among states in facilities activities and level of involvement, we also found differences in state views and traditions on the extent of the state role in providing facilities assistance. Several states reported many years of providing funding, illustrating the view that states have a role in school facilities assistance. Officials in other states expressed the view that school facilities matters are the responsibility of the local districts.

Most States Provided Facilities Financial Assistance, Though Levels Varied

A total of 40 states reported providing ongoing financial assistance to local districts for the construction of public elementary and secondary schools.Collectively, these states reported providing an estimated $3.5 billion in grants and loans for school facilities construction in state fiscal year 1994. Ten states reported no regular, ongoing programs to assist districts with construction costs, although some of these had recently provided one-time appropriations for facilities or considered proposals for funding school construction.

While most states reported providing financial assistance for school construction, funding levels varied widely. On a per pupil basis, state funding provided in fiscal year 1994 ranged from a high of $2,254 per student in Alaska to a low of $6 per student in Montana (see table 2). The median amount of assistance provided per student was about $104. With the exception of Hawaii and Alaska, which provided full or nearly full state support for school construction, all states provided less than $300 per student. Eight states—Arkansas, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Ohio, Utah, and Virginia—reported providing at least some portion of their assistance in the form of loans to districts.

The following descriptions of funding programs in three states provide more context for the amount of state aid provided for school facilities.

Florida has eight programs to aid school facilities: Florida has provided financial assistance for school facilities construction since 1947. Its eight funding programs for facilities assistance are funded from gross receipts from utility taxes and motor vehicle licensing tax revenues. Two programs are based on district enrollment growth relative to enrollment growth statewide; a third program provides funding for maintenance based on the square footage and age of a district’s buildings plus building replacement costs. The remaining programs target projects such as joint-use facilities, vocational-technical centers, and projects to assist districts using modified school calendars. One program targets funding to districts with limited ability to raise local revenues for facilities. In New Hampshire, facilities aid is linked to LEA consolidation: New Hampshire reimburses local districts for a percentage of their construction debt. The state contribution ranges from 30 to 55 percent and favors districts that have consolidated. Districts can receive an extra 20 percent for portions of projects attributable to the construction of kindergartens. (New Hampshire is the only state without mandatory kindergarten.) The state reimburses districts over a minimum of 5 years or the longest period of time required by the funding instruments used by the district. In Kansas, facilities aid is based on district wealth: Kansas began providing funding to local districts for school facilities in state fiscal year 1993. Depending on the assessed valuation per pupil of the school district, the state program provides aid ranging from none to a high of around 50 percent for less wealthy districts. No cap exists on the total amount of assistance the state provides. Funding is provided as an entitlement to school districts; the state pays its share of local debt service for all districts passing bond measures.

Not only do funding levels vary among states in any 1 year, but construction funding can vary dramatically within states from year to year, making it difficult to capture the complete picture of state support in one snapshot. Some states supplement their regular construction funding programs from time to time with additional monies for school facilities construction. For example, a state official in New Jersey reported that in fiscal year 1993 the state made a one-time appropriation of $250 million to address health and life/safety needs in schools in addition to the regular facilities funding provided that year. In several states where we obtained data for multiple years, construction funding reported by officials increased or decreased more than 50 percent between fiscal years 1993 and 1994. These fluctuations can reflect such circumstances as changes in school construction needs or in the availability of state funding.

Putting the amount of state assistance for school construction—about $3.5 billion nationwide in state fiscal year 1994—in context of total facilities expenditures is difficult because of limited data on local spending, a major part of those expenditures. When we asked state officials for this information, many reported that they did not have or collect this data. Preliminary data from the Bureau of the Census show that, counting revenues from all sources, total expenditures for school construction and purchases of land and existing buildings and improvements to buildings were about $15.7 billion for the 1991-92 school year.

When we asked states whether they had any information about unmet needs for construction funding, officials from several states noted instances of facilities needs outstripping available state resources. For example, a state official in Alaska reported that in fiscal year 1994 local districts submitted requests for funding totaling $880 million for a grant program that received an appropriation of $171 million. Similarly, a state official from Wyoming noted that district requests for funding totaled $42 million in fiscal year 1995, although the state had only $13.5 million available. In contrast, officials from two states commented that they had no backlog in requests for funding.

Although State Funding Programs Varied, Some Features Were Common

States reported using a variety of mechanisms to allocate funding for facilities, and many reported having multiple programs. Some programs provided assistance to districts requesting aid for specific construction projects; others provided each district with a fixed amount of funding per student or a proportion of available funding based on such factors as a district’s facility needs relative to facility needs statewide.

Delaware exemplifies how programs can vary within a state. An official reported three funding programs: one focused on major capital projects that provides funds on a project-by-project basis accounting for district ability to pay, a second program for scheduled maintenance and repairs that distributes available funding to districts on the basis of enrollment and requires a local match, and a third program for unscheduled repairs that uses a flat rate formula including factors of building age and enrollment.

While states reported using various ways to distribute funds, we found common features among the programs:

Most states reported prioritizing funding toward districts with less ability to pay. While states reported using a variety of ways to prioritize which districts receive funding and how much they receive, most reported considering district ability to pay in awarding some portion of assistance. Of the 40 states providing construction funding, 34 reported programs that gave some weight to ability to pay, either through eligibility criteria, allocation formulas, or prioritization criteria. For example, Montana has restricted its debt service subsidy program to districts whose taxable property wealth per pupil was less than the statewide average. Maryland reported providing districts with a percentage of approved project costs that ranged from 50 to 80 percent, depending on ability to pay. States varied, however, in the degree to which they considered district wealth. For example, officials in North Carolina reported four funding programs, one of which targeted assistance to poorer districts with critical facility needs. In New York, all construction funding has been provided through one program that considered district wealth in providing a percentage of approved project costs. In addition to ability to pay, other funding prioritization factors that state officials reported using included enrollment growth and facility overcrowding, physical condition of buildings, and whether districts had consolidated.

Most states reported providing aid as grants rather than loans. Only 8 of the 40 states reported providing any assistance for school facilities in the form of loans to local districts.

Most states reported providing facilities funding through state budget appropriations. A total of 29 of the 40 states reported providing at least a portion of construction funding through state budget appropriations. Another often used source of funding was state bonds. A few states also reported using special revenue sources dedicated to school construction. For example, Wyoming reported using mineral royalties from school-owned lands to support its capital construction grant program.

Most states reported providing no assistance for preventive or routine maintenance through their construction funding programs. Officials typically described state programs as providing assistance for the construction and renovation of school buildings. While many states also reported funding major maintenance projects, such as roof replacements, most said they did not provide assistance for routine or preventive maintenance.

Over Three-Fourths of the States Conducted Technical Assistance or Compliance Review Activities

Forty-four states reported providing technical assistance to LEAs for facilities or reviewing facilities projects for compliance with state requirements. (See app. II, table II.2.) Although technical assistance and compliance review activities tended to be similar among states, the level of involvement varied considerably as did the number of staff devoted to the efforts. As we conducted our study, we also found that agencies other than the SEA had at least some responsibility for school facilities. However, pursuing information about activities in these other agencies was beyond the scope of this study, and we focused mainly on the activities and staffing levels at the SEAs.

SEAs’ Levels of Technical Assistance and Compliance Review Activity Varied

A total of 44 states reported providing technical assistance to LEAs—specifically, information or guidance on facilities regulations, planning, construction, or maintenance. Technical assistance was typically furnished by phone, through publications and manuals, at meetings between SEA and LEA representatives, or through workshops and formal training. The assistance in some states was limited to answering a few LEA questions and in others it also included guidance on needs assessments and long-range plans; building design; hazardous materials; engineering, legal, and architectural matters; among other subjects.

We found considerable variance in the levels of technical assistance provided. Some states provided a limited level of technical assistance. For example, Montana’s SEA reported providing information—but not training—on regulations, requirements, and other facility guidelines.

Oregon reported providing guidance only on asbestos removal regulations and processes, including sponsoring a yearly training class. Other SEAs were more involved in technical assistance activities. For example, a Maryland SEA official reported that its facilities staff spent a large portion of their time in the field working with local committees to plan and design school buildings. They conferred with architects on school design; presented training for school board officials, engineers, architects, and school custodial staff; and provided a variety of facilities issues publications to LEAs.

A total of 37 states also reported compliance review activities relative to building and fire codes, state education specifications, or other state regulations. Compliance review activities were fairly standard among states, consisting primarily of reviewing project architectural plans to ensure that they conform to regulations and requirements. Over two-thirds of the 50 states reported overseeing compliance with education specifications or other state regulations associated with facilities, while nearly one-third reported reviewing plans for building or fire code compliance.

Although states’ compliance review activities were fairly standard, their levels of involvement varied. For example, Ohio officials reported that the facilities unit reviewed architectural plans for conformance with education standards but did little compliance enforcement. In contrast, Connecticut officials reported that the SEA facilities unit reviewed plans for compliance with several codes, including state building, life safety, and health codes, as well as federal health, safety, and accessibility requirements. Approval of the facilities unit was required for a project to receive state aid.

SEA Facilities Staffs Tended to be Small, and Some SEAs Shared Responsibilities With Other Agencies

Of the 44 states providing technical assistance or compliance review, a total of 28 reported SEA staffs with fewer than six FTE employees involved in facilities-related work—including 12 states with one FTE or fewer (see fig. 2). SEA facilities staffing levels in the 44 states ranged from .02 to 72 FTEs. (See app. II, table II.2.) Officials reported that facilities staff expertise may include finance, education specifications, building codes, and plans checking. Some reported architects, engineers, or attorneys on staff.

In many states, SEA officials told us that other state agencies were involved to at least some extent in school facilities activities—in particular, compliance activities. For example, most states reported that the State Fire Marshal had school facilities responsibilities, often related to code compliance or building inspection. Other state agencies frequently mentioned by officials as having facilities responsibilities included departments of health, labor, and environment. In three states—California, Hawaii, and Maryland—major facilities responsibilities were shared among the SEA and other agencies. For example, in California, staff in two divisions of the Department of General Services as well as the SEA played major roles. Finally, in two states—South Dakota and West Virginia—the major school facilities activities were handled outside the SEA. For example, in South Dakota, all facilities responsibility was transferred to the State Fire Marshal’s Office by legislation passed in 1994.

Facility staffing levels are changing in some states. Several SEAs reported proposed or enacted reductions in facilities staff or facilities responsibilities. For example, in Maine, since a 1991 recession, facilities unit FTEs have been reduced from three to one professional staff as part of a general reduction in the size of the SEA. More recently, Florida has reduced its facilities unit staffing by 75 percent and New York by 25 percent for fiscal year 1996. On the other hand, two SEAs reported that they hope to increase their facilities units by one or two staff.

Almost Half of the States Maintained Information on the Condition of School Facilities

Fewer states reported collecting and maintaining current information on the condition of school buildings compared with the number of states providing financial or technical assistance and compliance review for facilities. We considered states to collect such data if the information documented the condition of individual schools and was collected or at least updated in the last 5 years.

A total of 23 states reported maintaining information on the condition of school buildings (see fig. 3). Of these, 15 states reported collecting facility condition data on a regular, ongoing basis, updating their information annually or every few years. The remaining eight states reported conducting a one-time study of the condition of their facilities sometime in the last 5 years.

Seventeen states reported maintaining other types of information on their facilities that was not specifically related to building condition. In many cases this information was an inventory of school buildings, which often included such data as the number of buildings, their age and size, and building use. Other types of facility information that states collected included data on the total appraised value of school facilities and building architectural plans. Nearly all states collecting information on the condition of school buildings reported maintaining other facilities data as well.

Ten states reported that they maintained no information on school facilities or did so on an extremely limited basis, such as retaining current application materials and financial records or reports on the general adequacy of facilities resulting from standard school accreditation reviews. For example, in Connecticut, the official we interviewed reported that the state collected only the information and plans necessary for the projects under review at any given time. (For a delineation of the facilities information collected by individual states, see app. II.)

Comprehensiveness of Facility Condition Data Varied

For the 23 states collecting some type of data on the condition of facilities, the comprehensiveness of the information and the frequency of data collection varied. Some states reported using professional architects or state-trained staff to conduct assessments of the condition-specific components of the building structure, such as walls and roofs, or building systems, such as plumbing and heating. Often these labor-intensive studies were conducted as one-time efforts or were updated once every several years. Other states reported relying on districts to report an overall rating for the condition of their buildings. For example, in Alabama, districts must complete an annual building inventory survey that includes one item to rate the overall condition of buildings on a four-point scale from “excellent” to “should be razed.”

Nearly One-Third of States Would Like to Gather Additional Data

When we asked state officials about any changes they would like to make to their information gathering systems, almost one-third said they would like to collect additional information. Several expressed interest in developing an inventory of their school buildings or updating their present inventories. Many states were also interested in starting to gather building condition information or updating condition information collected earlier. In addition to gathering more data, officials in many states expressed an interest in automating more of the information they collect. For example, officials in several states hoped to make data collection from local districts more interactive using computers. Two state officials expressed interest in computerizing architectural plans.

On the other hand, officials in several states believed their current level of data collection was sufficient. In six states that collected relatively little facilities data, officials said they did not want to gather any additional information, and a few said the information they had was adequate for the scope of their state’s program. For example, in Rhode Island, the state aid specialist said that as long as the state program remains locally oriented they require no further data. Officials in a few states said that they would have to increase their staff to collect or analyze more information and did not want to do this.

Conclusions

Although local governments have traditionally been responsible for facilities construction, renovation, and major maintenance, most SEAs have established a state presence in school facilities matters using a variety of approaches. However, states’ levels of involvement varied: about one-fourth of them had programs that included ongoing funding assistance, a variety of technical assistance and compliance review activities, and data collection on the condition of facilities; 10 states were involved in one or none of the activities. Further, officials reported differing viewpoints and traditions on state involvement in facilities matters. Such variations in approach and philosophy among states illustrate the lack of consensus on the most appropriate and effective state role.

Today, state involvement in school facilities remains in flux. Because the physical condition of school buildings has become a concern in school finance equity litigation, experts expect disparities in facilities to be a continuing and pressing issue. States will likely be looked to for ways to lessen these disparities. State governments, however, face pressure from other rapidly rising budget expenditures—such as health care—that compete for the same limited funds.

Agency Comments

The Department of Education reviewed a draft of this report and had no comments. In addition, we provided state-specific information to state officials for verification and incorporated their comments in the text as appropriate.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to appropriate House and Senate Committees and all members, the Secretary of Education, and other interested parties.

Please contact me on (202) 512-7014 or my assistant director, Eleanor L. Johnson, on (202) 512-7209 if you or your staff have any questions. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III.

Methodology

To determine the extent to which states provided funding and technical assistance and compliance review for school facilities and maintained information on the condition of school buildings, we conducted telephone interviews with state officials responsible for school facilities in all 50 states. In nearly all cases, we spoke with staff at the state education agency (SEA) responsible for school facilities. In a few states, we also spoke with officials located in other state agencies extensively involved in school facilities. Where necessary, for clarification, we conducted follow-up telephone interviews. We supplemented this information with supporting documentation provided by state officials. All data were self-reported by state officials, and we did not verify their accuracy. We conducted our work between October 1994 and September 1995 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

The focus of our study was state fiscal year 1994. Typically, this covered the period from July 1, 1993, to June 30, 1994. We learned of changes in state programs that occurred after this time during follow-up interviews with state officials and included these when they suggested trends in changing levels of state involvement.

State-by-State Information

States’ Involvement Varied in Three Areas Reviewed by GAO

States’ involvement in providing assistance for school facilities ranged widely (see table II.1). To illustrate, profiles of assistance provided in three states—Georgia, Maine, and Colorado—are presented following table II.1. (continued)

Colorado—Involved in Funding

Colorado requires that each local education agency (LEA) set aside $202 per pupil of the state and local basic aid funding to be used for long-range capital needs such as new facilities, major renovations, land, school buses, or risk management purposes such as liability insurance or workers compensation. The funding cannot be used for debt service. The Colorado state education agency (SEA) has no staff assigned to facilities activities, and technical assistance is limited to answering a few questions during the year. Colorado does not routinely collect information on facilities; an official told us that measuring the condition of schools is considered a local issue.

Maine—Involved in Funding and Technical Assistance

The Maine School Construction Program provided LEAs with about $43.5 million in state fiscal year 1994 to pay debt service on capital construction bonds through the state’s foundation funding. The amount received is based in part on the assessed valuation per student and on project priority criteria such as overcrowding. A staff of three in the Division of School Business Services spend part of their time overseeing the facilities funding program and providing information and assistance to LEAs throughout the funding and construction processes. The division works with LEAs on compliance with state education program guidelines and coordinates project review and approval among other agencies, such as the State Fire Marshal and the Bureau of General Services. The SEA does not currently gather information about the condition of buildings but hopes to conduct a survey of LEAs to gather descriptive information on their facilities.

Georgia—Involved Extensively in All Three Areas Reviewed by GAO

The Georgia Department of Education provides facilities assistance to LEAs through a system of annual entitlements based on district needs, including enrollment increases. LEAs may permit their entitlements to accrue over time, which allows each school system to undertake significant projects rather than make minor repairs year after year. LEAs must submit to the state a 5-year comprehensive facilities plan validated by an outside survey team and provide from 10 to 25 percent of the project costs. The SEA Facilities Services Section has field consultants who provide assistance to their assigned LEAs and an architect who reviews all architectural project plans for compliance with state requirements. Georgia provided about $151 million to LEAs for facilities in state fiscal year 1994.

States’ Levels of Compliance Review and Technical Assistance Varied

Levels of compliance review and technical assistance varied widely among states. (See table II.2). Profiles of three states that exemplify this variance—New York, Washington, and Wisconsin—follow table II.2.

Full-time equivalents (FTE)

A, B, C A, B, C A, B, C A, B, C A, B, C A, B, C A, B, C A, B, C A, B, C A, B, C A, B, C (continued)

Full-time equivalents (FTE)

A. Technical assistance includes providing information or guidance to LEAs on funding or construction issues using one or more of a variety of activities, including telephone consultations or site visits, attending district meetings, presenting training to district staff or those working on school construction projects, or publishing informational documents for district use.

B. Compliance review for building or fire codes includes reviewing architectural plans for conformance with building, mechanical, electrical, or related structural and life/safety codes.

C. Compliance review for education specifications or other state regulations includes reviewing architectural plans or other documents for conformance with state education specifications such as for the size and use of school building space. It also includes reviewing documents for conformance with other state requirements, such as the use of women- or minority-owned companies, or wages paid to school construction workers.

New York—Involved in Many Technical Assistance/Compliance Activities

New York’s SEA staff present workshops and publish newsletter articles on regulations and facilities planning as well as architectural, engineering, and legal issues. They also provide information to about 100 telephone callers per day. Staff review architectural plans for compliance with the building code and education specifications. They assess the need for projects, approve sites, enforce the state environmental review act, determine eligibility for state building aid and petroleum overcharge funds, issue building permits, and approve leases. The SEA oversees a fire inspection program that enforces building and fire codes for existing buildings through annual inspections conducted by LEA-hired inspectors. Staff certify completed projects for occupancy, provide on-call assistance for environmental hazard problems and are implementing a requirement for LEA comprehensive 5-year capital plans.

Washington—Involved in Technical Assistance/ Compliance Activities

Washington’s SEA school facilities section staff provide information to local school districts on health and safety issues and ensure that state-assisted school construction projects comply with state law. The section provides assistance to school districts and other state and federal agencies by acting as an information clearinghouse.

Wisconsin—Involved in Technical Assistance Activities

Wisconsin’s SEA staff provide assistance interpreting the building code and health and safety regulations—usually by telephone or sending documents by mail. The staff present occasional on-site workshops, referrals to other agencies, and assistance with LEA facilities plans.

Nearly Half of the States Maintained Information on the Condition of School Facilities

Nearly half of the states maintained information on the condition of school facilities. Some collected it on an ongoing basis, while others had done a recent, one-time study. Most states maintained information on facilities other than condition. Only 10 states maintained extremely limited or no information on facilities. Table II.3 describes the extent of facilities information maintained by each state.

Maintains no information or only extremely limited information (continued)

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

Staff Acknowledgments

R. Jerry Aiken, Computer Specialist (Programmer/Analyst) D. Catherine Baltzell, Supervisory Social Science Analyst Sandra L. Baxter, Senior Evaluator Tamara A. Lumpkin, Evaluator Stanley H. Stenersen, Senior Evaluator Virginia A. Vanderlinde, Evaluator Dianne L. Whitman, Evaluator The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.

U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.