Animal Welfare
USDA's Oversight of Dealers of Random Source Dogs and Cats Would Benefit from Additional Management Information and Analysis Gao ID: GAO-10-945 September 24, 2010For decades, the public has been concerned that lost or stolen dogs and cats could be used in research. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for the licensing and oversight of dealers who provide animals for research. Random source Class B dealers--who generally obtain dogs and cats for research from individuals, pounds, and other dealers--have been the focus of this concern. GAO was asked to determine (1) the number of random source Class B dealers, (2) the extent to which APHIS conducts inspections of these dealers and verifies their records, and (3) the costs associated with APHIS's oversight of these dealers compared to other types of dealers. GAO reviewed the Animal Welfare Act (AWA); APHIS regulations and guidance; inspection reports; agency data, such as "traceback" data used to verify dogs and cats are not lost or stolen; and interviewed and reviewed documents from agency officials and other stakeholders.
As of July 2010, nine Class B dealers were licensed by APHIS to sell random source dogs and cats for research. This number has not changed significantly since fiscal year 2005 but declined from over 100 dealers in the early 1990s. Random source dealers sold 3,139 animals to research facilities from November 2007 to November 2008--equivalent to about 3 percent of the dogs and cats used in research in fiscal year 2008. APHIS inspections have found numerous random source Class B dealer violations, such as the condition of animal housing and inadequate veterinary care, but APHIS has not completed all of its fiscal year 2009 tracebacks related to these dealers or analyzed traceback verification data to detect problems with the process. In reviewing all inspection reports for fiscal years 2007 through 2009, GAO found APHIS generally inspected, or attempted to inspect, each of these dealers at least four times a year, as directed. APHIS guidance directs inspectors to examine the condition of a dealer facility, examine the condition of the dogs and cats present, and review dealer records. Overall, 54 of the 156 inspection reports cited at least one dealer violation, and seven of the nine dealers had one or more violations. As of July 2010, several dealers were under further APHIS investigation due to repeated violations. To verify dealer records and help ensure dealers are not obtaining lost or stolen animals, APHIS attempted a total of 326 tracebacks in fiscal year 2009. Though APHIS has conducted tracebacks since fiscal year 1993, it did not compile traceback data until fiscal year 2009. As of June 2010, data showed APHIS successfully traced a dog or cat back to a legitimate source about 71 percent of the time. About 29 percent of tracebacks APHIS conducted during this period were either unsuccessful or had not been completed as of June 2010, as directed by agency guidance. Because APHIS does not analyze traceback data, it cannot systematically detect problems with tracebacks and take all available steps to ensure random source dealers obtain dogs and cats from legitimate sources. For example, without analyzing data, APHIS cannot know whether the same sellers or inspectors were consistently involved in late or incomplete tracebacks. According to APHIS officials, the agency does not collect cost information specific to its oversight of random source Class B dealers, or to any other class of dealer it inspects. Officials also said the agency does not currently have a mechanism to determine these costs. Federal internal control standards call for agencies to obtain such information for program oversight. For example, APHIS inspectors do not record their time by specific oversight activity or class of dealer. Without a methodology to collect and track costs associated with the oversight of these dealers, and others APHIS inspects, APHIS management cannot identify trends or deficiencies requiring its attention. Furthermore, management cannot develop a business case to change its oversight program, if needed, to more effectively and efficiently use available resources. GAO recommends that USDA (1) improve its analysis and use of the traceback information it collects for random source Class B dealers and (2) develop a methodology to collect and track the oversight costs of each class of dealer and others APHIS inspects. USDA agreed with GAO's recommendations and noted specific actions it will take to implement them.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Lisa R. Shames Team: Government Accountability Office: Natural Resources and Environment Phone: (202) 512-2649GAO-10-945, Animal Welfare: USDA's Oversight of Dealers of Random Source Dogs and Cats Would Benefit from Additional Management Information and Analysis
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-945
entitled 'Animal Welfare: USDA's Oversight of Dealers of Random Source
Dogs and Cats Would Benefit from Additional Management Information and
Analysis' which was released on September 24, 2010.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
September 2010:
Animal Welfare:
USDA's Oversight of Dealers of Random Source Dogs and Cats Would
Benefit from Additional Management Information and Analysis:
GAO-10-945:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-945, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
For decades, the public has been concerned that lost or stolen dogs
and cats could be used in research. The U.S. Department of Agriculture‘
s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is
responsible for the licensing and oversight of dealers who provide
animals for research. Random source Class B dealers”who generally
obtain dogs and cats for research from individuals, pounds, and other
dealers”have been the focus of this concern.
GAO was asked to determine (1) the number of random source Class B
dealers, (2) the extent to which APHIS conducts inspections of these
dealers and verifies their records, and (3) the costs associated with
APHIS‘s oversight of these dealers compared to other types of dealers.
GAO reviewed the Animal Welfare Act (AWA); APHIS regulations and
guidance; inspection reports; agency data, such as ’traceback“ data
used to verify dogs and cats are not lost or stolen; and interviewed
and reviewed documents from agency officials and other stakeholders.
What GAO Found:
As of July 2010, nine Class B dealers were licensed by APHIS to sell
random source dogs and cats for research. This number has not changed
significantly since fiscal year 2005 but declined from over 100
dealers in the early 1990s. Random source dealers sold 3,139 animals
to research facilities from November 2007 to November 2008”equivalent
to about 3 percent of the dogs and cats used in research in fiscal
year 2008.
APHIS inspections have found numerous random source Class B dealer
violations, such as the condition of animal housing and inadequate
veterinary care, but APHIS has not completed all of its fiscal year
2009 tracebacks related to these dealers or analyzed traceback
verification data to detect problems with the process. In reviewing
all inspection reports for fiscal years 2007 through 2009, GAO found
APHIS generally inspected, or attempted to inspect, each of these
dealers at least four times a year, as directed. APHIS guidance
directs inspectors to examine the condition of a dealer facility,
examine the condition of the dogs and cats present, and review dealer
records. Overall, 54 of the 156 inspection reports cited at least one
dealer violation, and seven of the nine dealers had one or more
violations. As of July 2010, several dealers were under further APHIS
investigation due to repeated violations. To verify dealer records and
help ensure dealers are not obtaining lost or stolen animals, APHIS
attempted a total of 326 tracebacks in fiscal year 2009. Though APHIS
has conducted tracebacks since fiscal year 1993, it did not compile
traceback data until fiscal year 2009. As of June 2010, data showed
APHIS successfully traced a dog or cat back to a legitimate source
about 71 percent of the time. About 29 percent of tracebacks APHIS
conducted during this period were either unsuccessful or had not been
completed as of June 2010, as directed by agency guidance. Because
APHIS does not analyze traceback data, it cannot systematically detect
problems with tracebacks and take all available steps to ensure random
source dealers obtain dogs and cats from legitimate sources. For
example, without analyzing data, APHIS cannot know whether the same
sellers or inspectors were consistently involved in late or incomplete
tracebacks.
According to APHIS officials, the agency does not collect cost
information specific to its oversight of random source Class B
dealers, or to any other class of dealer it inspects. Officials also
said the agency does not currently have a mechanism to determine these
costs. Federal internal control standards call for agencies to obtain
such information for program oversight. For example, APHIS inspectors
do not record their time by specific oversight activity or class of
dealer. Without a methodology to collect and track costs associated
with the oversight of these dealers, and others APHIS inspects, APHIS
management cannot identify trends or deficiencies requiring its
attention. Furthermore, management cannot develop a business case to
change its oversight program, if needed, to more effectively and
efficiently use available resources.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that USDA (1) improve its analysis and use of the
traceback information it collects for random source Class B dealers
and (2) develop a methodology to collect and track the oversight costs
of each class of dealer and others APHIS inspects. USDA agreed with
GAO‘s recommendations and noted specific actions it will take to
implement them.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-945] or key
components. For more information, contact Lisa Shames at (202) 512-
3841 or shamesl@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Nine Class B Dealers Provide Random Source Dogs and Cats for Research,
Far Fewer Than in Recent Decades:
APHIS Inspections Have Found Numerous Dealer Violations, but APHIS Has
Not Completed All Tracebacks or Fully Analyzed Traceback Data:
APHIS Does Not Collect Data on the Cost of Its Oversight of Specific
Classes of Dealers, or Others It Inspects, Including Random Source
Class B Dealers:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Abbreviations:
APHIS: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:
AWA: Animal Welfare Act:
USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 24, 2010:
The Honorable Blanche L. Lincoln:
Chairman:
The Honorable Saxby Chambliss:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Collin C. Peterson:
Chairman:
The Honorable Frank D. Lucas:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Agriculture:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Tom Harkin:
United States Senate:
Many medical advances that enhance the lives of humans originate from
animal studies. For decades, however, the public has been concerned
that dogs and cats used in research could be treated inhumanely and
that lost or stolen pets could be sold for research. Adding to this
concern has been media attention focused on violations by a few
dealers who obtained dogs and cats from sources such as pounds and
shelters and sold them for research--known as "random source" dealers.
For example, Life magazine published an article in 1966 about a
Maryland dealer who provided random source dogs and cats for research
and the inhumane conditions in which he kept his animals. This article
helped build momentum for legislation to address this concern. In a
more recent example, a 2006 television documentary on an Arkansas
random source dog dealer vividly showed the harsh way in which this
dealer treated his dogs.
Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) in 1966 to protect animal
owners from theft by preventing the use or sale of stolen animals.
[Footnote 1] As amended, AWA is also intended to ensure the humane
treatment of all animals that are intended to be used in research
facilities, kept as pets, exhibited to the public, or commercially
transported, among other things. AWA names the Secretary of
Agriculture as responsible for its implementation and enforcement.
That responsibility is delegated to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS), which is responsible for the licensing and oversight of
dealers who acquire and sell a variety of animals. Dealers who sell
random source dogs and cats--animals obtained from pounds or shelters,
auction sales, or from owners who bred and raised the animal on the
owner's premises--are referred to as random source Class B dealers.
They are a subset of Class B dealers and deal in animals that they did
not exclusively breed and raise themselves.[Footnote 2] Some
researchers maintain that the attributes of random source dogs and
cats are important to biomedical research because these animals
generally are more genetically diverse and older than those obtained
from dealers who breed their own animals. AWA regulations require that
random source Class B dealers maintain accurate and complete records
on the acquisition and disposition of the dogs and cats they provide
to researchers and that they adhere to certain standards of humane
care and treatment. To ensure these dealers comply with AWA and its
regulations, APHIS conducts unannounced inspections of their
facilities at least quarterly and performs "tracebacks"--an oversight
process unique to this type of dealer. Tracebacks involve APHIS
inspectors using a dealer's records to trace a particular dog or cat
back to the source from which that dealer obtained the animal, both to
verify the legitimacy of the sale and to ensure the dog or cat was not
lost or stolen. For example, using an individual's address information
obtained from the dealer's records, an inspector may contact and
interview the individual in person to verify the origin of the animal.
In this context, our objectives were to determine (1) the number of
Class B dealers that sell random source dogs and cats for research,
(2) the extent to which APHIS conducts inspections of these dealers
and verifies the accuracy of their records, and (3) the costs
associated with APHIS's oversight of these dealers compared with its
costs for oversight of other types of dealers.
To determine the number of Class B dealers that sell random source
dogs and cats for research and understand any change in this number
over time, we reviewed APHIS documents and interviewed agency
officials. To determine the extent to which APHIS inspects these
dealers and reviews their records, we reviewed all APHIS inspection
reports for fiscal years 2007 to 2009 and a random sample of 2009
traceback documentation; interviewed agency officials, including all
field inspectors assigned to random source Class B dealers;
accompanied APHIS inspectors on three dealer inspections in two
states; and interviewed all dealers currently licensed to sell random
source dogs and cats. We also interviewed and reviewed documents
obtained from a cross section of stakeholders, including animal
welfare groups, medical research associations, the National Research
Council, and the National Institutes of Health, to provide us with
further context for understanding these issues. To determine the costs
associated with APHIS's oversight of these dealers, we reviewed agency
documents and interviewed agency officials. Appendix I provides a more
detailed description of our objectives, scope, and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2009 to September 2010
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.
Background:
For decades, animal dealers have been providing dogs and cats to
scientific researchers. Within this broader group, random source Class
B dealers are those who provide dogs and cats that they obtain from
pounds, shelters, auction sales, or owners who breed the animals on
their premises. For certain research, some attributes of random source
dogs and cats are considered useful and desirable, such as particular
physical or genetic characteristics or the presence of specific
diseases or conditions. For example, according to a study conducted by
the National Research Council and information from the National
Association of Biomedical Research, random source dogs tend to be 2
years or older, tend to weigh from 60 to 80 pounds, and may be of
mixed breeds.[Footnote 3] These attributes make them useful for
cardiovascular, pulmonary, orthopedic, and age-related studies. Random
source cats are considered useful for neurological and cardiovascular
research and studies on respiratory diseases and the immune system. In
addition, random source dogs and cats are considered useful for the
study of certain naturally occurring infectious diseases, such as Lyme
disease and heartworm, or as animal models for human diseases, such as
sleep apnea and muscular dystrophy.
AWA provisions cover a variety of animals, including any live or dead
dog, cat, nonhuman primate, guinea pig, hamster, or rabbit to be used
for research, testing, exhibition, or kept as a pet.[Footnote 4] AWA
requires businesses or individuals covered by the law to be licensed
or registered and to uphold minimum standards of care set in
regulation. Licensing and registration under AWA is based on broad
business categories, including animal dealers, animal exhibitors,
animal carriers, and research facilities. Animal dealers and
exhibitors are required to be licensed, while animal carriers and
research facilities are required to be registered.[Footnote 5] There
are two types of licenses for dealers--Class A and Class B--and one
type of license for exhibitors--Class C. Class A licenses are
specifically for animal dealers who only deal in the animals they
breed and raise, while Class B licenses are for all other types of
dealers and include the purchase and resale of any animal covered by
AWA. Class C licenses are for businesses or individuals whose business
involves displaying animals to the public. According to APHIS
information, in fiscal year 2009 there were a total of 9,530
facilities licensed or regulated under AWA, which consisted of 3,898
Class A dealers, 1,031 Class B dealers, 2,732 Class C exhibitors, and
1,257 research facilities, among others.
The APHIS Animal Care program administers the requirements of AWA and
its implementing regulations. APHIS Animal Care undertakes a variety
of AWA regulatory activities, such as the licensing and registration
of facilities with animals covered by the act, unannounced compliance
inspections of licensed and registered facilities, and investigating
public complaints. In addition, Animal Care administers activities
related to the Horse Protection Act and has a role in planning and
coordinating disaster response efforts for household pets. In fiscal
year 2010, the Animal Care program had an annual budget of
approximately $22.5 million and a staff of 209, including about 100
field inspectors, who report to either of two APHIS Animal Care
regional offices. The APHIS field inspector cadre is about evenly
divided between veterinary medical officers, who hold veterinarian
degrees, and animal care inspectors, or technicians. Eight field
inspectors are assigned to random source Class B dealers, and five of
them are veterinary medical officers.
Inspecting regulated licensees' and registrants' facilities, which
include random source dealer facilities, is the primary way APHIS
Animal Care ensures compliance with AWA. All inspections are
unannounced, and generally the owner or manager of a facility
accompanies the inspector during the inspection. The time required to
conduct inspections varies and is affected by facility size and the
number of regulated animals involved, among other things. The
inspection process consists primarily of two parts--a physical
inspection and a records inspection. During the physical inspection,
the inspector observes and documents the condition of the facility and
the animals in the facility to ensure the dealer is adhering to AWA.
The physical inspection may also involve the inspection of
transportation devices, such as vehicles and shipping containers for
animals, if necessary. During the records inspection, inspectors
review records that dealers are required to maintain to ensure they
are accurate and complete for all animals the dealers have obtained or
sold.
Random source Class B dealers are generally required to comply with
the same regulations as other licensed Class A or B dealers. As such,
when APHIS inspectors inspect these dealers, they are to ensure that
they, like other dealers, are providing appropriate and adequate
veterinary care; properly tagging or identifying animals; maintaining
accurate records; and complying with standards of humane care,
treatment, handling, and transportation of animals. However, APHIS
guidance imposes additional controls on random source Class B dealers,
and inspectors are directed to (1) perform quarterly facility
inspections, which are more frequent than for any other dealers, and
(2) use dealer records to conduct tracebacks by tracing a particular
dog or cat back to the source from which a dealer obtained the animal,
both to verify the legitimacy of the sale and ensure the dog or cat
was not lost or stolen. APHIS determined that more frequent
inspections were required for random source Class B dealers because
they are higher risk than other types of licensees.
APHIS inspectors are to conduct tracebacks within 30 days after each
inspection by tracing some of the dogs or cats a random source Class B
dealer obtained back to their sources. Specifically, an inspector
randomly selects 4 to 10 of the dogs and cats acquired by the dealer
since the last quarterly inspection.[Footnote 6] Inspectors then are
to use the dealer's records on these selected animals to conduct
tracebacks by either (1) visiting the seller listed on the dealer
records or (2) if the seller is a pound, shelter, another licensed
dealer, or an individual already known to the inspector, contacting
them by telephone. During the visit or telephone call, inspectors are
to obtain specific information from the seller to determine if the
sale was from a legitimate source. For example, if an inspector
conducted a traceback on a dog sold by an individual to a random
source Class B dealer, the inspector would attempt to confirm that the
requirement that the dog be bred and raised on the individual's
premises is met. Once the traceback information is obtained, the
inspector completes a traceback worksheet form, documents the
traceback result, and forwards the completed form to the appropriate
APHIS regional office. If, however, an inspector is unable to perform
a traceback because the seller is outside of the inspector's
geographic area, the inspector sends the incomplete traceback to the
appropriate APHIS regional office. The traceback is then ultimately
referred to an inspector who has responsibility for the area in which
the seller is located. In these cases, inspectors are directed to
complete referred tracebacks within 30 days of receiving the traceback
request.
Recently, the USDA Office of Inspector General completed an audit of
the APHIS Animal Care program and reported several concerns related to
APHIS inspections and enforcement.[Footnote 7] The Inspector General's
May 2010 report found, among other things, that APHIS was ineffective
in dealing with problematic dealers and that some inspectors did not
cite or document violations properly. The report primarily focused on
Class A dealers who breed and sell dogs. The Inspector General chose
these dealers in part for their large facility size and the number of
violations, or repeat violations, that they received during fiscal
years 2006 through 2008. According to Inspector General officials, no
random source Class B dealers were included in this study.
APHIS concurred with the findings and recommendations in the Inspector
General's report and has taken several actions to respond to the
recommendations. Among them, the agency developed an Enhanced Animal
Welfare Act Enforcement Plan in May 2010, which provides details on
how the agency plans to focus its enforcement efforts on problematic
dealers and improve inspector performance, such as by providing
additional training and guidance to inspectors and their supervisors.
APHIS also provided a new Inspection Requirements Handbook during the
April 2010 national meeting it held with all of its Animal Care
inspectors and regulatory staff in anticipation of the Inspector
General's report, along with training on inspection enforcement and
consistency. Additionally, APHIS redirected funding in June 2010 to
provide an extra $4 million to help implement steps in the enforcement
plan and proposes using this funding to, for example, hire additional
Animal Care inspectors and supervisors (up to 60 additional personnel
total). Though none of these actions were explicitly directed at
random source Class B dealers, the new handbook contains some relevant
supplemental information, including the previously released July 2009
Standard Operating Procedures for Conducting Tracebacks from Random
Source [Class] B Dealers, which generally directs that tracebacks be
conducted within 30 days of an inspection.
Nine Class B Dealers Provide Random Source Dogs and Cats for Research,
Far Fewer Than in Recent Decades:
As of July 2010, there were 9 Class B dealers licensed by APHIS to
sell random source dogs and cats for research. This number has changed
little since the end of fiscal year 2005, when APHIS reported there
were 10 active random source dealers. Eight of the 9 active dealers
are in the APHIS Eastern Region, and 1 is in the APHIS Western Region.
[Footnote 8] Overall, the number of random source Class B dealers has
fallen by over 90 percent since the early 1990s, when there were over
100 such dealers licensed by APHIS. APHIS officials attributed the
decline to several factors, although they said the agency has not
performed a detailed study of this matter. These factors include (1)
the reduced use of random source dogs and cats by research
institutions due to new technologies and computer modeling; (2)
increased pressure from animal advocacy organizations to use purpose-
bred dogs and cats for research; and (3) APHIS's oversight and
issuance of citations for AWA violations, which has led some dealers
to leave the business.
The use of dogs and cats in research has dropped significantly over
the last 30 years. According to academic and industry association
information, this general decline may be due to several factors, which
include the development of nonanimal research methods, such as
computer models. According to APHIS information, the largest number of
dogs and cats used in research was in fiscal year 1976--nearly 280,800
dogs and cats total.[Footnote 9] Since that year, the use of dogs and
cats in research has generally declined, to less than 100,000 per year
from fiscal years 1999 to 2007. In fiscal year 2008, the total number
of dogs and cats used in research was about 101,700 animals--a
decrease of nearly 64 percent from 1976. Moreover, the number of
random source dogs and cats used in research is relatively small based
on APHIS data collected from November 2007 to November 2008, a period
roughly covering fiscal year 2008. These data showed that the total
number of dogs and cats sold for that period by random source Class B
dealers to research facilities was 3,139 animals (2,863 dogs and 276
cats), which was equivalent to about 3 percent of the total dogs and
cats used in research in fiscal year 2008.
APHIS Inspections Have Found Numerous Dealer Violations, but APHIS Has
Not Completed All Tracebacks or Fully Analyzed Traceback Data:
APHIS inspection reports documented one or more violations by seven of
the nine random source Class B dealers from fiscal years 2007 through
2009. Additionally, about 29 percent of tracebacks APHIS conducted
during this period were either unsuccessful or had not been completed
as of June 2010, as directed by agency guidance. The agency does not
fully use the traceback information it collects, and thus cannot
ensure it is detecting problems with the process.
During Fiscal Years 2007 to 2009, About One-Third of Inspection
Reports Reviewed Cited Violations, and Seven of the Nine Dealers Had
One or More Violations:
Our review of all APHIS inspection reports from fiscal years 2007
through 2009 indicates that the agency has generally inspected, or
attempted to inspect, each of the random source Class B dealers at
least four times a year, as called for in APHIS guidance, and has
documented numerous violations among the dealers.[Footnote 10]
According to APHIS guidance, when conducting an inspection, inspectors
are to examine the condition and cleanliness of the dealer facility
and the condition of the dogs and cats present, among other things.
Inspectors also are to review dealer records pertaining to the
acquisition and disposition of animals. For example, according to
APHIS guidance, inspectors are to determine if a dealer's records
include items required in agency regulations such as (1) the name and
address of the person from whom a dog or cat was purchased by the
dealer; (2) the vehicle license number and state, and the driver's
license number and state, of any person not licensed or registered
under AWA; (3) the official USDA tag number or tattoo assigned to a
dog or cat; (4) a description of each dog or cat, which includes
certain specific information, such as breed, color, and distinct
markings; and (5) certifications from any person not licensed, other
than a pound or shelter, that any dogs or cats provided to the dealer
were born and raised on that person's premises.
Overall, 54 of the 156 inspection reports from fiscal years 2007
through 2009 cited at least one dealer violation, and seven of the
nine dealers had one or more violations during this period. The most
common violation involved the dealer being absent when the inspector
attempted to perform an inspection during normal business hours.
[Footnote 11] Five dealers were cited for this violation in 23
inspection reports. The second most common violation was for problems
with the condition of animal housing, such as excessive rust, peeling
paint, or exposed sharp edges. Five dealers were cited for this
violation in 14 inspection reports. Other violations included
inadequate veterinary care (six dealers cited in 10 reports), poor
recordkeeping (five dealers cited in 10 reports), and insufficient
cleaning of kennels or cages (three dealers cited in 6 reports). As of
July 2010, several of these dealers were under further investigation
by APHIS in light of repeated violations and could be subject to fines
or even license revocation in the future, depending on the severity or
history of violations.
Some APHIS Tracebacks for Verification Were Unsuccessful or Incomplete
in Fiscal Year 2009, and APHIS Has Not Fully Used Its Traceback Data:
APHIS has performed tracebacks to verify the records of random source
Class B dealers since fiscal year 1993, but it only recently started
to compile traceback information using electronic spreadsheet logs.
Prior to fiscal year 2009, the agency was not compiling traceback
data. APHIS officials said that they began this effort in fiscal year
2009 in order to track traceback results more thoroughly, ensure all
tracebacks were being completed, and follow up on tracebacks that were
unsuccessful. Information in the traceback logs comes from inspectors,
who send a form documenting the results of each traceback to the
appropriate regional office. We reviewed the information in APHIS's
fiscal year 2009 traceback logs, as well as the individual forms from
selected tracebacks.
We found that APHIS attempted a total of 326 tracebacks in fiscal year
2009. As of June 2010, the data in APHIS's traceback logs showed that
APHIS was able to successfully trace a dog or cat back to a legitimate
source in 231 of the 326 traceback cases, or about 71 percent of the
time. Of the remaining tracebacks, 53, or about 16 percent of the
total, were unsuccessful, generally meaning that inspectors (1) could
not locate the source based on the address information they obtained
from dealer records or (2) determined the source was not legitimate
(for example, the dealer purchased the dog or cat from an individual
who had not bred and raised the animal as required by regulation). The
other 42 tracebacks, or about 13 percent of the total, had not been
completed. In those instances where an inspector determined a
traceback was unsuccessful, APHIS Animal Care forwarded the cases to
APHIS's Investigative and Enforcement Services for further
investigation and potential enforcement action.[Footnote 12] APHIS
officials said that they did not find any documented cases of lost or
stolen dogs or cats being purchased by random source dealers via
APHIS's traceback efforts in fiscal year 2009.
Because APHIS does not analyze the data in its traceback logs, it
cannot systematically detect problems with its tracebacks. Although
APHIS's traceback guidance states that tracebacks should generally be
completed within 30 days of a random source Class B dealer inspection,
as of June 2010, 42 tracebacks from fiscal year 2009 remained
incomplete. Furthermore, preliminary fiscal year 2010 APHIS traceback
data show that as of June 2010, 47 tracebacks had not been completed
that were already about 60 days beyond APHIS's traceback time frames.
According to APHIS's guidance, "all tracebacks must be completed
within 30 days of the inspection of the random source B dealer, or for
referred tracebacks, within 30 days of the time the traceback request
is received."[Footnote 13] APHIS regional officials noted several
factors that can sometimes hinder timely completion of tracebacks,
such as competing priorities, limited resources, dealers not obtaining
valid addresses from individuals, the logistics of tracking down
individuals between APHIS regions, and having to obtain traceback
information from more than one dealer. However, APHIS officials are
not examining the log information for indications of any root causes
of the delays that they could address, such as whether these
incomplete tracebacks consistently involved the same sellers or
inspectors. Without thoroughly analyzing its traceback data, APHIS
cannot consistently detect problems and take all available steps to
ensure random source Class B dealers are obtaining dogs and cats from
legitimate sources. APHIS regional officials stated that it would be
prudent to examine incomplete tracebacks more closely and, for
example, obtain quarterly reports on their status to better manage
them.
We also found three instances where an inspector traced a dog back to
another random source Class B dealer and then concluded all traceback
efforts, which is contrary to APHIS's traceback guidance. According to
this guidance, in such instances, an inspector should continue the
traceback process using the second random source dealer's records to
trace the dog or cat back to the seller listed on this second dealer's
records. However, in these three instances, each traceback form noted
that the inspector only conducted the tracebacks as far as the random
source Class B dealer; in these cases, the traceback still needed to
continue back to the seller for "full verification." During our
discussions with APHIS regional officials regarding these tracebacks,
they agreed that the traceback process should have continued according
to APHIS traceback guidance. As with the incomplete tracebacks, APHIS
cannot ensure it detects such problems or patterns among dealers or
inspections, whether from the traceback forms or the traceback logs,
unless it thoroughly analyzes its traceback data.
APHIS Does Not Collect Data on the Cost of Its Oversight of Specific
Classes of Dealers, or Others It Inspects, Including Random Source
Class B Dealers:
According to APHIS officials, the agency does not collect cost
information for its oversight of the specific classes of dealers and
exhibitors, or others it inspects, including random source Class B
dealers. Furthermore, APHIS officials also told us the agency does not
currently have a mechanism in place to determine these costs. For
example, APHIS inspectors do not currently record their time by
specific oversight activity or class of dealer. As a result, the only
current cost information APHIS can provide for any dealers, as well as
others it inspects and oversees, is an estimate of the average cost of
inspections overall. APHIS estimated that this average cost for fiscal
year 2009 was $1,337 per inspection. According to APHIS officials, the
average inspection cost is estimated by taking the Animal Care
program's annual appropriation, less certain administrative costs, and
dividing it by the total number of inspections conducted for the
fiscal year. However, the wide variety of inspections APHIS conducts,
which includes dealers of various types and sizes, research
facilities, zoos, and animal petting farms, limits the usefulness of
this information.
USDA has reported in previous years on the cost of agency oversight of
random source Class B dealers. This information--provided to Congress
in April 2006 and June 2009--gave oversight costs related to the
regulation of random source Class B dealers for fiscal years 2005 and
2008. In April 2006, at the request of the Senate and House
Appropriations Committees, the Secretary of Agriculture reported that
the fiscal year 2005 cost of inspections and enforcement for these
dealers was an estimated $270,000. This estimate also included
$154,400 for two special enforcement and traceback projects that
occurred that year. In June 2009, based on a request by a Member of
Congress, the Acting APHIS Administrator reported information on
APHIS's regulation of random source Class B dealers. Included in this
information, the Acting Administrator reported an estimated fiscal
year 2008 oversight cost of approximately $309,000. However, the
fiscal year 2008 amount was based on the previously reported fiscal
year 2005 oversight cost figure, adjusted for cost-of-living
increases, and incorrectly included the two fiscal year 2005 special
project costs, which occurred only in fiscal year 2005. APHIS Animal
Care officials explained that including the fiscal year 2005 special
project costs in the fiscal year 2008 estimate occurred due to a lack
of communication between APHIS Animal Care staff and APHIS Budget and
Program Analysis staff and that those 2005 costs should not have been
included in the 2008 estimate. To prevent this, APHIS officials said
they are developing an internal standard operating procedure for
reporting and communicating consistent and accurate Animal Care data
that will include the key staff involved with this area. APHIS plans
to have the procedure in place in early fiscal year 2011.
APHIS Animal Care officials said they do not know how the fiscal year
2005 cost estimate for the agency's oversight of random source Class B
dealers was calculated and that they are unable to reconstruct or
update this estimate. In addition, these officials said they are
unable to develop a current estimate for these costs because they lack
the necessary data. Federal internal control standards call for
agencies to obtain, maintain, and use relevant, reliable, and timely
information for program oversight and decision making, as well as for
measuring progress toward meeting agency performance goals.[Footnote
14] Furthermore, Office of Management and Budget guidance directs
agency managers to take timely and effective action to correct
internal control deficiencies.[Footnote 15] APHIS's lack of an
accurate means of collecting and tracking oversight costs by activity
and dealer, exhibitor, and any other entity type that APHIS inspects
constitutes an internal control weakness and leaves the agency without
an important management tool. For example, three inspectors we
interviewed suggested that some random source Class B dealers may not
require as many as four inspections per year because these dealers
either have experienced few, if any, reportable violations over a
period of years or are handling so few animals. In addition, as
discussed, USDA's Inspector General has reported a number of serious
problems with APHIS's oversight of other types of dealers, and
recently APHIS determined that it will put more emphasis on, and
provide additional resources for, enforcement oversight. Considering
these and other potential factors, if APHIS had reliable and timely
information on its oversight costs by activity and entity type, the
agency would be in a better position to develop a business case for
making changes to its oversight program that could allow it to use its
limited resources more efficiently and effectively.
Conclusions:
The number of random source Class B dealers has declined to 9 from
more than 100 in the early 1990s. Tracebacks play an important role in
APHIS's oversight of random source Class B dealers and help the agency
ensure that these dealers obtain dogs and cats from legitimate
sources. APHIS recently began tracking the results of tracebacks. Our
review of APHIS's data revealed that about 13 percent of the
tracebacks in fiscal year 2009 were incomplete, and preliminary APHIS
data from fiscal year 2010 confirmed that incomplete tracebacks are
continuing. Additionally, we found that by not analyzing traceback
data, the agency is not yet making full use of the new traceback
information it is collecting. Without analyzing this information--for
example, by determining whether the same sellers or inspectors were
consistently involved in late or incomplete tracebacks--APHIS cannot
ensure it is detecting problems in a timely manner and that tracebacks
are conducted according to the agency's guidance, which would reduce
the potential that lost or stolen dogs or cats could be used in
research.
In addition, having accurate, consistent, and reliable oversight cost
data for the APHIS Animal Care program is a key element in managing
the program effectively and enforcing AWA. Without such data, APHIS is
not employing one of the standards of federal internal control.
Currently, APHIS cannot determine what data it needs to estimate
costs, and how to best collect that information to reasonably know the
cost of its oversight of random source Class B dealers, as well as the
other entities the agency regulates under AWA. Without this
information APHIS cannot track specific oversight costs and cannot
help management identify trends in its operations, including
inspections and tracebacks on random source Class B dealers. In
addition, not collecting and analyzing accurate and reliable oversight
cost data prevents APHIS from developing a business case for changing
its oversight program, if needed, and does not provide reasonable
assurance that the agency's resources are being used effectively and
efficiently to enforce AWA and its implementing regulations.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To improve APHIS's oversight of random source Class B dealers who
purchase dogs and cats for research, we recommend that the Secretary
of Agriculture direct the Administrator of APHIS to take the following
two actions:
* Improve the agency's analysis and use of the traceback information
it collects, such as whether the same sellers or inspectors were
consistently involved in late or incomplete tracebacks, and ensure it
is taking all available steps to verify random source Class B dealers
are obtaining dogs and cats from legitimate sources, including making
certain that tracebacks are completed in a timely manner and conducted
according to APHIS guidance.
* Develop a methodology to collect and track the oversight costs
associated with the specific classes of dealers, and others the agency
inspects, including random source Class B dealers, in order to
identify potential problems requiring management attention and develop
a business case for changing this oversight, if appropriate, to more
efficiently use available resources.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to USDA for review and comment. In
written comments, which are included in appendix II, USDA agreed with
the report's recommendations. Regarding the first recommendation, USDA
stated that APHIS will develop (1) a database to help manage and
analyze information associated with tracebacks and (2) a process to
ensure tracebacks are complete and finished in a timely manner. USDA
said it would complete these actions by December 31, 2010. Regarding
the second recommendation, USDA stated that APHIS will develop an
information management system to assist APHIS Animal Care managers in
managing and analyzing information collected from field operations,
determining associated costs, and measuring work performance. USDA
estimated it would complete this action by June 30, 2011. USDA did not
provide any suggested technical corrections.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees, the Secretary of Agriculture, and other interested
parties. The report also will be available at no charge on the GAO Web
site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or shamesl@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are
listed in appendix III.
Signed by:
Lisa Shames:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Our objectives were to determine (1) the number of Class B dealers
that sell random source dogs and cats for research; (2) the extent to
which the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) conducts inspections of these
dealers and verifies the accuracy of their records; and (3) the costs
associated with APHIS's oversight of these dealers compared with its
costs for oversight of other types of dealers.
To determine the number of Class B dealers that sell random source
dogs and cats for research, we reviewed APHIS documents, such as prior
agency annual reports, and USDA and APHIS information previously
reported to the Senate and House Appropriations Committees in April
2006 and to an individual Member of Congress in June 2009. We also
interviewed APHIS Animal Care officials at their headquarters in
Riverdale, Maryland, and their two regional offices in Raleigh, North
Carolina, and Fort Collins, Colorado, regarding how a Class B dealer
is designated as a random source dealer, the number of Class B dealers
that sell random source dogs and cats, and what accounted for any
changes in these dealers' numbers both historically and since the end
of fiscal year 2005. Additionally, we reviewed a 2009 National
Research Council report on random source dogs and cats for (1)
information on the history of Class B dealers of random source dogs
and cats, (2) background regarding the use of these animals in
research, and (3) APHIS data in the study on the number of random
source dogs and cats sold from November 2007 to November 2008.
[Footnote 16] We also obtained information from APHIS regarding the
overall number of dogs and cats used in research as reported to the
agency from research facilities.
To determine the extent to which APHIS conducts inspections of these
dealers and verifies the accuracy of their records, we reviewed the
Animal Welfare Act, APHIS regulations, and guidance applicable to
random source Class B dealers, such as APHIS's Standard Operating
Procedures for Conducting Tracebacks from Random Source [Class] B
Dealers and its Dealer Inspection Guide. We reviewed APHIS inspection
reports for the nine current random source Class B dealers from fiscal
years 2007 through 2009 and examined any violations APHIS inspectors
recorded in each of the 156 inspection reports prepared during this
period to obtain an understanding of the types of violations cited for
these dealers. Using the inspection report dates, we also determined
whether APHIS followed their guidance and inspected the nine current
random source Class B dealers a minimum of four times each year.
Additionally, we obtained information on APHIS's fiscal year 2009
tracebacks efforts--an oversight process unique to random source Class
B dealers. Tracebacks involve APHIS inspectors using a dealer's
records to trace a particular dog or cat back to the source where that
dealer obtained the animal, both to verify the legitimacy of the sale
and ensure the dog or cat was not lost or stolen. To determine if the
fiscal year 2009 APHIS traceback information maintained in automated
spreadsheets by the APHIS Eastern and Western Regional Offices was
reliable for the purposes of our review, we conducted a data
reliability assessment of it. Specifically, to ensure the validity and
reliability of these data, we reviewed key data elements from (1) all
36 of the tracebacks listed on the Western Regional Office traceback
spreadsheet and (2) a stratified random sample of 50 tracebacks, based
on random source Class B dealers and inspectors, pulled from the
Eastern Regional Office traceback spreadsheet total of 317
tracebacks.[Footnote 17] The Eastern Region had many more tracebacks
because eight of the current nine random source dealers are located in
that region. Based on our assessment, we believe these data are
sufficiently reliable for reporting APHIS data for informational and
contextual purposes.
Additionally, we interviewed APHIS Animal Care headquarters and
regional office officials--including the eight field inspectors who
inspect the nine current random source Class B dealers--as well as the
dealers, to obtain an understanding of APHIS oversight as it pertains
these dealers. We also accompanied two APHIS inspectors on three
random source Class B dealer inspections in two states to observe how
inspections and tracebacks were conducted. Furthermore, we also
interviewed and reviewed documents obtained from a cross section of
stakeholder entities, including two animal welfare groups, the Animal
Welfare Institute and the Humane Society of the United States, medical
research associations such as the National Association for Biomedical
Research, the National Research Council, the National Institutes of
Health, and the USDA Office of Inspector General to provide us further
context for understanding the issues involving both random source
dealers and random source dogs and cats.
To determine the costs associated with APHIS's oversight of random
source dealers compared with its costs for oversight of other types of
dealers, we reviewed prior cost information the agency provided to the
Senate and House Appropriations Committees in April 2006 and to an
individual Member of Congress in June 2009. We discussed this
previously reported information with APHIS Animal Care headquarters
officials and inquired how the information was prepared. We also
interviewed agency officials about APHIS's current efforts to collect
oversight cost data for random source Class B dealers, as well as for
other entities the agency inspects, such as other types of dealers.
Additionally, we obtained and reviewed documentation from APHIS
regarding how the agency reports its average cost-of-inspection
information.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2009 to September 2010
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.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture:
USDA:
United States Department of Agriculture:
Office of the Secretary:
Washington, DC 20250:
September 16, 2010:
Ms. Lisa Shames, Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
United States Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Shames:
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has reviewed the
U.S. Government Accountability Office's (GAO) Draft Report, "Animal
Welfare: USDA's Oversight of Dealers of Random Source Dogs and Cats
Would Benefit from Additional Management Information and Analysis" (10-
945). In summary, we agree with GAO's Recommendations. Thank you for
the opportunity for us to comment on this report.
GAO Recommendation:
Improve the agency's analysis and use of the traceback information it
collects, such as whether the same sellers or inspectors were
consistently involved in late or incomplete tracebacks, and ensure it
is taking all available steps to verify random source Class B dealers
are obtaining dogs and cats from legitimate sources, including making
certain that tracebacks are completed in a timely manner and conducted
according to APHIS guidance.
USDA Response:
USDA agrees with this recommendation. Our Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) will develop a database to help manage and
analyze information associated with tracebacks. In addition, API-US
will develop a process to ensure that tracebacks are complete and
finished in a timely manner. The data-base and process will be
developed by December 31, 2010.
GAO Recommendation:
Develop a methodology to collect and track the oversight costs
associated with the specific classes of dealers, and others the agency
inspects, including random source Class B dealers, in order to
identify potential problems requiring management attention and develop
a business case for changing this oversight, if appropriate, to more
efficiently use available resources.
USDA Response:
USDA agrees with this recommendation. In response to GAO
recommendations, APHIS, will develop a system called the Management
Support System (MSS) to assist Animal Care (AC) managers in managing
and analyzing the information collected from the field operations,
determining associated costs, and measuring work performances. The
system will be built internally by the AC's information technology
staff and will take approximately six to nine months to complete. The
estimated completion date for the project will be June 30, 2011.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Edward Avalos:
Under Secretary:
Marketing and Regulatory Programs:
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Lisa Shames, (202) 512-3841 or shamesl@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, James R. Jones, Jr.,
Assistant Director; Kevin S. Bray; Barry DeWeese; Kirk D. Menard;
Michael S. Pose; David Reed; Terry Richardson; Cynthia Saunders; and
Ben Shouse made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 89-544, 80 Stat. 350 (codified as amended at 7 U.S.C.
§§ 2131-2159).
[2] In addition to Class B dealers, APHIS licenses and conducts
oversight of Class A breeders, such as puppy breeders, and Class C
exhibitors, such as zoos, among others.
[3] National Research Council, Scientific and Humane Issues in the Use
of Random Source Dogs and Cats in Research (Washington, D.C., The
National Academies Press, 2009).
[4] Animals excluded under the act are birds; certain rats and mice
bred for use in research; horses not used for research purposes; and
other farm animals.
[5] Animal dealers generally include any person who buys, sells, or
negotiates the purchase or sale of any dog or other animal whether
alive or dead. Animal exhibitors include zoos, animal acts, circuses,
carnivals, and educational exhibits. Animal carriers include general
carriers such as airlines, railroads, shipping lines, and motor
carriers. Research facilities include universities, institutions,
organizations, or persons using live animals in research, tests, or
experiments.
[6] According to APHIS officials, APHIS began conducting 100 percent
tracebacks in fiscal year 2009 on one random source Class B dealer per
quarter. This procedure involves an inspector conducting tracebacks
for all the dogs and cats a dealer acquired since the last quarterly
inspection.
[7] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General,
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Animal Care Program--
Inspections of Problematic Dealers, Audit Report 33002-4-SF (May 14,
2010).
[8] The APHIS Eastern Region generally comprises the states east of
the Mississippi River, while the APHIS Western Region generally
comprises the rest of the states.
[9] APHIS collects information annually from research facilities on
the number of animals used in medical research and has reported this
information since 1973.
[10] As of April 2010, APHIS guidance on inspection frequency for
random source Class B dealers directs that these dealers' facilities
be inspected quarterly and also states that an inspection must be
within 90 days of the last inspection. Prior to this revision, APHIS's
September 2006 inspection system guidance stated that random source
Class B dealers should be inspected a minimum of four times a year.
For purposes of our review, we used APHIS's 2006 guidance to determine
the appropriate dealer inspection frequency.
[11] According to AWA regulations, licensed dealers must allow APHIS
officials access to the dealer's place of business for inspection and
examination of records required by AWA and its regulations during
business hours. However, according to several APHIS inspectors and
random source Class B dealers, it is not uncommon for some dealers to
be away from their facility on business and unavailable when an
inspector arrives to conduct an unannounced inspection. If neither the
dealer nor another responsible adult is present when the inspector
arrives to make an unannounced inspection, the inspector may cite a
violation.
[12] APHIS Investigative and Enforcement Services staff investigate
apparent AWA violations for APHIS Animal Care. Among other things,
Investigative and Enforcement Services also investigates alleged
violations for several other APHIS program offices and assists in
taking legal action through the administrative law process when
required.
[13] When a traceback leads to an address outside an inspector's
assigned area, it is referred to another inspector to be completed.
[14] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]
(Washington, D.C.: November 1999).
[15] Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the
President, OMB Circular No. A-123, Management's Responsibility for
Internal Control (Dec. 21, 2004).
[16] National Research Council, Scientific and Humane Issues in the
Use of Random Source Dogs and Cats in Research (Washington, D.C., The
National Academies Press, 2009).
[17] The combined, total number of tracebacks in fiscal year 2009
listed on the APHIS Eastern and Western Regional Office traceback logs
was 353. However, for the purposes of our review, we considered only
326 of these tracebacks. According to Eastern Regional officials,
traceback information for 26 tracebacks related to one random source
Class B dealer in this region who is under investigation by USDA's
Office of Inspector General and APHIS's Investigative and Enforcement
Services, were sent directly to these offices. Additionally, 1
traceback in the Western Regional Office was entered twice on its
traceback log.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
