U.S. Postal Service
Factors Affecting Fund-Raising Stamp Sales Suggest Lessons Learned Gao ID: GAO-05-953 September 30, 2005Congress has directed the U.S. Postal Service to issue three fund-raising stamps, also called semipostals, since 1998. These stamps are sold at a higher price than First-Class stamps, with the difference going to federal agencies for specific causes. The proceeds from the three stamps address breast cancer research, assistance to families of emergency personnel killed or permanently disabled in the terrorist attacks of September 11, and domestic violence. The law authorizing the Breast Cancer Research stamp directed GAO to report on the fund-raising results. To provide additional information to the Congress, GAO expanded the study to include all three semipostals. GAO's study addressed (1) the amounts raised and the factors affecting sales, (2) how the designated agencies used the proceeds and reported the results, and (3) lessons learned for the Postal Service, agencies receiving the proceeds, and others.
Over $56 million has been raised through semipostal sales as of June 2005, and sales were likely affected by several key factors. Individually, proceeds totaled $44 million for the Breast Cancer Research stamp, over $10.5 million for the Heroes of 2001 stamp, and nearly $2 million for the Stop Family Violence stamp. Sales patterns and levels differed greatly, with four key factors affecting sales patterns: (1) fund-raising cause, (2) support of advocacy groups, (3) stamp design, and (4) promotion by the Postal Service. The designated federal agencies currently award or plan to award grants with the proceeds; none of the agencies has reported specifically on results. Breast Cancer Research stamp proceeds have been used to award research grants by the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense. No grants have yet been awarded with the proceeds from the two other semipostals. The Federal Emergency Management Agency plans to distribute Heroes of 2001 stamp proceeds through grants to families of emergency personnel killed or permanently disabled from the September 11 attacks, while the Department of Health and Human Services plans to use Stop Family Violence stamp proceeds for grants to organizations for projects aimed at enhancing services to children exposed to domestic violence. Key lessons that have emerged from the three semipostals: (1) the nature of the charitable cause can greatly affect sales patterns and other results. A disaster, for example, is more likely to have a brief but intense response, while an ongoing health issue will have a longer one; (2) early and continued involvement of advocacy groups helps sustain semipostal support; (3) stamp design, promotion, and clear understanding about how proceeds will be used can greatly affect consumers' response; (4) semipostals generate proceeds immediately, but the logistics of using the moneys raised takes much longer, and (5) reporting can enhance accountability. Congress included a reporting requirement in the Semipostal Authorization Act of 2000, but these three semipostals are not subject to that requirement.
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: Team: Phone:GAO-05-953, U.S. Postal Service: Factors Affecting Fund-Raising Stamp Sales Suggest Lessons Learned
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-953
entitled 'U.S. Postal Service: Factors Affecting Fund-Raising Stamp
Sales Suggest Lessons Learned' which was released on September 30,
2005.
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 Committees:
September 2005:
U.S. Postal Service:
Factors Affecting Fund-Raising Stamp Sales Suggest Lessons Learned:
GAO-05-953:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-953, a report to congressional committees:
Why GAO Did This Study:
Congress has directed the U.S. Postal Service to issue three fund-
raising stamps, also called semipostals, since 1998. These stamps are
sold at a higher price than First-Class stamps, with the difference
going to federal agencies for specific causes. The proceeds from the
three stamps address breast cancer research, assistance to families of
emergency personnel killed or permanently disabled in the terrorist
attacks of September 11, and domestic violence.
The law authorizing the Breast Cancer Research stamp directed GAO to
report on the fund-raising results. To provide additional information
to Congress, GAO expanded the study to include all three semipostals.
GAO‘s study addressed (1) the amounts raised and the factors affecting
sales, (2) how the designated agencies used the proceeds and reported
the results, and (3) lessons learned for the Postal Service, agencies
receiving the proceeds, and others.
What GAO Found:
Over $56 million has been raised through semipostal sales as of June
2005, and sales were likely affected by several key factors.
Individually, proceeds totaled $44 million for the Breast Cancer
Research stamp, over $10.5 million for the Heroes of 2001 stamp, and
nearly $2 million for the Stop Family Violence stamp. Sales patterns
and levels differed greatly, with four key factors affecting sales
patterns: (1) fund-raising cause, (2) support of advocacy groups, (3)
stamp design, and (4) promotion by the Postal Service.
The designated federal agencies currently award or plan to award grants
with the proceeds; none of the agencies has reported specifically on
results. Breast Cancer Research stamp proceeds have been used to award
research grants by the National Institutes of Health and the Department
of Defense. No grants have yet been awarded with the proceeds from the
two other semipostals. The Federal Emergency Management Agency plans to
distribute Heroes of 2001 stamp proceeds through grants to families of
emergency personnel killed or permanently disabled from the September
11 attacks, while the Department of Health and Human Services plans to
use Stop Family Violence stamp proceeds for grants to organizations for
projects aimed at enhancing services to children exposed to domestic
violence.
Key lessons that have emerged from the three semipostals:
* The nature of the charitable cause can greatly affect sales patterns
and other results. A disaster, for example, is more likely to have a
brief but intense response, while an ongoing health issue will have a
longer one.
* Early and continued involvement of advocacy groups helps sustain
semipostal support.
* Stamp design, promotion, and clear understanding about how proceeds
will be used can greatly affect consumers‘ response.
* Semipostals generate proceeds immediately, but the logistics of using
the moneys raised takes much longer.
* Reporting can enhance accountability. Congress included a reporting
requirement in the Semipostal Authorization Act of 2000, but these
three semipostals are not subject to that requirement.
Breast Cancer Research, Heroes of 2001, and Stop Family Violence
Stamps:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
To enhance accountability for semipostal proceeds, GAO recommends that
agencies receiving the proceeds issue annual reports to Congress on
their use of the proceeds. The Postal Service generally agreed with the
report‘s findings. The Department of Defense concurred with the
recommendation. The other agencies did not comment.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-953.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Katherine Siggerud at
(202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Semipostals Have Raised Over $56 Million, with Several Factors Likely
Affecting Sales:
Semipostal Proceeds Will Be Used for Grants, with Limited Reporting on
Specific Uses:
Lessons Learned from Existing Semipostals:
Conclusion:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Postal Service Semipostal Costs and Semipostal Cost
Recovery Regulation Changes:
Appendix III: Semipostal Design:
Appendix IV: NIH Breast Cancer Research Awards Funded with Breast
Cancer Research Stamp Proceeds:
Appendix V: DOD Breast Cancer Research Awards Funded with Breast Cancer
Research Stamp Proceeds:
Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Postal Service:
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Tables:
Table 1: Semipostal Stakeholders and Related Roles:
Table 2: Examples of Promotional Efforts Undertaken by Breast Cancer
Advocacy Groups to Support the Breast Cancer Research Stamp:
Table 3: Examples of Service National Advertising, Promotional, and
Partnership Efforts in Support of the Semipostals:
Table 4: NIH and DOD Grants Using Breast Cancer Research Stamp
Proceeds:
Table 5: Select Research Findings from NIH and DOD Grants Funded with
Breast Cancer Research Stamp Proceeds:
Table 6: ACF Grants Using Stop Family Violence Stamp Proceeds:
Table 7: FEMA Grants Using Heroes of 2001 Stamp Proceeds:
Table 8: Agencies, Advocacy Groups, and Organizations that GAO
Interviewed About Factors Affecting Semipostal Sales:
Table 9: Semipostal Costs Incurred and Recovered by the Service,
through March 31, 2005:
Table 10: Breast Cancer Research Stamp Costs Incurred and Recovered by
the Service from Inception through March 31, 2005:
Table 11: Heroes of 2001 Stamp Costs Incurred and Recovered by the
Service from Inception through March 31, 2005:
Table 12: Stop Family Violence Stamp Costs Incurred and Recovered by
the Service from Inception through March 31, 2005:
Table 13: Insight Awards to Stamp Out Breast Cancer Funded with
Proceeds, as of April 2005, from Breast Cancer Research Stamp Sales:
Table 14: Exceptional Opportunities in Breast Cancer Research Funded
with Proceeds, as of April 2005, from Breast Cancer Research Stamp
Sales:
Table 15: Idea Awards for Breast Cancer Research Funded with Proceeds,
as of April 2005, from Breast Cancer Research Stamp Sales:
Figures:
Figure 1: Number of Semipostals Sold Annually, in Millions, through May
31, 2005:
Figure 2: Breast Cancer Research, Heroes of 2001, and Stop Family
Violence Stamps:
Figure 3: Authorized Sales Period of the Three Semipostals:
Figure 4: Number of Semipostals Sold by Quarter, in Millions, through
May 31, 2005:
Figure 5: Heroes of 2001 Stamp Featured on NASCAR Busch Series
Professional Stock Car:
Figure 6: Service Counter Card Showing the Semipostals and Information
about How Proceeds Would Be Used:
Figure 7: Photos of White House Kickoff Events for Each of the
Semipostals:
Figure 8: The Breast Cancer Research, Heroes of 2001, and Stop Family
Violence Stamps:
Abbreviations:
ACF: Administration for Children and Families:
BBB: Better Business Bureau:
DOD: Department of Defense:
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency:
HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:
NCI: National Cancer Institute:
NIH: National Institutes of Health:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
Win ABC: Women's Information Network Against Breast Cancer:
Letter September 30, 2005:
The Honorable Susan M. Collins:
Chairman:
The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Tom Davis:
Chairman:
The Honorable Henry A. Waxman:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
Since 1998, Congress has called for the U.S. Postal Service (Service)
to issue the first three fund-raising stamps in the nation's history.
These stamps, called "semipostals," are First-Class postage stamps that
are sold at a premium over their postage value, in order to help
provide funding for a designated charitable cause. The semipostal
proceeds are transferred from the Service to designated federal
agencies that administer the funds.[Footnote 1] The three semipostals
include the following:
* the Breast Cancer Research stamp, issued in 1998, which funds breast
cancer research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the
Department of Defense (DOD);
* the Heroes of 2001 stamp, issued in 2002 to assist the families of
emergency relief personnel who were killed or permanently disabled in
the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, through a program
administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); and:
* the Stop Family Violence stamp, issued in 2003 to fund domestic
violence prevention programs at the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).[Footnote 2]
Although each of the three existing semipostals was mandated by
Congress, the Semipostal Authorization Act of 2000 gave the Service the
authority to issue and sell semipostals on its own "in order to advance
such causes as the Service considers to be in the national public
interest and appropriate."[Footnote 3] This act and the related
regulations establish the criteria for such things as selecting causes,
establishing prices, and reporting annually on how the money is being
used. The existing semipostals were not issued under this authority and
only certain provisions of this act apply to them. Although the Service
has not yet exercised this authority, new semipostals continue to be
proposed by Congress, and advocates and fund-raising experts view
semipostals as an easy way for the public to contribute funds to
charitable causes.
The Stamp Out Breast Cancer Act required that we issue a report to
Congress on the Breast Cancer Research stamp no later than 3 months
before the end of the stamp's authorized sales period.[Footnote 4] We
issued our first report under this requirement in April 2000, and
Congress has subsequently extended the sales period for the stamp three
times, resulting in a follow-on report in September 2003 and this
study.[Footnote 5] The authorized sales period for the Breast Cancer
Research stamp is currently scheduled to expire December 31, 2005.
However, legislation is currently pending that would extend the sales
period for the Breast Cancer Research stamp until December 31,
2007.[Footnote 6] To provide additional information to Congress, we
have expanded this current study to all three semipostals. Accordingly,
this report examines (1) the amount of money raised by the semipostals
and what factors appear to have affected sales; (2) how the designated
federal agencies used funds raised by the semipostals and how they
reported results; and (3) the lessons learned from these semipostals
for the Service, agencies receiving semipostal proceeds, and other
stakeholders. Appendix II of this report also provides information on
the costs associated with the semipostal program and the status of our
recommendations regarding cost-recovery criteria made to the Postmaster
General in our September 2003 report.
To address these objectives, we obtained detailed sales and cost
information from the Service on each of the three semipostals and
gathered information from a broad spectrum of federal officials, fund-
raising experts, and advocacy groups, about each of the semipostals and
the related charitable causes. We interviewed officials from the
Service and the federal agencies receiving semipostal proceeds and
gathered and reviewed agency documents pertaining to semipostal
programs. We consulted organizations with fund-raising expertise, such
as the Association of Fundraising Professionals, the American Red
Cross, and the Better Business Bureau's (BBB) Wise Giving Alliance,
about fund-raising patterns and factors that influence fund-raising
efforts for different charitable causes. In addition, we identified and
interviewed key national advocacy groups affiliated with breast cancer,
emergency personnel affected by the terrorist attacks of September 11,
and domestic violence prevention regarding their opinions about and
experiences with the semipostals. See appendix I for more details
regarding our scope and methodology.
We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Service,
Administration for Children and Families (ACF), DOD, FEMA, HHS and NIH.
The Service and DOD provided written comments, which are reprinted in
appendixes VI and VII, respectively. ACF, FEMA, HHS and NIH did not
provide comments on this report. We conducted our review from January
2005 through August 2005 according to generally accepted government
auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
Over $56 million has been raised through sales of semipostals to date,
and several key factors likely affected sales. Individually, the Breast
Cancer Research stamp has raised $44 million, the Heroes of 2001 stamp
over $10.5 million, and the Stop Family Violence stamp nearly $2
million as of June 30, 2005. The sales patterns and levels for each of
the semipostals differed greatly, with the Breast Cancer Research stamp
remaining at a comparably high sales level for several years, while the
Heroes of 2001 and Stop Family Violence stamp have experienced drop-
offs in sales after the first few months (see fig. 1). The higher sales
total for the Breast Cancer Research stamp partly reflects the fact
that it has been for sale longer than the other semipostals. In
addition, on the basis of our discussions with the various agencies and
organizations involved, four other key factors appear to have affected
sales for the three semipostals. These key factors are (1) the fund-
raising causes, including the degree to which people were aware of the
cause and motivated to support it; (2) the promotional capabilities and
activities of affiliated advocacy groups; (3) the designs of the
semipostals; and (4) the promotional activities of the Service. These
factors play central roles in the lessons learned from evaluating sales
of these semipostals.
Figure 1: Number of Semipostals Sold Annually, in Millions, through May
31, 2005:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The designated federal agencies that receive semipostal proceeds
currently award or plan to distribute the funds through grants; and,
while the agencies have information on how these funds are used, none
of the agencies had reported specifically on their use of semipostal
proceeds, including grant outcomes, to Congress, other stakeholders, or
the public. Breast Cancer Research stamp proceeds provide funding for
research grants administered by NIH and DOD. As of May 31, 2005, the
NIH had awarded about $16 million for research grants that have
produced such results as patents on antitumor drugs and new cancer
detection methods, and the DOD had awarded about $11 million in grants
intended to encourage innovative approaches to breast cancer research.
No grants had yet been awarded with the proceeds from the other two
semipostals. FEMA intends to make grants available to eligible families
of emergency relief personnel who were killed or permanently disabled
as a result of the September 11terrorist attacks with the proceeds from
the Heroes of 2001 stamp. FEMA made a decision that it would wait until
it received all semipostal proceeds before making funds available to
eligible families. FEMA had to establish a new mechanism for
distributing the funds, given that the cause addresses a unique event.
HHS, which began receiving proceeds from the Stop Family Violence stamp
in May 2004, plans to use the proceeds to fund projects focused on the
enhancement and distribution of services for children exposed to
domestic violence. The Semipostal Authorization Act calls for annual
reports on the use of proceeds, but these three semipostals were not
issued under this act, and the reporting requirement does not apply.
Both NIH and DOD provide limited reporting on the use of Breast Cancer
Research stamp funds through reports on research programs in general,
though these reports do not focus on semipostal proceeds. In part as a
result of our work, FEMA recently provided Congress with information
about the amount of proceeds that the agency has received through sales
of the Heroes of 2001 stamp and stated the agency will provide a report
summarizing the program next year. HHS plans to report specifically on
its use of Stop Family Violence stamp proceeds.
Key lessons that emerge from the three semipostals stem both from the
factors affecting sales and the agency uses of semipostal proceeds:
* Charitable causes selected for a semipostal can greatly affect the
arc of the fund-raising effort and other results achieved. Semipostal
sales reflected differences among disaster response, ongoing social and
health fund-raising causes, as well as among causes with greater or
lesser amounts of appeal. For example, the Heroes of 2001 stamp--which
dealt with a catastrophic, high-visibility event that stirred strong
emotional reaction among a wide portion of the population--had over 50
percent of its sales within the initial two-quarters. The Breast Cancer
Research stamp, which deals with an ongoing health issue, has never
achieved a quarterly sales level matching the highest sales levels of
the Heroes of 2001 stamp, but has continued to see steady sales
throughout the 7 years it has been available and has higher average
sales over time. Likewise, the popularity of charitable causes can
affect the amounts raised by semipostals addressing such issues. For
example, the Breast Cancer Research stamp addresses a charitable cause
with a high profile and has had high sales levels over time, while the
Stop Family Violence stamp--which raises money for a cause that may
generate a more complex response--has had average sales that are less
than one-fourth of those of the Breast Cancer Research stamp.
* Early and continued involvement of advocacy groups helps sustain
semipostal support. After committing about $1 million to each
advertising campaign for the Breast Cancer Research and Heroes of 2001
stamps, the Service experienced budget reductions and consequently
implemented a new policy to no longer advertise individual stamps,
including semipostals. Additionally, none of the agencies receiving
semipostal proceeds has contributed to a formal advertising campaign.
Absent a formal campaign, advocacy groups and individuals involved with
a charitable cause are the best source of promotion for semipostals.
For example, the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation has featured
the Breast Cancer Research stamp in its publications and newsletter,
which is sent to one million people. On the contrary, large national
advocacy groups addressing issues of family violence or victims of
September 11 have not had enduring efforts to promote the other
semipostals.
* Stamp design, how extensively a semipostal is promoted, and
information about the use of proceeds can greatly affect the extent to
which consumers support the semipostal. While some consumers may be
well informed and supportive enough of a cause to buy semipostals,
regardless of how the stamp looks or how the proceeds will be spent,
many other potential consumers may need to be informed about the
semipostal and may consider these factors in their decision of whether
to purchase a semipostal. Support may be further enhanced if the
semipostal or the available promotional information clearly indicates
how the money will be used. For example, the Breast Cancer Research
stamp provides a clear indication of how proceeds will be used, while
the fund-raising causes benefiting from the Stop Family Violence stamp
may not be as apparent.
* Semipostals generate proceeds immediately upon issuance, but the
logistics of using the moneys raised takes much longer. Uncertainty
surrounding the amount of funds that a semipostal will raise, together
with the amount of time required to establish new programs to
distribute semipostal funds can lead to a time lag before agencies use
semipostal proceeds. Using existing agency processes and procedures for
grant programs may ease administration and expedite the distribution of
semipostal proceeds. For example, DOD treats Breast Cancer Research
stamp proceeds the same as all other funds in its Breast Cancer
Research Program, which allowed the agency to incorporate the
semipostal funds into its regular grant cycle within a year. In
contrast, FEMA, which is developing a new program for administering
Heroes of 2001 stamp proceeds, has taken nearly 3 years to award any
semipostal funds.
* A reporting approach, such as the one included in the Semipostal
Authorization Act, can enhance accountability. In the Semipostal
Authorization Act, Congress took steps to ensure that reporting on the
use of funds would be a part of any Service initiated semipostals.
However, the three existing semipostals were all authorized separately
from this act, and the agencies that receive proceeds from these
semipostals are not required to report on the use of the funds.
Additionally, program reporting is an important standard for ensuring
accountability of charitable proceeds, and for the semipostal causes,
many advocacy groups were unclear as to specifically how semipostal
proceeds were being used. In the case of the Stop Family Violence
stamp, this resulted in reduced support for the stamp by advocacy
groups. Reporting can make information about grant goals and
accomplishments more transparent.
We are recommending that the agencies receiving semipostal proceeds
improve reporting of how the funds are being used by issuing annual
reports to the congressional committees with jurisdiction over the
Service. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Service generally
agreed with the four key factors that appear to affect semipostal sales
but suggested that stamp design and its promotion of the stamps seem to
be of less importance to a semipostal's success as a fund-raiser. We
continue to believe that stamp design and the Service's promotional
efforts were key factors in semipostal sales, based on our discussion
with advocacy groups and fund-raising experts. For example, fund-
raising experts agreed that in most cases there is a connection between
the amount invested and the amounts raised. DOD concurred with our
recommendation to improve reporting of how semipostal proceeds are
used.
Background:
The three stamps issued thus far in the nation's semipostal program
have all been authorized through separate congressional acts pertaining
solely to those stamps. The Stamp Out Breast Cancer Act required that
the Service issue a Breast Cancer Research stamp, the nation's first
semipostal. Two additional semipostals--the Heroes of 2001 and Stop
Family Violence stamps--were mandated by Congress in the 9/11 Heroes
Stamp Act of 2001 and the Stamp Out Domestic Violence Act of
2001.[Footnote 7] Figure 2 shows the three semipostals.
Figure 2: Breast Cancer Research, Heroes of 2001, and Stop Family
Violence Stamps:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Following the authorization of these semipostals by Congress, a number
of stakeholders became involved with the semipostals, including the
Service, designated federal agencies, and advocacy groups. For example,
after Congress mandated the semipostals, the Service issued the stamps
and then transferred semipostal proceeds to the designated federal
agencies, which then directed the funds toward the identified causes.
Additionally, advocacy groups involved with the charitable causes have
assisted in promoting the semipostals. Table 1 identifies the various
stakeholders and summarizes their primary roles related to the
semipostals.
Table 1: Semipostal Stakeholders and Related Roles:
Stakeholder: Postal Service;
Role: Establish the postage rate for semipostals, make semipostals
available to the public, deduct reasonable costs from semipostal
proceeds, and transfer the remaining funds to designated federal
agencies.
Stakeholder: Designated agencies;
Role: Administer the semipostal proceeds contributed to the designated
charitable cause.
Stakeholder: Advocacy groups;
Role: No official role, but various groups have individually
participated in promoting semipostals.
Source: GAO analysis of information provided by the U.S. Postal Service
and agencies.
[End of table]
Authorized for 2 years in 1998, the Breast Cancer Research stamp has
subsequently been reauthorized three times, and there are proposals in
Congress to further extend the sales period through December 31, 2007.
The Breast Cancer Research stamp raises money for breast cancer
research programs at NIH and DOD, with the former receiving 70 percent
of the funds raised and the latter receiving the remaining 30 percent.
The Heroes of 2001 stamp was offered for sale from June 7, 2002, to
December 31, 2004, and funds raised were transferred to FEMA to provide
assistance to the families of emergency relief personnel who were
killed or permanently disabled in the line of duty in connection with
the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.
The Service started selling the Stop Family Violence stamp on October
8, 2003, and it is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2006. Proceeds
from the Stop Family Violence stamp are being transferred to HHS for
domestic violence programs. For a period of just over 1 year, between
October 8, 2003, and December 31, 2004, all three semipostals were on
sale simultaneously. Figure 3 shows the authorized sales periods for
each of the semipostals.
Figure 3: Authorized Sales Period of the Three Semipostals:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Separately from the provisions that authorized the three semipostals,
the Semipostal Authorization Act gave the Service the authority to
issue semipostals that it considers to be appropriate and in the
national public interest; however, the Service has not yet exercised
this authority. Further, the Service has indicated that it does not
plan to issue any semipostals under its own authority until sales of
the Breast Cancer Research stamp and other congressionally authorized
semipostals have concluded. However, legislative proposals to establish
new semipostals continue to be made. In the 109th Congress, for
example, a bill has been introduced to establish a new semipostal to
benefit the Peace Corps.[Footnote 8] In February 2005, the House
Committee on Government Reform, the oversight committee for the
Service, adopted a rule that stated that the Committee will not give
consideration to legislative proposals specifying the subject matter of
new semipostals. That rule also stated that the Service should
determine the subject matter of new semipostals. In September 2005, a
bill was introduced to establish a semipostal to provide disaster
relief for residents of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama who were
affected by Hurricane Katrina. The proceeds are to be transferred to
the American Red Cross Disaster Relief Fund for Hurricane Katrina,
which is not a government entity. This contrasts with the existing
semipostals that transfer their proceeds to designated federal
agencies.[Footnote 9]
In our previous work, we reported that the Breast Cancer Research stamp
has been an effective fund-raiser and that funds raised through sales
of the stamp had contributed to key insights and approaches for the
treatment of breast cancer. Most of the key stakeholders we spoke with
and, according to our survey, members of the public viewed the stamp as
an appropriate way of raising funds for a nonpostal purpose. We
expressed some concerns, however, about the Service's identification
and recovery of costs associated with carrying out the act. We
recommended that the Service reexamine and, as necessary, revise its
Breast Cancer Research stamp cost-recovery regulations. We also
suggested that Congress consider establishing annual reporting
requirements for NIH and DOD.
Semipostals Have Raised Over $56 Million, with Several Factors Likely
Affecting Sales:
Semipostals have raised over $56 million to date, and sales were likely
impacted by several factors. In addition to variations in the amounts
raised by each of the semipostals, sales patterns were also different,
and on the basis of our discussions with Service officials, advocacy
groups, and other stakeholders, we identified four key factors that
affected sales, including (1) fund-raising cause, (2) support of
advocacy groups, (3) stamp design, and (4) Service promotional
activities.
Semipostal Proceeds and Sales Patterns Varied Substantially:
The funds raised by the semipostals vary from $44 million for the
Breast Cancer Research stamp to over $10.5 million for the Heroes of
2001 stamp and nearly $2 million for the Stop Family Violence stamp,
totaling over $56 million. The length of time that each semipostal has
been sold affected the amounts raised: the Breast Cancer Research stamp
has been available for 7 years, the Heroes of 2001 stamp was available
for just over 2½ years, and the Stop Family Violence stamp has been
available for under 2 years.
Semipostal sales patterns reveal marked differences. Breast Cancer
Research stamp sales have fluctuated since the semipostal's issuance in
1998 but have remained at a comparably high level over time (see fig.
4). The Heroes of 2001 and Stop Family Violence stamps each had initial
sales surges--although at much different levels--with subsequent
declines. Sales of the Breast Cancer Research stamp have averaged over
22 million semipostals per quarter since it was issued in 1998, with
total sales of 606.8 million semipostals by May 31, 2005.[Footnote 10]
Sales of the Heroes of 2001 stamp averaged over 13 million semipostals
per quarter throughout its sales period and totaled 132.9 million,
although over 50 percent of total sales occurred in the first two-
quarters after issuance in 2002. Finally, as of May 31, 2005, sales of
the Stop Family Violence stamp have averaged over 4 million semipostals
per quarter and total 25.3 million since issuance.
Figure 4: Number of Semipostals Sold by Quarter, in Millions, through
May 31, 2005:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Sales Patterns Were Influenced by Several Key Factors:
Fund-Raising Cause: Awareness, Appeal, and Staying Power:
Public awareness about the fund-raising causes represented by the
semipostals likely affected sales levels. The two semipostals
addressing causes with high levels of public awareness--finding a cure
for breast cancer and supporting the families of September 11 emergency
personnel--had higher sales than the Stop Family Violence stamp, which
raises funds for domestic violence programs, a cause that, while well
known, has a lower profile. An official with the Komen Foundation
pointed out that in the case of the Breast Cancer Research stamp, the
fact that about one in eight women are affected by breast cancer keeps
the subject in the public spotlight. Likewise, the national
significance of the events surrounding the September 11 terrorist
attacks ensured a high level of public awareness regarding the cause
represented by the Heroes of 2001 stamp. In contrast, Service officials
pointed to the lack of general coverage about domestic violence, which
may have limited sales of the Stop Family Violence stamp.
The appeal of the particular fund-raising cause was also a factor
affecting semipostal sales. While the Breast Cancer Research and Heroes
of 2001 stamps were associated with causes that generate a strong and
supportive response, the Stop Family Violence stamp deals with a cause
that may evoke a more complex response. Officials with the Association
of Fundraising Professionals noted that certain causes generate a
greater response than others, regardless of fund-raising methods.
According to an official with the BBB Wise Giving Alliance, for
example, four popular fund-raising causes currently are cancer,
children's issues, relief efforts, and animals, although the popularity
of fund-raising causes fluctuates over time. Such an impact can be
particularly acute for campaigns that use affinity fund-raising,
whereby donors demonstrate their support for a specific cause with a
public sign of their commitment. Fund-raising experts we spoke with at
the Association of Fundraising Professionals stated that semipostals
are examples of this kind of effort, and officials with the American
Red Cross noted that other well-known examples of such marketing
include the Lance Armstrong Foundation's LiveStrong yellow bracelets
and pink breast cancer awareness ribbons. Such branding can be
problematic, however, for causes that, for a variety of reasons, may be
more difficult to embrace. For example, officials with the National
Coalition Against Domestic Violence and the Service mentioned that
consumers may be reluctant to use the Stop Family Violence stamp given
that the fund-raising cause is particularly sensitive. Service
officials noted that some consumers pay close attention to the ways in
which stamps can send intended or unintended messages about the sender
or receiver of letters.
The difference in appeal between fund-raising causes can also be seen
in the degree to which they readily attract support or promotion by
businesses or organizations. In the case of the semipostals, American
Express and NASCAR approached the Service about partnership promotions
for the Breast Cancer Research and Heroes of 2001 stamps, respectively.
The partnerships resulted in promotion for the semipostals, done
largely at the expense of the Service's partners, who were able to
affiliate themselves with these popular causes. American Express
advertised the Breast Cancer Research stamp in print and inserts, while
NASCAR placed an image of the Heroes of 2001 stamp prominently on a
stock car at very little cost to the Service (see fig. 5). The Service
did not receive any comparable offers in support of the Stop Family
Violence stamp.
Figure 5: Heroes of 2001 Stamp Featured on NASCAR Busch Series
Professional Stock Car:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
While awareness and appeal may affect the size of the response, the
length of the response may be related to another characteristic:
whether the fund-raising cause is for an episodic event, such as a
disaster, or for an ongoing concern, such as finding a cure for a
disease. The Heroes of 2001 stamp sales reflected the dramatic
emotional spike typically associated with episodic events, with fund-
raising efforts building quickly and then declining as events begin to
retreat from the public spotlight or become affected by subsequent
developments, according to officials with the American Red Cross and
the BBB Wise Giving Alliance. These organizations pointed to the fund-
raising efforts generated by the December 2004 tsunami as an example of
another episodic event, noting that the tsunami fund-raising surge
lasted about 30 days. Officials with the Association of Fundraising
Professionals told us that such fund-raising spikes are common for one-
time events. More specifically, many September 11 fund-raising efforts
experienced the same initial surge and the subsequent decline that the
Heroes of 2001 stamp experienced, according to representatives with the
New York City Police Foundation, the September 11th Families
Association, and the National Association of Fallen Firefighters. By
contrast, ongoing causes, such as finding a cure for breast cancer, are
more likely to have staying power over time, according to fund-raising
experts.
Advocacy Groups: Capacity and Activities Undertaken:
Sales of the semipostals were likely affected by the capacity of
advocacy groups working to promote them. Several of the breast cancer
advocacy groups supporting the Breast Cancer Research stamp have large
networks of members and have promoted the semipostal at events
involving thousands of participants. For example, the Komen Foundation,
an active supporter of the semipostal, has more than 80,000 individuals
in an online advocacy group involved in lobbying to extend sale of the
semipostal. The foundation also conducts "Race for the Cure" events
around the world, with more than 1 million walkers or runners
participating each year since 2000; and a partnership effort between
the Komen Foundation and Yoplait (and its parent company General Mills)
has contributed over $14 million to the breast cancer cause over 7
years. In contrast, family violence prevention groups tend to be
smaller, according to officials with the Association of Fundraising
Professionals. The National Resource Center on Domestic Violence noted
that it has a mailing list of about 5,000 to which it has sent
information about the Stop Family Violence stamp; and another group,
the National Domestic Violence Hotline, provided information about the
semipostal to over 100 local domestic violence programs. Further, an
official with the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
described a cell phone donation program that earned about $2 million
over 6 or 7 years. Finally, Service officials noted that there were no
organized groups to coordinate with when the Heroes of 2001 stamp was
developed.
Beyond the capacity of advocacy groups, the specific efforts undertaken
in support of the semipostals by such groups over time likely affected
sales. Several breast cancer advocacy groups have actively supported
the Breast Cancer Research stamp since its issuance, while
comparatively less was done by advocacy groups to support the Heroes of
2001 or Stop Family Violence stamps, which may account for their
declining sales trends. Service officials link semipostal sales to the
support of advocacy groups.
* Several breast cancer advocacy groups that we spoke with mentioned
carrying on activities to promote the Breast Cancer Research stamp.
(Table 2 provides examples of these activities.) Likewise, Service
officials stated that grassroots support given to the Breast Cancer
Research stamp helps to explain its long-term success, pointing to the
organized support of the semipostal by breast cancer advocacy groups
and individuals, which has included use by doctors' offices, sponsored
walks and runs, and activities surrounding Breast Cancer Awareness
Month.
Table 2: Examples of Promotional Efforts Undertaken by Breast Cancer
Advocacy Groups to Support the Breast Cancer Research Stamp:
Breast cancer advocate: Cure Breast Cancer;
Promotional effort: Dr. Ernie Bodai, CEO of Cure Breast Cancer, Inc.,
presented the stamp in San Francisco with Senator Feinstein and other
activists in July 2000. He has also had numerous speaking engagements
on behalf of the Breast Cancer Research stamp and been featured in
articles for magazines such as Glamour and Women's Day.
Breast cancer advocate: Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation;
Promotional effort: Hundreds of Race for the Cure events have partnered
with local post offices to promote the Breast Cancer Research stamp.
The stamp was also featured at the 1998 Washington, D.C. race, at which
Vice President Gore was a guest speaker.
Breast cancer advocate: Women's Information Network Against Breast
Cancer;
Promotional effort: Women's Information Network Against Breast Cancer
(WIN ABC) President Betsy Mullen threw out the first pitch at a San
Diego Padres baseball game as the Breast Cancer Research stamp image
was projected on the field. WIN ABC is currently coordinating with the
National Needle Arts Association for the Stitch to Win Program to
create five wall hangings of the Breast Cancer Research stamp in a
project traveling around the country.[A].
Source: GAO presentation of information provided by breast cancer
advocacy groups and the U.S. Postal Service.
[A] Dr. Bodai is credited with conceiving the idea for the Breast
Cancer Research stamp. He and Ms. Mullen lobbied Congress for the
Breast Cancer Research stamp originally. See appendix III for
additional information about how the stamp was developed.
[End of table]
* None of the advocacy groups affiliated with emergency personnel
affected by the terrorist attacks of September 11 that we spoke with
regarding the Heroes of 2001 stamp had engaged in promotional
activities for the semipostal. The advocacy groups we spoke with were
aware that the funds raised through sales of the semipostal were to be
directed to September 11 emergency responders in some capacity, but
they were unaware of the specifics of how the proceeds would be used.
Like the Stop Family Violence stamp, sales of the Heroes of 2001 stamp
did not have the boosts in sales seen periodically with the Breast
Cancer Research stamp, although its initial sales were higher. The
semipostal's limited staying power may have reflected the lack of
advocacy group activity on behalf of the semipostal.
* Several domestic and family violence advocacy groups mentioned that
while they had intended to support the Stop Family Violence stamp with
promotional activities, they have done less than originally planned.
Confusion about how Stop Family Violence stamp proceeds would be used
led some domestic and family violence advocacy groups to limit their
promotional activities on behalf of the semipostal. As a result,
although some local advocacy groups carried out promotional activities
with local post offices, such as semipostal unveiling ceremonies, the
national domestic or family violence groups that we spoke with
typically limited their promotional activities to articles in
newsletters or features on group Web sites. Some domestic and family
violence advocacy groups acknowledged that they could have done more to
promote the Stop Family Violence stamp and that the semipostal's sales
were likely adversely affected by this lack of promotion.
Stamp Design: Image and Message Clarity:
The designs of both the Breast Cancer Research and Heroes of 2001
stamps were lauded by stakeholders; however, there was concern that the
design of the Stop Family Violence stamp may have negatively affected
sales of that semipostal. Both the Breast Cancer Research and Heroes of
2001 stamps had designs that were praised by stakeholders as having
inspiring images that conveyed some information about where proceeds
would be directed. Consumers could assume that funds would go to breast
cancer research or September 11 emergency personnel in some capacity,
according to officials with the American Red Cross. However, officials
with the Association of Fundraising Professionals noted that the exact
use of the funds was not clearly spelled out on either semipostal.
Further, in-store messaging also provided limited information. (See
fig. 6 for an example of an in-store counter card featuring the
semipostals.) In contrast, although the design of the Stop Family
Violence stamp won an international award,[Footnote 11] and the story
behind the design was described as inspiring by some advocacy
groups,[Footnote 12] advocates with such organizations as the Family
Violence Prevention Fund and the National Network to End Domestic
Violence questioned how likely postal customers would be to buy the
stamp to use on their mail, given the image of a crying child. In
addition, the semipostal's design and information provided by the
Service on in-store materials are less clear regarding how semipostal
proceeds are to be used,referring to both domestic and family violence,
which are viewed by some as separate causes.[Footnote 13]
Figure 6: Service Counter Card Showing the Semipostals and Information
about How Proceeds Would Be Used:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The Service's Promotional Efforts:
Both the Breast Cancer Research and Heroes of 2001 stamps had extensive
Service advertising campaigns. The Service spent nearly $900,000 to
advertise the Breast Cancer Research stamp and more than $1.1 million
for the Heroes of 2001 stamp. This advertising included a billboard in
Times Square for the Breast Cancer Research stamp and a national print
advertising campaign for the Heroes of 2001 stamp. The Service also
received the Gold "Reggie" award from the Promotion Marketing
Association for the Service's efforts in promoting the Breast Cancer
Research stamp.[Footnote 14]
As the result of an overall reduction in the Service's budget,
advertising for all stamps, including semipostals, has been limited to
in-store messaging since 2003. As a consequence, Service officials
determined that all funds spent to advertise semipostals would be
deducted from the totals raised through their sales. This policy change
had a marked impact on promotional activities for the Stop Family
Violence stamp, which was issued in October 2003. While advertising
costs associated with the Breast Cancer Research and Heroes of 2001
stamps had been paid by the Service, all advertising costs for the Stop
Family Violence stamp were to be deducted from the stamp's proceeds. In
light of these limitations, the Service met with HHS before the Stop
Family Violence stamp was issued. At this meeting the Service proposed
spending $1.5 million or more on an advertising campaign that would be
funded by the future semipostal proceeds. Because of uncertainty about
how much money would be raised through sales of the Stop Family
Violence stamp, HHS decided that the proposed advertising campaign not
be pursued. In lieu of such a campaign, the Service and HHS looked to
the advocacy groups to promote the semipostal. The Service and HHS
officials met with advocacy group representatives and provided them
with examples of the types of promotional activities that breast cancer
advocacy groups had done to help publicize the Breast Cancer Research
stamp and a poster for use in promotional activities. Through March 31,
2005, the Service spent about $77,000 to advertise the Stop Family
Violence stamp, and this amount was recovered from semipostal proceeds.
Table 3 provides examples of Service promotional efforts and
partnerships in support of the semipostals.
Table 3: Examples of Service National Advertising, Promotional, and
Partnership Efforts in Support of the Semipostals:
Semipostal: Breast Cancer Research stamp:
National advertising, promotional, and partnership effort: Stamp
unveiled at the 1998 Revlon Run/Walk for Women in Los Angeles.
Additional promotion carried out at Revlon Run/Walk events in New York
and Los Angeles in 1999.
National advertising, promotional, and partnership effort: Semipostal:
Times Square billboard showed the Breast Cancer Research stamp image
and the slogan "Help stamp out Breast Cancer!"
National advertising, promotional, and partnership effort: Semipostal:
National newspaper and magazine advertising campaign in USA Weekend,
Reader's Digest, Better Homes and Gardens, Southern Living, Parade, TV
Guide and People.
National advertising, promotional, and partnership effort: Semipostal:
Partnership promotion with American Express at five Women's National
Basketball Association (WNBA) games in 1998.
National advertising, promotional, and partnership effort:
SemipostalHeroes of 2001 stamp: In 2003, the Safeway supermarket chain
purchased more than $1 million of Breast Cancer Research stamps as part
of its community caring program. In addition to the more than $180,000
this purchase represented in stamp proceeds, Safeway sold sheets of 20
stamps, normally priced at $9, for $10 with the extra dollar going to
local breast cancer research.
Semipostal: Heroes of 2001 stamp:
National advertising, promotional, and partnership effort: National
print advertising campaign included USA Today and additional
advertising in the New York area included the New York Times.
National advertising, promotional, and partnership effort:
SemipostalStop Family Violence stamp: Displayed on a stock car at an
inaugural NASCAR event at the Daytona International Speedway in 2002.
Semipostal: Stop Family Violence stamp:
National advertising, promotional, and partnership effort:
Advertisements for the Stop Family Violence stamp appeared in
individual issues of Parent's and The Week magazines at no charge to
the Service.
Source: GAO presentation of information provided by the U.S. Postal
Service.
[End of table]
Service officials said that differences in sales among the three
semipostals were not the result of the level of actions on the part of
the Service. They said a semipostal's success is dependent on the
support provided by external groups or individuals. Service officials
point out that for each semipostal, the Service issued a field and
press kit and met with officials from the agencies receiving semipostal
proceeds. In addition, the Service initiated kickoff events for each of
the semipostals at the White House, with involvement from either the
President or First Lady (see fig. 7). Finally, Service officials noted
that local post offices are available to sponsor local events at the
discretion of the postmaster. For example, the Service's South Georgia
District employees established the "Circle of Hope" campaign to promote
and raise funds for the Breast Cancer Research stamp. In 2004, the
campaign raised an estimated $21,000 in proceeds through stamp sales.
Likewise, the Cardiss Collins Postal Facility in Chicago held a
rededication ceremony for the Stop Family Violence stamp on August 2,
2005, in collaboration with the Illinois Secretary of State and
officials from the Chicago Abused Women Coalition and the Chicago
Police Department.
Figure 7: Photos of White House Kickoff Events for Each of the
Semipostals:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Semipostal Proceeds Will Be Used for Grants, with Limited Reporting on
Specific Uses:
The federal agencies receiving semipostal proceeds currently award or
plan to award these funds using grants, and although each agency has
collected and maintained information on semipostal proceeds, none has
reported specifically on their use of proceeds thus far. NIH and DOD
use Breast Cancer Research stamp proceeds to award research grants
under existing programs. HHS has not distributed any proceeds from the
Stop Family Violence stamp, but officials reported that they have
established new grants within an existing program to award grants for
domestic violence programs. While the other semipostals address ongoing
causes, the Heroes of 2001 stamp raised funds for an episodic event
without an established mechanism for distributing such funds. As a
result, FEMA is establishing a new program and accompanying regulations
for distributing Heroes of 2001 stamp proceeds to families of emergency
relief personnel who were killed or permanently disabled in the line of
duty in connection with the September 11 terrorist attacks. The laws
authorizing these three specific semipostals do not include reporting
requirements such as those of the Semipostal Authorization Act. Of the
four agencies, FEMA and HHS have plans to report specifically as to the
use of semipostal proceeds.
Breast Cancer Research Stamp and Stop Family Violence Stamp Proceeds
Are Used for Grants within Established Programs:
NIH and DOD: Grants for Breast Cancer Research Under Way:
Both NIH and DOD reported that they began receiving Breast Cancer
Research stamp proceeds from the Service in November 1998, and breast
cancer research grants have been awarded using established programs at
both agencies since June 2000 and June 1999, respectively.[Footnote 15]
NIH initially directed these proceeds to the National Cancer Institute
(NCI) to award high-risk research grants through the "Insight Awards to
Stamp Out Breast Cancer" initiative.[Footnote 16] This initiative was
specifically designed for the Breast Cancer Research stamp proceeds,
but exists within NCI's grants program. One example of these grants
includes funding research related to the development of a potential
antitumor drug. In 2003, NIH approved new Breast Cancer Research stamp
grants through the "Exceptional Opportunities in Breast Cancer
Research" initiative, also administered by NCI, which uses semipostal
proceeds to fund more traditional research. According to NIH officials,
this change was made when it was determined that there were highly
meritorious research applications outside the funding ability of NCI,
and they noted that many outstanding grant applications would remain
unfunded without the use of semipostal proceeds. Exceptional
Opportunities awards have covered breast cancer research areas that
include prevention, diagnosis, biology, and treatment. DOD uses Breast
Cancer Research stamp proceeds to fund innovative approaches to breast
cancer research through "Idea Award" grants under its existing Breast
Cancer Research Program, which is administered by the U.S. Army Medical
Research and Materiel Command. The scope of the grants has not changed
since DOD began awarding them in 1999. Table 4 contains additional
information about these initiatives and the size and number of grants
awarded with Breast Cancer Research stamp proceeds.
Table 4: NIH and DOD Grants Using Breast Cancer Research Stamp
Proceeds:
Agency: NIH;
Grant: (award years): Insight Awards to Stamp-Out Breast Cancer; (2000-
2002);
Grant mission: Fund high-risk exploration by scientists employed
outside the federal government who conduct research at their own
institutions. Awarded for a 2-year period;
Number of grants awarded and amounts: Awarded 86 Insight Awards that
totaled about $9.5 million and averaged $111,242. Most Insight Awards
were for a 2-year period, and NIH distributed the last Insight Awards
in 2002;
Grant selection and evaluation: Program announcements are released
through the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts and NCI's Web site.
Grant applications undergo two levels of peer review that evaluate
scientific and technical merit; Grants are monitored annually and are
given a final review at their conclusion. Criteria used to measure
progress include publications and patent filings.
Grant: (award years): Exceptional Opportunities in Breast Cancer
Research; (2003-present);
Grant mission: Fund well-established research that would not have been
funded otherwise. Awarded for a maximum of 4 years;
Number of grants awarded and amounts: NIH has awarded 20 Exceptional
Opportunities Awards that total about $6.6 million. Individual awards
averaged $330,763;
Grant selection and evaluation: (Same as above).
Agency: DOD;
Grant: (award years): Idea Awards; (1999-present);
Grant mission: Fund innovative high-risk/high-return research;
Number of grants awarded and amounts: DOD has awarded 27 Idea Awards
using Breast Cancer Research stamp proceeds at a total of about $11
million, and grants have averaged $400,405;
Grant selection and evaluation: Program announcements are posted
online. Applications undergo two tiers of review. The first tier is
peer review that evaluates technical and scientific merit. The second
tier is programmatic review that compares applications to each other;
Grants are monitored annually. Criteria used to measure progress
include publications, presentations, patents, and products.
Source: GAO presentation of information provided by NIH and DOD.
[End of table]
Since NIH and DOD both apply Breast Cancer Research stamp proceeds to
established grant programs the agencies used existing procedures and
regulations for awarding grants funded with the proceeds. For example,
both agencies use existing review procedures to evaluate grant
applications with input from advocacy groups. NIH and DOD officials
stated that advocacy groups play an important role, and both agencies
involve advocacy groups in their grants processes.
Grants funded by NIH and DOD using Breast Cancer Research stamp
proceeds have produced significant findings in breast cancer research.
The first NIH Exceptional Opportunities Awards funded with Breast
Cancer Research stamp proceeds were distributed in fiscal year 2003 and
are awarded for a maximum of 4 years; therefore, it is still too early
to report results from these awards. Both NIH and DOD use existing
programs and processes such as monitoring grantees and requiring annual
grantee reporting, which has made measuring grant performance and
tracking grant outcomes relatively straightforward. Officials at each
agency were pleased to gain new sources of funding and pleased that
there have been some significant findings in the field of breast cancer
research resulting from these awards. Table 5 provides select examples
of research findings from NIH Insight Awards and DOD Idea Awards funded
with Breast Cancer Research stamp proceeds.
Table 5: Select Research Findings from NIH and DOD Grants Funded with
Breast Cancer Research Stamp Proceeds:
Agency: NIH;
Insight Awards;
Principal investigator and institution: James A. Bennett, Ph.D;
Albany Medical College;
Research finding: A new chemically engineered synthetic peptide that,
in animal studies, appears to be effective against certain tumors. It
has potential alone or in combination as an antitumor drug.
Principal investigator and institution: Felix R. Fernandez-Madrid,
M.D., Ph.D; Wayne State University;
Research finding: Part of the difficulty in both the diagnosis and
treatment of cancer is identifying surface molecules unique to the
transformed or cancer cell. Through the methodical screening of 1,300
breast cancer sera, this research has resulted in the identification of
12 new proteins not previously identified as autoantigens of breast
cancer. Autoantigens represent important targets because the body has
elicited an immune response, suggesting that there is some aspect of
the tumor recognized as foreign by the body. This has broad
implications both in research into the biology of the tumor as well as
its diagnosis.
Principal investigator and institution: Stephen Byers, Ph.D;
Georgetown University;
Research finding: A certain gene has proved to be a clinically
important in the identification of colon cancer. This research has
demonstrated that a related gene family member is deleted in many
breast and ovarian cancers. This would classify it as a new tumor
suppressor gene. The research team is currently developing an assay to
detect this alteration for use in breast and ovarian cancer prognosis.
Agency: DOD;
Idea Awards;
Principal investigator and institution: Kermit Carraway, Ph.D;
University of California;
Research finding: This research led to the discovery of a new molecule
that inhibits the activity of epidermal growth factor, a molecule that
encourages cell growth. This molecule has potential as a new form of
therapeutic agent.
Principal investigator and institution: Roger Daly, Ph.D;
Garvan Institute;
Research finding: The research studied a protein called cortactin that
seems to be involved in the growth and spread of cancer cells. Dr. Daly
has applied for patents on work involving protein complexes comprising
cortactin and their uses.
Principal investigator and institution: Lihong Wang, Ph.D;
Texas A&M University;
Research finding: Development of imaging techniques to detect breast
cancer early without the use of ionizing radiation (which is used in
mammography). Dr. Wang has applied for patents on this technology, and
clinical testing of this imaging method has begun.
Source: GAO presentation of information provided by NCI, NIH, and the
U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, DOD.
[End of table]
HHS: Grants Planned for Domestic Violence Programs Aimed at Children's
Services:
HHS began receiving Stop Family Violence stamp proceeds from the
Service in May 2004, and, as of July 2005, HHS has not yet awarded any
grants using semipostal proceeds.[Footnote 17] HHS is using an
established grant program, the Family Violence and Prevention Services
Program, to make the proceeds available at the end of fiscal year 2005
for grants aimed at enhancing services to children exposed to domestic
violence. As of June 30, 2005, the Service had transferred about $1.8
million to HHS, and the agency has directed these proceeds to ACF,
which is responsible for distributing the funds. In June 2005, ACF
released an announcement for the grants, and ACF officials stated that
they expect the first grants to be awarded during the end of fiscal
year 2005. The purpose of the grants is to provide enhanced services
and support to children who have been exposed to domestic violence in
order to mitigate the impact of such exposure and increase the
opportunities for these children to lead healthy lives as adults. Grant
applicants are required to collaborate with a state's domestic violence
coalition and the state agency responsible for administering family
violence programs. According to agency officials, it has always been
ACF's intention to use Stop Family Violence proceeds for enhanced
services to children. Table 6 provides additional information about the
ACF grants, to be awared including the size and number of awards.
Table 6: ACF Grants Using Stop Family Violence Stamp Proceeds:
Agency: ACF;
Grant: Demonstration of Enhanced Services to Children and Youth Who
Have Been Exposed to Domestic Violence;
Grant mission: To provide enhanced services and support to children and
youth exposed to domestic violence in order to mitigate the impact of
that exposure and increase the opportunity of these children and youth
to lead healthy, nonviolent, and safe lives as adults; Number of grants
and amounts: ACF anticipates awarding four to five grants with a
maximum amount of $130,000 per budget period; These grants will be
awarded to organizations that plan to provide the services through
collaboration with a state domestic violence coalition and the state
agency responsible for administering family violence prevention
programs and services;
Grant selection and evaluation: Grant announcements are released
through ACF's Web site and http://www.grants.gov, an online repository
of federal grant opportunities managed by HHS; Grant applications are
evaluated on a weighted set of criteria made available to applicants in
the program announcement; Grantees are monitored semiannually through
required progress and financial reports and are given a final review
once the grant project is completed. Grantees are required to state how
they will determine the extent to which the project has achieved its
stated objectives and the extent to which accomplishments can be
attributed to the project.
Source: GAO presentation of information provided by ACF, HHS.
[End of table]
According to ACF officials, the agency used an established program to
develop its grants to award Stop Family Violence stamp proceeds. The
officials stated that ACF is using existing competitive review
procedures to evaluate grant applications. These review procedures are
described in the grant announcement, which was developed through ACF's
existing grant application process and made available on ACF's Web
site. ACF also plans to use its existing project grant reporting system
to monitor grantee performance (see table 6). ACF consulted with
domestic violence advocacy groups, state agencies, and state domestic
violence coalitions on the current distribution of children's services
offered by domestic violence organizations and solicited their input on
a fair and equitable method for grant participation. Although ACF
involved advocacy groups in developing the way that semipostal funds
could be used initially, many groups that we spoke with in the spring
of 2005 expressed concern about how the Stop Family Violence stamp
proceeds would be spent. Some national domestic violence groups
reported that they were unaware of ACF's intentions for semipostal
proceeds because no semipostal grants have been announced and no funds
had been spent.[Footnote 18]
FEMA: New Program Being Developed to Distribute Heroes of 2001 Stamp
Proceeds:
FEMA started receiving Heroes of 2001 stamp proceeds from the Service
in November 2002, and FEMA has not yet distributed any of the
semipostal proceeds. To determine the total amount of funds available,
FEMA officials stated that the agency made a decision to wait until the
Service had transferred all semipostal proceeds--in May 2005--before
finalizing its grants program. Following the final transfer, FEMA had
received over $10.5 million in semipostal proceeds. FEMA is
establishing a program to make grants available to eligible emergency
relief personnel who are permanently disabled or to the families of
emergency relief personnel who were killed as a result of the terrorist
attacks of September 11. According to FEMA officials, while
distributing funds to disaster victims is within the scope of FEMA's
mission, distributing the semipostal proceeds is not within the scope
of its disaster authority. As a result, FEMA has had to establish a new
program with new regulations for semipostal proceeds, which includes
establishing the mechanism through which the funds would be
distributed. After undergoing regulatory review at the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), FEMA's interim rule for their assistance
program under the 9/11 Heroes Stamp Act of 2001 was made publicly
available on July 26, 2005.[Footnote 19] The interim rule states that
FEMA intends to distribute all Heroes of 2001 stamp proceeds equally
among all eligible claimants. Table 7 provides additional information
about the FEMA grants.
Table 7: FEMA Grants Using Heroes of 2001 Stamp Proceeds:
Agency: FEMA;
Grant: Assistance Program Under the 9/11 Heroes Stamp Act of 2001;
Grant mission: To benefit the families of emergency relief personnel
who were killed or permanently disabled while serving in the line of
duty in connection with the terrorist attacks against the United States
on September 11, 2001;
Number of grants and amounts: FEMA estimates approximately 1,000
eligible claimants and will attempt to distribute funds equally; FEMA
anticipates grants in the amount of approximately $10,000 for each
eligible claimant. Final amounts to be paid out to claimants will only
be determined after the total number of eligible claims filed has been
determined;
Grant selection and evaluation: Applications are available from FEMA
upon request. They can also be downloaded from FEMA's Web site;
Eligible applicants include those who have been permanently physically
disabled in the line of duty, and personal representatives of emergency
relief personnel who were killed and in the line of duty, while serving
at the World Trade Center, Pentagon, or Shanksville, PA site in
connection with the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
Source: GAO presentation of information provided by FEMA.
[End of table]
When designing its program and regulations, FEMA officials stated that
the agency considered the findings resulting from the Department of
Justice September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001, which provided
over $7 billion in compensation to victims of the terrorist attacks.
One of the observations detailed in the Final Report of the Special
Master for the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 is that
there are serious problems posed by a statutory approach mandating
individualized awards for each eligible claimant and that a better
approach might be to provide the same amount for all eligible
claimants. Prior to publicizing its interim rule, FEMA had informal
discussions with stakeholder groups, and FEMA officials also stated
that the program regulation would be available for public
comment.[Footnote 20] New York City police, firefighter, and
representatives of victims' foundations whom we spoke with expressed
some concern regarding FEMA's use of the proceeds, because they were
unaware if FEMA planned to allocate the Heroes of 2001 stamp proceeds
through assistance programs or grants to individual families. These
groups also noted that since the September 11 terrorist attacks, there
has been an evolving set of needs that have little funding support,
including long-term programs such as counseling and health care for
emergency relief personnel involved in the September 11 recovery and
clean-up efforts.
Agencies Have Not Reported Specifically on the Proceeds' Use:
None of the designated federal agencies receiving semipostal proceeds
is required to issue a report to Congress detailing how these funds are
used or any accomplishments resulting from semipostal-funded grants.
The agencies would face such a reporting requirement if the three
existing semipostals had been authorized under the Semipostal
Authorization Act. Specifically, the act contains an accountability
mechanism consisting of annual reports to include (1) the total amount
of funding received by the agency, (2) an accounting of how proceeds
were allocated or otherwise used, and (3) a description of any
significant advances or accomplishments during the year that were
funded--in whole or in part--with funds received.[Footnote 21] However,
the laws that created the three semipostals did not specify any
reporting requirements, and the agencies themselves have decided to
take varying actions in this regard.
* NIH and DOD do not report specifically on the use of semipostal
proceeds, though the agencies do collect information that, if
necessary, could be assembled for such a report. To help manage their
respective grant programs, NIH and DOD require award recipients to
provide periodic reports on research progress and any breakthroughs
achieved. Research findings from grants funded by Breast Cancer
Research stamp proceeds can be found in some NIH publications, but the
agency does not report specifically on its use of these funds. DOD
provides limited information on its Idea Awards through annual reports
on its Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs. This
reporting is limited to the number of Idea Awards and does not provide
information on which awards are funded with Breast Cancer Research
stamp proceeds.
* ACF plans to monitor grantee performance and to report on its use of
semipostal proceeds through HHS' grants system and will make an
additional report available to Congress.
* Although FEMA initially indicated to us that the agency was not
required to report on its use of semipostal proceeds, FEMA recently
provided information to Congress--in part as a result of our work--on
the total proceeds received from the sales of the Heroes of 2001 stamp.
FEMA officials have indicated that once proceeds have been distributed,
a report will be provided to Congress on the status of the 9/11 Heroes
Stamp Act of 2001. According to FEMA officials, the report will
summarize the agency's Heroes of 2001 stamp program including
information on its development, the process undertaken, and who is
receiving the semipostal proceeds.
Various fund-raising organizations that we spoke with indicated that
program reporting is a useful accountability tool and may lead to
greater fund-raising success. For example, the BBB Wise Giving
Alliance, a charity watchdog group, recommends reporting requirements,
in the form of annual reports, for charitable organizations to ensure
that representations to the public are accurate, complete, and
respectful. These reports should be made available to all, on request,
and should include the organization's mission, a summary of the past
year's accomplishments, and financial information. Further, officials
with the American Red Cross stated that disclosure provides
transparency, allowing consumers to determine if the cause is the best
use of their money, and Association of Fundraising Professional
officials noted that such reporting can even secure additional support
by encouraging more people to contribute to the effort.
Lessons Learned from Existing Semipostals:
While many of the agency officials, fund-raising groups, and charitable
organizations that we contacted believe that the semipostals have been
good fund-raisers, nearly all of them also believe that there were
lessons learned. For the past several years, there have been multiple
proposals introduced in Congress to establish new semipostals. For
example in the 108th Congress, proposals had been introduced for
semipostals promoting childhood literacy, the Peace Corps, and
prevention of childhood drinking. Each of these proposals expired in
committee, and--so far--the Peace Corps semipostal proposal has been
reintroduced in the 109th Congress. Any lessons learned from the
existing semipostals may be especially relevant for any future
semipostals, whether congressionally mandated or issued under the
Service's authority. The lessons we identified from these three
semipostals related primarily to five areas:
* charitable cause selected,
* advocacy group support,
* promotional efforts,
* use of funds raised, and:
* agency reporting.
Lesson Learned: The Charitable Cause Selected Can Greatly Affect the
Arc of the Fund-Raising Effort and Other Results Achieved:
The existing semipostals have been issued for a minimum 2-year sales
period, and one--the Breast Cancer Research stamp--has been extended 3
times. The experience with the three existing semipostals indicates
that the particular nature of the charitable causes may be important in
how much money is raised, how long consumers continue to purchase the
semipostal, and other results achieved. Among these differences are the
following:
* One-time charitable causes, such as response to a major disaster, may
provide a substantial immediate response but may also have limited
staying power as ongoing fund-raisers. The Heroes of 2001 stamp was
issued in 2002, while various national organizations were still raising
funds for victims of the families of emergency relief personnel killed
or disabled in the line of duty. Sales were highest for the initial two-
quarters, followed by a dramatic drop. By contrast, the Breast Cancer
Research stamp, which raises funds for an ongoing health issue, has had
sales that have remained at a high level over its entire sales period.
* Considering a cause's appeal in drawing affinity support is important
in setting fund-raising expectations. Some charitable causes are simply
less popular than others, and recognition of these differences can aid
in forming assumptions about how much money will be raised through
semipostal sales. For some consumers, applying a postage stamp serves
as a symbol of loyalty to a particular charitable cause; therefore, it
can be anticipated that the magnitude of a particular cause's base of
support will be reflected in semipostal sales. Association of
Fundraising Professionals officials noted that certain causes generate
a greater response than others, regardless of fund-raising methods.
That is, breast cancer is a pervasive and ongoing concern; the
September 11 terrorist attacks were a popular concern, but also an
event likely to fade in intensity over time; and family violence, while
an ongoing concern, is likely to engender less appeal. According to
Association of Fundraising Professionals officials, the amounts raised
by each semipostal are consistent with the popularity of the type of
fund-raising cause represented on the stamps.
* In some cases, a growth in cause awareness may be a success that
transcends the amount of money raised. In addition to raising funds,
the semipostal program provides an avenue for increased exposure for
particular charitable causes. While the amount of funds raised may not
be as high for some causes, there are additional benefits of having a
semipostal representing a particular cause visible and for sale in post
offices throughout the country. Organizations and individuals whom we
spoke with agreed that for all of the semipostals, heightened awareness
of the cause was one benefit of having a semipostal. One Breast Cancer
Research stamp supporter commented that the contribution that the
semipostal has made to breast cancer awareness is priceless and more
precious than the funds raised. Likewise an official from the National
Fallen Firefighters Foundation stated that the Heroes of 2001 stamp has
helped raise public awareness about the fire service.[Footnote 22]
Lesson Learned: Early and Continued Involvement of Advocacy Groups
Helps to Sustain Semipostal Support:
Support of advocacy groups is an important marketing device for
semipostals. American Red Cross and BBB Wise Giving Alliance officials
told us that advocacy groups are the most useful tool for getting the
word out about charitable causes and fund-raising efforts, and Service
officials agreed. Broad supportive networks of private organizations
that are willing and capable of assisting in local and national
marketing help sustain semipostal awareness and sales. Where it is not
possible to do aggressive private-sector style marketing, as is the
case with semipostals, advocacy groups can fill this gap. In the case
of the Breast Cancer Research stamp, for example, the Service no longer
has a budget to advertise stamps, which includes semipostals, but there
are numerous advocacy groups that publicize the Breast Cancer Research
stamp on their Web sites, at events they sponsor, and through letters
to members and legislators.
To sustain support from advocacy groups, the Service must cultivate
this support, and the agency receiving the semipostal proceeds must
sustain this support. Organizations involved with charitable causes
told us that due to their multitude of priorities, if their input and
support are not solicited and they are not kept informed about issues
related to the relevant semipostal, including fund usage and program
outcomes, group support for the semipostal will wane. For example,
several advocacy groups associated with the domestic violence cause
told us that immediately following launch of the Stop Family Violence
stamp there was uncertainty as to how HHS was going to use the proceeds
because the public announcement at the stamp's kickoff event differed
from the groups' expectations. These advocacy groups told us that as a
result of this confusion, they did not aggressively promote the
semipostal.
Lesson Learned: The Stamp Design, How Extensively It Is Promoted and
Information About the Use of Proceeds Can Greatly Affect the Extent to
Which Consumers Support the Semipostal:
Semipostal design is one of the variables that can affect whether
consumers are willing to signal their support for a cause. We received
comments from numerous stakeholders, for example, that the design of
the Stop Family Violence stamp, while certainly drawing attention, may
not create a positive response--or affinity--because of its tone. A
semipostal's design can evoke emotion, and the emotional reaction to
the image may be important in a consumer's decision to purchase a
semipostal and use it on a letter to make a statement. For example, the
Heroes of 2001 stamp provided an image that was not only recognizable
but inspiring. By contrast, the image on the Stop Family Violence stamp
may create a more complex reaction, and result in a consumer's decision
not to buy the semipostal.
The extent of promotion and advertising of a semipostal can also
greatly affect sales. Fund-raising organizations that we spoke with
agreed that in most cases, there is a connection between the amount
invested in a fund-raising effort and the amounts raised. Although a
direct correlation has not been determined, it should be noted that as
a result of a Service budget reduction, which eliminated stamp
advertising, the Stop Family Violence stamp did not benefit from a
million-dollar promotional campaign as the two other semipostals did,
and sales have remained lower in comparison for the stamp.
Support may be further enhanced if the semipostal or the available
marketing information clearly indicates how the proceeds will be used.
Transparency is critical to fund-raising efforts, and semipostals are
no exception. According to the BBB Wise Giving Alliance, one of the
standards for charity accountability is to clearly disclose how the
charity benefits from the sale of product or services. American Red
Cross officials also emphasized that providing this information to
consumers is critical to fund-raising efforts like semipostals. We
found widespread confusion among advocacy groups about specifically how
the Stop Family Violence stamp proceeds would be used. Officials added
that the disclosure of where funding is to be directed is particularly
important, given that consumers are increasingly savvy, and people have
become increasingly skeptical about the distribution of charitable
funds.
Lesson Learned: Semipostals Generate Revenues Immediately Upon
Issuance, but the Logistics of Using the Moneys Raised Takes Longer:
The time lag between when funds are first raised and when they are
distributed can be considerable, depending on the type of program that
the agency implements for distributing semipostal proceeds. Semipostal
sales generate revenues immediately upon going on sale at post offices,
and semipostal revenues are distributed by the Service to designated
agencies biannually, after the Service's reasonable costs are deducted.
However, it can then take an additional 2 years, or longer, for the
funds to be used. For example, the Breast Cancer Research stamp, which
was authorized in August 1997, was first sold in July of 1998, and the
initial grants resulting from the proceeds were awarded by DOD in June
of 1999 and by NIH in June of 2000 (nearly 1 and 2 years after
issuance); the Heroes of 2001 stamp was first sold in June of 2002, and
the proceeds raised have not yet been awarded by FEMA (3 years after
the stamp was issued); and the Stop Family Violence stamp was first
available in October of 2003, and no funds have yet been awarded by ACF
(nearly 2 years after issuance).
When semipostals are used as a fund-raising vehicle, the time lag is a
consideration. Agencies awarding semipostal proceeds may need to
consider this time lag in deciding how to apply the funds, particularly
for episodic events that may involve a fund-raising surge and short-
term or evolving needs. For example, program and funding priorities may
change from the time that a semipostal is launched to the time proceeds
are actually distributed. This time lag can result in consumer
skepticism of or disagreement with the original program selection,
resulting from changing or new funding priorities. For example, FEMA's
plan for distributing the Heroes of 2001 stamp proceeds has taken about
3 years to finalize, and while it is clear that the initial intent of
the semipostal was to "provide financial assistance to the families of
emergency relief personnel killed or permanently disabled in the
terrorist attacks of September 11," other organizations working with
these families suggested that currently, the most prevalent needs of
this group are programs and services directed at addressing the long-
term effects of the terrorist attacks.
The amounts raised by semipostals vary, and it is difficult to
determine how much money will be raised by semipostal sales. For
example, FEMA and ACF, which receive proceeds from the Heroes of 2001
and Stop Family Violence stamps respectively, reported to us that they
delayed spending in these programs due to the uncertainty of how much
money would be raised. ACF officials told us they initially expected
the Stop Family Violence stamp to raise considerably more than it has.
Once ACF officials realized that the amounts raised may not be
sufficient to cover the planned programs, officials revisited their
plans for the proceeds. Further, FEMA waited until all semipostal
proceeds were received from the Service before pursuing its grant
program. Due to the uncertainties surrounding how much money will be
raised by semipostals, establishing a program that will be funded
solely by semipostal proceeds may present challenges. In addition,
attaching funds to already established mechanisms, such as existing
grant guidelines or programs, may ease administration and allow for
additional flexibility. For example, both the Breast Cancer Research
and Stop Family Violence stamp proceeds are being used to distribute
new grants within existing programs, which has allowed the agencies to
make grants available using semipostal proceeds without developing and
establishing the rules and regulations for new programs.
Lesson Learned: A Reporting Approach, Such as the One Included in the
Semipostal Authorization Act, Can Enhance Accountability:
Program reporting is an important standard for ensuring accountability.
In general, we found that organizations we spoke with were unclear as
to how semipostal proceeds were being used or would be used, and we
found that none knew of any outcomes resulting from these funds. The
Semipostal Authorization Act, which does not specifically apply to
these three existing semipostals, requires that the agencies receiving
funds under the act report to the congressional committees with
jurisdiction over the Service about the semipostal funds received and
used. Fund-raising organizations we spoke with, including the American
Red Cross and the BBB Wise Giving Alliance, also recommend such
reporting, pointing to the need to inform consumers about how proceeds
have been used. Additionally, annual reporting may make information
about program goals, plans, or funding mechanisms available to
Congress, advocacy groups, and others earlier, thereby addressing some
of the uncertainty that may arise between the initial issuance of the
semipostal and the actual distribution of funds. Currently, none of the
agencies administering the three semipostals are providing this degree
of disclosure for semipostal programs. Agency reporting for these
semipostals is either subsumed in reports about the larger programs to
which the proceeds are applied or has not yet been produced. However,
these agencies do collect and track this information and could report
it with little difficulty.
Conclusion:
We found widespread agreement among most parties involved that the
Breast Cancer Research, Heroes of 2001, and Stop Family Violence stamps
were a success. Success can be measured in terms of funds raised, but
also in less tangible ways, such as increased public awareness of an
important issue. If the definition of semipostals success is narrowed
specifically to the funds raised, however, the differences among these
three make it all the more important to pay attention to the lessons
learned, which can help in setting expectations for further semipostal
sales.
Given that new semipostals have been proposed in Congress and the
Service is authorized to issue additional semipostals, the potential is
always there for new semipostals, and therefore the lessons learned may
be helpful in any future considerations. One of these lessons--the need
for accountability--involves actions that can still be taken on these
semipostals, rather than just applied to future semipostals. Through
the Semipostal Act and its related regulations, Congress and the
Service have taken measures to develop criteria for the selection of
semipostal issues, identification of recipient agencies, and reporting
of program operations, but these criteria have thus far been largely
bypassed due to the provisions that have authorized these three
semipostals. These three semipostals lie outside the Semipostal
Authorization Act, and may benefit from applying the reporting
requirement. Additionally, if any future semipostals are authorized by
Congress separately from this act, this type of requirement could be
included as part of the legislation in order to ensure greater
accountability and greater support for the semipostals.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
To enhance accountability for semipostal proceeds, we recommend that
the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Homeland Security, and Secretary
of Health and Human Services annually issue reports to the
congressional committees with jurisdiction over the Service, as is
currently required for agencies that are to receive semipostal proceeds
under the Semipostal Authorization Act. Reports should include
information on the amount of funding received, accounting for how the
funds were allocated or otherwise used, and any significant advances or
accomplishments that were funded, in whole or in part, out of the funds
received through the semipostal program.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Service, ACF,
DOD, FEMA, HHS, and NIH. The Service and DOD provided written comments,
which are summarized below and reprinted in appendix VI and VII,
respectively. ACF, FEMA, HHS, and NIH did not provide comments on this
report.
The Service stated in its comments on the draft report that it
generally agreed with the four key factors that we cited as affecting
stamp sales. The Service agreed that the fund-raising cause and support
of advocacy groups were key factors in the stamps' success. However,
the Service suggested that stamp design and its promotion of the stamps
seem to be of less importance to a semipostal stamp's success as a fund-
raiser. The Service said that its experience indicates that a
semipostal's design plays little role in its effectiveness as a fund-
raiser. We based our conclusion, that stamp design affects the extent
to which consumers support the semipostal, on our discussions with
advocacy groups and fund-raising experts who expressed concern that the
design of the Stop Family Violence stamp--an image of a crying child--
may have negatively affected the sales of that semipostal. Therefore,
we continue to believe that the design was a factor in the stamp's
sales.
Regarding promotional activities for specific semipostals, the Service
correctly noted that its current policy requires that promotional costs
be deducted from the funds raised, which can lead to the federal
agencies receiving less semipostal proceeds. We acknowledge that HHS
chose not to have the Service develop an extensive advertising campaign
after the Service changed its policy on semipostal promotional costs,
and our finding is not meant as a criticism of the Service.
Nevertheless, the striking differences in results leads us to conclude
that the Service's promotional efforts can make a difference: the
Service spent about $1 million to promote the Breast Cancer Research
stamp, which raised $44 million in 7 years; it spent about $1 million
to promote the Heroes of 2001 stamp, which raised over $10.5 million in
2.5 years; and it spent about $77,000 to promote the Stop Family
Violence stamp, which has raised nearly $2 million in 1.6 years. Our
conclusion was reinforced by the fund-raising experts that we spoke
with who agreed that in most cases there is a connection between the
amount invested in a fund-raising effort and the amounts raised.
DOD concurred with our recommendation to improve reporting of how
semipostal proceeds are used. DOD explained that the Army will include
in its annual report to Congress on "Congressionally Directed Medical
Research Programs" a section on DOD's use of Breast Cancer Research
stamp proceeds. It noted that this report will highlight significant
advances or accomplishments that were funded, in whole or in part,
through these proceeds.
We are sending copies of this report to Senators Dianne Feinstein and
Kay Bailey Hutchison and Representative Joe Baca because of their
interest in the Breast Cancer Research stamp; Senators Hillary Rodham
Clinton and Charles E. Schumer because of their interest in the Heroes
of 2001 stamp; the Postmaster General; the Chairman of the Postal Rate
Commission; and other interested parties. We will make copies available
to others upon request. This report will also be available on our Web
site at no charge at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you have any question about this report, please contact me at (202)
512-2834 or at [Hyperlink, siggerudk@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 included
Gerald P. Barnes, Assistant Director; Kathleen Gilhooly; Molly Laster;
Heather MacLeod; Joshua Margraf; Stan Stenersen; and Gregory Wilmoth.
Signed by:
Katherine A. Siggerud:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To determine the amount of money raised by the semipostals, we analyzed
semipostal sales data provided to us by the U.S. Postal Service
(Service). For each semipostal, these data included the amount of
quarterly stamp sales and the amount of proceeds transferred to the
designated federal agencies. The data also included administrative
costs deducted by the Service from the total sales amounts, which we
have reported in appendix II.[Footnote 23] To determine the reliability
of the data we received, we obtained and reviewed specific information
on the Service's data collection methods, including data storage and
system controls. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable
for the purpose of this report.
To identify potential factors affecting the patterns of fund-raising
sales for each of the semipostals, we asked stakeholders for their
opinions regarding such factors and identified common trends. As part
of this effort, we spoke with Service officials; the American
Philatelic Society; professional fund-raising organizations; and
national advocacy groups affiliated with breast cancer, emergency
relief personnel affected by the terrorist attacks of September 11, and
domestic violence. We also spoke with Dr. Ernie Bodai, who is credited
with conceiving the idea for the Breast Cancer Research stamp, and Ms.
Betsy Mullen, who along with Dr. Bodai lobbied Congress for the stamp.
Additionally, we gathered information about Service and advocacy group
efforts to promote each of the semipostals. Table 8 identifies the
stakeholders whom we spoke with.
Table 8: Agencies, Advocacy Groups, and Organizations that GAO
Interviewed About Factors Affecting Semipostal Sales:
Breast Cancer Research Stamp;
Organizations interviewed: Women's Information Network Against Breast
Cancer, The National Breast Cancer Coalition, The Susan G. Komen Breast
Cancer Foundation, The National Institutes of Health, National Cancer
Institute, U.S. Department of Defense, Army Medical Research and
Materiel Command.
Heroes of 2001 Stamp;
Organizations interviewed: The National Fallen Firefighters Foundation,
The New York City Police Foundation, The September 11th Families
Association, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
Stop Family Violence Stamp;
Organizations interviewed: The Family Violence Prevention Fund, The
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, The National Domestic
Violence Hotline, The National Network to End Domestic Violence, The
National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.
Fund-raising organizations;
Organizations interviewed: The Association of Fundraising
Professionals, The American Red Cross, The Better Business Bureau, Wise
Giving Alliance.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
To determine how the designated federal agencies have used semipostal
proceeds and reported results, we interviewed key officials from each
agency receiving funds. These agencies included the National Cancer
Institute (NCI) within the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the
Army Medical Research and Materiel Command within the Department of
Defense (DOD), the Federal Emergency Management Agency within the
Department of Homeland Security, and the Administration for Children
and Families within the Department of Health and Human Services. We
also obtained and reviewed available agency documentation about grant
programs funded with semipostal proceeds, including grant program
development, purpose and goals, award and program guidelines, the
number and amounts of awards, reporting requirements, performance
measures, and grant outcomes. We did not assess each agency's
semipostal grant program as this was not included in the scope of our
work, nor did we evaluate grant performance measures that might be
included in agency reporting.
Finally, to describe the monetary and other resources expended by the
Service in operating and administering the semipostal program, we
obtained and analyzed the Service's data on costs of administering
semipostals as well as what costs the Service has recovered. We also
interviewed officials in the Service's Offices of Stamp Services and
Finance to determine what progress the Service has made in revising its
regulations. We spoke with officials from the Service's Legal Counsel
to determine whether the Service has established baseline costs for the
semipostal program as per our prior recommendation.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Postal Service Semipostal Costs and Semipostal Cost
Recovery Regulation Changes:
The Service has incurred over $16.5 million on operating and
administering the Breast Cancer Research, Heroes of 2001, and Stop
Family Violence stamps. Of this amount, the Service has recovered about
$1.8 million from semipostal proceeds, with the remainder recovered
through the First-Class postage rate. The Service's costs related to
the Breast Cancer Research stamp have by far eclipsed costs of the
other two semipostals, reflecting the amount of time that the stamp has
been offered for sale and other factors. In our previous work, we
expressed concern over the Service's cost recovery regulations. Since
our 2003 report, the Service has taken several steps to revise its cost
recovery regulations, and has established baseline costs to identify
and recover the Service's reasonable costs related to the semipostals.
Monetary Resources Devoted to the Semipostals:
According to Service policy, cost items recoverable from the funds
raised by semipostals include, but are not limited to, packaging costs
in excess of those for comparable stamps, printing costs for flyers or
special receipts, costs of changes to equipment, costs of developing
and executing marketing and promotional plans in excess of those for
comparable stamps, and other costs that would not normally have been
incurred for comparable stamps.[Footnote 24] Specifically, the Service
has identified 13 cost categories that it uses to track semipostal
costs.[Footnote 25] These categories include the following:
* stamp design;
* stamp production and printing;
* shipping and distribution;
* training;
* selling stamps;
* withdrawing stamps from sale;
* destroying unsold stamps;
* advertising;
* packaging stamps;
* printing flyers and special receipts;
* equipment changes;
* developing and executing marketing and promotional plans; and:
* other costs (legal, market research, and consulting).
Costs reported by the Service totaled $16.5 million through March 31,
2005 (see table 9). Costs for the Breast Cancer Research stamp
accounted for more than $11 million of this amount. The Service
determined that about $1.8 million of the total costs related to the
three stamps represented costs that were attributable specifically to
the semipostals and would not normally have been incurred for
comparable stamps, and therefore needed to be recovered. The recovered
amounts ranged from over $1 million for the Breast Cancer Research
stamp, to just over $200,000 for the Stop Family Violence stamp. The
Service reported that the majority of costs incurred by the semipostals
were covered by the First-Class postage rate, and not recovered from
the proceeds. Table 9 describes the semipostal costs incurred and
recovered by the Service.
Table 9: Semipostal Costs Incurred and Recovered by the Service,
through March 31, 2005:
Semipostal: Breast Cancer Research;
Total costs incurred by the Service: $11,160,838;
Costs covered by First-Class postage rate: $ 10,068,875;
Costs recovered from semipostal proceeds: $1,091,963.
Semipostal: Heroes of 2001;
Total costs incurred by the Service: $4,287,821;
Costs covered by First-Class postage rate: $3,764,214;
Costs recovered from semipostal proceeds: $523,607.
Semipostal: Stop Family Violence;
Total costs incurred by the Service: $1,085,370;
Costs covered by First-Class postage rate: $861,801;
Costs recovered from semipostal proceeds: $223,569.
Semipostal: Total;
Total costs incurred by the Service: $16,534,029;
Costs covered by First-Class postage rate: $14,694,890;
Costs recovered from semipostal proceeds: $1,839,139.
Source: U.S. Postal Service.
[End of table]
The specific costs recovered from surcharge revenues varied by
semipostal not only in amount, but to a degree, in the type of
expenditure as well (see tables 10 to 12, which show costs for each
semipostal).[Footnote 26] For example, when the Breast Cancer Research
and Heroes of 2001 stamps were issued, the Service had a budget to
advertise stamps. Both semipostals incurred advertising costs of about
$1 million, and because advertising costs would be incurred for
comparable stamps, the Service did not recover those costs. When the
Stop Family Violence stamp was issued, the Service reduced its overall
budget and eliminated, among other things, all stamp advertising,
including that for semipostals. Subsequently, the Service established a
policy that all costs incurred for advertising semipostals would be
deducted from the applicable semipostal's surcharge revenue. Therefore,
the advertising costs incurred ($77,000) for this semipostal were
recovered from the surcharge revenue. While policies changed for some
cost categories, they remained consistent for others such as design and
production and printing.
Table 10: Breast Cancer Research Stamp Costs Incurred and Recovered by
the Service from Inception through March 31, 2005:
Cost item: Stamp design;
Cost: $40,000;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $40,000;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0.
Cost item: Stamp production and printing;
Cost: $4,221,890;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $4,221,890;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0.
Cost item: Shipping and distribution[A];
Cost: $4,289;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $4,289;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0.
Cost item: Training;
Cost: $612,000;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $612,000;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0.
Cost item: Selling stamps (including employee salaries and
benefits)[B];
Cost: $0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0.
Cost item: Withdrawing stamp from sale[C];
Cost: $166,440;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $166,440.
Cost item: Destroying unsold stamps[C];
Cost: $0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0.
Cost item: Advertising;
Cost: $888,000;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $888,000;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0.
Cost item: Packaging stamps;
Cost: $3,510,496;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $3,219,696;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $290,800.
Cost item: Printing flyers and special receipts[D];
Cost: $238,000;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $238,000.
Cost item: Equipment changes;
Cost: $359,000;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $176,000;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $183,000.
Cost item: Developing and executing marketing and promotional plans;
Cost: $1,006,000;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $851,000;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $155,000.
Other costs:
Cost item: Legal;
Cost: $22,000;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $22,000.
Cost item: Market research;
Cost: $56,000;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $56,000;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0.
Cost item: Consulting;
Cost: $8,000;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $8,000.
Cost item: Field promotion events > $3,000;
Cost: $28,723;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $28,723.
Total;
Cost: $11,160,838;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $10,068,875;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $1,091,963.
Source: U.S. Postal Service.
[A] The process of distributing Breast Cancer Research stamps would not
normally differ from those incurred for comparable stamps; therefore,
the Service does not withhold distribution costs from the surcharge
revenue.
[B] The Service currently does not have a system in place to track the
costs of selling stamps, and because Breast Cancer Research stamps are
a small percentage of total stamp sales, it would be extraordinarily
difficult and costly to attempt to study, analyze, and measure these
costs in a live environment. Moreover, existing data indicate that
there is no material difference in the costs for selling semipostal and
other stamps at the retail window.
[C] Costs were incurred due to the temporary removal and later
redeployment of the Breast Cancer Research stamp from vending machines
from December 31, 2003, to January 26, 2004 (pending congressional
authorization to extend sales of the stamp). However, the procedures
for withdrawal of stamps from sale are the same for all stamp stock,
regardless of whether the stamp is a commemorative, special, or
semipostal; therefore, additional costs would not be incurred for
normal withdrawal of the Breast Cancer Research stamp (until the stamp
is permanently withdrawn from sale), and the costs will not be
recovered.
[D] Receipts initially were a different format than the standard postal
receipt, and the cost was recovered. Receipts now used are a standard
form available for general use. The printing cost is no longer specific
to the Breast Cancer Research stamp, and costs are not recovered.
[End of table]
Table 11: Heroes of 2001 Stamp Costs Incurred and Recovered by the
Service from Inception through March 31, 2005:
Cost item: Stamp design;
Cost: $44,250;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $44,250;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0.
Cost item: Stamp production and printing;
Cost: $1,468,600;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $1,468,600;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0.
Cost item: Shipping and distribution[A];
Cost: $0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0.
Cost item: Training;
Cost: $0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0.
Cost item: Selling stamps (including employee salaries and
benefits)[B];
Cost: $0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0.
Cost item: Withdrawing stamp from sale;
Cost: $0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0.
Cost item: Destroying unsold stamps;
Cost: $0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0.
Cost item: Advertising;
Cost: $1,109,461;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $1,109,461;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0.
Cost item: Packaging stamps;
Cost: $1,288,758;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $995,857;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $292,901.
Cost item: Printing flyers and special receipts;
Cost: $0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0.
Cost item: Equipment changes;
Cost: $0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0.
Cost item: Developing and executing marketing and promotional plans;
Cost: $330,084;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $146,046;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $184,038.
Other costs:
Cost item: Legal;
Cost: $0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0.
Cost item: Market research;
Cost: $0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0.
Cost item: Consulting;
Cost: $0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0.
Cost item: Field promotion events > $3,000;
Cost: $46,668;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $46,668.
Cost item: Total;
Cost: $4,287,821;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $3,764,214;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $523,607.
Source: U.S. Postal Service.
[A] The process of distributing the Heroes of 2001 stamps would not
normally differ from those incurred for comparable stamps. Therefore
after reviewing the costs associated with shipping and distribution of
the Heroes of 2001 stamp, there are no material differences or specific
additional expenses as a result of providing the Heroes of 2001 stamp
to postal units and, therefore, the Service does not withhold
distribution costs from the surcharge revenue. The Service does not
track shipping and distribution costs by stamp issue.
[B] The Service does not have a system in place to track the cost of
selling stamps, and because Heroes of 2001 stamps are a small
percentage of total stamp sales, it would be extraordinarily difficult
and costly to attempt to study, analyze and measure these costs in a
live environment. Moreover, existing data indicate that there is no
material difference in the costs for selling semipostal and other
stamps at the retail window.
[End of table]
Table 12: Stop Family Violence Stamp Costs Incurred and Recovered by
the Service from Inception through March 31, 2005:
Cost item: Stamp design;
Cost: $39,750;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $39,750;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0.
Cost item: Stamp production and printing;
Cost: $285,000;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $285,000;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0.
Cost item: Shipping and distribution[A];
Cost: $0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0.
Cost item: Training;
Cost: $0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0.
Cost item: Selling stamps (including employee salaries and
benefits)[B];
Cost: $0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0.
Cost item: Withdrawing stamp from sale;
Cost: $0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0.
Cost item: Destroying unsold stamps;
Cost: $0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0.
Cost item: Advertising[C];
Cost: $77,069;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $77,069.
Cost item: Packaging stamps;
Cost: $663,873;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $523,873;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $140,000.
Cost item: Printing flyers and special receipts;
Cost: $0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0.
Cost item: Equipment changes;
Cost: $0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0.
Cost item: Developing and executing marketing and promotional plans;
Cost: $13,178;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $13,178;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0.
Other costs:
Cost item: Legal;
Cost: $0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0.
Cost item: Market research;
Cost: $0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0.
Cost item: Consulting;
Cost: $0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0.
Cost item: Field promotion events > $3,000;
Cost: $6,500;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $6,500.
Cost item: Total;
Cost: $1,085,370;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $861,801;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $223,569.
Source: U.S. Postal Service.
[A] The process of distributing Stop Family Violence stamps would not
normally differ from those incurred for comparable stamps. Therefore
after reviewing the costs associated with shipping and distribution of
the Stop Family Violence stamp there are no material differences or
specific additional expenses as a result of providing the Stop Family
Violence stamp to postal units and, therefore, the Service does not
withhold distribution costs from the surcharge revenue. The Service
does not track shipping and distribution costs by stamp issue.
[B] The Service does not have a system in place to track these costs
and because Stop Family Violence stamps are a small percentage of total
stamp sales it would be extraordinarily difficult and costly to attempt
to study, analyze, and measure these costs in a live environment.
Moreover, existing data indicate that there is no material difference
in the costs for selling semipostal and other stamps at the retail
window.
[C] Advertising costs are recovered from the differential revenue only
for the Stop Family Violence stamp. Beginning in 2003, the Service made
a determination not to advertise comparable commemorative stamps. As a
result, the advertising costs for the Stop Family Violence stamp have
been recovered from differential revenue because they were incurred
after the policy became effective. All of these costs are recovered,
because the cost for this line item for comparable stamps would be
zero. Advertising costs for previously issued semipostals were not
deducted from differential revenue because they were incurred before
the policy became effective.
[End of table]
Progress in Revising Regulations Related to Costs:
In our September 2003 report on the Breast Cancer Research stamp, we
recommended that the Service reexamine and, as necessary revise its
cost-recovery regulations to ensure that the Service establishes
baseline costs for comparable stamps and uses these baselines to
identify and recover costs from the Breast Cancer Research stamp's
surcharge revenue. The Service has taken several steps to revise its
regulations including the following:
1. The final rule in 39 C.F.R. §551.8, in effect since February 5,
2004, clarifies Service cost offset policies and procedures for the
semipostal program. Specific changes include:
* expanding the types of "comparable stamps" that could be used in
conducting cost comparisons to allow other types of stamps (such as
definitive or special issue stamps) to serve as a baseline for cost
comparisons;
* allowing for the use of different comparable stamps for specific cost
comparisons;
* clarifying that costs that do not need to be tracked include not only
costs that are too burdensome to track, but also those costs that are
too burdensome to estimate; and:
* clarifying that several types of costs could be recovered when they
materially exceed the costs of comparable stamps.
2. The Service also amended the regulation 39 C.F.R. §551.8(e)
effective February 9, 2005, to delete the word "may" from the cost
items recoverable from the surcharge revenue, making the recovery of
the costs listed mandatory rather than optional.
Additionally, we have recommended that the Service establish and
publish baseline costs to provide assurance that the Service is
recovering all reasonable costs of the Breast Cancer Research stamp
from the surcharge revenue. In response, on June 25, 2004, the Service
provided a copy of its baseline analysis to both Congress and GAO in a
report entitled United States Postal Service: Response to the General
Accounting Office Recommendations on the Breast Cancer Research Stamp.
In this analysis, the Office of Stamp Services and Office of Accounting
identified comparable stamps and created a profile of the typical costs
characteristics, thereby establishing a baseline for Breast Cancer
Research stamp cost recovery. Additionally, Service officials reported
that they would use the baseline for the other semipostals.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Semipostal Design:
Congress has selected the subject matter for the three semipostals
issued to date. In each case, the Service has then applied the same
design process used for regular commemorative stamps. According to
Service officials, most subjects that appear on commemorative stamps
are the result of suggestions sent in by the public, which number about
50,000 annually. In the case of commemorative stamps, the Postmaster
General determines what stamps will be produced with the assistance of
the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee (CSAC), which works on behalf of
the Postmaster General to evaluate the merits of all stamp proposals
and selects artwork that best represents the subject matter. Since the
three existing semipostals were mandated by Congress, the Service and
CSAC were not involved in selecting the subject matter. However, the
rest of the stamp design process was the same, with CSAC determining
what design would be used, and the Postmaster General giving final
approval. Figure 8 shows the three semipostals.
Figure 8: The Breast Cancer Research, Heroes of 2001, and Stop Family
Violence Stamps:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Breast Cancer Research Stamp:
The Breast Cancer Research stamp was designed by Ethel Kessler of
Bethesda, MD, and features the phrases "Fund the Fight" and "Find a
Cure." Whitney Sherman of Baltimore provided the illustration of Diana,
mythical goddess of the hunt, who is reaching behind her head to pull
an arrow from her quiver to fend off an enemy--in this case, breast
cancer. This image reflects the same position that a woman assumes for
a breast self examination and mammography. The various colors represent
the diversity of Americans affected by breast cancer.
Heroes of 2001 Stamp:
The Heroes of 2001 stamp was designed by Derry Noyes of Washington,
D.C., and features a detail of a photograph by Thomas E. Franklin. The
photograph shows three firefighters, each of whom participated in the
September 11 rescue efforts, raising the U.S. flag in the ruins of the
World Trade Center at Ground Zero in New York. The flag had been
discovered in a boat near the area and was raised on a pole found in
the rubble. The space between the foreground and background of the
picture, which was about 100 yards, helps convey the enormity of the
debris and the task at hand. According to the photographer, the raising
of the flag symbolizes the strength of the firefighters and of the
American people battling the unimaginable. All three firefighters and
the photographer attended the stamp's unveiling ceremony, which marked
the 6-month anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
Stop Family Violence Stamp:
When art director Carl T. Herrman selected Monique Blais, a six-year-
old from Santa Barbara, CA, to model for a photograph that was to be
the original design of the Stop Family Violence stamp, his intention
was to photograph Blais erasing a domestic violence image from a
chalkboard--symbolizing eradication of the issue. During a break in the
photo session, however, and without prompting, Blais began drawing her
own picture of what she thought best represented domestic violence.
Photographed by Philip Channing, Blais's drawing became the basis for
the final Stop Family Violence stamp design, which was later selected
by a jury at the 34th Asiago International Prize for Philatelic Art, in
Asiago, Italy as the most beautiful social awareness-themed stamp
issued during 2003. The young artist attended the stamp's unveiling
ceremony at the White House in 2003.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: NIH Breast Cancer Research Awards Funded with Breast
Cancer Research Stamp Proceeds:
As of April 2005, NIH had awarded 106 breast cancer research grants
totaling about $16.1 million using proceeds from the Breast Cancer
Research stamp. Individual awards ranged from $47,250 to $616,010 and
averaged about $151,652. Funds received from sales of the Breast Cancer
Research stamp were initially used to fund breast cancer research under
NCI's "Insight Awards to Stamp Out Breast Cancer" initiative, according
to NIH officials. In 2003, NCI's Executive Committee decided to direct
the funds to a newly approved Breast Cancer Research stamp initiative
entitled "Exceptional Opportunities in Breast Cancer Research." Grants
awarded under each program are listed below.
Insight Awards:
The Insight Awards were designed to fund high-risk exploration by
scientists who are employed outside the federal government and who
conduct breast cancer research at their institutions. NCI distributed
86 Insight Awards at a total of about $9.5 million. Most of the awards
were for 2-year periods. Individual awards ranged from $47,250 to
$142,500 and averaged $111,242, discounting a one-time supplement of
$4,300. Table 13 provides information about each Insight Award funded
with Breast Cancer Research stamp proceeds, including the fiscal year
of the award, sponsoring institution, principal investigator, research
area, and the amount of the award.
Table 13: Insight Awards to Stamp Out Breast Cancer Funded with
Proceeds, as of April 2005, from Breast Cancer Research Stamp Sales:
Fiscal year: 2000;
Institution: Albany Medical College;
Principal investigator: Bennett;
Research area: Treatment;
Amount: $116,250.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Institution: Baylor College of Medicine;
Principal investigator: Rosen;
Research area: Metastasis;
Amount: $78,488.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Institution: Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center;
Principal investigator: Junghans;
Research area: Biology;
Amount: $130,500.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Institution: Center for Molecular Medicine and Immunology/Garden State
Cancer Center;
Principal investigator: Blumenthal;
Research area: Treatment;
Amount: $142,500.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Institution: Clemson University;
Principal investigator: Chen;
Research area: Biology/metastasis;
Amount: $105,000.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Institution: Columbia University Health Sciences;
Principal investigator: Swergold;
Research area: Mutagenesis;
Amount: $127,875.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Institution: Dana-Farber Cancer Institute;
Principal investigator: Kufe;
Research area: Biology/tumorigenesis;
Amount: $126,138.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Institution: Fox Chase Cancer Center;
Principal investigator: Russo;
Research area: Tumorigenesis;
Amount: $126,866.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Institution: Georgetown University;
Principal investigator: Wong;
Research area: Biology/diagnosis;
Amount: $116,950.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Institution: Hadassah University Hospital;
Principal investigator: Vlodavsky;
Research area: Metastasis;
Amount: $61,000.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Institution: Henry M. Jackson Foundation;
Principal investigator: Lechleider;
Research area: Biology/metastasis;
Amount: $74,000.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Institution: Institute for Cancer Research;
Principal investigator: Yeung;
Research area: Prevention/biology;
Amount: $126,866.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Institution: Long Island Jewish Medical Center;
Principal investigator: Shi;
Research area: Treatment/nutrition;
Amount: $116,616.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Institution: Massachusetts General Hospital;
Principal investigator: Haber;
Research area: Tumorigenesis;
Amount: $129,500.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Institution: Mount Sinai School of Medicine;
Principal investigator: Kretzschmar;
Research area: Metastasis;
Amount: $125,387.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Institution: Schepens Eye Research Institute;
Principal investigator: D'Amore;
Research area: Biology/tumorigenesis;
Amount: $121,500.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Institution: State University of New York;
Principal investigator: Muti;
Research area: Treatment/nutrition;
Amount: $68,950.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Institution: Thomas Jefferson University;
Principal investigator: Sauter;
Research area: Diagnosis;
Amount: $117,851.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Institution: University of California, Irvine;
Principal investigator: Blumberg;
Research area: Treatment;
Amount: $105,946.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Institution: University of California, San Francisco;
Principal investigator: Collins;
Research area: Treatment;
Amount: $110,625.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Institution: University of Hawaii;
Principal investigator: Gotay;
Research area: Treatment;
Amount: $101,000.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Institution: University of Illinois at Chicago;
Principal investigator: Westbrook;
Research area: Metastasis;
Amount: $116,475.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Institution: University of Massachusetts, Amherst;
Principal investigator: Jerry;
Research area: Biology/tumorigenesis;
Amount: $115,125.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Institution: University of Melbourne;
Principal investigator: Thompson;
Research area: Metastasis;
Amount: $75,000.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Institution: University of Pennsylvania;
Principal investigator: Lemmon;
Research area: Biology/treatment;
Amount: $118,875.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Institution: University of Pennsylvania;
Principal investigator: Radice;
Research area: Metastasis;
Amount: $118,875.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Institution: University of Pittsburgh;
Principal investigator: Nichols;
Research area: Biology/treatment;
Amount: $112,500.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Institution: University of Utah;
Principal investigator: Grissom;
Research area: Treatment;
Amount: $112,125.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Institution: University of Vermont;
Principal investigator: Krag;
Research area: Treatment;
Amount: $113,250.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Institution: Virginia Mason Research Center;
Principal investigator: Nelson;
Research area: Biology/treatment;
Amount: $47,250.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Institution: Wake Forest University;
Principal investigator: Shelness;
Research area: Treatment;
Amount: $108,750.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Institution: Yale University;
Principal investigator: Zhang;
Research area: Biology/tumorigenesis;
Amount: $122,625.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: Albany Medical College of Union University;
Principal investigator: Bennett;
Research area: Treatment;
Amount: $116,250.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: Baylor College of Medicine;
Principal investigator: Rosen;
Research area: Metastasis;
Amount: $109,322.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center;
Principal investigator: Junghans;
Research area: Biology;
Amount: $128,509.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: Clemson University;
Principal investigator: Chen;
Research area: Biology/metastasis;
Amount: $105,000.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: Columbia University Health Sciences;
Principal investigator: Fisher;
Research area: Treatment;
Amount: $127,875.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: Columbia University Health Sciences;
Principal investigator: Swergold;
Research area: Mutagenesis;
Amount: $127,875.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: Dana-Farber Cancer Institute;
Principal investigator: Garber;
Research area: Prevention;
Amount: $128,750.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: Dana-Farber Cancer Institute;
Principal investigator: Kufe;
Research area: Biology/tumorigenesis;
Amount: $99,297.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: Fox Chase Cancer Center;
Principal investigator: Russo;
Research area: Tumorigenesis;
Amount: $126,133.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: Garden State Cancer Center;
Principal investigator: Blumenthal;
Research area: Treatment;
Amount: $142,500.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: Georgetown University;
Principal investigator: Dickson;
Research area: Tumorigenesis;
Amount: $116,600.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: Georgetown University;
Principal investigator: Byers;
Research area: Prognosis/biology;
Amount: $116,550.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: Georgetown University;
Principal investigator: Wong;
Research area: Biology/diagnosis;
Amount: $116,400.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: Hadassah University Hospital;
Principal investigator: Vlodavsky;
Research area: Metastasis;
Amount: $61,000.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of
Military Medicine;
Principal investigator: Lechleider;
Research area: Biology/metastasis;
Amount: $74,000.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: Institute for Cancer Research;
Principal investigator: Yeung;
Research area: Prevention/biology;
Amount: $126,133.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: Johns Hopkins University;
Principal investigator: Fedarko;
Research area: Metastasis;
Amount: $122,750.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: Long Island Jewish Medical Center;
Principal investigator: Shi;
Research area: Treatment/nutrition;
Amount: $117,050.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: Massachusetts General Hospital;
Principal investigator: Haber;
Research area: Tumorigenesis;
Amount: $127,500.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: Medical Diagnostic Research Foundation;
Principal investigator: Chance;
Research area: Diagnosis;
Amount: $92,500.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: Mount Sinai School of Medicine of New York University;
Principal investigator: Kretzschmar;
Research area: Metastasis;
Amount: $127,125.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: Northwestern University;
Principal investigator: Jordan;
Research area: Prevention;
Amount: $110,250.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: Schepens Eye Research Institute;
Principal investigator: D'Amore;
Research area: Biology/tumorigenesis;
Amount: $121,500.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: Stanford University;
Principal investigator: Contag;
Research area: Diagnosis/metastasis;
Amount: $119,597.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: Thomas Jefferson University;
Principal investigator: Sauter;
Research area: Diagnosis;
Amount: $119,148.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: University of California, Irvine;
Principal investigator: Radany;
Research area: Biology;
Amount: $112,800.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: University of California, Irvine;
Principal investigator: Blumberg;
Research area: Treatment;
Amount: $112,800.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: University of California, San Francisco;
Principal investigator: Collins;
Research area: Treatment;
Amount: $110,625.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: University of Hawaii, Manoa;
Principal investigator: Gotay;
Research area: Treatment;
Amount: $99,411.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: University of Illinois;
Principal investigator: Westbrook;
Research area: Metastasis;
Amount: $115,959.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: University of Massachusetts, Amherst;
Principal investigator: Jerry;
Research area: Biology/tumorigenesis;
Amount: $112,431.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: University of Melbourne;
Principal investigator: Thompson;
Research area: Metastasis;
Amount: $75,000.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: University of Minnesota, Twin Cities;
Principal investigator: Sheaff;
Research area: Biology/prevention;
Amount: $111,375.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: University of Pennsylvania;
Principal investigator: Lemmon;
Research area: Biology/treatment;
Amount: $118,875.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: University of Pennsylvania;
Principal investigator: Radice;
Research area: Metastasis;
Amount: $118,875.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: University of Pittsburgh;
Principal investigator: Nichols;
Research area: Biology/treatment;
Amount: $112,323.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: University of Utah;
Principal investigator: Grissom;
Research area: Treatment;
Amount: $112,500.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: University of Vermont and State Agricultural College;
Principal investigator: Krag;
Research area: Treatment;
Amount: $112,302.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: Virginia Mason Research Center;
Principal investigator: Nelson;
Research area: Biology/treatment;
Amount: $47,250.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: Wake Forest University;
Principal investigator: Shelness;
Research area: Treatment;
Amount: $108,375.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: Wayne State University;
Principal investigator: Fernandez-Madri;
Research area: Diagnosis;
Amount: $111,750.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: Whitehead Institute for Biomed Res;
Principal investigator: Weinberg;
Research area: Biology;
Amount: $116,250.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: Yale University;
Principal investigator: Zhang;
Research area: Biology/tumorigenesis;
Amount: $122,625.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Institution: Columbia University Health Sciences;
Principal investigator: Fisher;
Research area: Treatment;
Amount: $122,799.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Institution: Dana-Farber Cancer Institute;
Principal investigator: Garber;
Research area: Prevention;
Amount: $128,375.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Institution: Fox Chase Cancer Center;
Principal investigator: Russo;
Research area: Tumorigenesis;
Amount: $4,300.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Institution: Georgetown University;
Principal investigator: Dickson;
Research area: Tumorigenesis;
Amount: $116,400.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Institution: Georgetown University;
Principal investigator: Byers;
Research area: Prognosis/biology;
Amount: $116,400.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Institution: Johns Hopkins University;
Principal investigator: Fedarko;
Research area: Metastasis;
Amount: $114,274.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Institution: Medical Diagnostic Research Foundation;
Principal investigator: Chance;
Research area: Diagnosis;
Amount: $103,350.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Institution: University of California, Irvine;
Principal investigator: Radany;
Research area: Biology;
Amount: $112,800.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Institution: University of Minnesota, Twin Cities;
Principal investigator: Sheaff;
Research area: Biology/prevention;
Amount: $111,375.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Institution: Wayne State University;
Principal investigator: Fernandez-Madrid;
Research area: Diagnosis;
Amount: $111,750.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Institution: Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research;
Principal investigator: Weinberg;
Research area: Biology;
Amount: $116,250.
Fiscal year: Total insight awards;
Principal investigator: [Empty];
Research area: [Empty];
Amount: $9,459,871.
[End of table]
Sources: NCI, NIH.
Exceptional Opportunity Awards:
The Exceptional Opportunities were designed to advance breast cancer
research by funding high-quality, peer-reviewed, breast cancer grant
applications that are outside the current funding ability of NCI. When
NIH began awarding these grants, the number of annual awards decreased
from about 29 per year to 10, while the average amount tripled. In all,
NCI dispersed Breast Cancer Research stamp proceeds to 20 Exceptional
Opportunities awards, each funded for a maximum of 4 years. The awards
totaled about $6.6 million and covered research areas that included
prevention, diagnosis, biology, and treatment. Individual awards ranged
from $81,000 to $616,010 and averaged $330,763. Table 14 provides
information about each Exceptional Opportunities Award, including the
fiscal year of the award, sponsoring institution, principal
investigator, research area, and the amount of the award.
Table 14: Exceptional Opportunities in Breast Cancer Research Funded
with Proceeds, as of April 2005, from Breast Cancer Research Stamp
Sales:
Fiscal year: 2003;
Institution: Columbia University Health Sciences;
Principal investigator: Harlap;
Research area: Prevention;
Amount: $616,010.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Institution: Johns Hopkins University;
Principal investigator: Ouwerkerk;
Research area: Diagnosis;
Amount: $154,852.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Institution: Northwestern University;
Principal investigator: Huang;
Research area: Diagnosis/Biology;
Amount: $389,482.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Institution: St. Vincent's Institute of Med. Res;
Principal investigator: Price;
Research area: Biology/treatment;
Amount: $108,000.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Institution: University of California Irvine;
Principal investigator: Neuhausen;
Research area: Biology/prevention;
Amount: $545,271.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Institution: University of Pennsylvania;
Principal investigator: Lee;
Research area: Treatment/Biology;
Amount: $198,759.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Institution: University of Pittsburgh at Pittsburgh;
Principal investigator: Niener;
Research area: Diagnosis;
Amount: $405,009.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Institution: University of Texas Medical Br Galveston;
Principal investigator: Lu;
Research area: Prevention/Biology;
Amount: $532,409.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Institution: University of Toronto;
Principal investigator: Vogel;
Research area: Biology/treatment;
Amount: $81,000.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Institution: University of Wisconsin Madison;
Principal investigator: Schuler;
Research area: Biology/treatment;
Amount: $268,791.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Institution: Columbia University Health Sciences;
Principal investigator: Harlap;
Research area: Prevention;
Amount: $604,299.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Institution: Johns Hopkins University;
Principal investigator: Ouwerkerk;
Research area: Diagnosis;
Amount: $157,176.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Institution: Northwestern University;
Principal investigator: Huang;
Research area: Diagnosis/Biology;
Amount: $389,522.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Institution: St. Vincent's Institute of Med. Res;
Principal investigator: Price;
Research area: Biology/treatment;
Amount: $108,000.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Institution: University of California Irvine;
Principal investigator: Neuhausen;
Research area: Biology/prevention;
Amount: $545,576.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Institution: University of Pennsylvania;
Principal investigator: Lee;
Research area: Treatment/Biology;
Amount: $198,759.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Institution: University of Pittsburgh at Pittsburgh;
Principal investigator: Niener;
Research area: Diagnosis;
Amount: $410,688.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Institution: University of Texas Medical Br. Galveston;
Principal investigator: Lu;
Research area: Prevention/Biology;
Amount: $566,037.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Institution: University of Toronto;
Principal investigator: Vogel;
Research area: Biology/treatment;
Amount: $81,000.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Institution: University of Wisconsin Madison;
Principal investigator: Schuler;
Research area: Biology/treatment;
Amount: $254,625.
Fiscal year: Total exceptional opportunities;
Principal investigator: [Empty].
[End of table]
Sources: NCI, NIH.
[End of section]
Appendix V: DOD Breast Cancer Research Awards Funded with Breast Cancer
Research Stamp Proceeds:
As of April 2005, DOD had awarded 27 breast cancer research grants
totaling about $11 million using proceeds from the Breast Cancer
Research stamp. Individual awards ranged from $5,000 to $767,171 and
averaged $400,405. DOD applies Breast Cancer Research stamp proceeds to
its Breast Cancer Research Program in order to fund Idea Awards, which
are grants that focus on innovative approaches to breast cancer
research and cover research areas such as genetics, biology, imaging,
epidemiology, immunology, and therapy. According to DOD officials,
about $500,000 of the transferred funds had been used for overhead
costs.[Footnote 27] Table 15 provides information about each Idea Award
funded with Breast Cancer Research stamp proceeds, including the fiscal
year of the award, sponsoring institution, principal investigator,
research area, and the amount of the award.
Table 15: Idea Awards for Breast Cancer Research Funded with Proceeds,
as of April 2005, from Breast Cancer Research Stamp Sales:
Fiscal year: 1999;
Institution: University of Texas, SW Medical Center;
Principal investigator: White;
Research area: Molecular Biology;
Amount: $334,094.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Institution: University of Arkansas;
Principal investigator: Shah;
Research area: Cell Biology;
Amount: $279,000.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Institution: University of California, Davis;
Principal investigator: Heyer;
Research area: Molecular Biology;
Amount: $111,444.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Institution: Garvan Institute;
Principal investigator: Daly;
Research area: Cell Biology;
Amount: $283,649.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Institution: Garvan Institute;
Principal investigator: Musgrove;
Research area: Cell Biology;
Amount: $222,652.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Institution: Texas A&M University;
Principal investigator: Wang;
Research area: Imaging;
Amount: $317,510.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Institution: Scripps Institute;
Principal investigator: Deuel;
Research area: Molecular Biology;
Amount: $5,000.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Institution: Tel Aviv University;
Principal investigator: Wreschner;
Research area: Cell Biology;
Amount: $225,000.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Institution: Burnham Institute;
Principal investigator: Adamson;
Research area: Cell Biology;
Amount: $578,183.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Institution: University of Arizona;
Principal investigator: Akporiaye;
Research area: Immunology;
Amount: $454,500.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Institution: University of Toronto;
Principal investigator: Penn;
Research area: Molecular Biology;
Amount: $296,142.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: University of California, Davis;
Principal investigator: Carraway;
Research area: Cell Biology;
Amount: $427,225.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: Purdue University;
Principal investigator: Geahlen;
Research area: Cell Biology;
Amount: $425,425.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: St. Luke's -Roosevelt Hospital Center;
Principal investigator: Rosner;
Research area: Cell Biology;
Amount: $454,181.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: University of Texas, SW Medical Center;
Principal investigator: Chaudhary;
Research area: Cell Biology;
Amount: $312,434.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: Vanderbilt University;
Principal investigator: Cai;
Research area: Epidemiology/Genetics;
Amount: $560,144.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Institution: University of South Florida;
Principal investigator: Dou;
Research area: Therapy;
Amount: $491,999.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Institution: Fox Chase Cancer Center;
Principal investigator: Godwin;
Research area: Genetics;
Amount: $504,000.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Institution: Yale University;
Principal investigator: Perkins;
Research area: Genetics;
Amount: $490,500.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Institution: International Agency for Cancer Research;
Principal investigator: Kaaks;
Research area: Epidemiology/Genetics;
Amount: $367,639.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Institution: University of California, San Francisco;
Principal investigator: Ziv;
Research area: Epidemiology/Genetics;
Amount: $767,171.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Institution: Yale University;
Principal investigator: Chung;
Research area: Diagnostics;
Amount: $490,447.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Institution: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory;
Principal investigator: Yaswen;
Research area: Molecular Biology;
Amount: $508,790.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Institution: Vanderbilt University;
Principal investigator: Giorgio;
Research area: Diagnosis;
Amount: $453,000.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Institution: Northern California Cancer Center;
Principal investigator: Clarke;
Research area: Epidemiology/Genetics;
Amount: $588,738.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Institution: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory;
Principal investigator: Bissell;
Research area: Cell Biology;
Amount: $386,569.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Institution: University of Pennsylvania;
Principal investigator: Lemmon;
Research area: Therapy;
Amount: $475,500.
Total;
Amount: $10,810,936.
Sources: U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, DOD.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Postal Service:
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE:
THOMAS G. DAY:
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT:
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS:
September 7, 2005:
Ms. Katherine A. Siggerud:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548-0001:
Dear Ms. Siggerud:
Thank you for providing the U.S. Postal Service with the opportunity to
review and comment on the draft report titled U. S Postal Service:
Factors Affecting Fundraising Stamp Sales Suggest Lessons Learned (GAO-
05-953).
Since 1998, when Congress directed the Postal Service to issue the
first semipostal stamp, to raise funds for breast cancer research, the
Service has worked to develop and promulgate the policies necessary to
account for and transfer the funds raised to the designated recipient
agencies. The policies we developed in issuing the Breast Cancer
Research stamp have been applied to the Heroes of 2001 and the Stop
Family Violence semipostal stamps. We anticipate that as future
semipostal stamps are issued, we would employ the same accounting and
funds transfer policies as we have for these three semipostals.
In general, we agree with the four key factors which the report cites
as affecting stamp sales. Clearly, and most importantly, a charitable
cause's widespread popularity and public support is essential for a
semipostal stamp's success as an effective fundraiser. The active and
continuing involvement of the cause's advocacy group(s) in encouraging
the purchase of the semipostal is the second key factor in a stamp's
success. The last two factors, stamp design and promotion of the stamp
by the Postal Service, seem to us to be of less importance to a
semipostal stamp's success as a fundraiser. A semipostal's design, from
our experience, seems to play little role in its effectiveness as a
fundraiser. As the report states, "According to the Association of
Fundraising Professionals officials, the amounts raised by each
semipostal are consistent with the popularity of the type of
fundraising cause represented on the stamp." It comes as no surprise
therefore, that the Breast Cancer Research stamp sells better than the
Stop Family Violence stamp -no matter the design. People buy
semipostals to support the causes they identify with; whether they find
the stamp's design personally appealing is less of a factor. With
regard to the effectiveness of our promotional activities for specific
semipostals, since it is our policy to deduct our promotional costs
from the amount we pass through to the recipient agencies, that can
mean less money for the agencies than when the stamp's promotion is
provided -and paid for -by the advocacy groups themselves.
Since the recommendation regarding information that should be provided
by recipient agencies does not apply to the Postal Service, we have no
comment. The Postal Service will continue to report in our annual
Comprehensive Statement on Postal Operations for each semipostal stamp
the sales during the year, the total number of stamps sold, the
Service's incremental costs that were deducted from the total sales
amount, and the net contribution that we transferred to the recipient
agencies.
If you or your staff wish to discuss any of these comments further, I
am available at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Thomas G. Day:
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Defense:
UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE:
COMPTROLLER:
1100 DEFENSE PENTAGON:
WASHINGTON, DC 20301-1100:
SEP 9 2005:
Ms. Katherine A. Siggerud:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
U. S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Siggerud:
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report, "U.S. Postal Service: Factors
Affecting Fundraising Stamp Sales Suggest Lessons Learned," dated
August 12, 2005 (GAO Code 5420561GA0-OS-953).
The Department concurs with the draft report. The Army will include in
its annual report to the Congress on "Congressionally Directed Medical
Research Programs" a separate section on the Department's use of
funding obtained from the Breast Cancer Research Stamp (semipostal
stamp} program. This section will include information on the amount of
funding received, an account of how the funds were allocated or
otherwise used, and a report of any significant advances or
accomplishments that were funded, in whole or in part, through the
funds received from the semipostal stamp program. The DoD appreciates
the opportunity to comment on the draft report.
Signed for:
Tina W. Jonas:
GAO DRAFT REPORT --DATED AUGUST 12, 2005 GAO CODE 542056/GAO-05-953:
"U.S. POSTAL SERVICE: FACTORS AFFECTING FUNDRAISING STAMP SALES SUGGEST
LESSONS LEARNED"
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMMENTS TO THE RECOMMENDATION:
RECOMMENDATION: The GAO recommended that the Department of Defense,
National Institute of Health, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and
Health and Human Services improve reporting of how semipostal proceeds
are being used by issuing annual reports to the congressional
committees with jurisdiction over the Service, as is currently required
for agencies that are to receive semipostal proceeds under the Semi
postal Authorization Act. Reports should include information on the
amount of funding received, accounting for how the funds were allocated
or otherwise use, and any significant advances or accomplishments that
were funded, in whole or in part, out of the funds received through the
semipostal program. (page 35/GAO Draft Report):
DOD RESPONSE: The Department concurs with the recommendation. The
annual report to Congress titled, "Congressionally Directed Medical
Research Programs" that the Army prepares will be updated to include a
separate section on the use of Breast Cancer Research Stamp funds. The
Breast Cancer Research Stamp portion of the annual report will include
all the information identified in the audit recommendation on the
amount of funding received, an account of how the funds were allocated
or otherwise used, and a report of any significant advances or
accomplishments that were funded, in whole or in part, out of the funds
received through the semipostal program.
[End of section]
(542056):
FOOTNOTES
[1] Prior to transferring the proceeds to agencies, the Service is to
deduct costs attributable to the semipostals that would not normally be
incurred for comparable stamps.
[2] The Stamp Out Breast Cancer Act (P.L. 105-41) required that the
Service issue a Breast Cancer Research stamp. The 9/11 Heroes Stamp Act
of 2001 and the Stamp Out Domestic Violence Act of 2001 mandated that
the Service issue semipostals for these causes. Both the Heroes of 2001
and Stop Family Violence stamps were authorized as part of the Treasury
and General Government Appropriations Act, 2002 (P.L. 107-67).
[3] P.L. 106-253.
[4] P.L. 105-41.
[5] GAO, Breast Cancer Research Stamp: Millions Raised for Research,
but Better Cost Recovery Criteria Needed, GAO/GGD-00-80 (Washington,
D.C.: Apr. 28, 2000) and Breast Cancer Research Stamp: Effective Fund-
Raiser, but Better Reporting and Cost-Recovery Criteria Needed, GAO-03-
1021 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2003).
[6] On September 28, 2005, the Senate passed S. 37, which reauthorizes
P.L. 105-41 through December 31, 2007.
[7] Both acts were included as part of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2002 (P.L. 107-67).
[8] H.R. 560 was introduced on February 2, 2005.
[9] H.R. 3750 was introduced on Septembert 13, 2005.
[10] For purposes of analyzing semipostal sales over time, we used the
Service's fiscal calendar.
[11] The Stop Family Violence stamp was chosen by an international jury
at the 34th Asiago International Prize for Philatelic Art as the most
beautiful social awareness-themed stamp issued during 2003. The award
was announced under the High Patronage of the President of the Republic
of Italy.
[12] See appendix III for information about each of the semipostal
designs.
[13] The Family Violence Prevention and Services Act defines family
violence as any act or threatened act of violence, including any
forceful detention of an individual, which results or threatens to
result in physical injury; and is committed by a person against another
individual (including an elderly person) to whom such person is or was
related by blood or marriage or otherwise legally related or with whom
such person was lawfully residing. Advocacy groups we spoke with
defined domestic violence as violence committed by an intimate partner
against another intimate partner (i.e., spouse, boyfriend or
girlfriend, or past partner), noting that family violence may not
include those without a legal family relationship.
[14] According to the Promotion Marketing Association, the Reggie
awards--with a name derived from "cash register"--identify and honor
the best promotional programs each year. The Service received a Reggie
for its Breast Cancer stamp promotional campaign in 1999.
[15] Upon receiving the proceeds from the Service, these funds were
incorporated into NIH and DOD's normal grant cycles.
[16] High-risk research refers to research that does not require
extensive preliminary data and includes the exploration and testing of
novel ideas and approaches.
[17] HHS officials indicated that the program announcement for the
grants was undergoing internal review during this period and would be
announced with other discretionary programs in the spring of 2005.
[18] On June 8, 2005, ACF released an announcement for its grants
utilizing the Stop Family Violence stamp proceeds.
[19] FEMA reported that Executive Order 12866 requires that it follows
this rule-making process, including submission to OMB.
[20] The interim rule was released for 30 days of public comment on
July 26, 2005.
[21] 39 U.S.C. 416 note.
[22] The fire service is one of the emergency services, which deals
with fires, the other services address crime and injury.
[23] Appendix II also includes a summary of changes to the Service's
cost recovery regulations, since our 2003 report.
[24] 39 C.F.R. part 551.
[25] USPS June 25, 2004, report to Congress.
[26] The surcharge revenue is the amount paid above the First-Class
postage rate by a semipostal consumer.
[27] In fiscal year 2001, DOD started to deduct overhead costs from the
surcharge revenue. DOD estimates overhead costs at 8 percent annually.
Any savings in overhead are added to the funds available to research.
Overhead costs have averaged about 5.6 percent since DOD started
recovering them. DOD's standard policy is to deduct administrative
costs from all sources of funding used for its Breast Cancer Research
Program.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
