Human Capital
Quality of DOD Status of Forces Surveys Could Be Improved by Performing Nonresponse Analysis of the Results Gao ID: GAO-10-751R July 12, 2010The Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) conducts a series of Web-based surveys called Status of Forces surveys, which help enable decision makers within the Department of Defense (DOD) to (1) evaluate existing programs and policies, (2) establish baselines before implementing new programs and policies, and (3) monitor the progress of programs and policies and their effects on the total force. In recent years, we have discussed the results of these surveys in several of our reports. While we have generally found the survey results to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting, several of our reports have discussed low response rates and the potential for bias in the survey results. Nonresponse analysis is an established practice in survey research that helps determine whether nonresponse bias (i.e., survey results that do not accurately reflect the population) might occur due to under- or overrepresentation of some respondents' views on survey questions. When nonresponse analysis is performed, survey researchers can use the results to select and adjust the statistical weighting techniques they use that help ensure that survey results accurately reflect the survey population. Because we have noted, in reports referring to the Status of Forces surveys, the potential for bias and because of DMDC's role in supporting DOD decision making, we initiated this review under the Comptroller General's statutory authority to conduct evaluations on his own initiative. Specifically, our objective was to determine the extent to which DMDC performs nonresponse analysis of the results of its Status of Forces surveys to determine whether reported results of respondents' views might be under- or overrepresented. To address our objective, a team that included GAO social science analysts with survey research expertise and GAO's Chief Statistician (1) reviewed relevant documentation provided by DMDC regarding the survey methods used for the Status of Forces surveys, (2) interviewed DMDC survey officials who had knowledge of or were involved in the development and administration of the surveys, and (3) reviewed the response rates for the Status of Forces surveys conducted since 2003. We conducted this performance audit between November 2009 and May 2010 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Although DMDC has conducted some research to assess and monitor the effects of nonresponse bias in its Status of Forces surveys in the past, it lacks guidance specifying when and how additional analysis of the results of its Status of Forces surveys should be performed in order to determine the extent of differences between survey respondents and nonrespondents. Leading survey research professional organizations, such as the American Association for Public Opinion Research, recognize nonresponse analysis as a sound method for assessing whether nonresponse bias might cause under- or overrepresentation of respondents' views on survey questions. Further, survey research guidelines issued by the Office of Management and Budget state that nonresponse analysis should be performed when survey response rate is below 80 percent, so as to identify the possibility of bias in a survey's results. Although these guidelines are not mandated for internal personnel surveys such as the Status of Forces surveys, as we have previously reported, they reflect generally accepted best practices in the field of survey research and are relevant for the purposes of assessing whether the results of a survey are representative of the population being surveyed. In addition to our prior work discussing low response rates and the potential for bias in the Status of Forces surveys, we have also noted the need for caution when interpreting the results of federal surveys with low response rates. In our review of the various Status of Forces surveys conducted since 2003, we found that the response rates have been between 28 percent and 40 percent for the Status of Forces Active Duty Survey; between 25 percent and 42 percent for the Status of Forces Reserve Survey; and between 55 percent and 64 percent for the Status of Forces Survey of Civilian Employees. While response rates alone are not sufficient indicators for determining the quality of survey results, we note--and DMDC survey officials recognize--that the Status of Forces surveys have had generally low response rates as compared with some other federal surveys. By not performing nonresponse analysis to identify the possibility for nonresponse bias in the results of its various Status of Forces surveys, DMDC survey officials may not have the information needed to adjust their statistical weighting techniques so as to ensure their survey results reflect the population being surveyed. As mentioned previously, DMDC lacks guidance specifying when and how agency staff should assess the results of the Status of Forces surveys for nonresponse bias. Further, we found that since DMDC last conducted research on nonresponse bias and its Status of Forces surveys--in a study it conducted in 2007--DMDC has taken no steps to strengthen its understanding of the effects of nonresponse bias, even though its study noted that performing nonresponse analysis should be a priority for the agency. To better determine the effects of nonresponse bias on the Status of Forces survey results, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Director of DMDC to develop and implement guidance both for conducting nonresponse analysis and for using the results of nonresponse analysis to inform DMDC's statistical weighting techniques, as part of the collection and analysis of the Status of Forces survey results.
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: Brenda S. Farrell Team: Government Accountability Office: Defense Capabilities and Management Phone: (202) 512-3604GAO-10-751R, Human Capital: Quality of DOD Status of Forces Surveys Could Be Improved by Performing Nonresponse Analysis of the Results
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-751R
entitled 'Human Capital: Quality of DOD Status of Forces Surveys Could
Be Improved by Performing Nonresponse Analysis of the Results' which
was released on July 12, 2010.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
GAO-10-751R:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 12, 2010:
The Honorable Carl Levin:
Chairman:
The Honorable John McCain:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Ike Skelton:
Chairman:
The Honorable Howard P. McKeon:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
Subject: Human Capital: Quality of DOD Status of Forces Surveys Could
Be Improved by Performing Nonresponse Analysis of the Results:
The Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) conducts a series of Web-based
surveys called Status of Forces surveys,[Footnote 1] which help enable
decision makers within the Department of Defense (DOD) to (1) evaluate
existing programs and policies, (2) establish baselines before
implementing new programs and policies, and (3) monitor the progress
of programs and policies and their effects on the total force.
[Footnote 2] In recent years, we have discussed the results of these
surveys in several of our reports.[Footnote 3] While we have
generally found the survey results to be sufficiently reliable for the
purposes of our reporting, several of our reports have discussed low
response rates and the potential for bias in the survey results.
[Footnote 4] Nonresponse analysis is an established practice in survey
research that helps determine whether nonresponse bias (i.e., survey
results that do not accurately reflect the population) might occur due
to under-or overrepresentation of some respondents' views on survey
questions.[Footnote 5] When nonresponse analysis is performed, survey
researchers can use the results to select and adjust the statistical
weighting techniques they use that help ensure that survey results
accurately reflect the survey population.[Footnote 6]
Because we have noted, in reports referring to the Status of Forces
surveys, the potential for bias and because of DMDC's role in
supporting DOD decision making, we initiated this review under the
Comptroller General's statutory authority to conduct evaluations on
his own initiative. Specifically, our objective was to determine the
extent to which DMDC performs nonresponse analysis of the results of
its Status of Forces surveys to determine whether reported results of
respondents' views might be under-or overrepresented.
To address our objective, a team that included GAO social science
analysts with survey research expertise and GAO's Chief Statistician
(1) reviewed relevant documentation provided by DMDC regarding the
survey methods used for the Status of Forces surveys, (2) interviewed
DMDC survey officials who had knowledge of or were involved in the
development and administration of the surveys, and (3) reviewed the
response rates for the Status of Forces surveys conducted since 2003.
We conducted this performance audit between November 2009 and May 2010
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
DMDC Does Not Regularly Perform Nonresponse Analysis of the Results of
Its Status of Forces Surveys, and It Lacks Guidance Specifying When
and How Such Analysis Should Be Performed:
Although DMDC has conducted some research to assess and monitor the
effects of nonresponse bias in its Status of Forces surveys in the
past, it lacks guidance specifying when and how additional analysis of
the results of its Status of Forces surveys should be performed in
order to determine the extent of differences between survey
respondents and nonrespondents. Leading survey research professional
organizations, such as the American Association for Public Opinion
Research, recognize nonresponse analysis as a sound method for
assessing whether nonresponse bias might cause under-or
overrepresentation of respondents' views on survey questions. Further,
survey research guidelines issued by the Office of Management and
Budget state that nonresponse analysis should be performed when survey
response rate is below 80 percent, so as to identify the possibility
of bias in a survey's results.[Footnote 7] Although these guidelines
are not mandated for internal personnel surveys such as the Status of
Forces surveys, as we have previously reported,[Footnote 8] they
reflect generally accepted best practices in the field of survey
research and are relevant for the purposes of assessing whether the
results of a survey are representative of the population being surveyed.
In addition to our prior work discussing low response rates and the
potential for bias in the Status of Forces surveys, we have also noted
the need for caution when interpreting the results of federal surveys
with low response rates.[Footnote 9] In our review of the various
Status of Forces surveys conducted since 2003, we found that the
response rates have been between 28 percent and 40 percent for the
Status of Forces Active Duty Survey; between 25 percent and 42 percent
for the Status of Forces Reserve Survey; and between 55 percent and 64
percent for the Status of Forces Survey of Civilian Employees. While
response rates alone are not sufficient indicators for determining the
quality of survey results, we note--and DMDC survey officials
recognize--that the Status of Forces surveys have had generally low
response rates as compared with some other federal surveys. By not
performing nonresponse analysis to identify the possibility for
nonresponse bias in the results of its various Status of Forces
surveys, DMDC survey officials may not have the information needed to
adjust their statistical weighting techniques so as to ensure their
survey results reflect the population being surveyed.
As mentioned previously, DMDC lacks guidance specifying when and how
agency staff should assess the results of the Status of Forces surveys
for nonresponse bias. Further, we found that since DMDC last conducted
research on nonresponse bias and its Status of Forces surveys--in a
study it conducted in 2007--DMDC has taken no steps to strengthen its
understanding of the effects of nonresponse bias, even though its
study noted that performing nonresponse analysis should be a priority
for the agency. This is a concern, especially since DMDC's study also
noted, for some of its survey measures, the existence of systematic
nonresponse errors that had not been corrected by DMDC's current
statistical weighting techniques. DMDC survey officials acknowledge
the need to perform additional research on nonresponse bias. However,
a senior DMDC survey official also told us that no additional research
on nonresponse bias is planned at this time because of, among other
things, a greater focus at this time in fielding surveys versus
performing methodological evaluation. Without guidance for performing
additional nonresponse analysis, DMDC's ability to identify and
address the potential for nonresponse bias within the Status of Forces
surveys is hindered.
Conclusion:
The Status of Forces surveys provide decision makers within the DOD
community valuable information that is used to evaluate and monitor
the progress of various defense programs and policies. This community
could derive significant further benefit, however, if DMDC were to
perform additional nonresponse analysis of its Status of Forces survey
results. Specifically, performing nonresponse analysis--an established
practice in survey research--could help DMDC improve the quality of
the Status of Forces surveys by identifying the potential for
nonresponse bias within its Status of Forces surveys. Taking steps to
then address any bias found--such as adjusting the statistical
weighting techniques used--could help strengthen the quality of the
survey results over time, thereby enabling decision makers and other
users of the survey results to better understand the perspectives of
DOD personnel regarding the department's various programs and policies.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
To better determine the effects of nonresponse bias on the Status of
Forces survey results, we recommend that you direct the Director of
DMDC to develop and implement guidance both for conducting nonresponse
analysis and for using the results of nonresponse analysis to inform
DMDC's statistical weighting techniques, as part of the collection and
analysis of the Status of Forces survey results.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
In its written comments responding to a draft of this report, DMDC
concurred with our recommendation. DMDC's comments are reprinted in
enclosure I.
In these comments, DMDC stated that it understands our concerns
regarding response rates and the lack of recurring nonresponse bias
studies for its Status of Forces surveys. DMDC also stated that it
concurs with us on the benefits of developing a systematic program to
continually monitor the impact of nonresponse bias for its surveys. To
that end, DMDC stated that it will take several actions to address our
recommendation. These actions include developing plans to periodically
assess the effect of nonresponse on its survey results by performing
formal nonresponse bias studies, testing its approach and developing
alternative approaches if necessary, and developing a comprehensive
plan and guidance to continually monitor for nonresponse bias in its
Status of Forces surveys. We commend DMDC for committing to actions
that could help it better determine the effects of nonresponse bias in
its studies, and note that such actions, if taken, would constitute
steps in the right direction.
We note that, in its cover letter accompanying these comments, DMDC
stated that it disagreed with our observation that "DMDC does not
regularly perform nonresponse analysis of the results of its status of
forces surveys, and it lacks guidance specifying when and how such
analysis should be performed," noting that, while it does not formally
perform nonresponse analysis, it continually monitors changes in
response rates and potential nonresponse bias. While we acknowledge
that DMDC takes some steps to address nonresponse--for example,
monitoring response rates for a fixed set of variables and
incorporating statistical weighting techniques in its survey estimates-
-monitoring response rates without performing more in-depth
nonresponse analysis may not necessarily identify problems with
nonresponse bias. In addition, during the course of our review, DMDC
survey officials told us that they did not have any written policy or
guidance in place on performing nonresponse analysis.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense, the
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Director
of DMDC, and interested congressional committees. In addition, this
report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact Brenda S. Farrell at (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov, or
Ronald S. Fecso at (202) 512-7791 or fecsor@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
include Marion A. Gatling, Assistant Director; James D. Ashley;
Virginia A. Chanley; Wesley A. Johnson; Lonnie J. McAllister; and
Cheryl A. Weissman. Other contributors include Jill N. Lacey and
Jennifer L. Weber.
Signed by:
Brenda S. Farrell:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
Signed by:
Ronald S. Fecso:
Chief Statistician:
End of section]
Enclosure I:
Comments from the Defense Manpower Data Center:
Department Of Defense:
Human Resources Activity:
Defense Manpower Data Center:
1600 Wilson Boulevard Suite 400:
Arlington, VA 22209-2593:
June 24, 2010:
Ms. Brenda S. Farrell:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
Mr. Ronald S. Fecso, Chief Statistician:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Farrell and Mr. Fecso:
Enclosed is the Department of Defense response to the GAO report, GA0-
10-751R, "Human Capital: The Defense Manpower Data Center Could
Improve the Quality of the Status of Forces Surveys by Performing
Nonresponse Analysis of the Results," dated May 27, 2010 (GAO Code
351398).
DMDC thanks the GAO for the opportunity to respond to GAO report, GAO-
10-751R. Although DMDC concurs with the GAO recommendation, we want to
point out that the department disagrees with the report where it
states, "DMDC does not regularly perform nonresponse analysis of the
results of its status of forces surveys, and it lacks • guidance
specifying when and how such analysis should be performed." DMDC
continually monitors response rates across multiple detailed
demographic and geographic groups, including but not limited to branch
of service, pay grade, geographic location (U.S. versus overseas),
deployment status, gender, and race. While DMDC does not formally call
this program nonresponse analysis, we continually monitor changes in
potential nonresponse bias through analysis of respondent sample
composition relative to nonrespondents.
DMDC statisticians assert that SOFS surveys likely have lower levels of
nonresponse bias than surveys with much higher response rates because
generally survey organizations know very little about survey
nonrespondents, and consequently have limited accessible data to
assist with nonresponse adjustments. For instance, in telephone
surveys, the survey organization may only know limited geographic data
based on the telephone exchange for "ring-no answer" cases. For
household interview surveys, the surveyor may have outdated knowledge
(usually Census data) of characteristics of the block (e.g., percent
Hispanic).
DMDC has an uncommon and advantageous position as a surveyor by
maintaining extremely detailed, complete, and timely administrative
data for our entire survey frames. Due to this complete sampling
frame. DMDC has more extensive information regarding the
characteristics of survey nonrespondents prior to conducting
nonresponse analysis studies than most other survey organizations know
after such studies. For the SOFS program, DMDC uses this thorough
knowledge of nonrespondents both for statistical imputations for item-
missing data and nonresponse and post-stratification weighting
adjustments to compensate for unit nonresponse. Both of these
procedures are specifically designed to reduce nonresponse bias in
SOPS estimates.
Beginning with the first test of the SOFS in 2002, DMDC has
periodically included tests of methodology differences affecting
response rates and data quality. Such tests have concluded that a
follow-up paper survey increases response rates by around seven
percentage points without significantly or meaningfully changing
estimates from the survey. Other tests have concentrated on contact
methods that can improve response rates or at least not adversely
impact response rates while lowering costs.
For all SOFS surveys, DMDC statisticians consider survey estimates
representative of their respective populations, allowing the results
to be effectively used in program evaluation, policy decisions, and
program planning and execution. While DMDC is confident in its survey
program, we will investigate the advantages of an external review
panel established by an organization such as the National Research
Council.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Mary Snavely-Dixon:
Director:
Enclosure: As stated:
[End of letter]
GAO draft report, GAO-10-751R, "Human Capital: The Defense Manpower
Data Center Could Improve the Quality of the Status of Forces Surveys
by Performing Nonresponse Analysis of the Results," dated May 27, 2010
(GAO Code 351398):
Department Of Defense Comments To The GAO Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: To better determine the effects of nonresponse bias
on the Status of Forces (SOFS) survey results, the GAO recommends that
the Secretary of Defense direct the Director of the Defense Manpower
Data Center (DMDC) develop and implement guidance both for conducting
nonresponse analysis and for using the results of nonresponse analysis
to inform DMDC's statistical weighting techniques, as part of the
collection and analysis of the Status of Forces survey results.
DOD Response: Concur. DMDC understands GAO's concerns regarding
response rates and lack of recurring nonresponse bias studies in the
SOFS program, but a low response rate, in and of itself, is not
indicative of a flawed study, nor does the lack of specific
nonresponse analysis indicate that the original survey results are not
statistically valid. Groves (2006) shows that, "...if we examine in a
meta-analytic way what the survey methodological literature finds for
the linkage between nonresponse rates and nonresponse biases, we find
large nonresponse biases for some statistics but no strong empirical
relationship between response rates and nonresponse bias."[Footnote 1]
DMDC concurs with the GAO regarding the benefits of developing a
systematic program to continually monitor the impact of nonresponse on
survey results in the SOFS program. To address GAO's concerns, DMDC
will develop plans to periodically assess the effect of nonresponse on
SOFS survey estimates through formal nonresponse bias studies. In
support of the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP), DMDC will
conduct two nonresponse bias studies in the winter 2010 on post-
election voting surveys on behalf of FVAP. The study methodology
consists of contacting survey nonrespondents by telephone and asking a
subset of key survey questions. To assess nonresponse bias, DMDC will
compare responses from initial survey respondents to survey
nonrespondents converted to response by the more expensive telephone
mode. There will also be a comparison group of individuals initially
contacted by phone. If the telephone nonresponse follow-up method
proves effective in the voting surveys, judged by response rates to
the nonresponse follow-up study and substantive, statistically
significant differences in the estimates of key analysis variables,
DMDC will further test these methods in the SOFS program starting in
2011, and completing studies for the active duty, Reserve, and
civilian SOFS by 2012. If this method proves ineffective, DMDC will
develop alternate plans to assess SOFS nonresponse bias and test these
plans in 2011. Based on the results of these studies, DMDC will
develop a comprehensive plan and guidance to continually monitor
nonresponse bias in the SOFS program.
Enclosure Footnote:
[1] Groves, Robert M (2006). "Nonresponse Rates and Nonresponse Bias
in Household Surveys." Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(5):646-675.
[End of Enclosure]
Footnotes:
[1] The Status of Forces surveys include a survey of active duty
military personnel, called the Status of Forces Active Duty Survey; a
survey of reserve military personnel, called the Status of Forces
Reserve Survey; and a survey of civilian employees, called the Status
of Forces Survey of Civilian Employees. These surveys include outcome,
or "leading indicator," measures for these individuals such as overall
satisfaction, retention intention, and perceived readiness, as well as
demographic items needed to classify individuals into various
subpopulations.
[2] Specifically, DMDC is DOD's repository for departmentwide data and
is a key support organization that, among other things, generates
reports for decision makers in the Office of the Secretary of Defense,
the military services, and the Joint Staff. External organizations
such as GAO and federally funded research and development centers also
rely on DMDC for quantitative data and analyses pertaining to a wide
variety of issues, such as the number of DOD personnel in specified
occupations or demographic groups, and DOD personnel's attitudes
toward various DOD programs and policies.
[3] See, for example, GAO, Human Capital: Monitoring of Safeguards and
Addressing Employee Perceptions Are Key to Implementing a Civilian
Performance Management System, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-102] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 28,
2009); Military Personnel: Reserve Component Servicemembers on Average
Earn More Income while Activated, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-688R] (Washington, D.C.: June
23, 2009); Human Capital: DOD Needs to Improve Implementation of and
Address Employee Concerns about Its National Security Personnel
System, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-773]
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10, 2008); Military
Personnel: Federal Management of Servicemember Employment Rights Can
Be Further Improved, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-60] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 19,
2005); Military Personnel: DOD's Tools for Curbing the Use and Effects
of Predatory Lending Not Fully Utilized, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-349] (Washington, D.C.:
Apr. 26, 2005); and Military Personnel: More DOD Actions Needed to
Address Servicemembers' Personal Financial Management Issues,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-348] (Washington, D.C.:
Apr. 26, 2005).
[4] See, for example, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-773], [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-60], and [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-349].
[5] Nonresponse analysis may be performed using a variety of methods--
for example, by randomly selecting a sample of survey nonrespondents
and surveying them to obtain answers to key survey questions.
Nonresponse analysis may be completed on more than one occasion,
depending on how frequently a survey is administered.
[6] For example, if the population being surveyed is 50 percent male
and 50 percent female, the survey results could be weighted to reflect
this demographic characteristic.
[7] Office of Management and Budget, Standards and Guidelines for
Statistical Surveys, September 2006.
[8] GAO, Army Health Care: Progress Made in Staffing and Monitoring
Units that Provide Outpatient Case Management, but Additional Steps
Needed, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-357]
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 20, 2009).
[9] For examples of our work on federal surveys other than the Status
of Forces survey, see [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-357]; Aviation Security: Federal Air
Marshal Service Has Taken Actions to Fulfill Its Core Mission and
Address Workforce Issues, but Additional Actions Are Needed to Improve
Workforce Survey, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-273]
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 14, 2009); and Elections: Absentee Voting
Assistance to Military and Overseas Citizens Increased for the 2004
General Election, but Challenges Remain, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-521] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 7,
2006).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
