Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, Dating Violence, and Stalking
National Data Collection Efforts Underway to Address Some Information Gaps Gao ID: GAO-11-833T July 13, 2011In Process
In November 2006, we reported that since 2001, the amount of national research that has been conducted on the prevalence of domestic violence and sexual assault had been limited, and less research had been conducted on dating violence and stalking. At that time, no single, comprehensive effort existed that provided nationwide statistics on the prevalence of these four categories of crime among men, women, youth, and children. Rather, various national efforts addressed certain subsets of these crime categories among some segments of the population and were not intended to provide comprehensive estimates. For example, HHS's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Violent Death Reporting System, which collects incident-based data from multiple sources, such as coroner/medical examiner reports, gathered information on violent deaths resulting from domestic violence and sexual assaults, among other crimes. However, it did not gather information on deaths resulting from dating violence or stalking incidents. We reported in July 2007 that recipients of 11 grant programs we reviewed collected and reported data to the respective agencies on the types of services they provide, such as counseling; the total number of victims served; and in some cases, demographic information, such as the age of victims; however, data were not available on the extent to which men, women, youth, and children receive each type of service for all services. This situation occurred primarily because the statutes governing the 11 grant programs do not require the collection of demographic data by type of service, although they do require reports on program effectiveness, including number of persons served and number of persons seeking services who could not be served. Nevertheless, VAWA authorizes that a range of services can be provided to victims, and we determined that services were generally provided to men, women, youth, and children. The agencies administering these 11 grant programs--HHS and DOJ--collect some demographic data for certain services, such as emergency shelter under the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act and supervised visitation and exchange under VAWA. The quantity of information collected and reported varied greatly for the 11 programs and was extensive for some, such as those administered by DOJ's Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) under VAWA. The federal agencies use this information to help inform Congress about the known results and effectiveness of the grant programs. However, even if demographic data were available by type of service for all services, such data might not be uniform and reliable because, among other factors, (1) the authorizing statutes for these programs have different purposes and (2) recipients of grants administered by HHS and DOJ use varying data collection practices.
GAO-11-833T, Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, Dating Violence, and Stalking: National Data Collection Efforts Underway to Address Some Information Gaps
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-833T
entitled 'Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, Dating Violence, and
Stalking: National Data Collection Efforts Underway to Address Some
Information Gaps' which was released on July 13, 2011.
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.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Testimony:
Before the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT:
Wednesday, July 13, 2011:
Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, Dating Violence, and Stalking:
National Data Collection Efforts Underway to Address Some Information
Gaps:
Statement of Eileen R. Larence, Director:
Homeland Security and Justice:
GAO-11-833T:
Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley, and Members of the Committee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss issues related to the
reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). In hearings
conducted from 1990 through 1994, Congress noted that violence against
women was a problem of national scope and that the majority of crimes
associated with domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking were
perpetrated against women. These hearings culminated in the enactment
of VAWA in 1994 to address these issues on a national level.[Footnote
1] VAWA established grant programs within the Departments of Justice
(DOJ) and Health and Human Services (HHS) for state, local, and Indian
tribal governments and communities. These grants have various
purposes, such as providing funding for direct services including
emergency shelter, counseling, and legal services for victims of
domestic violence, sexual assaults and stalking across all segments of
the population. Recipients of funds from these grant programs include,
among others, state agencies, tribes, shelters, rape crisis centers,
organizations that provide legal services, and hotlines. In 2000,
during the reauthorization of VAWA, language was added to the law to
provide greater emphasis on dating violence.[Footnote 2] The 2006
reauthorization of VAWA expanded existing grant programs and added new
programs addressing, among other things, young victims.[Footnote 3] In
fiscal year 2011, Congress appropriated approximately $418 million for
violence against women programs administered by DOJ and made an
additional $133 million available for programs administered by HHS.
The 2006 reauthorization of VAWA required us to study and report on
data indicating the prevalence of domestic violence, dating violence,
sexual assault, and stalking among men, women, youth, and children, as
well as services available to the victims.[Footnote 4] Such data could
be used to inform decisions regarding investments in grant programs.
In response, we issued two reports in November 2006 and July 2007 on
these issues, respectively.[Footnote 5] My statement today is based on
these reports and selected updates we conducted in July 2011 related
to actions DOJ and HHS have taken since our prior reviews to improve
the quality of recipient data.[Footnote 6] My statement, as requested,
highlights findings from those reports and discusses the extent to
which (1) national data collection efforts report on the prevalence of
men, women, youth, and children who are victims of domestic violence,
sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking, and (2) the federal
government has collected data to track the types of services provided
to these categories of victims and any challenges federal departments
report that they and their grant recipients face in collecting and
reporting demographic characteristics of victims receiving such
services by type of service.
For the reports, we conducted a literature search focusing on
reporting systems and surveys from which results were issued or
reported since 2001 to help identify national data collection efforts
related to domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and
stalking.[Footnote 7] We also obtained information from and
interviewed officials at DOJ and HHS. Information obtained included
reports the agencies' grant recipients are required to complete on the
use of their grant funds, among other things. In addition, we met with
20 grant recipients that provided services, such as emergency shelter,
legal advocacy, and rape crisis counseling, to victims within their
communities as well as 3 grant recipients that provided services to
victims throughout the United States. More detailed information on the
scope and methodology from our previous work including our selection
methodology for the 23 grant recipients, can be found within each
specific report. For the updates, we met with DOJ and HHS officials
and reviewed documents such as updated forms for grant recipients to
report information on activities conducted. We conducted this work in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
In summary, as we reported in November 2006, the amount of national
research that has been conducted on the prevalence of domestic
violence and sexual assault among men, women, youth, and children was
limited, and less research had been conducted on the prevalence of
dating violence and stalking. However, efforts underway by HHS and DOJ
help address some of these information gaps. Data collected for the 11
grant programs we reviewed did not contain information on the extent
to which men, women, youth, and children receive services by type of
service for all services. Moreover, challenges exist for collecting
such data, such as concerns about victims' confidentiality and safety,
resource constraints, burdening recipients, and technological issues.
National Data Collection Efforts on the Prevalence of Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault Provided Limited Data, but Efforts
Underway Help Address Some Information Gaps:
In November 2006, we reported that since 2001, the amount of national
research that has been conducted on the prevalence of domestic
violence and sexual assault had been limited, and less research had
been conducted on dating violence and stalking.[Footnote 8] At that
time, no single, comprehensive effort existed that provided nationwide
statistics on the prevalence of these four categories of crime among
men, women, youth, and children. Rather, various national efforts
addressed certain subsets of these crime categories among some
segments of the population and were not intended to provide
comprehensive estimates. For example, HHS's Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Violent Death Reporting
System, which collects incident-based data from multiple sources, such
as coroner/medical examiner reports, gathered information on violent
deaths resulting from domestic violence and sexual assaults, among
other crimes.[Footnote 9] However, it did not gather information on
deaths resulting from dating violence or stalking incidents.
In our November 2006 report, we noted that designing a single,
comprehensive data collection effort to address these four categories
of crime among all segments of the population independent of existing
efforts would be costly, given the resources required to collect such
data. Furthermore, it would be inefficient to duplicate some existing
efforts that already collect data for certain aspects of these
categories of crime. Specifically, in our November 2006 report, we
identified 11 national efforts that had reported data on certain
aspects of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and
stalking. However, limited national data were available to estimate
prevalence from these 11 efforts because they (1) largely focused on
incidence rather than prevalence, (2) used varying definitions for the
types of crimes and categories of victims covered, and (3) had varying
scopes in terms of incidents and categories they addressed.
Focus on incidence. Four of the 11 national data collection efforts
focused solely on incidence--the number of separate times a crime is
committed against individuals during a specific time period--rather
than prevalence--the unique number of individuals who were victimized
during a specific time period. As a result, information gaps related
to the prevalence of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating
violence, and stalking, particularly in the areas of dating violence
among victims age 12 and older and stalking among victims under age 18
existed at the time of our November 2006 report. Obtaining both
incidence and prevalence data is important for determining which
services to provide to the four differing categories of crime victims.
HHS also noted that both types of data are important for determining
the impact of violence and strategies to prevent it from occurring.
Although perfect data may never exist because of the sensitivity of
these crimes and the likelihood that not all occurrences will be
disclosed, agencies have taken initiatives since our report was issued
to help address some of these gaps or have efforts underway. These
initiatives are consistent with our recommendation that the Attorney
General and Secretary of Health and Human Services determine the
extent to which initiatives being planned or underway can be designed
or modified to address existing information gaps. For example, DOJ's
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), in
collaboration with CDC, sponsored a nationwide survey of the incidence
and prevalence of children's (ages 17 and younger) exposure to
violence across several major crime categories, including witnessing
domestic violence and peer victimization (which includes teen dating
violence). OJJDP released incidence and prevalence measures related to
children's exposure to violence, including teen dating violence, in
2009. Thus, Congress, agency decision makers, practitioners, and
researchers have more comprehensive information to assist them in
making decisions on grants and other issues to help address teen
dating violence. To address information gaps related to teen dating
violence and stalking victims under the age of 18, in 2010, CDC began
efforts on a teen dating violence prevention initiative known as
"Dating Matters." One activity of this initiative is to identify
community-level indicators that can be used to measure both teen
dating violence and stalking in high-risk urban areas. CDC officials
reported that they plan to begin implementing the first phase of
"Dating Matters" in as many as four high-risk urban areas in September
2011 and expect that the results from this phase will be completed by
2016. Thus, it is too early to tell the extent to which this effort
will fully address the information gap related to prevalence of
stalking victims under the age of 18.
Varying definitions. The national data collection efforts we reviewed
could not provide a basis for combining the results to compute valid
and reliable nationwide prevalence estimates because the efforts used
varying definitions related to the four categories of crime. For
example, CDC's Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System's definition of
dating violence included the intentional physical harm inflicted upon
a survey respondent by a boyfriend or girlfriend.[Footnote 10] In
contrast, the Victimization of Children and Youth Survey's definition
did not address whether the physical harm was intentional.[Footnote
11] To address the issue of varying definitions, we recommended that
the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
to the extent possible, require the use of common definitions when
conducting or providing grants for federal research. This would
provide for leveraging individual collection efforts so that the
results of such efforts could be readily combined to achieve
nationwide prevalence estimates. HHS agreed with this recommendation.
In commenting on our November 2006 draft report, DOJ expressed concern
regarding the potential costs associated with implementing this and
other recommendations we made and suggested that a cost-benefit
analysis be conducted. We agreed that performing a cost-benefit
analysis is a critical step, as acknowledged by our recommendation
that DOJ and HHS incorporate alternatives for addressing information
gaps deemed cost-effective in future budget requests. HHS agreed with
this recommendation and both HHS and DOJ have taken actions to address
it by requesting or providing additional funding for initiatives to
address information gaps, such as those on teen dating violence.
In response to our recommendation on common definitions, in August
2007, HHS reported that it continued to encourage, but not require,
the use of uniform definitions of certain forms of domestic violence
and sexual assault it established in 1999 and 2002, respectively. At
the same time, DOJ reported that it consistently used uniform
definitions of intimate partner violence in project solicitations,
statements of work, and published reports. Since then, officials from
CDC reported that in October 2010, the center convened a panel of 10
experts to revise and update its definitions of certain forms of
domestic violence and sexual assault given advancements in this field
of study. CDC is currently reviewing the results from the panel and
plans to hold a second panel in 2012, consisting of practitioners, to
review the first panel's results and to obtain consensus on the
revised definitions. Moreover, HHS reported that it is also
encouraging the use of uniform definitions by implementing the
National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. This initiative
is using consistent definitions and methods to collect information on
women and men's experiences with a range of intimate partner violence,
sexual violence, and stalking victimization. Thus, by using consistent
methods over time, HHS reported that it will have comparable data at
the state and national level to inform intervention and prevention
efforts and aid in the evaluation of these efforts. In addition,
according to a program specialist from OJJDP, in 2007, OJJDP created
common definitions for use in the National Survey of Children's
Exposure to Violence to help collect data and measure incidence and
prevalence rates for child victimization, including teen dating
violence. While it is too early to tell the extent to which HHS's
efforts will result in the wider use of common definitions to assist
in the combination of data collection efforts, OJJDP efforts in
developing common definitions have supported efforts to generate
national incidence and prevalence rates for child victimization. A
program specialist from OJJDP noted that OJJDP plans to focus on
continuously improving the definitions.
Varying scope. The national data collection efforts we reviewed as
part of our November 2006 report also could not provide a basis for
combining the results to compute valid and reliable nationwide
prevalence estimates because the efforts had varying scopes in terms
of the incidents and categories of victims that were included. For
example, in November 2006, we reported that CDC's Youth Risk Behavior
Surveillance System excludes youth who are not in grades 9 through 12
and those who do not attend school; whereas the Victimization of
Children and Youth Survey was addressed to youth ages 12 and older, or
those who were at least in the sixth grade. National data collection
efforts underway since our report was issued may help to overcome this
challenge. For instance, in September 2010, HHS reported that CDC was
working in collaboration with the National Institute of Justice to
develop the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey.
Specifically, HHS reported that, through this system, it is collecting
information on women's and men's experiences with a range of intimate
partner violence, sexual violence, and stalking victimization. HHS
reported that it is gathering experiences that occurred across a
victim's lifespan (including experiences that occurred before the age
of 18) and plans to generate incidence and prevalence estimates for
intimate partner violence, sexual violence, dating violence, and
stalking victimization at both the national and state levels[Footnote
12]. The results are expected to be available in October 2011.
These agency initiatives may not fill all information gaps on the
extent to which women, men, youth, and children are victims of the
four predominant crimes VAWA addresses. However, the efforts provide
Congress with additional information it can consider on the prevalence
of these crimes as it makes future investment decisions when
reauthorizing and funding VAWA moving forward.
Data Collected by Grant Programs Did Not Contain Information on the
Extent to Which Victims Receive Services and Challenges Exist for
Collecting Such Data:
We reported in July 2007 that recipients of 11 grant programs we
reviewed collected and reported data to the respective agencies on the
types of services they provide, such as counseling; the total number
of victims served; and in some cases, demographic information, such as
the age of victims; however, data were not available on the extent to
which men, women, youth, and children receive each type of service for
all services.[Footnote 13] This situation occurred primarily because
the statutes governing the 11 grant programs do not require the
collection of demographic data by type of service, although they do
require reports on program effectiveness, including number of persons
served and number of persons seeking services who could not be served.
[Footnote 14] Nevertheless, VAWA authorizes that a range of services
can be provided to victims, and we determined that services were
generally provided to men, women, youth, and children. The agencies
administering these 11 grant programs--HHS and DOJ--collect some
demographic data for certain services, such as emergency shelter under
the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act and supervised
visitation and exchange under VAWA. The quantity of information
collected and reported varied greatly for the 11 programs and was
extensive for some, such as those administered by DOJ's Office on
Violence Against Women (OVW) under VAWA. The federal agencies use this
information to help inform Congress about the known results and
effectiveness of the grant programs. However, even if demographic data
were available by type of service for all services, such data might
not be uniform and reliable because, among other factors, (1) the
authorizing statutes for these programs have different purposes and
(2) recipients of grants administered by HHS and DOJ use varying data
collection practices.
Authorizing statutes have different purposes. The authorizing statutes
for the 11 grant programs we reviewed have different purposes;
therefore the reporting requirements for the 11 grant programs must
vary to be consistent with these statutes. However, if a grant program
addresses a specific service, the demographic data collected are more
likely to address the extent to which men, women, youth, and children
receive that specific service. For example, in commenting on our July
2007 report, officials from OVW stated that they could provide such
demographic data for 3 of its 8 grant programs we reviewed--the
Transitional Housing Assistance Grants Program, the Safe Havens:
Supervised Visitation and Safe Exchange Grant Program, and the Legal
Assistance for Victims Grant Program.
Recipients of grants administered by HHS and DOJ use varying data
collection practices. For example, some recipients request that
victims self-report data on the victim's race, whereas other
recipients rely on visual observation of the victim to obtain these
data. Since we issued our July 2007 report, officials from HHS's
Administration for Children and Families (ACF) and OVW told us that
they modified their grant recipient forms to improve the quality of
the recipient data collected and to reflect statutory changes to the
programs and reporting requirements. Moreover, ACF officials stated
that they adjusted the demographic categories on their forms to mirror
OVW's efforts so data would be collected consistently across the
government for these grant programs. In addition, OVW officials stated
that they have continued to provide technical assistance and training
to grant recipients on completing their forms through a cooperative
agreement with a university. As a result of these efforts, and others,
officials from both agencies reported that the quality of the
recipient data has improved resulting in fewer errors and more
complete data.
As we reported in our July 2007 report, HHS and DOJ officials stated
that they would face significant challenges in collecting and
reporting data on the demographic characteristics of victims receiving
services by type of service funded by the 11 grant programs included
in our review. These challenges included concerns about victims'
confidentiality and safety, resource constraints, overburdening
recipients, and technological issues. For example, according to
officials from ACF and OVW, requiring grant recipients to collect this
level of detail may inadvertently disclose a victim's identity, thus
jeopardizing the victim's safety. ACF officials also said that some of
their grant recipients do not have the resources to devote to these
data collection efforts, since their primary focus is on service
delivery. In addition, ACF officials said that being too prescriptive
in requiring demographic data could overburden some grant recipients
that may report data to multiple funding entities, such as federal,
state, and local entities and private foundations. Furthermore, HHS
and DOJ reported that some grant recipients do not have sophisticated
data collection systems in place to allow them to collect additional
information.
In our July 2007 report, we did not recommend that federal departments
require their grant recipients to collect and report additional data
on the demographic characteristics of victims receiving services by
type of service because of the potential costs and difficulties
associated with addressing the challenges HHS and DOJ officials
identified, relative to the benefits that would be derived.[Footnote
15]
In conclusion, there are important issues to consider in moving
forward on the reauthorization of VAWA. Having better and more
complete data on the prevalence of domestic violence, sexual assault,
dating violence, and stalking as well as related services provided to
victims of these crimes can without doubt better inform and shape the
federal programs intended to meet the needs of these victims. One key
challenge in doing this is weighing the relative benefits of obtaining
these data with their relative costs because of the sensitive nature
of the crimes, those directly affected, and the need for services and
support.
Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley, and Members of the Committee,
this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to
any questions you or other Members of the Committee may have at this
time.
Contacts and Acknowledgments:
For questions about this statement, please contact Eileen R. Larence
at (202) 512-8777 or larencee@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices
of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this statement. Individuals making key contributions to this
statement include Debra B. Sebastian, Assistant Director; Aditi
Archer, Frances Cook, and Lara Miklozek. Key contributors for the
previous work that this testimony is based on are listed in each
individual report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 103-322, tit. IV, 108 Stat. 1796, 1902-55 (1994).
[2] Violence Against Women Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-386, div. B,
114 Stat. 1464, 1491-1539.
[3] Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization
Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-162, 119 Stat. 2960 (2006).
[4] Pub. L. No. 109-162, § 119, 119 Stat. at 2989-90.
[5] GAO, Services Provided to Victims of Domestic Violence, Sexual
Assault, Dating Violence, and Stalking, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-846R] (Washington, D.C.: July 19,
2007) and GAO, Prevalence of Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, Dating
Violence, and Stalking, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-148R] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 13,
2006).
[6] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-846R] and
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-148R].
[7] We selected 2001 as the first year of our review of reporting
systems and surveys to enable us to review national data collection
efforts conducted over a 5-year period, through 2005.
[8] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-148R].
[9] Incidence based data is data based on the number of separate times
a crime is committed against individuals during a specific time period.
[10] CDC's Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System collects data
through a nationally representative school based survey of students in
grades 9-12 that monitors priority health risk behaviors that
contribute to the leading causes of death, disability, and social
problems among youth and adults in the United States.
[11] The Victimization of Children and Youth survey examined a large
spectrum of violence, crime, and victimization experiences in a
nationally representative sample of about 2,000 children and youth
ages 2 to 17 years in the contiguous United States.
[12] This survey is gathering information on a victim's experiences
retrospectively, but is not being administered to individuals under
age 18. Therefore, if this effort is completed as planned, it will not
fully address prevalence rates related to teen dating violence and
stalking. However, OJJDP's survey on children's exposure to violence
provides prevalence rates on a national level related to teen dating
violence and CDC's initiative on "Dating Matters" is to address
prevalence rates related to stalking for individuals under age 18.
[13] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-846R].
[14] As part of our work in 2007, we focused on 11 federal grant
programs that were specifically designed to provide direct services to
victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and
stalking. There were three statutes authorizing these grant programs
including the Violence Against Women Act, the Family Violence
Prevention and Services Act, and the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, as
amended. See Enclosure II of [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-846R] for additional details on
these grant programs.
[15] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-846R].
[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:
