State Department
Challenges Facing the Bureau of Diplomatic Security Gao ID: GAO-10-290T December 9, 2009This testimony discusses the Department of State's (State) Bureau of Diplomatic Security (Diplomatic Security), which is responsible for the protection of people, information, and property at over 400 embassies, consulates, and domestic locations. Since the 1998 bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa, the scope and complexity of threats facing Americans abroad and at home has increased. Diplomatic Security must be prepared to counter threats such as crime, espionage, visa and passport fraud, technological intrusions, political violence, and terrorism. The statement today is based on a GAO report that was issued on November 12, 2009. It will discuss (1) the growth of Diplomatic Security's missions and resources and (2) the challenges Diplomatic Security faces in conducting its work. To address these objectives in our report, GAO (1) interviewed numerous officials at Diplomatic Security headquarters, several domestic facilities, and 18 international postings; (2) analyzed Diplomatic Security and State budget and personnel data; and (3) assessed challenges facing Diplomatic Security through analysis of interviews with personnel positioned domestically and internationally, budget and personnel data provided by State and Diplomatic Security, and planning and strategic documentation. GAO conducted this performance audit from September 2008 to November 2009, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that GAO plans and performs the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. GAO believes that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Since 1998, Diplomatic Security's mission and activities--and, subsequently, its resources--have grown considerably in reaction to a number of security incidents. As a consequence of this growth, we identified several challenges. In particular (1) State is maintaining a presence in an increasing number of dangerous posts, which requires additional resources; (2) staffing shortages in domestic offices and other operational challenges--such as inadequate facilities, language deficiencies, experience gaps, and the difficulty of balancing security needs with State's diplomatic mission--further tax Diplomatic Security's ability to implement all of its missions; and (3) Diplomatic Security's considerable growth has not benefited from adequate strategic guidance. In our report, we recommend that the Secretary of State--as part of the agency's Quadrennial Diplomatic and Development Review (QDDR) or separately--conduct a strategic review of Diplomatic Security to ensure that its missions and activities address its priority needs.
GAO-10-290T, State Department: Challenges Facing the Bureau of Diplomatic Security
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-290T
entitled 'State Department: Challenges Facing the Bureau of Diplomatic
Security' which was released on December 9, 2009.
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.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the
Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 2:30 p.m. EST:
Wednesday, December 9, 2009:
State Department:
Challenges Facing the Bureau of Diplomatic Security:
Statement of Jess T. Ford, Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
GAO-10-290T:
[End of section]
December 9, 2009:
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here to discuss the Department of State's (State)
Bureau of Diplomatic Security (Diplomatic Security), which is
responsible for the protection of people, information, and property at
over 400 embassies, consulates, and domestic locations. Since the 1998
bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa, the scope and complexity of
threats facing Americans abroad and at home has increased. Diplomatic
Security must be prepared to counter threats such as crime, espionage,
visa and passport fraud, technological intrusions, political violence,
and terrorism.
My statement today is based on a GAO report that was issued on November
12, 2009.[Footnote 1] I will discuss (1) the growth of Diplomatic
Security's missions and resources and (2) the challenges Diplomatic
Security faces in conducting its work.
To address these objectives in our report, we (1) interviewed numerous
officials at Diplomatic Security headquarters, several domestic
facilities, and 18 international postings;[Footnote 2] (2) analyzed
Diplomatic Security and State budget and personnel data; and (3)
assessed challenges facing Diplomatic Security through analysis of
interviews with personnel positioned domestically and internationally,
budget and personnel data provided by State and Diplomatic Security,
and planning and strategic documentation. We conducted this performance
audit from September 2008 to November 2009, 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.
In brief, Mr. Chairman, we found that, since 1998, Diplomatic
Security's mission and activities--and, subsequently, its resources--
have grown considerably in reaction to a number of security incidents.
As a consequence of this growth, we identified several challenges. In
particular (1) State is maintaining a presence in an increasing number
of dangerous posts, which requires additional resources; (2) staffing
shortages in domestic offices and other operational challenges--such as
inadequate facilities, language deficiencies, experience gaps, and the
difficulty of balancing security needs with State's diplomatic mission--
further tax Diplomatic Security's ability to implement all of its
missions; and (3) Diplomatic Security's considerable growth has not
benefited from adequate strategic guidance. In our report, we recommend
that the Secretary of State--as part of the agency's Quadrennial
Diplomatic and Development Review (QDDR) or separately--conduct a
strategic review of Diplomatic Security to ensure that its missions and
activities address its priority needs.
Diplomatic Security's Mission and Resources Have Grown Considerably
Since 1998:
Because of a number of security incidents, Diplomatic Security's
missions and resources have grown tremendously in the past decade. The
growth in Diplomatic Security's mission includes key areas such as
enhanced physical security and investigations. Following the 1998
attacks on U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Diplomatic Security
determined that more than 85 percent of U.S. diplomatic facilities did
not meet its security standards and were therefore vulnerable to
terrorist attack; in response, Diplomatic Security added many of the
physical security measures currently in place at most U.S. missions
worldwide, such as additional barriers, alarms, public address systems,
and enhanced access procedures. Since 1998, there have been 39 attacks
aimed at U.S. Embassies, Consulates, or Chief of Mission personnel (not
including regular attacks against the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad since
2004). The nature of some of these attacks has led Diplomatic Security
to further adapt its security measures. Moreover, the attacks of
September 11, 2001, underscored the importance of upgrading Diplomatic
Security's domestic security programs and enhancing its investigative
capacity. Furthermore, following the onset of U.S. operations in Iraq
in 2003, Diplomatic Security has had to provide security in the Iraq
and Afghanistan war zones and other increasingly hostile environments
such as Pakistan.
Diplomatic Security funding and personnel have also increased
considerably in conjunction with its expanding missions. Diplomatic
Security reports that its budget has increased from about $200 million
in 1998 to $1.8 billion in 2008. In addition, the size of Diplomatic
Security's direct-hire workforce has doubled since 1998. The number of
direct-hire security specialists (special agents, engineers,
technicians, and couriers) increased from under 1,000 in 1998 to over
2,000 in 2009, and the number of direct-hire civil service personnel
increased from 258 to 592. At the same time, Diplomatic Security has
increased its use of contractors to support its security operations
worldwide, specifically through increases in the Diplomatic Security
guard force and the use of contractors to provide protective details
for American diplomats in high-threat environments.
Dangerous Environments, Staffing Shortages, and Reactive Planning
Challenge Diplomatic Security:
Diplomatic Security faces several policy and operational challenges.
First, State is maintaining missions in increasingly dangerous
locations, necessitating the use of more resources and making it more
difficult to provide security in these locations. Second, although
Diplomatic Security has grown considerably in staff over the last 10
years, staffing shortages in domestic offices, as well as other
operational challenges further tax Diplomatic Security's ability to
implement all of its missions. Finally, State has expanded Diplomatic
Security without the benefit of solid strategic planning.
Maintaining Missions in Iraq and Other Increasingly Dangerous Posts
Significantly Affects Diplomatic Security's Work:
Diplomatic Security officials stated that maintaining missions in
dangerous environments such as Iraq and Afghanistan requires more
resources and increases the difficulty for Diplomatic Security to
provide a secure environment.
Keeping staff secure, yet productive, in Iraq has been one of
Diplomatic Security's greatest challenges since 2004, when security for
the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad transferred from the U.S. Department of
Defense to Diplomatic Security. The U.S. mission in Baghdad--with 1,300
authorized U.S. civilian personnel--is one of the largest in the world.
Maintaining Diplomatic Security operations in Iraq has required
approximately 36 percent of its entire budget each fiscal year since
2004 and, as of September 2008, required 81 special agents to manage
security operations. To support security operations in Iraq, Diplomatic
Security has had to draw staff and resources away from other programs.
Earlier in 2009, we reported that Diplomatic Security's workload--and
thus its resource requirements--will likely increase as the U.S.
military transitions out of Iraq.[Footnote 3]
U.S. policymakers' increased focus on Afghanistan poses another
significant challenge for Diplomatic Security. The security situation
in Afghanistan has deteriorated since 2005, and the number of attacks
there increased from 2,388 in 2005 to 10,889 in 2008. Afghanistan is
Diplomatic Security's second largest overseas post with a staff of 22
special agents in 2009. Diplomatic Security plans to add an additional
25 special agents in 2010, effectively doubling the number of agents in
Afghanistan.
In addition to operating in the Iraq and Afghanistan war zones, State
is maintaining missions in an increasing number of other dangerous
posts--such as Peshawar, Pakistan, and Sana'a, Yemen--some of which
State would have previously evacuated.
Diplomatic Security Faces Operational Challenges That Affect Its
Ability to Implement Important Activities:
Diplomatic Security's ability to fully carry out its mission of
providing security worldwide is hindered by staffing shortages in
domestic offices and other operational challenges such as inadequate
facilities and pervasive language proficiency shortfalls.
Some Diplomatic Security Offices Operate with Severe Staff Shortages:
Despite Diplomatic Security's staff growth over the last 10 years, some
offices have been operating with severe staffing shortages. In 2008,
approximately one-third of Diplomatic Security's domestic suboffices
operated with a 25 percent vacancy rate or higher. Several offices
report that this shortage of staff affected their ability to conduct
their work. For example:
* The Houston field office reported that, for 6 months of the year, it
operated at 50 percent capacity of nonsupervisory agents or lower, and
for 2 months during the summer, it dipped down to a low of 35 percent.
This staffing gap happened while the field office was experiencing a
significant increase in its caseload due to the Western Hemisphere
Travel Initiative.
As a result, the Houston field office management reported that this
combination overwhelmed its capabilities and resulted in a significant
backlog of cases.[Footnote 4]
* The New York field office reported that the number of special agents
there dropped to 66 in 2008 from more than 110 agents in 2007. As a
result, the office had to draw special agents from other field offices
to cover its heavy dignitary protection load.
* In 2008, the Mobile Security Deployment (MSD) Office was authorized
to have 94 special agent positions, but only 76 were filled.
Furthermore, Diplomatic Security officials noted that not all staff in
filled positions are available for duty. For example, in 2009, 22
agents assigned to MSD were in training. As a result of the low level
of available staff, Diplomatic Security reported that many posts go for
years without updating their security training.[Footnote 5] Officials
noted that this lack of available agents is particularly problematic
given the high number of critical threat posts that are only 1-year
tours that would benefit from frequent training.
State officials attributed these shortages to the following three
factors:
* Staffing the Iraq mission: Staffing the Iraq mission in 2008 required
16 percent of Diplomatic Security's staff. In order to provide enough
Diplomatic Security special agents in Iraq, we reported that Diplomatic
Security had to move agents from other programs, and those moves have
affected the agency's ability to perform other missions, including
providing security for visiting dignitaries and visa, passport, and
identity fraud investigations.[Footnote 6]
* Protection details: Diplomatic Security draws agents from field
offices, headquarters, and overseas posts to participate in protective
details and special events, such as the Olympics. Recently, Diplomatic
Security's role:
in providing protection at such major events has grown and will require
more staff.
* Normal rotations: Staff take home leave between postings and
sometimes are required to take training before starting their next
assignment. This rotation process regularly creates a labor shortage,
which affects Diplomatic Security's ability to meet its increased
security demands. In 2005, Diplomatic Security identified the need for
a training float--additional staff that would allow it to fill critical
positions and still allow staff time for job training--but Diplomatic
Security has not been able to implement one. This is consistent with
our observation that State has been unable to create a training float
because its staff increases have been absorbed by the demand for
personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Diplomatic Security requested funding to add over 350 security
positions in fiscal year 2010. However, new hires cannot be immediately
deployed overseas because they must meet training requirements. In
addition to hiring new special agents, Diplomatic Security established
the Security Protection Specialist (SPS) position in February 2009 to
create a cadre of professionals specifically trained in personnel
protection who can provide oversight for the contractor-operated
protective details in high-threat posts. Because of the more targeted
training requirements, Diplomatic Security would be able to deploy the
SPS staff more quickly than new hire special agents. However,
Diplomatic Security has had difficulty recruiting and hiring a
sufficient number of SPS candidates. According to senior Diplomatic
Security officials, it may cancel the program if it cannot recruit
enough qualified candidates.
Other Operational Challenges Impede Diplomatic Security's Ability to
Fully Implement Its Missions and Activities:
Diplomatic Security faces a number of other operational challenges that
impede it from fully implementing its missions and activities,
including:
* Inadequate buildings: State is in the process of updating and
building many new facilities. However, we have previously identified
many posts that do not meet all security standards delineated by the
Overseas Security Policy Board and the Secure Embassy Construction and
Counterterrorism Act of 1999.[Footnote 7]
* Foreign language deficiencies: Earlier this year, we found that 53
percent of Regional Security Officers do not speak and read at the
level required by their positions, and we concluded that these foreign
language shortfalls could be negatively affecting several aspects of
U.S. diplomacy, including security operations.[Footnote 8] For example,
an officer at a post of strategic interest said because she did not
speak the language, she had transferred a sensitive telephone call from
a local informant to a local employee, which could have compromised the
informant's identity.
* Experience gaps: Thirty-four percent of Diplomatic Security's
positions (not including those in Baghdad) are filled with officers
below the position's grade. For example, several Assistant Regional
Security Officers with whom we met were in their first overseas
positions and stated that they did not feel adequately prepared for
their job, particularly their responsibility to manage large security
contracts. We previously reported that experience gaps can compromise
diplomatic readiness.[Footnote 9]
* Host country laws: At times, host country laws prohibit Diplomatic
Security from taking all the security precautions it would like outside
an embassy. For example, Diplomatic Security officials said that they
prefer to arm their local guard forces and their special agents;
however, several countries prohibit this. In cases of attack, this
prohibition limits Diplomatic Security's ability to protect an embassy
or consulate.
* Balancing security with the diplomatic mission: Diplomatic Security's
desire to provide the best security possible for State's diplomatic
corps has, at times, been in tension with State's diplomatic mission.
For example, Diplomatic Security has established strict policies
concerning access to U.S. facilities that usually include both personal
and vehicle screening. Some public affairs officials--whose job it is
to foster relations with host country nationals--have expressed
concerns that these security measures discourage visitors from
attending U.S. Embassy events or exhibits. In addition, the new
embassies and consulates, with their high walls, deep setbacks, and
strict screening procedures, have evoked the nickname, "Fortress
America."
Although Some Planning Initiatives Have Been Undertaken, Diplomatic
Security's Growth Has Been More Reactive Than Strategic:
Although some planning initiatives have been undertaken, neither
State's departmental strategic plan nor Diplomatic Security's bureau
strategic plan specifically addresses its resource needs or its
management challenges. Diplomatic Security's tremendous growth over the
last 10 years has been reactive and has not benefited from adequate
strategic guidance.
State's strategic plan does not specifically address Diplomatic
Security's resource needs or management challenges, as required by the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and other
standards.[Footnote 10] While State's strategic plan for 2007-2012 has
a section identifying security priorities and goals, we found it did
not identify the resources needed to meet these goals or address all of
the management challenges we identified in this report.
Diplomatic Security has undertaken some planning efforts at the bureau
and office level, but these efforts also have limitations. First,
Diplomatic Security creates an annual bureau strategic plan.[Footnote
11] While this plan lists priorities, goals, and indicators, these
elements are not always linked together. Further, the plan does not
identify what staff, equipment, or funding would be needed. Second,
Diplomatic Security has created a Visa and Passport Security Strategic
Plan to guide its efforts to disrupt individuals and organizations that
attempt to compromise the integrity of U.S. travel documents. Third,
Diplomatic Security reported that it is currently examining all of its
security programs to determine how funding and personnel resources are
distributed and support its goals. Finally, Diplomatic Security uses
established security standards and staffing matrixes to determine what
resources are needed for various activities. However, while these
various tools help specific offices or missions plan their resource
requests, they are not useful for determining overall bureau needs.
Several senior Diplomatic Security officials noted that Diplomatic
Security remains reactive in nature, stating several reasons for its
lack of long-term strategic planning. First, Diplomatic Security
provides a support function and must react to the needs of State;
therefore, it cannot plan its own resources until State determines
overall policy direction. Second, while State has a 5-year workforce
plan that addresses all bureaus, officials stated that Diplomatic
Security does not use this plan to determine its staffing needs.
Finally, past efforts to strategically plan Diplomatic Security
resources have gone unheeded. For example, Diplomatic Security's bureau
strategic plan for fiscal year 2006 identified a need to (1) develop a
workforce strategy to recruit and sustain a diverse and highly skilled
security personnel base and (2) establish a training float to address
recurring staffing problems. However, as of September 2009, Diplomatic
Security had not addressed either of those needs.
Diplomatic Security officials stated they hope to participate in a new
State management initiative, the Quadrennial Diplomatic and Development
Review (QDDR). This review, which will be managed by a senior
leadership team under the direction of the Secretary of State, is
designed to provide the short-, medium-, and long-term blueprints for
State's diplomatic and development efforts and offer guidance on how
State develops policies, allocates its resources, deploys its staff,
and exercises its authorities.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
In our report, we recommended that the Secretary of State--as part of
the QDDR or as a separate initiative--conduct a strategic review of the
Bureau of Diplomatic Security to ensure that its missions and
activities address State's priority needs. This review should also
address key human capital and operational challenges faced by
Diplomatic Security, such as:
* operating domestic and international activities with adequate staff;
* providing security for facilities that do not meet all security
standards;
* staffing foreign missions with officials who have appropriate
language skills;
* operating programs with experienced staff, at the commensurate grade
levels; and:
* balancing security needs with State's need to conduct its diplomatic
mission.
State agreed with our recommendation and noted that, although it is
currently not planning to perform a strategic review of the full
Diplomatic Security mission and capabilities in the QDDR, the Under
Secretary for Management and the Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic
Security are completely committed to ensuring that Diplomatic
Security's mission will benefit from this initiative.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased
to respond to any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee
may have at this time.
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
For questions regarding this testimony, please contact Jess T. Ford at
(202) 512-4128 or fordj@gao.gov. Individuals making key contributions
to this testimony include Anthony Moran, Assistant Director; Miriam
Carroll Fenton; Joseph Carney; Jonathan Fremont; and Antoine Clark.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, Department of State: Diplomatic Security's Recent Growth
Warrants Strategic Review, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-156] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 12,
2009).
[2] We visited 15 diplomatic posts in nine countries: Egypt (Cairo and
Alexandria), Germany (Frankfurt), India (New Delhi and Mumbai), Mexico
(Mexico City, Tijuana, and Merida), Tunisia (Tunis), Turkey (Ankara and
Istanbul), Saudi Arabia (Riyadh and Jeddah), the Philippines (Manila),
and Indonesia (Jakarta). We also conducted video-teleconferences with
Diplomatic Security officials in 3 additional posts: Iraq (Baghdad),
Afghanistan (Kabul), and Pakistan (Islamabad).
[3] GAO, Iraq: Key Issues for Congressional Oversight, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-294SP] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 24,
2009).
[4] Houston field office planned to use an increased number of agents
scheduled to arrive in early 2009 to address the backlog of cases.
[5] Currently, the MSD Office has two teams posted in Peshawar,
Pakistan, and one in Iraq supplementing security. The office must use
its four remaining teams to (1) prepare to relieve one of the sitting
teams in Peshawar and Baghdad and (2) cover the other parts of its
mission.
[6] GAO, Rebuilding Iraq: DOD and State Department Have Improved
Oversight and Coordination of Private Security Contractors in Iraq, but
Further Actions Are Needed to Sustain Improvements. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-966] (Washington, D.C.: Jul. 31,
2008).
[7] For GAO's review of the State's Compound Security Upgrade Program,
see GAO, Embassy Security: Upgrades Have Enhanced Security, but Site
Conditions Prevent Full Adherence to Standards, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-162] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 18,
2008).
[8] For GAO's review of language training at State, see GAO, Department
of State: Comprehensive Plan Needed to Address Persistent Foreign
Language Shortfalls, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-955] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 17,
2009).
[9] For GAO's review on experience gaps at hardship posts, see GAO,
Department of State: Additional Steps Needed to Address Continuing
Staffing and Experience Gaps at Hardship Posts,[hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-874] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 17,
2009).
[10] GPRA requires that a strategic plan contain six elements. The six
elements are: (1) Mission Statement, (2) General (also known as
Strategic or Long-Term) Goals and Objectives, (3) Approaches or
Strategies to Achieve Goals and Objectives, (4) Relationship between
General Goals and Annual Goals, (5) External Factors, and (6) Program
Evaluations. The committee report accompanying GPRA also states that a
multiyear strategic plan should articulate the fundamental mission of
an organization and lay out its long-term general goals for
implementing that mission, including the resources needed to reach
these goals. GAO has further suggested that addressing management
challenges, in addition to other factors, would enhance the usefulness
of agencies' strategic plans.
[11] Bureau strategic plans were previously called bureau performance
plans. State changed the name of these documents in fiscal year 2009.
[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:
