U.S. Postal Service
Agencies Distribute Fund-raising Stamp Proceeds and Improve Reporting Gao ID: GAO-08-45 October 30, 2007As required by Congress, the U.S. Postal Service (Service) has issued three fundraising stamps--also called semipostals--which are sold at a higher price than First-Class stamps, with the difference distributed to designated federal agencies for specific causes. The proceeds from the three stamps are to fund breast cancer research, assistance to families of emergency relief personnel killed or permanently disabled in the terrorist attacks of September 11, and services to children exposed to domestic violence. Of the three stamps, the Breast Cancer Research stamp is the only semipostal currently being sold. GAO has issued three prior reports on semipostals. To provide Congress updated information, GAO examined (1) the amount of money that has been raised through the sale of semipostals, and (2) how the designated federal agencies have used the proceeds and reported the results.
As of June 2007, more than$68 million has been raised through semipostal sales. Of the three semipostals, the Breast Cancer Research stamp had proceeds totaling approximately $54.6 million, the Heroes of 2001 stamp had proceeds totaling about $10.6 million, and the Stop Family Violence stamp had proceeds totaling about $3.2 million. The authorized sale period for each semipostal affected the funds raised. In discussions with relevant agencies, advocacy groups and fund-raising organizations, several factors were identified that affected semipostal sales. These factors include public awareness about the charitable cause that a stamp represents, the stamp's design, and confusion about how the proceeds will be used. All four of the designated federal agencies have distributed proceeds from their respective semipostals. Both the Department of Defense (DOD) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) continue to award grants and fund programs for research with proceeds from the Breast Cancer Research stamp, and have added new programs to distribute the proceeds. The Administration for Children (ACF) within Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) used the proceeds from the Stop Family Violence stamp to award nine grants to programs that support children who have been exposed to domestic violence. Also, the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) recently distributed the last of the proceeds from the Heroes of 2001 stamp to the families of emergency relief personnel who were either killed or permanently disabled while serving in the line of duty in connection with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In September 2005, GAO recommended that the designated federal agencies annually report to Congress on their use of semipostal proceeds. DOD and ACF have submitted reports to Congress, and FEMA plans to report in the near future. NIH does not plan to prepare a report for Congress, but offers information on NIH's use of Breast Cancer Research stamp proceeds on its public website. But, NIH's website did not provide detailed information on proceeds received, how proceeds were used and related achievements.
GAO-08-45, U.S. Postal Service: Agencies Distribute Fund-raising Stamp Proceeds and Improve Reporting
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-45
entitled 'U.S. Postal Service: Agencies Distribute Fund-raising Stamp
Proceeds and Improve Reporting' which was released on October 31, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Subcommittees:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
October 2007:
U.S. Postal Service:
Agencies Distribute Fund-raising Stamp Proceeds and Improve Reporting:
Fund-raising Stamps:
Fundraising Stamps:
GAO-08-45:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-45, a report to the Senate Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs and House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
Why GAO Did This Study:
As required by Congress, the U.S. Postal Service (Service) has issued
three fundraising stamps”also called semipostals”which are sold at a
higher price than First-Class stamps, with the difference distributed
to designated federal agencies for specific causes. The proceeds from
the three stamps are to fund breast cancer research, assistance to
families of emergency relief personnel killed or permanently disabled
in the terrorist attacks of September 11, and services to children
exposed to domestic violence. Of the three stamps, the Breast Cancer
Research stamp is the only semipostal currently being sold.
GAO has issued three prior reports on semipostals. To provide Congress
updated information, GAO examined (1) the amount of money that has been
raised through the sale of semipostals, and (2) how the designated
federal agencies have used the proceeds and reported the results.
What GAO Found:
As of June 2007, more than $68 million has been raised through
semipostal sales. Of the three semipostals, the Breast Cancer Research
stamp had proceeds totaling approximately $54.6 million, the Heroes of
2001 stamp had proceeds totaling about $10.6 million, and the Stop
Family Violence stamp had proceeds totaling about $3.2 million. The
authorized sale period for each semipostal affected the funds raised.
In discussions with relevant agencies, advocacy groups and fund-raising
organizations, several factors were identified that affected semipostal
sales. These factors include public awareness about the charitable
cause that a stamp represents, the stamp‘s design, and confusion about
how the proceeds will be used.
All four of the designated federal agencies have distributed proceeds
from their respective semipostals. Both the Department of Defense (DOD)
and NIH continue to award grants and fund programs for research with
proceeds from the Breast Cancer Research stamp, and have added new
programs to distribute the proceeds. The Administration for Children
(ACF) within HHS used the proceeds from the Stop Family Violence stamp
to award nine grants to programs that support children who have been
exposed to domestic violence. Also, the Federal Emergency Management
Administration (FEMA) recently distributed the last of the proceeds
from the Heroes of 2001 stamp to the families of emergency relief
personnel who were either killed or permanently disabled while serving
in the line of duty in connection with the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001. In September 2005, GAO recommended that the
designated federal agencies annually report to Congress on their use of
semipostal proceeds. DOD and ACF have submitted reports to Congress,
and FEMA plans to report in the near future. NIH does not plan to
prepare a report for Congress, but offers information on NIH‘s use of
Breast Cancer Research stamp proceeds on its public website. But, NIH‘s
website did not provide detailed information on proceeds received, how
proceeds were used and related achievements.
Figure: Fund-raising Stamps: Proceeds Distributed to Designated
Agencies:
This figure is an image of three stamps whose proceeds will be given to
designated agencies.
[See PDF for image]
Source: The U.S. Postal Service.
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is reaffirming one of its prior recommendations that HHS annually
report to Congress on the NIH‘s use of Breast Cancer Research stamp
proceeds. The Service, ACF, DOD, NIH and FEMA did not provide overall
comments but they did provide technical comments, which were
incorporated as appropriate.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.GAO-08-45]. For more information, contact
Katherine A. Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Semipostals Have Collectively Raised Over $68 Million, but the Breast
Cancer Research Semipostal Has Raised the Most:
Designated Agencies Have Distributed Semipostal Proceeds, but Only DOD
and ACF Have Reported Their Use of the Proceeds to Congress:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Postal Service Semipostal Costs Recovered:
Appendix III: NIH Breast Cancer Research Awards Funded with Breast
Cancer Research Stamp Proceeds:
Insight Awards:
Exceptional Opportunities in Breast Cancer Research:
TAILORx:
NCI Breast Pre-Malignancy Program:
Appendix IV: DOD Breast Cancer Research Awards Funded with Breast
Cancer Research Stamp Proceeds:
Appendix V: ACF Awards Funded with Stop Family Violence Stamp Proceeds:
Tables:
Table 1: Comparison of Historical First-Class Postage Rates with Breast
Cancer Research Stamp Postage Rates and Related Differential Revenue
Percentages:
Table 2: Comparison of Historical First-Class Postage Rates with Heroes
of 2001 Postage Rates and Related Differential Revenue Percentages:
Table 3: Comparison of Historical First-Class Postage Rates with Stop
Family Violence Stamp Postage Rates and Related Differential Revenue
Percentages:
Table 4: NIH and DOD Grants and Awards Funded with Breast Cancer
Research Stamp Proceeds:
Table 5: Select Research Findings from DOD and NIH Grants and Awards
Funded with Breast Cancer Research Stamp Proceeds:
Table 6: ACF Grants Awarded Using Stop Family Violence Stamp Proceeds:
Table 7: FEMA's Distribution of Heroes of 2001 Stamp Proceeds:
Table 8: Applicants and Recipients of Heroes of 2001 Stamp Proceeds:
Table 9: Number of Applicants and Recipients in Each Emergency Relief
Category:
Table 10: Agencies, Advocacy Groups, and Organizations That GAO
Consulted for Their Opinions and Experiences with the Semipostals:
Table 11: Semipostal Costs Incurred and Recovered by the Service,
through June 30, 2007:
Table 12: Breast Cancer Research Stamp Costs Incurred and Recovered by
the Service from Inception through June 30, 2007:
Table 13: Heroes of 2001 Semipostal Costs Incurred and Recovered by the
Service from Inception through Final Disbursement on May 2, 2005:
Table 14: Stop Family Violence Semipostal Costs Incurred and Recovered
by the Service from Inception through Final Disbursement on May 1,
2007:
Table 15: Insight Awards to Stamp Out Breast Cancer Funded with
Proceeds from Breast Cancer Research Stamp Sales:
Table 16: Exceptional Opportunities in Breast Cancer Research Funded
with Proceeds from the Breast Cancer Research Stamp:
Table 17: Breast Pre-Malignancy Awards:
Table 18: Idea Awards for Breast Cancer Research Funded with Breast
Cancer Research Stamp Proceeds:
Table 19: Synergistic Idea Awards for Breast Cancer Research Funded
with Breast Cancer Research Stamp Proceeds:
Table 20: ACF Grants Funded with Stop Family Violence Stamp Proceeds:
Figures:
Figure 1: Number of Semipostals Sold Quarterly, in Millions, through
June 30, 2007:
Figure 2: Breast Cancer Research, Heroes of 2001, and Stop Family
Violence Stamps:
Abbreviations:
ACF: Administration for Children and Families:
BBB: Better Business Bureau:
DOD: Department of Defense:
EMS: Emergency Medical Services:
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency:
FVSPA: Family Violence Prevention and Services Act:
HHS: Health and Human Services:
NCI: National Cancer Institute:
NIH: National Institutes of Health:
TAILORx: Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
October 30, 2007:
The Honorable Thomas R. Carper:
Chairman:
The Honorable Tom Coburn:
Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management Government:
Information, Federal Services, and International Security Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Danny K. Davis:
Chairman:
The Honorable Kenny Marchant:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of
Columbia Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
In this country, a woman is reportedly diagnosed with breast cancer
every three minutes, and the disease claims another life every 13
minutes. Breast cancer is the most common nonskin cancer and the second
leading cause of cancer-related deaths in women. Each year, about $8.1
billion is spent in the United States to treat this disease. In light
of these statistics, finding a cure for breast cancer is vitally
important. In fiscal year 2007, federal agencies reportedly spent an
estimated $1.4 billion on breast cancer research.[Footnote 1] To
supplement these federal funds, Congress passed legislation to
establish the Breast Cancer Research stamp, called a "semipostal" or
fund-raising stamp, to heighten public awareness of the disease and
give the public an opportunity to participate directly in raising funds
for breast cancer research. A semipostal is a First-Class postage stamp
that is sold at a premium over the postage value to provide funding for
a designated charitable cause. The semipostal proceeds are transferred
from the U.S. Postal Service (Service) to designated federal agencies
that administer the funds.[Footnote 2]
Since 1998, Congress has required the Service to issue the nation's
first three fund-raising stamps--the Breast Cancer Research stamp, the
Heroes of 2001 stamp, and the Stop Family Violence stamp. First, the
Breast Cancer Research stamp, which was issued in 1998, funds breast
cancer research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the
Department of Defense (DOD). Second, the Heroes of 2001 stamp was
issued in 2002 (sold through 2004) to assist the families of emergency
relief personnel who were either killed or permanently disabled while
serving in the line of duty in connection with the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
administers this program. Third, the Stop Family Violence stamp was
issued in 2003 (sold through 2006) to fund domestic violence prevention
programs at the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) within
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).[Footnote 3]
This report, a follow-up to our September 2005 report on fund-raising
stamps, examines (1) the amount of money which has been raised through
the sale of the semipostals and (2) how the designated federal agencies
have used the proceeds and reported the results.[Footnote 4]
In conducting this review, we obtained sales and cost data from the
Service for each of the three semipostals and gathered additional
information from federal officials, fund-raising experts, and advocacy
groups about each of the semipostals and the related charitable causes.
We interviewed officials from the Service and the designated federal
agencies that received semipostal proceeds. In addition, we gathered
and examined agency documents related to the semipostal programs. We
also interviewed experts from fund-raising organizations, such as the
Association of Fundraising Professionals, the American Red Cross, and
the Better Business Bureau's (BBB) Wise Giving Alliance, about factors
that influence fund-raising efforts for different charitable causes. We
consulted key national advocacy groups affiliated with breast cancer,
emergency personnel affected by the terrorist attacks of September 11,
and domestic violence prevention for their opinions about and
experiences with the semipostals. As a part of our review, we assessed
the reliability of the data needed for this engagement and determined
that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We conducted
our review from June 2007 through September 2007 according to generally
accepted government auditing standards. A more detailed discussion of
our scope and methodology is included in appendix I. We requested
comments on a draft of this report from the Service, ACF, DOD, FEMA,
HHS, and NIH.
Results in Brief:
Semipostals have raised over $68 million as of June 30, 2007.
Individually, the Breast Cancer Research stamp raised approximately
$54.6 million, the Heroes of 2001 stamp about $10.6 million, and the
Stop Family Violence stamp over $3 million. Differences in the amount
of funds raised by each semipostal can be attributed, in part, to the
varying sales periods for each stamp. For example, the Breast Cancer
Research stamp--the only semipostal that is currently on sale--has sold
for the past 9 years while the sales period for the Heroes of 2001 and
Stop Family Violence stamps has been just over 3 years or less.
However, notwithstanding varying lengths in sales periods, the Breast
Cancer Research stamp generally outsold the other two semipostals. In
addition, the number of semipostals sold has varied equally as much as
the amount of funds raised has varied (see fig. 1). Also, based on
discussions we had with various agencies and organizations involved,
public awareness about the charitable cause the stamp represents, the
stamp's design, and confusion about how the proceeds will be used are
all factors that affected semipostal sales.
Figure 1: Number of Semipostals Sold Quarterly, in Millions, through
June 30, 2007:
This figure is a line chart showing the number of semipostals sold
quarterly, in millions, through June 30, 2007. The X axis is the fiscal
quarter, and the Y axis represents semipostals.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Postal Service data.
Note: Q refers to fiscal quarter. Q1 runs from October through
December, Q2 is from January through March, Q3 is from April through
June, and Q4 is from July through September.
[End of figure]
All four of the designated federal agencies have distributed proceeds
from their respective semipostals, but only DOD and ACF have reported
on the use of the proceeds. Both DOD and NIH continue to award grants
for breast cancer research using proceeds from the Breast Cancer
Research stamp and have added new programs to distribute the funds.
NIH, which had used Breast Cancer Research stamp proceeds to fund the
Insight Awards and Exceptional Opportunities programs, now uses the
proceeds for the Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment
(TAILORx) and the Breast Pre-Malignancy Program. These new programs are
more focused on particular areas of research than the previous
programs, which covered a broad range of breast cancer research issues.
DOD recently started awarding grants under its Synergistic Idea Awards
program, in addition to the Idea Awards program, which had been used
since 1999 to distribute the stamp's proceeds. The Synergistic Idea
Awards program is similar to the Idea Awards program in that it
supports innovative breast cancer research but differs in that it
requires two independent researchers to work synergistically on a
breast cancer research project. ACF awarded nine grants in fiscal year
2005 using proceeds from the Stop Family Violence stamp. These grants
were awarded to programs that support children who have been exposed to
domestic violence. Finally, FEMA recently distributed the last of the
proceeds from the Heroes of 2001 stamp to the families of emergency
relief personnel who were either killed or permanently disabled while
serving in the line of duty in connection with the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001. FEMA determined that 1,377 applicants met the
program's eligibility requirements and each recipient received an equal
portion of the stamp's proceeds. In our 2005 report, we recommended
that the designated federal agencies report annually to Congress on
their use of semipostal proceeds. Of the four designated agencies, DOD
and ACF have reported on their use of semipostal proceeds to Congress.
FEMA plans to report in the near future on its use of Heroes of 2001
stamp proceeds. NIH does not plan to prepare a report for Congress but
offers information on the use of Breast Cancer Research stamp proceeds
on its public website. We found that NIH's website did provide useful
overview information about NIH's use of Breast Cancer Research stamp
proceeds. However, NIH's website did not provide detailed information
on the amount of proceeds received to date, how these proceeds were
used and any related accomplishments that were achieved.
While we are not making any new recommendations in this report, we
reaffirm our prior recommendation aimed at ensuring greater
accountability for the Breast Cancer Research stamp.[Footnote 5] In our
September 2005 report, we recommended that the Secretary of Health and
Human Services annually report to the congressional committees with
jurisdiction over the Service on the use of Breast Cancer Research
stamp proceeds. We provided a draft of this report to the Service and
designated agencies for review and comment. The Service and designated
agencies did not offer overall comments on the draft report. These
organizations did provide technical comments, which we incorporated
where appropriate.
Background:
To date, three stamps have been issued in the nation's semipostal
program: the Breast Cancer Research, Heroes of 2001, and Stop Family
Violence stamps. Semipostals are stamps sold at a premium above the
First-Class postage rate; the net premium amount supports a designated
cause. The semipostal proceeds are transferred from the Service to the
designated federal agencies. The three semipostals were authorized
through separate congressional acts relating to each stamp. The Stamp
Out Breast Cancer Act required that the Service issue the Breast Cancer
Research stamp. The Heroes of 2001 and Stop Family Violence stamps were
mandated by Congress in the 9/11 Heroes Stamp Act of 2001 and the Stamp
Out Domestic Violence Act of 2001, respectively.[Footnote 6] Figure 2
illustrates the three semipostals.
Figure 2: Breast Cancer Research, Heroes of 2001, and Stop Family
Violence Stamps:
This figure is a picture of three stamps: breast cancer research,
heroes of 2001 (9-11), and stop family violence.
[See PDF for image]
Source: The U.S. Postal Service.
[End of figure]
The sales period for the three semipostals has varied. Initially, the
Breast Cancer Research stamp was authorized for 2 years in 1998. Since
then, it has been reauthorized four times and there are currently
proposals in Congress to further extend the sales period for either two
or four additional years beyond the current expiration date of December
31, 2007. The Breast Cancer Research stamp raises money for breast
cancer research programs supported by NIH and DOD, with NIH receiving
70 percent of the funds available and DOD receiving the remaining 30
percent. The Heroes of 2001 stamp was offered for sale from June 7,
2002, to December 31, 2004, and funds raised were transferred to FEMA
to assist the families of emergency relief personnel who were killed or
permanently disabled in the line of duty in connection with the
terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001. The
Stop Family Violence stamp was offered for sale from October 8, 2003,
to December 31, 2006. Proceeds from the Stop Family Violence stamp were
transferred to ACF for domestic violence prevention programs. Between
October 8, 2003, and December 31, 2004--a period of just over 1 year--
the three semipostals were on sale simultaneously. Currently, however,
the Breast Cancer Research stamp is the only semipostal still being
sold.
Previously, we reported that the Breast Cancer Research stamp has been
an effective fund-raiser and that funds raised through sales of the
stamp had contributed to key insights and approaches for the treatment
of breast cancer. Most of the key stakeholders we spoke with and,
according to a survey we conducted in 2003, members of the public
viewed the stamp as an appropriate way to raise funds for a nonpostal
purpose. With some concerns, however, about the Service's
identification and recovery of costs associated with carrying out the
act, we recommended that the Service reexamine and, as necessary,
revise its Breast Cancer Research stamp cost recovery regulations. The
Service implemented our recommendation by revising its regulations. We
also suggested that Congress consider establishing annual reporting
requirements for NIH and DOD. In addition, we recommended that the
Secretaries of Defense, Homeland Security, and Health and Human
Services annually issue reports to the Congressional committees with
jurisdiction over the Service and that these reports, among other
things, should include information on the amount of funding received
from semipostal sales and accounting for how the funds were allocated
or otherwise used.
Semipostals Have Collectively Raised Over $68 Million, but the Breast
Cancer Research Semipostal Has Raised the Most:
As of June 30, 2007, more than $68 million has been raised through the
sale of semipostals. The amounts raised and the number of stamps sold
has varied among the three semipostals. Also, based on our discussions
with various agencies, organizations, advocacy groups, and fund-raising
experts, we identified a number of factors that affected semipostal
sales, including public awareness, stamp design, and confusion about
how the proceeds will be used.
Breast Cancer Research Stamp:
The Breast Cancer Research stamp has raised about $54.6 million, which
dwarfs the funds raised by the other semipostals. Of the funds raised,
the Service transferred a total of $38.2 million and $16.4 million to
NIH and DOD, respectively, for breast cancer research. Similarly, among
the semipostals, the Breast Cancer Research stamp had the highest level
of sales with 777.8 million stamps sold as of June 30, 2007. One
explanation for the higher Breast Cancer Research stamp sales is the
length of time that each stamp was sold. The Breast Cancer Research
stamp--the only semipostal still on sale today--has sold for the past 9
years while the Heroes of 2001 and the Stop Family Violence stamps sold
for 2.5 and just over 3 years, respectively. Although Breast Cancer
Research stamp sales have fluctuated since the semipostal's issuance in
1998, sales have been relatively high over time compared to the other
semipostals (see fig. 1). For example, sales of the Breast Cancer
Research stamp have averaged nearly 22 million semipostals per quarter
since issuance.
Several factors affected Breast Cancer Research stamp sales to date. As
we reported in 2005, public awareness about the fund-raising causes
represented by the semipostals--or an issue often in the public eye--
affected sales levels.[Footnote 7] For example, an official from Susan
G. Komen for the Cure told us that, with one in eight women being
affected by breast cancer, the subject is always in the public
spotlight. Likewise, an official from the American Cancer Society told
us that public awareness of breast cancer, coupled with the outreach
efforts of several organizations, such as the Avon Foundation's breast
cancer fund-raising events, increased Breast Cancer Research stamp
sales.
Another factor that could affect Breast Cancer Research stamp sales is
the stamp's recent price increase. In May 2007, the price of the Breast
Cancer Research stamp increased from 45 cents to 55 cents. This marks
the first time that this stamp's price has increased by as much as 10
cents (see table 1). The Service's Governors established the new price
in January 2007[Footnote 8]--with knowledge that the Service had
proposed an increase of the First-Class postage rate from 39 cents to
42 cents.[Footnote 9] By law, the Governors are required to set postage
rates for the Breast Cancer Research stamp. The price must be an amount
evenly divisible by five and at least 15 percent more than the First-
Class postage rate. The Service refers to this difference in price as
the differential revenue.[Footnote 10]
The Governors decided on a 10-cent price increase because the
differential revenue of 34 percent, according to the Service, was
historically in line with past differential revenue amounts. For
example, in March 2002, when First-Class postage was 34 cents and the
Breast Cancer Research stamp was 45 cents, the differential revenue was
32 percent, and this, according to Service officials, did not
negatively impact Breast Cancer Research stamp sales. However, an
increase to 50 cents would have yielded a differential revenue of 22
percent--also in line with past amounts (see table 1). In addition,
Service officials told us that when the decision was being made as to
whether the Breast Cancer Research stamp price should be 50 cents or 55
cents, the Governors agreed with postal management that 55 cents would
be more appropriate. The Service believes that an increase to 55 cents
would not deter customers who were passionate and supportive of the
cause. With the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act effectively
allowing annual postage rate increases not to exceed the annual change
in the Consumer Price Index, several years could pass with possible
increases in the First-Class postage rate.[Footnote 11] Under this
scenario, setting the Breast Cancer Research stamp price at 55 cents
will allow for greater price stability in the event Congress further
extends the stamp's sales period beyond 2007.
Table 1: Comparison of Historical First-Class Postage Rates with Breast
Cancer Research Stamp Postage Rates and Related Differential Revenue
Percentages:
Date: As of June 1, 1998;
First-Class postage rate: .32;
Breast Cancer Research stamp postage rate: .40;
Rate difference / differential revenue percentage: .08/25.
Date: January 10, 1999 change in First-Class postage;
First-Class postage rate: .33;
Breast Cancer Research stamp postage rate: .40;
Rate difference / differential revenue percentage: .07/21.
Date: January 7, 2001 change in First-Class postage;
First-Class postage rate: .34;
Breast Cancer Research stamp postage rate: .40;
Rate difference / differential revenue percentage: .06/18.
Date: March 23, 2002 change in BCRS postage;
First-Class postage rate: .34;
Breast Cancer Research stamp postage rate: .45;
Rate difference / differential revenue percentage: .11/32.
Date: June 30, 2002 change in First-Class postage;
First-Class postage rate: .37;
Breast Cancer Research stamp postage rate: .45;
Rate difference / differential revenue percentage: .08/22.
Date: January 8, 2006 change in First-Class postage;
First-Class postage rate: .39;
Breast Cancer Research stamp postage rate: .45;
Rate difference / differential revenue percentage: .06/15.
Date: May 14, 2007 changes in First-Class postage and BCRS postage;
First-Class postage rate: .41;
Breast Cancer Research stamp postage rate: .55;
Rate difference / differential revenue percentage: .14/34.
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Postal Service data.
[End of table]
With only a few months passing since this increase, we were unable to
determine what impact, if any, this increase had on sales. However,
fund-raising experts that we spoke with generally agreed that consumers
with an affinity--or positive response--toward the Breast Cancer
Research stamp would most likely continue to purchase the stamp. For
example, breast cancer survivors and consumers with close family
members who have battled the disease will probably continue to purchase
the stamp, despite the 10-cent-price increase, to support breast cancer
research. Likewise, one fund-raising expert from the BBB Wise Giving
Alliance told us that, even with the 10-cent price increase, the Breast
Cancer Research stamp price is still relatively low. According to this
official, doubling the price, on the other hand, would probably
negatively impact sales, but it is difficult to determine at which
point an increase in price will negatively affect sales for any given
item. Two of the three advocacy groups that we spoke with and that are
affiliated with breast cancer said they could not say what impact, if
any, the price increase may have on Breast Cancer Research stamp sales,
while the third group believed a decline in sales would result.
Heroes of 2001 Stamp:
During its sales period, a total of 132.9 million Heroes of 2001 stamps
were sold. From the stamp sales, the Service transferred about $10.6
million to FEMA for distribution to the families of emergency relief
personnel who were either killed or permanently disabled while serving
in the line of duty in connection with the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001. Sales of the Heroes of 2001 stamp were initially
high after June 2002 when it went on sale, and over 50 percent of the
stamp's sale (see fig. 1) occurred in the two-quarters following
issuance. However, shortly thereafter, sales began to decline. In our
2005 report, we attributed this decline to the stamp's inability to
maintain steady sales over time--or lack of staying power. Sales of the
Heroes of 2001 stamp reflected the dramatic emotional spike typically
associated with episodic events, such as a disaster, with fund-raising
efforts building quickly and then declining as events begin to retreat
from the public spotlight. In contrast, ongoing causes, such as finding
a cure for breast cancer, are more likely to maintain staying power
overtime, according to fund-raising experts. While the postage rate for
the Heroes of 2001 stamp did not change during its sales period, the
postage rate for a First-Class stamp did increase--also causing the
differential revenue percentage to decline. Table 2 illustrates these
changes.
Table 2: Comparison of Historical First-Class Postage Rates with Heroes
of 2001 Postage Rates and Related Differential Revenue Percentages:
Date: June 7, 2002 (beginning of sales period for the Heroes of 2001
stamp);
First-Class postage rate: .34;
Heroes of 2001 stamp postage rate: .45;
Rate difference / differential revenue percentage: .11/32.
Date: June 30, 2002 change in First-Class postage;
First-Class postage rate: .37;
Heroes of 2001 stamp postage rate: .45;
Rate difference / differential revenue percentage: .08/22.
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Postal Service data.
Note: The sales period for the Heroes of 2001 Stamp ranged from June 7,
2002 to December 31, 2004. No changes in postage rates occurred for
First-Class postage or the Heroes of 2001 stamp between June 30, 2002,
and December 31, 2004.
[End of table]
Stop Family Violence Stamp:
The Service sold 45.4 million Stop Family Violence stamps during its
sales period--the lowest sales of the three semipostals. Similar to the
sales patterns for the Heroes of 2001 stamp, sales for the Stop Family
Violence stamp were highest during the initial two quarters following
issuance (see fig. 1) and then declined. Sales fell from 6.6 million
sold in the first quarter of fiscal year 2004--when the sales period
began--to 2.8 million sold in the first quarter of fiscal year 2007--
when the sales period ended. The Stop Family Violence stamp raised
about $3.2 million, which the Service transferred to ACF to fund
domestic violence prevention programs.
This review reconfirmed our previous findings regarding the factors
that likely affected Stop Family Violence semipostal sales. In 2005, we
reported that factors such as stamp design, confusion about how the
proceeds would be used, and limited advertising were factors that
likely affected sales. For this review, four of the five advocacy
groups we spoke with about the Stop Family Violence stamp told us that
the stamp's design--an image of a crying child--played a key role in
low stamp sales (see fig. 2). Several advocacy group officials
commented that as a result, postal customers were not likely to use the
stamp on wedding invitations or holiday mail. At least two officials
told us that the Service should have consulted with the domestic
violence community before selecting the stamp's final design. One
official told us that in so doing, the Service would have immediately
learned that a different design would have been more appropriate.
Another advocacy group official told us that because domestic violence
is an emotionally charged issue, a softer image was needed for the
stamp to have been more effective. This official suggested, for
example, that a purple ribbon--often associated with domestic violence,
would have been a more appropriate design.
In contrast, the Service felt that the design of the Stop Family
Violence stamp was not a key factor in the stamp's lower sales. The
Service noted that there are few subjects that will garner the same
level of support as the Breast Cancer Research stamp. The Service also
noted that it rarely consults with advocacy groups regarding the stamp
design because it is difficult to gain consensus.
In 2005, we also reported that support may be further enhanced if the
semipostal or available marketing information clearly indicated how the
proceeds will be used.[Footnote 12] During this review, three of the
five advocacy groups affiliated with preventing domestic violence told
us that confusion about how proceeds would be used also affected stamp
sales. One advocacy group specifically described this confusion as
concern in the domestic violence community that proceeds from the Stop
Family Violence stamp might go to children's programs in general--and
not specifically to enhance services for children exposed to domestic
violence. According to officials from this advocacy group and another,
had it been known early on how the proceeds would be used, the domestic
violence community would have given the stamp its full support and
would have been more likely to advertise it. Both of these efforts
could have resulted in higher Stop Family Violence stamp sales--as,
according to the American Red Cross and the BBB Wise Giving Alliance
officials, advocacy groups are the most useful tool for getting the
word out about charitable causes and fund-raising efforts.
In addition, we reported in 2005 that, comparatively speaking, a
limited amount of advertising was performed to promote sales of the
Stop Family Violence stamp. The Breast Cancer Research and Heroes of
2001 stamps had extensive Service advertising campaigns, as the Service
spent nearly $900,000 to advertise the Breast Cancer Research stamp and
over $1.1 million for the Heroes of 2001 stamp. However, due to an
overall reduction in the Service's budget, since 2003 advertising for
all stamps, including semipostals, were limited to in-store
messaging.[Footnote 13] Consequently, when the Stop Family Violence
stamp was issued, the Service had established a policy that all costs
incurred for advertising semipostals would be recovered from the
semipostal's proceeds. As a result, the advertising costs incurred for
this stamp were deducted from its proceeds.
When the Service met with ACF before the Stop Family Violence stamp was
issued, the Service proposed spending $1.5 million or more on an
advertising campaign to be funded by future Stop Family Violence stamp
proceeds. Because of the uncertainty about how much money would be
raised through sales of the stamp, ACF decided not to pursue the
proposed advertising campaign. Instead, the Service and ACF looked to
the advocacy groups to promote the semipostal. However, as discussed
above, uncertainty about how the proceeds would be used was one reason
why the domestic violence community did not fully support the
semipostal. Through May 1, 2007, the Service spent about $78,000 to
advertise the Stop Family Violence stamp, and about $77,000 was
recovered from the stamp's proceeds.[Footnote 14] The postage rate for
the Stop Family Violence stamp did not change during its sales period,
but the postage rate for a First-Class stamp did increase--causing the
differential revenue percentage to decline. Table 3 illustrates these
changes.
Table 3: Comparison of Historical First-Class Postage Rates with Stop
Family Violence Stamp Postage Rates and Related Differential Revenue
Percentages:
Date: October 8, 2003 (beginning of sales period for the Stop Family
Violence stamp);
First-Class postage rate: .37;
Stop Family Violence stamp postage rate: .45;
Rate difference/ differential revenue percentage: .08/22.
Date: January 8, 2006 change in First-Class postage;
First-Class postage rate: .39;
Stop Family Violence stamp postage rate: .45;
Rate difference/ differential revenue percentage: .06/15.
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Postal Service data.
Note: The sales period for the Stop Family Violence stamp ranged from
October 8, 2003, to December 31, 2006. No changes in postage rates
occurred for First-Class postage or the Stop Family Violence stamp
between January 8, 2006, and December 31, 2006.
[End of table]
Designated Agencies Have Distributed Semipostal Proceeds, but Only DOD
and ACF Have Reported Their Use of the Proceeds to Congress:
All of the designated federal agencies have distributed proceeds from
the sale of semipostals to their respective causes. Both NIH and DOD
have started to use proceeds from the sale of the Breast Cancer
Research stamp to fund new programs. ACF has used proceeds from the
Stop Family Violence stamp to award nine grants under a program that
provides funds to organizations that deliver services to children who
have been exposed to domestic violence. Finally, FEMA has recently
distributed the remaining proceeds from the Heroes of 2001 stamp to the
families of emergency relief personnel who were either killed or
permanently disabled while serving in the line of duty in connection
with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Of the four
designated agencies, only DOD and ACF have submitted to Congress a GAO-
recommended report on the agency's use of semipostal proceeds.
Breast Cancer Research Stamp Proceeds Used to Fund New Programs at NIH
and DOD:
Proceeds from the sale of the Breast Cancer Research stamp fund breast
cancer research grants and programs supported by NIH and DOD. NIH,
which began receiving proceeds from the Breast Cancer Research stamp in
1998, has distributed its share of the proceeds through four different
programs. Initially, NIH used the proceeds to award high-risk research
grants through the Insight Awards to Stamp Out Breast Cancer
initiative. This program was administered by the National Cancer
Institute (NCI). In 2003, NIH created the Exceptional Opportunities in
Breast Cancer Research initiative, which grants stamp proceeds to more
traditional, well-established research projects that would not have
been otherwise funded. In 2006, NIH started using Breast Cancer
Research stamp proceeds for the Trial Assigning Individualized Options
for Treatment (TAILORx) and the Breast Pre-Malignancy Program. TAILORx
is designed to determine which patients with early stage breast cancer
are most likely to benefit from chemotherapy and, therefore, to reduce
the use of chemotherapy in patients that are unlikely to benefit. The
Breast Pre-Malignancy Program is an NCI-wide program in breast cancer
research that includes the areas of prevention, etiology, biology,
diagnosis and molecular epidemiology. This program was created in the
fall of 2005 when NCI leaders recommended that the Breast Cancer
Research stamp proceeds be used to fund a program addressing multiple
aspects of breast cancer pre-malignancy. They hoped that linking NCI's
research programs with research programs underway at universities,
medical schools, hospitals, and research institutions, would create a
collaborative and integrated program that would result in new
discoveries and interventions.
As previously discussed, NIH received approximately $38 million from
the Service from the sale of the Breast Cancer Research stamp. Of this
amount, NIH has spent nearly $26 million and has set aside an
additional $8 million to cover the remainder of the Exceptional
Opportunities in Breast Cancer Research initiative and the Breast Pre-
Malignancy program. NIH has not yet determined whether it will use the
remaining $4 million for an existing or new breast cancer research
program. NIH has not used any of the stamp proceeds to manage these
programs; and as a result, the proceeds available for breast cancer
research were not reduced.
DOD also began receiving Breast Cancer Research stamp proceeds in 1998.
Initially, DOD's share of the proceeds from the Breast Cancer research
stamp funded grants under its Idea Awards Program, which funds
innovative approaches to breast cancer research. In 2007, DOD began
using stamp proceeds to fund Synergistic Idea Awards. This program,
which is designed to promote new ideas and collaborations, is similar
to the Idea Awards Program in that it funds innovative, high-risk, high-
reward breast cancer research but differs in that it requires two
researchers to work synergistically on a research project. Both
programs are administered by the Office of the Congressionally Directed
Medical Research Programs, which is part of U.S. Army Medical Research
and Materiel Command. DOD received approximately $16.4 million from the
Service from the sale of the Breast Cancer Research Stamp. DOD has
spent its share of the stamp's proceeds for grants, except for
approximately $608,000, or about 4 percent, which has been used for
overhead costs related to managing the grants. Table 4 contains
information about these grants, including the size and number of grants
awarded.
Table 4: NIH and DOD Grants and Awards Funded with Breast Cancer
Research Stamp Proceeds:
Agency: NIH;
Grant: Insight Awards to Stamp Out Breast Cancer: (2000- 2002);
Grant mission: Fund high-risk exploration by scientists employed
outside the federal government who conduct research at their own
institutions. Awarded for a 2-year period;
Number of grants awarded and amounts: Awarded 87 Insight Awards
totaling about $9.4 million;
Grant selection and evaluation: Program announcements are released
through the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts and NCI's website. Grant
applications undergo two levels of peer review that evaluate scientific
and technical merit.
Grants are monitored annually and are given a final review at their
conclusion. Criteria used to measure progress include publications and
patent filings.
Agency: NIH;
Grant: Exceptional Opportunities in Breast Cancer Research: (2003-
2007);
Grant mission: Funds well-established research that would not have been
funded otherwise. Awarded for a maximum of 4 years;
Number of grants awarded and amounts: As of the end of fiscal year
2006, NIH awarded 31 Exceptional Opportunities Awards totaling nearly
$10.8 million;
Grant selection and evaluation: Same process as described above for
Insight Awards.
Agency: NIH;
Grant: Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment (TAILORx):
2006-present);
Grant mission: Funds a trial designed to determine which breast cancer
patients are most likely benefit from chemotherapy;
Number of grants awarded and amounts: As of the end of fiscal year
2006, $4,500,000 given to the trial to offset the costs of testing;
Grant selection and evaluation: The funds were provided to Genomic
Health, Inc. by means of a sole source purchase order. This laboratory
developed the diagnostic test and is the only one that performs the
test, therefore, no competition was held. The funds have been
obligated, but the laboratory must submit a monthly voucher to be
reimbursed for the tests it performed during that month.
Agency: NIH;
Grant: Breast Pre-Malignancy Program: (2006-present);
Grant mission: Funds an integrated program in breast cancer research
that includes the areas of prevention, etiology, biology, diagnosis and
molecular epidemiology;
Number of grants awarded and amounts: Awarded 6 grants in fiscal year
2006 for a total of $853,000 and funded projects in NCI laboratories
totaling $371,000;
Grant selection and evaluation: The Breast Pre-Malignancy Steering
Committee provides oversight for the program. It consists of
representatives from each NCI division and office that supports or
manages studies, grants, or contracts in the Breast Pre-Malignancy
Program. The committee monitors the progress of research initiatives,
identifies areas for collaboration and coordination, keeps aware of
science related to breast pre-malignancy, and provides recommendations
for furthering breast pre-malignancy research.
Agency: DOD;
Grant: Idea Awards: (1999-2006);
Grant mission: Funds innovative high-risk/high-return research;
Number of grants awarded and amounts: As of September 2007, DOD granted
36 Idea Awards totaling about $14.6 million;
Grant selection and evaluation: Program announcements are posted
online. Applications undergo two tiers of review. The first tier is
peer review that evaluates technical and scientific merit. The second
tier is programmatic review that compares applications to each other;
Grants are monitored annually. Criteria used to measure progress
include publications, presentations, patents, and products.
Agency: DOD;
Grant: Synergistic Idea Awards: (Started in 2007);
Grant mission: Bring together two scientists in a collaborative effort
to conduct innovative breast cancer research. Grants are available for
up to $500,000 for a maximum 2-year period;
Number of grants awarded and amounts: In fiscal year 2007, DOD awarded
3 grants using Breast Cancer research stamp proceeds totaling over $1.2
million;
Grant selection and evaluation: Same process as described above for the
Idea Awards.
Source: NIH and DOD.
[End of table]
Grants awarded under the NIH Insight Awards and Exceptional
Opportunities programs and DOD Idea Awards program have resulted in
significant accomplishments in breast cancer research, according to
agency officials. The TAILORx and Breast Pre-Malignancy programs first
received funding in 2006 and, according to NIH, it is too soon to
identify major accomplishments from these initiatives. Table 5 provides
some examples of research findings from DOD's Idea Awards and NIH's
Insight Awards and Exceptional Opportunities programs that were funded
with proceeds from the Breast Cancer Research stamp.
Table 5: Select Research Findings from DOD and NIH Grants and Awards
Funded with Breast Cancer Research Stamp Proceeds:
Grant program (agency): Insight Awards (NIH);
Principal investigator and institution: Robert Weinberg, Ph.D:
Whitehead Institute for Biomedical research;
Research finding: This is early research into the role the breast
cancer microenvironment plays in the development of breast cancer
progression. It has led to a holistic approach to the study of the
mammary tumor and its environment and has provided new opportunities
and targets for intervention.
Grant program (agency): Insight Awards (NIH);
Principal investigator and institution: David Krag, M.D:
University of Vermont;
Research finding: This grant developed a number of innovative
approached and techniques to isolate and identify cancer cells from the
peripheral blood of cancer patients. These screening peptides could
potentially be used to target therapeutics to these rare cells and
perhaps treat metastases.
Grant program (agency): Exceptional Opportunities (NIH);
Principal investigator and institution: Susan Neuhausen, Ph.D:
University of California;
Research finding: This research is focused on individuals with a
specific genetic mutation. The researchers are using a database that
contains both genetic and environmental data to further define the
breast and ovarian cancer risk for this group of individuals, with a
focus on the insulin-like growth factor signaling pathway. This work
has led to many insights into breast cancer risks.
Grant program (agency): Exceptional Opportunities (NIH);
Principal investigator and institution: William M. Lee: University of
Pennsylvania;
Research finding: This grant studies the mechanisms of why some tumors
are rejected while others persist under the same conditions. It
specifically focuses on the growth of blood vessels in tumors. Treating
cancers by targeting their blood vessels (i.e., using antivascular
agents) is based on sound scientific rationale and has been shown to be
highly effective against transplanted tumors in mice. Results of human
clinical trials of antivascular agents have been less promising,
however. This grant supports research investigating the reasons for
that discrepancy.
Grant program (agency): Idea Awards (DOD);
Principal investigator and institution: Archibald Perkins, Ph.D: Yale
University;
Research finding: This research involves using new techniques to
identify novel genes involved in cancer. Investigators have identified
many genes not previously shown to be associated with mammary
tumorigenesis. This work may help with the prognosis of some breast
cancers.
Grant program (agency): Idea Awards (DOD);
Principal investigator and institution: Todd Giorgio, Ph.D: Vanderbilt
University;
Research finding: This project has made progress in synthesizing
different types of nanoparticles for use in the early detection and
treatment of breast cancer. This study suggests that the use of
nanoparticles and nanocrystals could be utilized as a future
inexpensive method of screening for breast cancer activity, as well as
a mechanism to improve breast cancer imaging and treatment delivery.
Source: NIH and DOD.
[End of table]
ACF Uses Stop Family Violence Stamp Proceeds for Grant Program:
ACF is using the proceeds from the Stop Family Violence stamp to fund a
discretionary grant program called Demonstration of Enhanced Services
to Children and Youth Who Have Been Exposed to Domestic Violence that
supports children who have been exposed to domestic violence. This
grant program is administered under the Family Violence Prevention and
Services Act Program (FVPSA). Stop Family Violence stamp proceeds have
temporarily increased FVPSA's budget for discretionary grants from $2.4
million per year to approximately $3.5 million per year. This grant
program was created to increase the availability of child-centered
services, develop and test new interventions and identify promising
practices, and to expand the capacity of domestic violence shelters and
community programs to effectively serve children exposed to violence.
Some of the eligible activities covered under the grant program
including providing services to children exposed to domestic violence,
developing processes to ensure confidentiality of information shared by
adult victims of domestic violence and their children, providing
training to service providers, and developing educational materials for
delivering intervention and prevention services to children who have
been exposed to domestic violence.
The Service distributed about $3.2 million in stamp proceeds to ACF
from May 2004 to May 2007. In June 2005, ACF published the grant
opportunity announcement. ACF received sixty-five applications and
selected nine applicants to receive three-year grants. In fiscal years
2005 and 2006, each grantee received approximately $130,000 per year.
In fiscal year 2007, ACF distributed about $96,000 to each of the
grantees, to expend the balance of stamp proceeds. ACF is distributing
all stamp proceeds under the grants program. ACF has absorbed the costs
of managing the grant program by managing the program with existing
staff. Also, ACF has funded the peer review of grant applications and
supported an annual training and technical assistance meeting for grant
recipients. Table 6 provides information about grants awarded by ACF
with Stop Family Violence stamp proceeds.
Table 6: ACF Grants Awarded Using Stop Family Violence Stamp Proceeds:
Agency: ACF;
Grant: Demonstration of Enhanced Services to Children and Youth Who
Have Been Exposed to Domestic Violence;
Grant mission: To provide enhanced services and support to children and
youth exposed to domestic violence in order to mitigate the impact of
that exposure and increase the opportunity of these children and youth
to lead healthy, nonviolent, and safe lives as adults;
Number of grants and amounts: ACF awarded 9 grants for a period of 3
years. In fiscal years 2005 and 2006, each recipient received $130,000.
In fiscal year 2007, each recipient received about $96,000;
Grant selection and evaluation: Grant announcements are released
through ACF's website and [hyperlink, http://www.grants.gov], an online
repository of federal grant opportunities managed by HHS.
Grant applications are evaluated on a weighted set of criteria made
available to applicants in the program announcement.
Grantees are monitored semiannually through required progress and
financial reports and are given a final review once the grant project
is completed.
Grantees are required to state how they will determine the extent to
which the project has achieved its stated objectives and the extent to
which accomplishments can be attributed to the project.
Source: ACF.
[End of table]
The projects funded by this grant program are still underway, and ACF
has not yet evaluated its accomplishments. According to ACF, several
grantees are evaluating the effectiveness of their efforts and have
reported significant progress in achieving their project goals. For
example, one goal is to expand the capacity of domestic violence
prevention programs to address the needs of children and families in
and out of emergency shelters. Another goal is to develop and enhance
community-based interventions for children exposed to domestic violence
whose parents have not sought the services of a domestic violence
prevention program. During the final year of program funding, ACF plans
to initiate an effort to identify, describe, and disseminate promising
practices that emerge from the projects.
FEMA Recently Distributed Proceeds from Heroes of 2001 Stamp:
FEMA has received over $10.5 million from Heroes of 2001 stamp proceeds
for distribution to the families of emergency relief personnel who were
either killed or permanently disabled while serving in the line of duty
in connection with the terrorist attacks against the United States on
September 11, 2001. The Service transferred the proceeds to FEMA in six
disbursements from November 2002 to May 2005. Once all of the proceeds
were received, FEMA published an Interim Rule in the Federal Register
in July 26, 2005, that established the program to be used to distribute
the stamp proceeds. This rule established that the funds would be
distributed equally among all of those deemed eligible. A notice
announcing the application period for the program was published in
December 2005, and FEMA accepted applications from December 2, 2005,
until April 3, 2006. The first payment of funds was distributed to
eligible applicants in November 2006 and FEMA made the final payments
in August 2007. Because the total amount available and the number of
eligible recipients was unknown, FEMA decided to wait until the end of
the Heroes of 2001 stamp sales period before finalizing this program
and beginning the process of identifying recipients. Table 7 provides
information about FEMA's distribution of Heroes of 2001 stamp proceeds.
Table 7: FEMA's Distribution of Heroes of 2001 Stamp Proceeds:
Agency: FEMA (program managed by the US. Fire Administration);
Grant: Assistance Program Under the 9/11 Heroes Stamp Act of 2001;
Grant mission: To benefit the families of emergency relief personnel
who were killed or permanently disabled while serving in the line of
duty in connection with the terrorist attacks against the United States
on September 11, 2001;
Number of grants and amounts: FEMA awarded Heroes of 2001 proceeds to
1,377 applicants who met the eligibility requirements. Each recipient
received $7,672.53;
Grant selection and evaluation: Applications were available from FEMA
upon request. They could also be downloaded from FEMA's website;
Eligible recipients included those who have been permanently physically
disabled in the line of duty, and personal representatives of emergency
relief personnel who were killed and in the line of duty, while serving
at the World Trade Center, Pentagon, or Shanksville, PA, site in
connection with the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
Source: FEMA.
[End of table]
FEMA conducted outreach efforts prior to and early into the application
process to inform potential applicants about the program and its
requirements. These efforts included face to face briefings with
relevant New York City area emergency relief agencies and their labor
unions, as well as discussions with emergency relief agencies in
Shanksville, PA, and areas surrounding the Pentagon. Broadcast e-mails
were forwarded to all of the urban search and rescue teams that
assisted at the locations of the attacks. In addition, agency and union
newsletters and other media in the New York City area carried stories
regarding the availability of the program and how to apply.
Specifically, as it related to assisting families of deceased emergency
relief workers, the New York City Police Department, New York City Fire
Department, and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey all
cooperated and coordinated with FEMA by providing special assistance
and directly notifying the families of the deceased about how to avail
themselves of the program. In addition, these agencies assisted
applicants by completing the appropriate sections of the applications,
as required. However, assisting the large number of applicants in
preparing their paperwork placed an unexpected burden on these
agencies, according to FEMA and officials from these agencies. When we
discussed the process for distributing the stamp proceeds with FEMA and
these agencies, all officials agreed that the process was collaborative
and successful. According to officials from the emergency relief
agencies, the application process required an extensive amount of work,
but ultimately grant recipients were grateful to receive the funds and
generally were not concerned about the length of time it took FEMA to
disburse the stamp proceeds.
FEMA received a total of 1,945 applications and determined that 1,377
applicants were eligible to receive funds. To apply for Heroes of 2001
stamp proceeds, victims or their families had to complete the
application and submit supporting documentation. This documentation had
to demonstrate that the individual was present at an eligible site--
World Trade Center, Pentagon, or Shanksville, PA--during the 96 hour
period required for eligibility and confirming that the individual was
deceased or living with a permanent physical disability as a result of
the attacks.[Footnote 15] Examples of documents used to ascertain
eligibility included, among other things, death certificates, worker
compensation agency decisions, Social Security Administration
disability documents, and affidavits from employers and co-workers.
Once FEMA received the application and required documentation, a staff
attorney and the project manager reviewed the applicant's file. If they
agreed that all elements necessary to qualify for the grant were
clearly present and documented, they recommended the application for
approval on a consent agenda for the next meeting of the Heroes Stamp
Review Panel, which consisted of staff from FEMA, the National Fire
Academy, and the Emergency Management Institute. The remaining
applications were reviewed and evaluated individually by the Heroes
Stamp Review Panel. Applicants who were determined to be ineligible
through this process were allowed an opportunity to appeal the
decision.
Even though FEMA conducted outreach efforts in metropolitan Washington,
D.C., and Shanksville, PA, no applications were received from these
areas. All of the applicants and recipients were emergency relief
workers from the attacks in New York. A large majority of applicants
and recipients were emergency relief personnel that are permanently
disabled as a result of serving in the line of duty in connection with
the terrorist attacks. Table 8 provides additional information about
the recipients of stamp proceeds.
Table 8: Applicants and Recipients of Heroes of 2001 Stamp Proceeds:
Category: Emergency relief personnel who were permanently disabled in
the attacks;
Number of applicants: 1,527;
Number of recipients: 972.
Category: Families of emergency relief personnel who were killed in the
attacks;
Number of applicants: 418;
Number of recipients: 405.
Category: Total;
Number of applicants: 1,945;
Number of recipients: 1,377.
Source: FEMA.
[End of table]
The majority of recipients of Heroes of 2001 stamp proceeds were
firefighters involved in rescue efforts related to the terrorist
attacks. The firefighters included members of the New York City Fire
Department, volunteer firefighters from other fire departments in the
area, and members of urban search and rescue teams. Other recipients
included law enforcement, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), and other
safety personnel who were involved in the rescue efforts. Table 9 below
lists the number of applicants and recipients in each of these
categories.
Table 9: Number of Applicants and Recipients in Each Emergency Relief
Category:
Emergency relief category: Fire[A];
Number of applicants: 1,506;
Number of recipients: 1,164.
Emergency relief category: Law enforcement[B];
Number of applicants: 328;
Number of recipients: 152.
Emergency relief category: EMS[C];
Number of applicants: 62;
Number of recipients: 34.
Emergency relief category: Other[D];
Number of applicants: 49;
Number of recipients: 27.
Emergency relief category: Total;
Number of applicants: 1,945;
Number of recipients: 1,377.
Source: FEMA.
[A] Includes FDNY firefighters, volunteers firefighters from other fire
departments, and members of urban search and rescue teams.
[B] Includes those from NYPD, the NY/NJ Port Authority, FBI, Secret
Service, other NYS and NYC law enforcement agencies, and police
departments and sheriff offices from the NYC area.
[C] Includes EMS personnel from FDN,Y as well as other NYC agencies,
and EMS personnel from NYC area hospitals.
[D] Includes safety personnel from the World Trade Center who were
responsible for emergency duties in the WTC and remained in the
structures performing other duties and others who performed eligible
emergency relief duties.
[End of table]
FEMA distributed the entire amount of the stamp's proceeds to the 1,377
eligible recipients. FEMA decided to distribute an equal portion of the
proceeds to each eligible recipient and each one received
$7,672.53.[Footnote 16] It was initially unclear how many of the
applicants would be deemed eligible to receive the stamp proceeds, so
FEMA distributed the proceeds using a three-stage approach. This
allowed some of the funds to be distributed to the recipients while the
remaining eligibility decisions and appeals processes were still in
progress.
According to FEMA, several factors contributed to the length of time it
took to distribute the funds. First, FEMA decided that each recipient
would receive an equal amount of the proceeds, which meant that all of
the recipients had to be identified and all appeals had to be completed
before the final dollar amount of each award could be determined.
Second, the majority of the applicants and recipients were permanently
disabled as a result of the serving in the line of duty in connection
with the terrorist attacks. Some of these disabilities did not surface
until well after the attacks, and the process to determine which
applicants met the criteria was complicated. For example, if a
firefighter claimed eligibility based on suffering from respiratory
disease, it could be difficult to prove that their injuries resulted
from involvement in the rescue efforts following the terrorist attacks
and not from his entire firefighting career. Third, verification of
these injuries required extensive paperwork, which had to be completed,
in part, by the emergency relief agencies with the use of existing
personnel. According to officials from some of these agencies, it took
considerable effort to complete the paperwork. When these agencies
became backlogged, FEMA allowed applicants to submit partial paperwork,
as long as all required documentation was received by the deadline.
Although the enabling legislation authorized the Service to recover
administrative and related costs for selling the stamp, FEMA was not
authorized to recover its administrative costs for the actual operation
of the program to distribute the proceeds. FEMA estimates that it cost
about $383,000 to administer the program. This sum includes the salary
and benefits of U.S. Fire Administration staff responsible for the day
to day management of the program,[Footnote 17] postage, travel costs,
setting up a toll free hotline, and supplies.
Some Agencies Report on Use of Stamp Proceeds:
In our 2005 report, we recommended that the designated agencies issue
reports to Congress on their use of semipostal proceeds. Program
reporting is important because it ensures accountability and provides
information to Congress and other interested parties regarding the use
of proceeds. The designated agencies have varied in their response to
our recommendation. DOD issued a report to Congress in July 2007 on its
use of proceeds from the Breast Cancer Research stamp and plans to
report annually as part of its report on Congressionally Directed
Medical Research Programs. In addition, DOD provides information about
the use of Breast Cancer Research stamp proceeds through information
papers and its website. ACF prepared a report on its use of proceeds
from the Stop Family Violence stamp and issued it to Congress in August
2007. The report includes information on the use of the proceeds and
the related accomplishments achieved to date. Since 2007 is the final
year for funding the grant program that uses Stop Family Violence stamp
proceeds, the grantees will be preparing reports on the effectiveness
of their efforts and the lessons learned. Using these reports, ACF
anticipates preparing a final report for Congress on the grant program
for release in 2009. FEMA plans to issue a report on its distribution
of Heroes of 2001 stamp proceeds in the fall of 2007. NIH does not have
any plans to report to Congress on its use of proceeds from the Breast
Cancer Research stamp, but NIH officials noted that information on the
breast cancer stamp is available to the public on its website and,
occasionally, through the NCI newsletter. We found that NIH's website
and NCI newsletter do provide useful overview information about NIH's
use of Breast Cancer Research stamp proceeds. However, NIH's website
did not provide detailed information on the amount of proceeds received
to date, how the proceeds were used and any related accomplishments
resulting from the use of these proceeds.
While we are not making any new recommendations in this report, we
reaffirm our prior recommendation aimed at ensuring greater
accountability and greater support for the Breast Cancer Research
stamp. Specifically, in our September 2005 report, we recommended that
the Secretary of Health and Human Services submit to the congressional
committees with jurisdiction over the Service annual reports on the
amount of funding received from the Breast Cancer Research stamp, how
these funds were used, and accomplishments achieved with these funds.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to the Service, ACF, DOD, FEMA, HHS,
and NIH for review and comment. These organizations did not offer
overall comments on the draft report. They provided technical comments,
which we incorporated where appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to Senators Dianne Feinstein and
Kay Bailey Hutchison and Representatives Joe Baca and Wm. Lacy Clay
because of their interest in the Breast Cancer Research stamp; Senators
Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charles E. Schumer because of their interest
in the Heroes of 2001 stamp; the Postmaster General; the Chairman of
the Postal Regulatory Commission; and other interested parties. We will
make copies available to others upon request. This report will also be
available on our Web site at no charge at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202)
512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report. Key contributors to this report included Gerald P.
Barnes, Assistant Director; Jennifer Clayborne; Colin Fallon; Kathleen
Gilhooly; Brandon Haller; Josh Ormond; and Stephanie Purcell.
Signed by:
Katherine A. Siggerud:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To determine the amount of money raised through the sale of the
semipostals, we analyzed semipostal sales data that the U.S. Postal
Service (Service) provided to us. These data included the amount of
quarterly stamp sales and the amount of proceeds that the Service
transferred to the four federal agencies designated for each
semipostal. We also interviewed officials from the designated federal
agencies to confirm the amount of proceeds each received from the
Service. The four designated federal agencies are the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Department of Defense (DOD) for the
Breast Cancer Research semipostal; the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) for the Heroes of 2001 semipostal; and the Administration for
Children and Families (ACF) within the Department of Health and Human
Services for the Stop Family Violence semipostal. In addition, we
obtained stakeholders' views on what factors affected semipostal sales.
For example, we spoke with Service officials; professional fund-raising
organizations; and national advocacy groups affiliated with breast
cancer, emergency relief personnel affected by the terrorist attacks of
September 11, and domestic violence. Also, we interviewed Dr. Ernie
Bodai, who is credited with conceiving the idea for the Breast Cancer
Research stamp, and Ms. Betsy Mullen, who lobbied Congress for the
stamp along with Dr. Bodai. Table 10 identifies the stakeholders whom
we spoke with. To determine the reliability of the data we received, we
obtained and reviewed specific information on the Service's data
collection and processing system. We determined that the data were
sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report.
Table 10: Agencies, Advocacy Groups, and Organizations That GAO
Consulted for Their Opinions and Experiences with the Semipostals:
Breast Cancer Research stamp;
Organizations interviewed: The American Cancer Society;
Organizations interviewed: The National Breast Cancer Coalition;
Organizations interviewed: The National Institutes of Health, National
Cancer Institute;
Organizations interviewed: Susan G. Komen for the Cure;
Organizations interviewed: U.S. Department of Defense, Army Medical
Research and Materiel Command.
Heroes of 2001 stamp;
Organizations interviewed: The New York City Fire Department, Family
Assistance Unit;
Organizations interviewed: The New York City Fire Department, Bureau of
Legal Affairs;
Organizations interviewed: The Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey;
Organizations interviewed: The Uniformed Firefighters Association of
Greater New York;
Organizations interviewed: Stop Family Violence stamp: U.S. Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Stop Family Violence stamp;
Organizations interviewed: The Family Violence Prevention Fund;
Organizations interviewed: The National Coalition Against Domestic
Violence;
Organizations interviewed: The National Domestic Violence Hotline;
Organizations interviewed: The National Network to End Domestic
Violence;
Organizations interviewed: The National Resource Center on Domestic
Violence;
Organizations interviewed: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration for Children and Families.
Fund-raising organizations;
Organizations interviewed: The Association of Fundraising
Professionals;
Organizations interviewed: The American Red Cross;
Organizations interviewed: The Better Business Bureau, Wise Giving
Alliance.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
To determine how the designated federal agencies have used semipostal
proceeds and reported results, we interviewed key officials from each
agency that receives these funds. These agencies included the National
Cancer Institute within NIH, the U.S. Army Medical Research and
Materiel Command within DOD, the Federal Emergency Management Agency
within DHS, and ACF. In addition, we obtained and reviewed agency
documentation pertaining to grant programs funded with semipostal
proceeds, including grant program development, purpose and goals, award
and program guidelines, the number and amounts of awards, reporting
requirements, and grant outcomes.
Finally, to describe the monetary and other resources expended by the
Service in operating and administering the semipostal program, we
obtained and analyzed the Service‘s data on costs of administering
semipostals as well as what costs the Service has recovered. We also
discussed the design of the semipostals, advertising, and postage rate
increases with officials in the Service‘s Office of Stamp Services.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Postal Service Semipostal Costs Recovered:
According to the Postal Service (Service), cost items recoverable from
the funds raised by semipostals include, but are not limited to,
packaging costs in excess of those for comparable stamps, printing
costs for flyers or special receipts, costs of changes to equipment,
costs of developing and executing marketing and promotional plans in
excess of those for comparable stamps, and other costs that would not
normally have been incurred for comparable stamps.[Footnote 18]
Specifically, the Service has identified 13 cost categories that it
uses to track semipostal costs.[Footnote 19] These categories include
the following:
* stamp design,
* stamp production and printing,
* shipping and distribution,
* training,
* selling stamps,
* withdrawing stamps from sale,
* destroying unsold stamps,
* advertising,
* packaging stamps,
* printing flyers and special receipts,
* equipment changes,
* developing and executing marketing and promotional plans, and:
* other costs (legal, market research, and consulting).
Costs reported by the Service totaled nearly $18.2 million through June
30, 2007 (see table 11). Costs for the Breast Cancer Research stamp
accounted for $12.7 million of this amount. The Service determined that
about $1.9 million of the total costs related to the three stamps
represented costs that were attributable specifically to the
semipostals, would not have been incurred for comparable stamps, and
therefore, needed to be recovered. The recovered amounts varied from
$1.2 million for the Breast Cancer Research stamp to just over $200,000
for the Stop Family Violence stamp. The Service reported that the
majority of costs incurred by the semipostals were covered by the First-
Class postage rate, and not recovered from the proceeds. Table 11
describes the semipostal costs incurred and recovered by the Service.
Table 11: Semipostal Costs Incurred and Recovered by the Service,
through June 30, 2007:
Semipostal: Breast Cancer Research;
Total costs incurred by the Service: $12,711,700;
Costs recovered by First-Class postage rate: $11,534,734;
Costs recovered from semipostal proceeds: $1,176,966.
Semipostal: Heroes of 2001;
Total costs incurred by the Service: 4,340,406;
Costs recovered by First-Class postage rate: 3,816,799;
Costs recovered from semipostal proceeds: 523,607.
Semipostal: Stop Family Violence;
Total costs incurred by the Service: 1,095,466;
Costs recovered by First-Class postage rate: 871,736;
Costs recovered from semipostal proceeds: 223,730.
Semipostal: Total;
Total costs incurred by the Service: $18, 147,572;
Costs recovered by First-Class postage rate: $16,223,269;
Costs recovered from semipostal proceeds: $1,924,303.
Source: U.S. Postal Service.
[End of table]
The specific costs recovered from surcharge revenue varied by amount
and type of expenditure for each semipostal (see tables 12 to 14, which
show costs for each semipostal).[Footnote 20] As we explained in our
September 2005 report, one of the differences is advertising. The
Breast Cancer Research and Heroes of 2001 stamp incurred advertising
costs of about $1 million, but when they were issued, the Service had a
budget to advertise stamps. Because advertising costs would be incurred
for comparable stamps, the Service did not recover these costs. When
the Stop Family Violence stamp was issued, the Service had, among other
things, eliminated all stamp advertising except for in-store messaging,
as previously discussed. Subsequently, the Service established a policy
that all costs incurred for advertising semipostals would be recovered
from the semipostal's surcharge revenue. Therefore, the advertising
costs incurred for this stamp were deducted from the surcharge revenue.
Table 12: Breast Cancer Research Stamp Costs Incurred and Recovered by
the Service from Inception through June 30, 2007:
Cost item: Stamp design (including market research);
Cost: $40,000;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $40,000;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0.
Cost item: Stamp production and printing;
Cost: 5,673,108;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 5,673,108;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0.
Cost item: Shipping and distribution[A];
Cost: 18,930;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 18,930;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0.
Cost item: Training;
Cost: 612,000;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 612,000;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0.
Cost item: Selling stamps (including employee salaries and
benefits)[B];
Cost: 0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0.
Cost item: Withdrawing stamp from sale;
Cost: 166,440;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 166,440.
Cost item: Destroying unsold stamps;
Cost: 0;
Cost covered by First- Class postage rate: 0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0.
Cost item: Advertising;
Cost: 888,000;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 888,000;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0.
Cost item: Packaging stamps;
Cost: 3,510,496;
Cost covered by First- Class postage rate: 3,219,696;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 290,800.
Cost item: Printing flyers and special receipts[C];
Cost: 238,000;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 238,000.
Cost item: Equipment changes;
Cost: 359,000;
Cost covered by First- Class postage rate: 176,000;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 183,000.
Cost item: Developing and executing marketing and promotional plans
(NYC kick-off event);
Cost: 1,006,000;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 851,000;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 155,000.
Cost item: Other costs;
Cost: 0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0.
Cost item: Other costs: Legal;
Cost: 22,000;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 22,000.
Cost item: Other costs: Market research;
Cost: 56,000;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 56,000;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0.
Cost item: Other costs: Consulting;
Cost: 8,000;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 8,000.
Cost item: Other costs: Field promotion events > $3,000;
Cost: 113,726;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 113,726.
Total;
Cost: $12,711,700;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $11,534,734;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $1,176,966.
Source: U.S. Postal Service.
[A] The process of distributing the Breast Cancer Research stamps would
not normally differ from those incurred for comparable stamps.
Therefore, after reviewing the costs associated with shipping and
distribution of the Breast Cancer Research stamp, there are no material
differences or specific additional expenses as a result of providing
the Breast Cancer Research stamp to postal units, and, therefore, the
Postal Service does not withhold distribution costs from the surcharge
revenue. The Postal Service does not track shipping and distribution
costs by stamp issue.
[B] The Postal Service does not have a system in place to track these
costs, and, because the Breast Cancer Research stamps are a small
percentage of total stamp sales, it would be extraordinarily difficult
and costly to attempt to study, analyze and measure these costs in a
live environment. Moreover, existing data indicate that there is no
material difference in the costs for selling semipostal and other
stamps at the retail window.
[C] Receipts used initially were a different format than the standard
postal receipt, and the cost was recovered. Receipts now used are a
standard form available for general use. The printing cost is no longer
specific to the Breast Cancer Research stamp, and costs are not
recovered.
[End of table]
Table 13: Heroes of 2001 Semipostal Costs Incurred and Recovered by the
Service from Inception through Final Disbursement on May 2, 2005:
Cost item: Stamp design (including market research);
Cost: $44,250;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $44,250;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0.
Cost item: Stamp production and printing;
Cost: 1,565,435;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 1,565,435;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0.
Cost item: Shipping and distribution[A];
Cost: 0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0.
Cost item: Training;
Cost: 0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0.
Cost item: Selling stamps (including employee salaries and
benefits)[B];
Cost: 0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0.
Cost item: Withdrawing stamp from sale[C];
Cost: 0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0.
Cost item: Destroying unsold stamps[D];
Cost: 0;
Cost covered by First- Class postage rate: 0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0.
Cost item: Advertising;
Cost: 1,258,249;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 1,074,211;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 184,038.
Cost item: Packaging stamps;
Cost: 1,288,758;
Cost covered by First- Class postage rate: 995,857;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 292,901.
Cost item: Printing flyers and special receipts;
Cost: 0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0.
Cost item: Equipment changes;
Cost: 0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0.
Cost item: Developing and executing marketing and promotional plans
(NYC kick-off event);
Cost: 137,046;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 137,046;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0.
Cost item: Other costs;
Cost: 0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0.
Cost item: Other costs: Legal;
Cost: 0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0.
Cost item: Other costs: Market research;
Cost: 0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0.
Cost item: Other costs: Consulting;
Cost: 0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0.
Cost item: Other costs: Field promotion events > $3,000;
Cost: 46,668;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 46,668.
Total;
Cost: $4,340,406;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $3,816,799;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $523,607.
Source: U.S. Postal Service.
[A] The process of distributing the Heroes stamps would not normally
differ from those incurred for comparable stamps. Therefore, after
reviewing the costs associated with shipping and distribution of the
Heroes stamp, there are no material differences or specific additional
expenses as a result of providing the Heroes stamp to postal units and,
therefore the Postal Service does not withhold distribution costs from
the surcharge revenue. The Postal Service does not track shipping and
distribution costs by stamp issue.
[B] The Postal Service does not have a system in place to track these
costs, and, because the Heroes stamps are a small percentage of total
stamp sales, it would be extraordinarily difficult and costly to
attempt to study, analyze and measure these costs in a live
environment. Moreover, existing data indicate that there is no material
difference in the costs for selling semipostal and other stamps at the
retail window.
[C] Cost of tracking exceeds the cost of withdrawing stamps from sale.
[D] Destruction costs are not independently tracked.
[End of table]
Table 14: Stop Family Violence Semipostal Costs Incurred and Recovered
by the Service from Inception through Final Disbursement on May 1,
2007:
Cost item: Stamp design (including market research);
Cost: $39,750;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $39,750;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $0.
Cost item: Stamp production and printing;
Cost: 353,633;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 353,633;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0.
Cost item: Shipping and distribution[A];
Cost: 0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0.
Cost item: Training;
Cost: 0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0.
Cost item: Selling stamps (including employee salaries and
benefits)[B];
Cost: 0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0.
Cost item: Withdrawing stamp from sale[C];
Cost: 0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0.
Cost item: Destroying unsold stamps[D];
Cost: 0;
Cost covered by First- Class postage rate: 0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0.
Cost item: Advertising;
Cost: 78,307;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 1,342;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 76,965.
Cost item: Packaging stamps;
Cost: 617,011;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 477,011;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 140,000.
Cost item: Printing flyers and special receipts;
Cost: 0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0.
Cost item: Equipment changes;
Cost: 0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0.
Cost item: Developing and executing marketing and promotional plans
(Colorado kick-off event and White House ceremony);
Cost: 0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0.
Cost item: Other costs (specify);
Cost: 0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0.
Cost item: Other costs (specify): Legal;
Cost: 0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0.
Cost item: Other costs (specify): Market research;
Cost: 0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0.
Cost item: Other costs (specify): Consulting;
Cost: 0;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 0.
Cost item: Other costs (specify): Field promotion events > $3,000;
Cost: 6,765;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: 0;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: 6,765.
Total;
Cost: $1,095,466;
Cost covered by First-Class postage rate: $871,736;
Cost recovered from surcharge revenue: $223,730.
Source: U.S. Postal Service.
[A] The process of distributing the Stop Family Violence stamps would
not normally differ from those incurred for comparable stamps.
Therefore, after reviewing the costs associated with shipping and
distribution of the Stop Family Violence stamp, there are no material
differences or specific additional expenses as a result of providing
the Stop Family Violence stamp to postal units, and, therefore, the
Postal Service does not withhold distribution costs from the surcharge
revenue. The Postal Service does not track shipping and distribution
costs by stamp issue.
[B] The Postal Service does not have a system in place to track these
costs, and, because the Stop Family Violence stamps are a small
percentage of total stamp sales, it would be extraordinarily difficult
and costly to attempt to study, analyze and measure these costs in a
live environment. Moreover, existing data indicate that there is no
material difference in the costs for selling semipostal and other
stamps at the retail window.
[C] Cost of tracking exceeds the cost of withdrawing stamps from sale.
[D] Destruction costs are not independently tracked.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: NIH Breast Cancer Research Awards Funded with Breast
Cancer Research Stamp Proceeds:
In November 1998, NIH began receiving Breast Cancer Research stamp
proceeds from the Postal Service. Since then, NIH has distributed the
proceeds--totaling nearly $31 million--through four different
mechanisms. Initially, proceeds from the stamp were used to award 87
grants under the Insight Awards to Stamp out Breast Cancer initiative.
Since 2003, NIH used the proceeds to award 31 grants under the
Exceptional Opportunities in Breast Cancer Research initiative. In
recent years, the agency has used its share of the proceeds to fund the
Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment (TAILORx) and the
Breast Pre-Malignancy Program. Grants awarded under each program are
listed below.
Insight Awards:
The Insight Awards were designed to fund high-risk exploration by
scientists who are employed outside the federal government and who
conduct breast cancer research at their institutions. Since fiscal year
2000, NCI distributed 87 Insight Awards totaling about $9.4 million.
Most of the awards were for 2-year periods. Table 15 provides
information about each Insight Award funded with Breast Cancer Research
stamp proceeds, including the fiscal year of the award, sponsoring
institution, principal investigator, research area, and the amount of
the award.
Table 15: Insight Awards to Stamp Out Breast Cancer Funded with
Proceeds from Breast Cancer Research Stamp Sales:
[See PDF for image]
Source: NIH.
[End of table]
Exceptional Opportunities in Breast Cancer Research:
The Exceptional Opportunities in Breast Cancer Research were designed
to advance breast cancer research by funding high-quality, peer-
reviewed, breast cancer grant applications that are outside the current
funding ability of NCI. In total, NCI awarded 31 Exceptional
Opportunities Awards totaling nearly $10.8 million. Each grant is for a
maximum of four years. Table 16 provides information about each
Exceptional Opportunities award, including the fiscal year of the
award, sponsoring institution, principal investigator, research area,
and amount of the award.
Table 16: Exceptional Opportunities in Breast Cancer Research Funded
with Proceeds from the Breast Cancer Research Stamp:
Fiscal year: 2003;
Institution: Columbia University Health Sciences;
Principal investigator: Harlap;
Research area: Prevention;
Amount: $616,010.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Institution: Johns Hopkins University;
Principal investigator: Ouwerkerk;
Research area: Diagnosis;
Amount: 154,852.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Institution: Northwestern University;
Principal investigator: Huang;
Research area: Diagnosis/Biology;
Amount: 389,482.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Institution: St Vincent's Institute of Medical Research;
Principal investigator: Price;
Research area: Biology/ treatment;
Amount: 108,000.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Institution: University of California, Irvine;
Principal investigator: Neuhausen;
Research area: Biology/prevention;
Amount: 545,271.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Institution: University of Pennsylvania;
Principal investigator: Lee;
Research area: Treatment/biology;
Amount: 198,759.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Institution: University of Pittsburgh;
Principal investigator: Wiener;
Research area: Diagnosis;
Amount: 405,009.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Institution: University of Texas Medical Branch Galveston;
Principal investigator: Lu;
Research area: Prevention/ biology;
Amount: 532,409.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Institution: University of Toronto;
Principal investigator: Vogel;
Research area: Biology/treatment;
Amount: 81,000.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Institution: University of Wisconsin, Madison;
Principal investigator: Schuler;
Research area: Biology/treatment;
Amount: 268,791.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Institution: Columbia University Health Sciences;
Principal investigator: Harlap;
Research area: Prevention;
Amount: 604,299.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Institution: Johns Hopkins University;
Principal investigator: Ouwerkerk;
Research area: Diagnosis;
Amount: 157,176.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Institution: Northwestern University;
Principal investigator: Huang;
Research area: Diagnosis/biology;
Amount: 389,522.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Institution: St Vincent's Institute of Medical Research;
Principal investigator: Price;
Research area: Biology/ treatment;
Amount: 108,000.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Institution: University of California, Irvine;
Principal investigator: Neuhausen;
Research area: Biology/prevention;
Amount: 545,576.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Institution: University of Pennsylvania;
Principal investigator: Lee;
Research area: Treatment/biology;
Amount: 198,759.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Institution: University of Pittsburgh;
Principal investigator: Wiener;
Research area: Diagnosis;
Amount: 410,688.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Institution: University of Texas Medical Branch Galveston;
Principal investigator: Lu;
Research area: Prevention/ biology;
Amount: 566,037.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Institution: University of Toronto;
Principal investigator: Vogel;
Research area: Biology/treatment;
Amount: 81,000.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Institution: University of Wisconsin, Madison;
Principal investigator: Schuler;
Research area: Biology/treatment;
Amount: 254,625.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Institution: Columbia University Health Sciences;
Principal investigator: Harlap;
Research area: Prevention;
Amount: 600,585.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Institution: Northwestern University;
Principal investigator: Huang;
Research area: Diagnosis/biology;
Amount: 401,655.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Institution: University of California, Irvine;
Principal investigator: Neuhausen;
Research area: Biology/prevention;
Amount: 561,474.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Institution: University of Pennsylvania;
Principal investigator: Lee;
Research area: Treatment/biology;
Amount: 198,759.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Institution: University of Pittsburgh;
Principal investigator: Wiener;
Research area: Diagnosis;
Amount: 423,007.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Institution: University of Texas Medical Branch Galveston;
Principal investigator: Lu;
Research area: Prevention/ Biology;
Amount: 550,147.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Institution: University of Wisconsin, Madison;
Principal investigator: Schuler;
Research area: Biology/Treatment;
Amount: 254,625.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Institution: University of California;
Principal investigator: Neuhausen;
Research area: Biology/Prevention;
Amount: 561,838.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Institution: University of Pennsylvania;
Principal investigator: Lee;
Research area: Treatment/Biology;
Amount: 194,088.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Institution: University of Pittsburgh;
Principal investigator: Wiener;
Research area: Diagnosis;
Amount: 404,520.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Institution: University of Texas Medical Branch Galveston;
Principal investigator: Lu;
Research area: Prevention/ Biology;
Amount: $24,291.
Total;
Institution: [Empty];
Principal investigator: [Empty];
Research area: [Empty];
Amount: $10,790,254.
Source: NIH.
[End of table]
TAILORx:
In 2006, NIH began funding the Trial Assigning Individualized Options
for Treatment (TAILORx) with proceeds from the Breast Cancer Research
stamp. The trial is designed to determine which patients with early
stage breast cancer would be more likely to benefit from chemotherapy
and, therefore, reduce the use of chemotherapy in those patients who
are unlikely to benefit. TAILORx seeks to incorporate a molecular
profiling test (a technique that examines many genes simultaneously)
into clinical decision making and, thus, spare women unnecessary
treatment if chemotherapy is not likely to be of substantial benefit to
them. The goal of TAILORx is to determine the most effective current
approach to cancer treatment, with the fewest side effects, for women
with early-stage breast cancer by using a validated diagnostic test
developed by Genomic Health, Inc. in collaboration with the National
Surgical Breast and Bowel Project, a network of cancer research
professionals. The test is provided free to all patients that meet the
eligibility requirements for the study.
In fiscal year 2006, NIH awarded $4,500,000 to Genomic Health, Inc. to
offset the costs of testing. As of the middle of May, 2007 there were
1,459 patients who were preregistered and had their tumors tested. The
number of patients to be tested during the trial is unknown, but NIH
anticipates that it will range from approximately 6,000 to 10,000,
depending on the preliminary results of the trial.
NCI Breast Pre-Malignancy Program:
The NCI Breast Pre-Malignancy Program represents a comprehensive
program in breast cancer pre-malignancy research that includes the
areas of prevention, etiology, biology, diagnosis, and molecular
epidemiology. In fiscal year 2006, NCI awarded 6 grants under the
program for a total of $853,000 and funded research projects at NCI
totaling $371,000. The Breast Pre-Malignancy Program began in the fall
of 2005 when NCI leadership recommended that stamp funds be used to
address multiple aspects of breast cancer around a unifying theme--
breast pre-malignancy. In addition, they recommended that the program
be supported via NCI-wide programs, which support federal researchers
located on the NIH campuses in Bethesda and Frederick, Maryland, and
extramural research programs, which support research underway in
universities, medical schools, hospitals, and research institutions
across the country. This provided an opportunity to create a
collaborative and integrated scientific program across NCI divisions
and centers and to synergistically reach new discoveries and
interventions. The NCI Breast Pre-Malignancy Program consists of six
research components supporting research on pre-malignant lesions,
cancer prevention techniques, and methods for detecting breast cancer
or pre-cancers earlier. The program involves work on breast cancer stem
cells, pathways, the microenvironment, molecular target identification
(biomarkers), imaging, drug recovery, and prevention and translational
research. Table 17 provides information about each Breast Pre-
Malignancy award, including the fiscal year of the award, sponsoring
institution, principal investigator, and amount of the award.
Table 17: Breast Pre-Malignancy Awards:
Fiscal year: 2006;
Institution: Baylor College of Medicine;
Principal investigator: Osborne;
Amount: $249,838.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Institution: Dartmouth College;
Principal investigator: Carney;
Amount: 101,546.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Institution: Group Health Cooperative;
Principal investigator: Buist;
Amount: 114,226.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Institution: Group Health Cooperative;
Principal investigator: Miglioretti;
Amount: 217,296.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Institution: NCI-Wide Program;
Principal investigator: (blank);
Amount: 371,398.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Institution: North Carolina University;
Principal investigator: Yankaskas;
Amount: 90,514.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Institution: NSABP Foundation Inc;
Principal investigator: Wolmark;
Amount: 80,000.
Fiscal year: Total;
Institution: [Empty];
Principal investigator: [Empty];
Amount: $1,224,818.
Source: NIH.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: DOD Breast Cancer Research Awards Funded with Breast
Cancer Research Stamp Proceeds:
As of September 2007, DOD has awarded 39 breast cancer research grants
totaling about $15.8 million using proceeds from the Breast Cancer
Research stamp. From 1999 to 2006, DOD applied Breast Cancer Research
stamp proceeds to its Idea Awards, which are funded under the Breast
Cancer Research Program. These grants focus on innovative approaches to
breast cancer research and cover research areas, such as genetics,
biology, imaging, epidemiology, immunology, and therapy. In 2007, DOD
started using Breast Cancer Research stamp proceeds to fund the
Synergistic Idea Awards. These awards support innovative, high-risk,
high-rewards breast cancer research collaborations between two
independent researchers. Grant proposals must demonstrate the
synergistic aspects of the collaboration. According to DOD officials,
about $608,000 of the transferred funds had been used for overhead
costs related to managing the grants. Table 18 provides information
about each Idea Award funded with Breast Cancer Research stamps
proceeds, including the fiscal year of the award, sponsoring
institution, principal investigator, research area, and the amount of
the award.
Table 18: Idea Awards for Breast Cancer Research Funded with Breast
Cancer Research Stamp Proceeds:
Fiscal year: 1999;
Institution: Garvan Institute;
Principal investigator: Daly;
Research area: cell biology;
Amount: $283,649.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Institution: Scripps Institute[A];
Principal investigator: Deuel;
Research area: molecular biology;
Amount: 5,000.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Institution: University of California, Davis;
Principal investigator: Heyer;
Research area: molecular biology;
Amount: 111,444.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Institution: Garvan Institute;
Principal investigator: Musgrove;
Research area: cell biology;
Amount: 222,652.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Institution: University of Arkansas;
Principal investigator: Shah;
Research area: cell biology;
Amount: 279,000.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Institution: Texas A&M University;
Principal investigator: Wang;
Research area: Imaging;
Amount: 317,510.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Institution: University of Texas, Southwest Medical Center;
Principal investigator: White;
Research area: molecular biology;
Amount: 334,094.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Institution: Tel Aviv University;
Principal investigator: Wreschner;
Research area: cell biology;
Amount: 225,000.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Institution: Burnham Institute;
Principal investigator: Adamson;
Research area: cell biology;
Amount: 578,183.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Institution: University of Arizona;
Principal investigator: Akporiaye;
Research area: Immunology;
Amount: 454,500.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Institution: University of Toronto;
Principal investigator: Penn;
Research area: molecular biology;
Amount: $296,142.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: Vanderbilt University;
Principal investigator: Cai;
Research area: epidemiology/genetics;
Amount: 560,144.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: University of California, Davis;
Principal investigator: Carraway;
Research area: cell biology;
Amount: 427,225.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: University of Texas, Southwest Medical Center;
Principal investigator: Chaudhary;
Research area: cell biology;
Amount: 312,434.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: Purdue University;
Principal investigator: Geahlen;
Research area: cell biology;
Amount: 425,425.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Institution: St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center;
Principal investigator: Rosner;
Research area: cell biology;
Amount: 454,181.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Institution: University of South Florida;
Principal investigator: Dou;
Research area: therapy;
Amount: 491,999.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Institution: Fox Chase Cancer Center;
Principal investigator: Godwin;
Research area: genetics;
Amount: 504,000.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Institution: Yale University;
Principal investigator: Perkins;
Research area: genetics;
Amount: 490,500.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Institution: Yale University;
Principal investigator: Chung;
Research area: diagnostics;
Amount: 490,447.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Institution: International Agency for Cancer Research;
Principal investigator: Kaaks;
Research area: epidemiology/ genetics;
Amount: 367,639.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Institution: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory;
Principal investigator: Yaswen;
Research area: molecular biology;
Amount: 508,790.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Institution: University of California, San Francisco;
Principal investigator: Ziv;
Research area: epidemiology/ genetics;
Amount: 767,171.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Institution: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory;
Principal investigator: Bissell;
Research area: cell biology;
Amount: 386,569.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Institution: Northern California Cancer Center;
Principal investigator: Clarke;
Research area: epidemiology/genetics;
Amount: 588,738.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Institution: Vanderbilt University;
Principal investigator: Giorgio;
Research area: diagnosis;
Amount: 453,000.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Institution: University of Pennsylvania;
Principal investigator: Lemmon;
Research area: therapy;
Amount: 475,500.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Institution: University of Alabama at Birmingham;
Principal investigator: Chaudhuri;
Research area: cell biology;
Amount: 436,500.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Institution: Cornell University, Weill Medical College;
Principal investigator: Huang;
Research area: pharmacology;
Amount: 483,600.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Institution: Ohio State University;
Principal investigator: Liu;
Research area: genetics;
Amount: 448,500.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Institution: Stanford University;
Principal investigator: Rao;
Research area: genetics;
Amount: 468,000.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Institution: Duke University Medical Center;
Principal investigator: Devi;
Research area: immunotherapy;
Amount: 155,085.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Institution: University of Southern California;
Principal investigator: Lee;
Research area: hormone regulation;
Amount: 489,000.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Institution: Baylor College of Medicine;
Principal investigator: Li;
Research area: hormone receptors;
Amount: 438,455.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Institution: Albany College of Pharmacy;
Principal investigator: Mousa;
Research area: chemotherapy;
Amount: 377,620.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Institution: University of Virginia;
Principal investigator: Rastinejad;
Research area: hormone receptors;
Amount: 454,500.
Total;
Institution: [Empty];
Principal investigator: [Empty];
Research area: [Empty];
Amount: $14,562,196.
Source: U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, DOD.
[A] This award was only partially funded by Breast Cancer Research
stamp proceeds. Total funding for this award was $404,176. The majority
of the funding came from DOD's Breast Cancer Research Program.
[End of table]
Table 19 provides information about the Synergistic Idea Awards funded
with proceeds from the stamp, including the fiscal year of the award,
sponsoring institution, principal investigator, research area, and the
amount of the award.
Table 19: Synergistic Idea Awards for Breast Cancer Research Funded
with Breast Cancer Research Stamp Proceeds:
Fiscal year: 2007;
Institution: Tufts University;
Principal investigator: Kuperwasser;
Research area: Metabolism;
Amount: $817,500.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Institution: Massachusetts General Hospital;
Principal investigator: Kelly;
Research area: Genetics/imaging;
Amount: 244,450[A].
Fiscal year: 2007;
Institution: Brown University;
Principal investigator: Gerbi;
Research area: Genetics;
Amount: 155,550[B].
Total;
Institution: [Empty];
Principal investigator: [Empty];
Research area: [Empty];
Amount: $1,217,500.
Source: U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, DOD.
[A] This award was partially funded using Breast Cancer Research stamp
proceeds. The total award amount is $687,397. The remaining amount was
funded from DOD's fiscal year 2006 Breast Cancer Research Program
funds.
[B] This award was partially funded using Breast Cancer Research stamp
proceeds. The total award amount is $787,325. The remaining amount was
funded from DOD's fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007 Breast Cancer
Research Program funds.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: ACF Awards Funded with Stop Family Violence Stamp Proceeds:
As of June 2007, ACF awarded approximately $2.3 million of the proceeds
from the Stop Family Violence stamp under the Demonstration of Enhanced
Services to Children and Youth Who Have Been Exposed to Domestic
Violence grants program. These grants support efforts to identify,
design, and test approaches for providing enhanced and direct service
for the children of abused parents being served in prevention programs
or to develop an expanded capacity to work within community
collaborations and systems responding to children exposed to domestic
violence. In fiscal years 2005 and 2006, ACF awarded nine grantees
approximately $130,000 each year. In fiscal year 2007, the final year
of the program, ACF awarded about $96,000 to each grantee, to expend
the balance of the Stop Family Violence stamp proceeds. Table 20
contains information about each grant funded with Stop Family Violence
stamp proceeds, including the name of the grantee, the location of the
organization, and total amount awarded.
Table 20: ACF Grants Funded with Stop Family Violence Stamp Proceeds:
Grantee: Department of Human Services;
Location: Lansing, MI;
Amount: $353,948.
Grantee: District of Columbia Department of Human Services;
Location: Washington, D.C;
Amount: 355,648.
Grantee: East Bay Community Foundation;
Location: Oakland, CA;
Amount: 355,170.
Grantee: New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence;
Location: Albany, NY;
Amount: 355,648.
Grantee: Oklahoma Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault;
Location: Oklahoma City, OK;
Amount: 355,648.
Grantee: Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence;
Location: Harrisburg, PA;
Amount: 355,648.
Grantee: Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance;
Location: Richmond, VA;
Amount: 353,760.
Grantee: Womenspace, Inc;
Location: Eugene, OR;
Amount: 355,648.
Grantee: Women's Crisis and Family Outreach Center;
Location: Castle Rock, CO;
Amount: 355,648.
Total;
Location: [Empty];
Amount: $3,196,766.
Source: Administration for Children and Families, HHS.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] The $1.4 billion comprises funding from the National Institutes of
Health (and that agency's National Cancer Institute) and the Department
of Defense for breast cancer research only.
[2] Prior to transferring the proceeds to agencies, the Service is to
deduct its costs attributable to the semipostals that would not
normally be incurred for comparable stamps.
[3] The Stamp Out Breast Cancer Act (Pub.L. No. 105-41), August 13,
1997, required that the Service issue a Breast Cancer Research stamp.
The 9/11 Heroes Stamp Act of 2001 and the Stamp Out Domestic Violence
Act of 2001 mandated that the Service issue semipostals for these
causes. Both the Heroes of 2001 and Stop Family Violence stamps were
authorized as part of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2002 (Pub.L. No. 107-67).
[4] GAO, U.S. Postal Service: Factors Affecting Fund-Raising Stamp
Sales Suggest Lessons Learned, GAO-05-953 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30,
2005). GAO issued reports on the Breast Cancer Research stamp in 2000
and 2003, in response to reporting requirements in Pub. L. No. 105-41
and Pub. L. No. 106-253. GAO, Breast Cancer Research Stamp: Millions
Raised for Research, but Better Cost Recovery Criteria Needed, GAO/ GGD-
00-80 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 28, 2000) and Breast Cancer Research
Stamp: Effective Fund-Raiser, but Better Reporting and Cost-Recovery
Criteria Needed, GAO-03-1021 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2003).
[5] GAO-05-953.
[6] Both acts were included as part of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2002 (Pub.L. No. 107-67).
[7] GAO-05-953.
[8] The nine Governors, who are appointed by the President and
confirmed by the Senate, are chosen to represent the public interest
generally, and shall not be representatives of specific interests using
the Postal Service. The Governors plus the Postmaster General and
Deputy Postmaster General serve as members of the Board of Governors,
which directs the operations of the Service.
[9] The First-Class postage rate was increased to 41 cents, rather than
42 cents, in May 2007.
[10] 39 U.S.C 414.
[11] Pub. L. No. 109-435.
[12] GAO-05-953.
[13] In-store messaging includes point of purchase placards and posters
that include the semipostal's image along with commemorative stamp
images.
[14] About $1,000 of the amount spent for advertising was covered by
the First-Class postage rate.
[15] Emergency relief personnel suffering only emotional injuries were
excluded in the definition of eligible claimants.
[16] In order to totally deplete the proceeds from the sale of the
stamp, 1,357 recipients received $7,672.53 and 20 recipients received
$7,672.52.
[17] FEMA asked the United States Fire Administration (USFA) to manage
the program using USFA staff for day to day management of the program.
Both FEMA and USFA also provided staff to serve on the Review Panel
which made eligibility determinations on the applications, but
personnel services for the review panel were provided on an in-kind
basis.
[18] 39 C.F.R. 551.
[19] USPS, United States Postal Service: Response to the General
Accounting Office Recommendations on the Breast Cancer Research Stamp
(June 25, 2004).
[20] The surcharge revenue is the amount paid above the First-Class
postage rate by a semipostal customer.
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 Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, DC 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [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:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, jarmong@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, DC 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Manager, youngc@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, DC 20548:
