This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-559R 
entitled 'DCPS: Attorneys’ Fees for Access to Special Education 
Opportunities' which was released on May 22, 2002. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

GAO-02-559R: 

United States General Accounting Office: 
GAO: 

May 22, 2002: 

Congressional Subcommittees: 

Subject: DCPS: Attorneys’ Fees for Access to Special Education 
Opportunities: 

The District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) has had difficulty 
meeting the obligation to its special education students under the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.) 
(IDEA). By 1998, DCPS was experiencing serious problems in conducting 
timely hearings requested by parents under IDEA and in issuing final 
decisions within the required timelines. This, in turn, resulted in an
increasingly large number of parental complaints and legal suits filed 
against DCPS to obtain access to the educational opportunities called 
for under the act. As a result, the amount of attorneys’ fees awarded 
to parties who prevailed in the IDEA cases became costly to the 
District of Columbia. 

The District of Columbia Appropriations Acts for fiscal years 1999, 
2000, and 2001 limited the amount of appropriated funds that could be 
paid to an attorney representing a prevailing party in an action 
brought against DCPS under IDEA. Section 140(b) of the District of 
Columbia Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002 (Public Law No. 107-
96, 115 Stat. 923, 958 (2001)) directed the Superintendent of DCPS to 
report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees a complete
itemized list of attorneys’ fees awarded by a court to plaintiffs who 
had prevailed in these types of cases against the District of Columbia 
or DCPS under section 615(i)(3) of IDEA (20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)). The 
report was to include the amount of each award, the amount paid on each 
award, unpaid balances on each award, as well as other information. 
DCPS provided its final report to the House and Senate Appropriations 
Committees on February 28, 2002. 

Section 141 of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for fiscal 
year 2002 also directed that we report on this topic. We were directed 
to identify attorneys’ fees awarded by the courts to prevailing 
plaintiffs that were in excess of the appropriations acts’ limitations. 
Section 141 also directed us to provide a comparison, to the extent 
practicable, of the causes of actions and judgments rendered against 
public school districts with demographics and population comparable to 
those of the District. 

This letter confirms the agreement reached between the staff of the 
subcommittees and GAO as a result of our briefing on March 15, 2002, 
and includes the information we presented at the briefing. As a result 
of the briefing, it was agreed that the information provided satisfied 
our reporting requirement under section 141 and that no additional work 
is required. 

Results in Brief: 

Based on our limited review of DCPS’s February 28, 2002, report on IDEA 
awards and payments for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001, we 
determined that the appropriations acts’ limitations had little if any 
impact on the total amount awarded by the courts for the attorneys’ 
fees of prevailing parties for action brought against DCPS under IDEA.
Our review included the decisions cited by the DCPS report with respect 
to the courts’ authority to award attorneys’ fees in excess of the 
appropriations acts’ limitations. The court decisions make it clear 
that the appropriations acts’ limitations applied only to the amount 
that the District could pay to a prevailing party under IDEA and not 
the amount that the court could award. The decisions also make it clear 
that where there is an independent legal basis to award attorneys’ 
fees, such as the Civil Rights Act, the court could do so without 
regard to the appropriations acts’ limitations. Therefore, for the 
awards included in the DCPS report of February 28, 2002, the 
appropriations acts’ limits on the payment of fees awarded by the 
courts to an attorney of a prevailing party under IDEA had little or no 
impact on the amount of fees awarded to an attorney representing a 
prevailing party under IDEA. 

To address the requirement to provide a comparison, to the extent 
practicable, of causes of actions and judgments rendered against school 
districts of comparable demographics and population to the District, we 
reviewed data for the District and five other school districts and 
found that the number of civil action decisions where parents prevailed 
and the awards for attorneys’ fees varied vastly. We believe factors 
such as the history and scope of special education programs, as well 
the likelihood of a district’s success in prevailing in IDEA 
complaints, can significantly affect the number and types of cases a 
school district faces. Therefore, we believe these factors need to be 
considered when comparing data for attorneys’ fees awarded under IDEA 
across school districts. 

Background: 

Attorneys’ fees provisions under IDEA provide the courts with the 
discretion to award reasonable attorneys’ fees to prevailing parties in 
actions brought under IDEA. However, the District’s appropriations acts 
for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 imposed limits on the amounts 
payable for attorneys’ fees on a per hour and per case basis.[Footnote 
1] Table 1 shows the limits that the 1999, 2000, and 2001 
appropriations acts for the District placed on amounts payable to 
attorneys as fees for representing prevailing parties in actions 
brought under IDEA. 

Table 1: Limitations on Attorneys’ Fees for Prevailing Parties for IDEA 
Cases: 

Fiscal year: 1999; 
Hourly rate: $50; 
Limit per case: $1,300; 

Fiscal year: 2000; 
Hourly rate: $60; 
Limit per case: $1,560 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
Hourly rate: $125; 
Limit per case: $2,500. 

[End of table] 

In preparing its February 28, 2002, report to the Congress, DCPS sought 
to identify all awards of attorneys’ fees in IDEA suits as defined by 
section 140(b) of the 2002 appropriations act. The DCPS report to the 
Congress itemized the amounts for attorneys’ fees awarded to prevailing 
parties under IDEA for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001. DCPS’s report 
shows that for the 3-year period, $3.2 million was awarded for 
attorneys’ fees, interest payments, and litigation costs.[Footnote 2] 
Detailed schedules included with the February 28, 2002, DCPS report 
indicated that, as of the date of its report, no further balances were 
due on the awards shown in the report. 

Scope and Methodology: 

Because the information necessary to prepare the DCPS report under 
section 140(b) was the same information that we would need to prepare 
our report, we reviewed the DCPS February 28, 2002, report and DCPS’s 
methodology for compiling the underlying data, and concluded that 
DCPS’s approach for gathering the information used to support the 
report was reasonable. We also reviewed the DCPS report’s discussion of 
judicial decisions affecting the award and payment of attorneys’ fees
during the period covered by the review and found it to be an accurate 
representation of the law. This was further supported by our review of 
nine court orders provided by DCPS. We concluded that the detail 
contained in the nine court orders was consistent with the information 
included in the DCPS report. 

We also held meetings with DCPS and District officials and 
representatives to understand the procedures they used to identify, 
compile, and report the DCPS information to the Congress. In addition, 
we gained an understanding of the procedures DCPS and the District took 
to ensure the completeness of the population of cases identified as 
being brought under IDEA and the validity of the data in the DCPS 
February 28, 2002, report. We relied on the information provided by 
DCPS and did not determine the completeness, accuracy, or validity of 
the attorneys’ fees information DCPS reported to the Congress in its 
February 28, 2002, report. 

In order to identify school districts with some comparable demographics 
and population characteristics as the District, we used U.S. Department 
of Education data from the Local Education Agency Universe Survey: 
School Year 1999-2000[Footnote 3] to collect district and special 
education enrollment information. In addition, we collected student 
ethnicity information from several school districts. After reviewing 
total student enrollment, minority enrollment, and the percentage of 
special education students from several school districts, we identified 
three districts with some similar demographics as DCPS—Oakland Unified 
School District, Oakland, California; St. Louis City Public Schools, 
St. Louis, Missouri; and San Antonio Independent School District, San 
Antonio, Texas. In addition, we collected similar information from two 
school districts adjacent to the District—Montgomery County Public 
Schools, Rockville, Maryland, and Fairfax County Public Schools, 
Fairfax, Virginia. 

In order to determine the number of court decisions and the amount of 
attorneys’ fees paid by these school districts, we collected data from 
each school district’s office of special education and information from 
DCPS’s February 28, 2002, report. We also interviewed school district 
officials to gain an understanding of each districts’ procedures for 
processing civil actions brought under IDEA. 

As a result of our limited review, we consulted with subcommittee 
staffs and explained our findings. It was agreed that this satisfied 
section 141’s requirements. We conducted our work from January through 
March 2002 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. 

We provided our draft letter to DCPS officials and the District’s 
Office of the Chief Financial Officer for their review and comment. We 
received correspondence from the District’s Office of the Chief 
Financial Officer indicating that it had no comments on our letter. 
DCPS provided suggested technical and clarifying comments on this
letter, which we incorporated as appropriate. 

Judgment Awards by the Court for Attorneys’ Fees Were Not Limited: 

The DCPS report shows amounts awarded by the courts in excess of the 
limitations established by the appropriations acts. DCPS’s February 28, 
2002, report identified 99 payments related to court-ordered awards of 
attorneys’ fees and payments to a court-appointed Special Master in the 
amount of $3.2 million. We noted that, for the nine court orders we 
reviewed, either the District’s Office of Corporation Counsel (OCC) or 
DCPS’s Office of General Counsel attorneys conducted reviews of the 
orders issued by the courts and documented their review in memorandums, 
which summarized the amounts that the presiding judges required the 
District pay prevailing parties and the timing of the such payments. 

In some cases where the court awarded attorneys’ fees in excess of 
appropriations acts’ limits, the District obtained court orders 
delaying required payment of the excess attorneys’ fees until 
subsequent litigation could address the court’s authority to award and 
the District’s authority to pay the fees. The resulting court decisions
make it clear that the limitations in the 1999, 2000, and 2001 
appropriations acts applied only to the District’s authority to make 
payments for attorneys’ fees awarded under IDEA and not to the court’s 
authority to make awards in excess of the cited limitations. The 
decisions also make it clear that when another law, for example, the
Civil Rights Act,[Footnote 4] provided an independent legal basis for 
awarding attorneys’ fees, the appropriations acts’ limitations did not 
apply. Finally, in some instances the court ordered payments to be made 
by a date certain with interest to run against the District if they 
were not paid by that date. Therefore, the limit on the payment of fees
awarded to an attorney of a prevailing party under IDEA had little, if 
any, impact on the amount of fees awarded by the courts. 

Tables 2 through 5, which are reproduced from DCPS’s February 28, 2002, 
report, provide information regarding the court-ordered attorneys’ fees 
to prevailing IDEA plaintiffs in fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 and 
a summary of the court-ordered attorneys’ fees for the 3-year period. 
In total, the DCPS report identified 99 payments related to court-
ordered awards of attorneys’ fees and payments to a court-appointed 
Special Master in the amount of $3.2 million for the 3-year period of 
which $2.9 million was for immediate payment. Detailed schedules 
included with the February 28, 2002, report indicated that as of the 
date of its report, no further balances were due on the judgments shown 
in the report. This information is taken from the DCPS February 28, 
2002, report and is presented for informational purposes only. 
Accordingly, we have not determined the completeness, accuracy, or 
validity of the attorneys’ fees information that DCPS reported. 

Table 2: Attorneys’ Fees to Prevailing IDEA Plaintiffs in Fiscal Year 
1999: 

Awards paid by OCC: 
Total Judgments: $286,925; 
Judgments for immediate payment: $222,726. 

Awards paid by DCPS: 
Total Judgments: $342,055; 
Judgments for immediate payment: $179,514. 

Subtotal: 
Total Judgments: $628,980; 
Judgments for immediate payment: $402,240. 

Awards to Special Master: 
Total Judgments: $116,492; 
Judgments for immediate payment: $116,492. 

Total: 
Total Judgments: $745,472; 
Judgments for immediate payment: $518,732. 

Source: Unaudited table from the DCPS February 28, 2002, report. 

[End of table] 

Table 3: Attorneys’ Fees to Prevailing IDEA Plaintiffs in Fiscal Year 
2000: 

Awards paid by OCC: 
Total Judgments: $440,972; 
Judgments for immediate payment: $241,462. 

Awards paid by DCPS: 
Total Judgments: $98,194; 
Judgments for immediate payment: $24,926. 

Subtotal: 
Total Judgments: $539,166; 
Judgments for immediate payment: $266,388. 

Awards to Special Master: 
Total Judgments: $218,401; 
Judgments for immediate payment: $218,401. 

Total: 
Total Judgments: $757,567; 
Judgments for immediate payment: $484,789. 

Source: Unaudited table from the DCPS February 28, 2002, report. 

[End of table] 

Table 4: Attorneys’ Fees to Prevailing IDEA Plaintiffs in Fiscal Year 
2001: 

Awards paid by OCC: 
Total Judgments: $1,268,362; 
Judgments for immediate payment: $1,384,522. 

Awards paid by DCPS: 
Total Judgments: $1,743; 
Judgments for immediate payment: $18,085. 

Subtotal: 
Total Judgments: $1,270,105; 
Judgments for immediate payment: $1,402,607. 

Awards to Special Master: 
Total Judgments: $471,619; 
Judgments for immediate payment: $471,619. 

Total: 
Total Judgments: $1,741,724; 
Judgments for immediate payment: $1,874,226. 

Source: Unaudited table from the DCPS February 28, 2002, report. 

[End of table] 

Table 5: Attorneys’ Fees to Prevailing IDEA Plaintiffs in Fiscal Years 
1999 through 2001: 

Awards paid by OCC: 
Total Judgments: $1,996,258; 
Judgments for immediate payment: $1,848,708. 

Awards paid by DCPS: 
Total Judgments: $441,993; 
Judgments for immediate payment: $222,526. 

Subtotal: 
Total Judgments: $2,438,251; 
Judgments for immediate payment: $2,071,234. 

Awards to Special Master: 
Total Judgments: $806,513; 
Judgments for immediate payment: $806,513. 

Total: 
Total Judgments: $3,244,764; 
Judgments for immediate payment: $2,877,747. 

Source: Unaudited table from the DCPS February 28, 2002, report. 

[End of table] 

Comparability with Other School Districts: 

Section 141 also directed us to provide a comparison, to the extent 
practicable, of causes of actions and judgments rendered against public 
school districts of comparable demographics and population to the 
District. We identified three school districts—Oakland Unified School 
District, St. Louis City Public Schools, and San Antonio School 
District—for this purpose based on total student enrollment, minority
enrollment, and percentage of special education students. In addition, 
we collected similar information from two school districts adjacent to 
the District—Montgomery County Public Schools, Rockville, Maryland, and 
Fairfax County Public Schools, Fairfax, Virginia. (See table 6.) 

Table 6: Characteristics of Selected School Districts, 2001 through 
2002 School Year: 

Enrollment by ethnicity (%): Hispanic; 
District of Columbia: 6,160 (9%); 
Oakland Unified[C]: 15,875 (30%); 
St. Louis City: 513 (1%); 
San Antonio Dependent: 49,453 (86%); 
Montgomery County: 21,731 (16%); 
Fairfax County: 22,556 (14%). 

Enrollment by ethnicity (%): African American; 
District of Columbia: 57,498 (84%); 
Oakland Unified[C]: 23,813 (45%); 
St. Louis City: 33,226 (81%); 
San Antonio Dependent: 5,544 (10%); 
Montgomery County: 28,426 (21%); 
Fairfax County: 16,909 (10%). 

Enrollment by ethnicity (%): Asian American; 
District of Columbia: 1,369 (2%); 
Oakland Unified[C]: 8,467 (16%); 
St. Louis City: 596 (1%); 
San Antonio Dependent: 147 (0%); 
Montgomery County: 17,895 (14%); 
Fairfax County: 25,771 (16%). 

Enrollment by ethnicity (%): White; 
District of Columbia: 3,422 (5%); 
Oakland Unified[C]: 3,175 (6%); 
St. Louis City: 6,786 (17%); 
San Antonio Dependent: 2,282 (4%); 
Montgomery County: 65,849 (49%); 
Fairfax County: 89,530 (56%). 

Enrollment by ethnicity (%): Other[A]; 
District of Columbia: 0; 
Oakland Unified[C]: 1,588 (3%); 
St. Louis City: 37 (0%); 
San Antonio Dependent: 36 (0%); 
Montgomery County: 407 (0%); 
Fairfax County: 5,818 (4%). 

Enrollment by ethnicity (%): Total enrollment; 
District of Columbia: 68,449; 
Oakland Unified[C]: 52,918; 
St. Louis City: 41,158; 
San Antonio Dependent: 57,462; 
Montgomery County: 134,308; 
Fairfax County: 160,584. 

Enrollment by ethnicity (%): Enrollment by students in Special 
education (%)[B]; 
District of Columbia: 11,659 (17%); 
Oakland Unified[C]: 5,767 (11%); 
St. Louis City: 7,257 (18%); 
San Antonio Dependent: 7,656 (13%); 
Montgomery County: 16,359 (12%); 
Fairfax County: 22,162 (14%). 

[A] “Other” includes racial categories such as multiracial, Alaskan, or 
American Indian. 

[B] Count reflect students with Individualized Education Programs, 
which are written statements for each child with a disability 
indicating information such as child’s education performance level and 
goals. 

[C] Used percentage given by the school district to derive number of 
students. 

Source: School districts’ offices of special education. 

[End of table] 

Among these school districts, the number of court decisions where 
parents prevailed, as well as instances in which attorneys’ fees were 
awarded, varied. (See table 7.) For example, the Oakland Unified School 
District, St. Louis City Public Schools, and San Antonio Independent 
School District had no court decisions issued during fiscal years 1999 
through 2001. In contrast, in its February 28, 2002, report, DCPS 
showed 27 individualized civil action cases brought under IDEA where 
parents prevailed and attorneys’ fees were awarded. This resulted in 99 
payments related to court-ordered awards of attorneys’ fees and 
payments to a court-appointed Special Master in the amount of $3.2 
million in the District. 

Table 7: Court Decisions Where Parents Prevailed and Attorneys’ Fees 
Awarded for Selected School Districts, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2001: 

Action: Number of decisions where parents prevailed; 
District of Columbia[A]: 27; 
Oakland Unified: 0; 
St. Louis City: 0; 
San Antonio Dependent: 0; 
Montgomery County: 4; 
Fairfax County: 1. 

Action: Number of attorneys’ fees awarded; 
District of Columbia[A]: 99; 
Oakland Unified: 0; 
St. Louis City: 0; 
San Antonio Dependent: 0; 
Montgomery County: 4; 
Fairfax County: 0. 

Action: Amount of attorneys’ fees (dollars in thousands); 
District of Columbia[A]: $3,200; 
Oakland Unified: $0; 
St. Louis City: $0; 
San Antonio Dependent: $0; 
Montgomery County: $146; 
Fairfax County: $0. 

[A] Includes information related to the Special Master. 

Source: Unaudited February 28, 2002, DCPS report and the other school 
districts’ offices of special education data. 

[End of table] 

When comparing attorneys’ fees awarded by the courts across school 
districts, we believe additional factors such as the history and scope 
of special education programs, as well the likelihood of a district’s 
success in prevailing in IDEA complaints at the administrative or civil 
level, can significantly affect the number and types of court cases a 
school district faces. For example, a jurisdiction with a history of 
difficulties in delivering special education services to its students 
may have a comparatively higher number of parental administrative 
complaints and legal suits filed. On the other hand, the history and 
likelihood of parental success in filing administrative complaints or 
legal suits may also influence the number of legal complaints filed 
and, ultimately, the attorneys’ fees awarded by the courts to 
prevailing parties. Therefore, we believe these factors need to be 
considered when comparing data for attorneys’ fees awarded under IDEA 
across school districts. 

As a result of our March 15, 2002, briefing to your staffs, it was 
agreed that the information provided at that time would satisfy our 
reporting requirement under section 141; accordingly, we are providing 
this letter to that effect. If you have any questions about this 
letter, please contact me at (202) 512-9406 or by e-mail at 
franzelj@gao.gov. We are also sending copies of this letter to the 
District of Columbia’s Chief Financial Officer, the Superintendent of 
the District of Columbia Public Schools, and other interested parties. 
This letter is also available at no charge on GAO’s home page at 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Key contributors to this letter were 
David Bellis, Richard Cambosos, Charles Norfleet, Keith Thompson, and 
Michelle Zapata. 

Signed by: 

Jeanette M. Franzel: 
Acting Director: 
Financial Management and Assurance: 

[End of section] 

List of Subcommittees: 

The Honorable Mary Landrieu: 
Chairwoman: 
The Honorable Mike DeWine: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Richard Durbin: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable George Voinovich: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring and 
the District of Columbia: 
Committee on Governmental Affairs: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Joe Knollenberg: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Chaka Fattah: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Constance Morella: 
Chairwoman: 
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia: 
Committee on Government Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] See Public Law No. 105-277, § 130, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-138 (1998) 
(D.C. fiscal year 1999 appropriation); Public Law 106-113, § 129, 113 
Stat. 1501, 1517 (1999) (D.C. fiscal year 2000 appropriation); and 
Public Law No. 106-522, § 122, 114 Stat. 2440, 2464 (2000) (D.C. fiscal 
year 2001 appropriation). 

[2] Included in the total are amounts awarded to a Special Master 
appointed by the U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, to assist 
the court in resolving individual requests for immediate injunctive 
relief. Awards to the Special Master do not represent payments to 
prevailing plaintiffs but are made for reasonable fees and expenses 
incurred by the Special Master in carrying out court-ordered duties and
responsibilities. 

[3] The August 2001 survey is part of the Common Core of Data Nonfiscal 
surveys, which consist of data submitted annually to the National 
Center for Education Statistics by state education agencies, the 
District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the 
Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Department of 
Defense, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs regarding the most recent 
relevant information available about student, staff, and graduate 
counts for public elementary and secondary education agencies. 

[4] In the District of Columbia, attorneys’ fee awards under the Civil 
Rights Act and payments may cover not solely attorneys’ “fees” in a 
sense of compensation for the hours spent by attorneys in litigating 
matters, but also hourly compensation for paralegals and other attorney 
assistants, as well as standard expenses of litigation such as copying, 
messenger, and filing costs. Fee requests also may include expert 
witness fees. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov] contains abstracts and fulltext files of current 
reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The 
Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using 
key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 
including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail 
alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 

Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room LM: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 
Voice: (202) 512-6000: 
TDD: (202) 512-2537: 
Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. General Accounting Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: