This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-561R 
entitled 'Human Rights: State Department Followed an Extensive Process 
to Prepare Annual Country Reports' which was released on May 31, 2012. 

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

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

GAO-12-561R 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

May 31, 2012: 

The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton:
Secretary of State: 

Dear Madam Secretary: 

Subject: Human Rights: State Department Followed an Extensive Process 
to Prepare Annual Country Reports: 

Human rights are a central concern of U.S. foreign policy. Each year, 
in response to congressional mandates,[Footnote 1] the Department of 
State (State) issues its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, an 
important source of information on human rights worldwide. The country 
reports--collectively known as the Human Rights Report (HRR)--cover 
internationally recognized civil, political, and worker rights as set 
forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. State's 2010 HRR 
included country reports covering the status of human rights in more 
than 190 countries and spanning more than 7,000 pages.[Footnote 2] The 
2010 report noted that State attempted to make the country reports as 
comprehensive, objective, and uniform as possible in both scope and 
quality of coverage. 

Regarding State's procedures for preparing the country reports, 
particularly the worker rights section, we examined (1) State's 
process for making the country reports as comprehensive, objective, 
and uniform as possible, and (2) the extent to which State followed 
its process in preparing the worker rights section of the 2010 country 
reports. All U.S. free trade agreements signed since 2000 include 
provisions related to worker rights. Moreover, as we have previously 
reported, enforcement of labor laws continued to be a challenge in 
some countries with which the United States has free trade agreements. 
[Footnote 3] State defines comprehensive as omitting no information of 
significant value; objective as including information impartially, 
regardless of whether a country is an ally or adversary; and uniform, 
as reporting similar types of information across country reports. 

To examine State's process for preparing the country reports, we 
reviewed relevant laws and State guidance. We met with State 
officials, including staff from the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, 
and Labor (DRL) who lead the process for preparing the HRR; we also 
met with other State personnel, including Foreign Service officers, 
who prepare, edit, and review the reports. In addition, we met with 
Department of Labor (Labor) officials who review the worker rights 
section of the country reports. To examine the extent to which State 
followed its process in preparing the worker rights section of the 
2010 country reports, we reviewed that section in the reports for 25 
countries: 20 countries with which the United States has signed free 
trade agreements;[Footnote 4] 4 countries with which the United States 
is currently negotiating trade agreements;[Footnote 5] and 1 country, 
Russia, which the World Trade Organization recently approved for 
accession.[Footnote 6] We assessed comprehensiveness and objectivity 
by identifying the types of sources that State cited in the worker 
rights section of the 25 country reports, in accordance with its 
instructions. We assessed uniformity by determining whether the worker 
rights sections in these 25 reports consistently used the criteria in 
State's instructions. Further, we met with select State officials who 
prepared, edited, and reviewed these sections. We also interviewed 
officials from Labor, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative 
(USTR), the International Labor Organization,[Footnote 7] human rights 
nongovernmental organizations (NGO), and labor organizations, to 
obtain their views on the country reports' comprehensiveness and 
objectivity. In addition, we contacted nine business groups to obtain 
their views on the worker rights section of the country reports. Only 
one of these groups agreed to meet with us; representatives of the 
other eight groups did not respond, said they did not follow labor 
issues, or did not have the time to meet with us. See enclosure I for 
additional information about our scope and methodology. 

We conducted this audit from September 2011 to May 2012 in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, 
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings 
and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the 
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Summary: 

State has an extensive process designed to make the country reports on 
human rights as comprehensive, objective, and uniform as possible. 
This process includes annually issuing detailed instructions, 
consulting and assessing information from multiple sources, and 
collaboratively and iteratively drafting and reviewing the reports. 
State issues instructions for preparing the country reports each year, 
outlining a consistent structure and describing, for example, the 
topics that should be included in each subsection. The instructions 
also, among other things, indicate that the country reports should 
build on the previous year's reports and specify guidelines for new 
and updated content. In addition, the instructions state that staff 
preparing the country reports are to use and assess multiple sources, 
including host governments, local and international human NGOs, labor 
unions, and host country media as well as classified information. 
State officials told us that they also obtain information from 
business leaders and industry groups, although there is no legal 
requirement to do so. In general, according to State officials, 
Foreign Service officers--often on their first or second tour of duty--
prepare first drafts of the country reports with the assistance of 
other embassy personnel, and at some embassies, officers with 
expertise in labor-related issues draft the report sections on worker 
rights.[Footnote 8] DRL editors and subject matter experts lead the 
editing and reviewing of the draft reports, aiming to ensure that the 
reports are as comprehensive, objective, and uniform as possible; 
accurately reflect the status of human rights in each country; and 
treat issues consistently among countries. During this process, DRL 
obtains and addresses comments from reviewers within DRL as well as 
from other State bureaus and offices and from Labor. 

State generally followed its process for making the country reports 
comprehensive, objective, and uniform by obtaining expert reviews, 
consulting a variety of sources, and using a consistent structure in 
the worker rights section of the 25 country reports we analyzed. In 
addition to submitting the worker rights sections of each country 
report for general reviews as outlined in its production instructions, 
State submitted the sections to DRL's Office of International Labor 
Affairs and Labor's Bureau of International Labor Affairs. To make 
these sections as comprehensive and objective as possible, State cited 
or attributed information to a variety of sources--including 
governments, UN entities, labor groups, and human rights groups--
consistent with its instructions. We found that all the worker rights 
sections of the 25 country reports we reviewed cited or attributed 
information to such sources. Our analysis showed that State also cited 
information from businesses or regarding business specific activities 
in 9 of the 25 reports (36 percent) we reviewed. To make the worker 
rights sections as uniform as possible, our analysis also showed that 
the worker rights section of all 25 county reports followed a 
consistent structure, addressing the required elements of the worker 
rights section as outlined in State's instructions. Officials at 
Labor, USTR, the International Labor Organization, labor groups, and 
human rights organizations told us that they viewed the country 
reports as accurate and objective and that they had not identified 
significant errors or problems with reported information. Many of 
these officials said that they would prefer more in-depth coverage of 
labor issues but that they have other sources of information.[Footnote 
9] They also recognized that worker rights are not State's sole focus 
and that State must consider the length of the country reports in 
determining how much detail to include. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, State noted that we 
accurately captured the complex process by which it prepared the 2010 
Country Reports on Human Rights. 

Background: 

State has issued the HRR since 1977 in response to the amended Foreign 
Assistance Act of 1961, which required State to report annually on the 
observance of, and respect for, internationally recognized human 
rights in countries that receive U.S. assistance or are United Nations 
(UN) members.[Footnote 10] The Trade Act of 1974[Footnote 11] added a 
mandate that required the President to report on the status of worker 
rights for each beneficiary developing country under the Generalized 
System of Preferences.[Footnote 12] State has included a section on 
worker rights in the country reports since 1984. 

The annual HRR consists of individual country reports covering the 
status of key internationally recognized civil, political, and worker 
rights as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 
adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948.[Footnote 13] Generally, 
the country reports do not assess trends[Footnote 14] in human rights, 
compare countries, or place them in any order other than 
alphabetically by region. In each country report, State addresses the 
following topics: 

1. Respect for the integrity of the person: 

2. Respect for civil liberties: 

3. Respect for political rights: 

4. Official corruption and government transparency: 

5. Governmental attitude regarding international and nongovernmental 
investigations of alleged violations of human rights: 

6. Discrimination, societal abuses, and trafficking in persons: 

7. Worker rights, such as the right to organize and bargain 
collectively: 

Preparation of the HRR involves a significant commitment of State time 
and resources and results in a lengthy product.[Footnote 15] DRL 
oversees annual HRR production, including preparation of the country 
reports. The bureau includes regional and thematic offices with 
specific subject matter expertise. Examples of regional offices are 
Western Hemisphere Affairs and East Asia and Pacific, and thematic 
offices include the offices of International Labor Affairs and 
International Religious Freedom. Additionally, DRL leverages State's 
network of overseas Foreign Service personnel who collect information 
on human rights practices, investigate incidents, and produce the 
initial draft country reports on human rights abuses in each country. 
These tasks are generally undertaken by embassy human rights reporting 
officers, although they may receive assistance from other members of 
the embassy staff with specific subject matter expertise, such as 
labor officers. 

The 2010 HRR included 194 individual country reports, an introduction, 
and appendixes and comprised more than 7,000 pages. The individual 
2010 country reports varied in size from 9 pages for the Republic of 
San Marino to 145 pages for China.[Footnote 16] To make the 
information widely available, State publishes the HRR on its website 
and translates country reports into more than 50 languages, as 
mandated by law.[Footnote 17] 

State Has Designed an Extensive Process to Meet Its Goal of Making the 
Country Reports as Comprehensive, Objective, and Uniform as Possible: 

To address its goal of making the country reports on human rights as 
comprehensive, objective, and uniform as possible, State has an 
extensive production process that includes annual issuance of detailed 
instructions, consultation with multiple sources, and collaborative 
and iterative drafting and reviews. 

State Issues Detailed Instructions and Offers Training for Preparation 
of Country Reports: 

State provides annually updated, detailed instructions for preparing 
the country reports. These instructions, which State generally issues 
in August each year, include guidelines for drafting the reports, an 
introduction to the process for producing the country reports, an 
outline of significant changes from the previous year's instructions, 
and reporting practices. The instructions also outline a consistent 
structure for each country report, specifying subheadings and content 
for each of seven sections and their subsections. State officials 
explained that these instructions are a key tool that State uses to 
make the country reports uniform. 

State's instructions for preparing the 2010 country reports indicated 
that the starting point for the current year's country reports are the 
previous year's published country reports. The instructions stated 
that, whenever possible, embassy staff should update the 2009 country 
reports using examples from 2010 and should redraft sections as needed 
to reflect any major political developments or serious human rights 
abuses. In addition, the instructions provided guidance on identifying 
abusers and any subsequent punishment, citing sources, narrating the 
order and chronology of events, and determining what should and should 
not be included. For example, the instructions stated that government 
promises, intentions, draft legislation, and proposed government 
regulations should not be included prior to enactment or 
implementation. Further, the instructions included guidance for 
discussing human rights law versus human rights practices, noting that 
sections dealing with respect for specific rights must first describe 
rights provided by constitution or law, followed by actual practices. 
Foreign Service officers familiar with the instructions acknowledged 
that, per the instructions, only facts, not editorial remarks, should 
be included in the country reports. 

State offers training broadly addressing human rights as well as 
training addressing labor rights,[Footnote 18] including some training 
focused on the country reports. For example, the Foreign Service 
Institute offers several courses covering human rights issues, some of 
which include a reporting component, and DRL and some bureaus provide 
training on reviewing the country reports. Foreign Service officers 
working on the country reports are not required to take State's human 
rights or labor rights training, with the exception of the Foreign 
Service orientation course, and not all of the embassy staff drafting 
the country reports have taken relevant training. Embassy officials 
told us that in the absence of training, several factors had helped 
them in preparing the reports. These factors included using State's 
detailed instructions, beginning the drafting process with the 
previous year's country report, and receiving assistance from 
colleagues and supervisors with prior experience on the country 
reports. (See enclosure II for additional information about training 
for staff working on country reports.) 

State Consults Multiple Sources in Preparing and Reviewing Country 
Reports: 

In preparing and reviewing the country reports, State personnel are to 
use information from multiple sources. State's instructions for the 
2010 country reports noted that personnel drafting the country reports 
are to include information from sources such as local and 
international NGOs, UN human rights bodies, and important regional 
institutions. According to Foreign Service officers preparing the 
reports and State officers reviewing the reports, the sources they 
consult include host governments, international and local human rights 
NGOs, labor unions, and host country media.[Footnote 19] Some Foreign 
Service officers involved in drafting 2010 country reports told us 
that they meet with host government officials, NGO representatives, 
labor advocates and union members, business leaders, and individual 
citizens and foreign workers in the host country to gather information 
on human rights abuses. In addition, those preparing and reviewing the 
reports use the Internet to locate foreign government sources of 
information or data and to corroborate information about events 
reported in other sources. Further, embassy officials and country 
report editors in Washington, D.C., may draw on classified information 
to verify facts or may include such information in a summary or 
otherwise unclassified manner. 

The 2010 country report instructions indicated that State personnel 
drafting the reports are to evaluate the credibility of sources, 
particularly NGOs, since the quality of NGO information may vary. 
[Footnote 20] State officials told us that assessing multiple sources 
is a means of enhancing the comprehensiveness and objectivity of the 
country reports. According to State officials, the difficulties of 
producing the country reports include evaluating the credibility of 
human rights abuse allegations, as some governments and opposition 
groups differ about whether abuses occurred or, if they occurred, how 
to categorize them. These officials said that the Foreign Service 
officers preparing the reports may discuss, for example, whether an 
incident involving the killing of a union leader should be included in 
a country report as a violation of human rights or worker rights. In 
addition, assessing multiple sources allows report drafters to 
validate factual information or, if information varies between sources 
in a significant way, to incorporate contrasting data points or 
definitions. For example, the 2010 country report on Colombia included 
Colombia government estimates of 2010 trade unionist killings as well 
as estimates by a local labor rights NGO. The government reported that 
34 trade unionists were killed, whereas the local labor rights NGO 
reported that 51 trade unionists were killed. The report noted that 
the estimates differed because of different definitions of trade union 
membership: the government's definition included only one category of 
union membership, while the NGO's definition included multiple 
categories. 

State Collaborates Internally and Externally in Preparing and 
Reviewing Country Reports: 

DRL leads a collaborative and iterative process for preparing, 
editing, and reviewing the country reports, involving Foreign Service 
officers and other embassy personnel, numerous other State staff and 
officials, Labor officials, and the National Security Council Staff in 
Washington, D.C. (See figure 1.) 

Figure 1: State's Process for Preparing and Reviewing the Country 
Reports on Human Rights: 

[Refer to PDF for image: process map] 

Production Overview: 

May-July: DRL revises country report preparation instructions with 
concurrent input from State's regional and functional bureaus and the 
Department of Labor's International Labor Affairs Bureau[A]: 
Participants: 
DRL[D]: Review of Instructions; 
Embassies (Internal State reviewer): 
Other State Reviewers (Internal State reviewer): Review of 
Instructions; 
* Global Affairs/Population, Refugees and Migration;  
* Global Affairs/Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons;  
* Political Affairs/International Narcotics and Law Enforcement; 
* Global Women's Issues; 
* Economic and Business Affairs; 
* Intelligence and Research; 
* Policy and Planning; 
* Executive Secretariat; 
* Deputy Secretaries; 
Department of Labor[F] (External reviewer): Review of Instructions. 

August-October: Embassy officials draft country reports based on the 
previous year's report and updated State preparation instructions: 
Participants: 
DRL[D]: 
Embassies (Internal State reviewer): Embassy Draft. 

November-December: DRL staff review and edit embassy drafts for 
content and style to produce report "Version 1," and simultaneously 
submits this version to internal and external reviewers[B]: 
Participants: 
DRL[D]: Version 1; 
Embassies (Internal State reviewer): Review of Version 1; 
Other State Reviewers (Internal State reviewer): Review of Version 1; 
* Global Affairs/Population, Refugees and Migration;  
* Global Affairs/Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons;  
* Political Affairs/International Narcotics and Law Enforcement; 
* Global Women's Issues; 
* Economic and Business Affairs; 
* Intelligence and Research; 
* Policy and Planning; 
* Executive Secretariat; 
* Deputy Secretaries; 
Department of Labor[F] (External reviewer): Review of Version 1. 

January-February: DRL incorporates reviewer suggestions in 
collaboration with embassy and regional bureau staff in additional 
revised draft versions. After embassies and regional bureaus approve 
report language, DRL submits selected country reports to the Office of 
the Secretary of State and the National Security Council Staff for 
review: 
Participants: 
DRL[D]: Revised Draft Versions; 
Embassies (Internal State reviewer): Revised Draft Versions; 
Regional Bureau (Internal State reviewer): Revised Draft Versions; 
Other State Reviewers (Internal State reviewer): Selected country 
reports[E]; 
* Global Affairs/Population, Refugees and Migration;  
* Global Affairs/Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons;  
* Political Affairs/International Narcotics and Law Enforcement; 
* Global Women's Issues; 
* Economic and Business Affairs; 
* Intelligence and Research; 
* Policy and Planning; 
* Executive Secretariat; 
* Deputy Secretaries; 
National Security Council Staff (External reviewer): Revised Draft 
Versions (Selected country reports to next step); 
Secretary of State (Internal State reviewer): Revised Draft Versions 
(Selected country reports to next step). 

March-April[C]: DRL incorporates any necessary changes and publishes 
country reports on the State Web site. Embassies translate reports 
into local languages for publication on Participants embassy Web sites: 
Participants: 
DRL[D]: Final Country Reports Published on State and Embassy Web sites; 
Embassies (Internal State reviewer): Final Country Reports Published 
on State and Embassy Web sites. 
                  
Source: GAO analysis of DRL data. 

[A] DRL may also consult nongovernmental organizations in revising 
country report preparation instructions. 

[B] Staff in DRL's International Labor Affairs Office are the primary 
DRL editors for Section 7 on Worker Rights. 

[C] Legislation mandates that the report be issued no later than 
February 25th each year; however, according to State, it has informed 
both the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee of the difficulty of meeting the statutory 
deadline. 

[D] DRL has numerous offices, including the Offices of International 
Labor Affairs and International Religious Freedom. 

[E] According to State officials, selected country reports receive 
additional review by the Secretary of State and National Security 
Council staff based on the extent of human rights concerns, bilateral 
relations, and the likelihood of intense public scrutiny. 

[F[ Labor reviews the portions of instructions and country reports 
related to worker rights. 

[End of figure] 

* Embassies draft country reports. Foreign Service officers assigned 
to the human rights portfolio of responsibilities at embassies 
generally produce the initial report drafts, according to State 
officials. The assigned staff are often first or second tour officers 
who use the annual country report preparation instructions and may 
receive assistance from other embassy personnel, including their 
colleagues and supervisors. In addition, some embassies employ 
dedicated labor officers, whose role is to focus on labor-related 
programs and issues and to draft the worker rights sections of country 
reports.[Footnote 21] Last, according to State officials, some Foreign 
Service nationals help research and prepare country reports, although 
the level of participation of Foreign Service nationals varies widely 
from embassy to embassy.[Footnote 22] 

* DRL edits and reviews country reports. DRL leads and coordinates an 
iterative process for editing and internally reviewing the draft 
country reports. DRL editors and subject matter experts edit and 
review drafts to help ensure that the reports (1) comply with 
production instructions--for example, including all sections and 
subsections, addressing changes from the previous year, adhering to 
grammar and style practices, and properly attributing sources--and (2) 
accurately and objectively reflect the status of human rights in each 
country. During their draft reviews, DRL staff update some information 
in the reports and request additional information from the embassy 
about certain reported topics or cases. According to State officials, 
in addition to ensuring adherence to instructions and accurate 
reporting, DRL editors endeavor to ensure that the reports present 
relevant and useful information and treat issues consistently across 
countries. They are also charged with removing any judgmental or 
evaluative statements from the draft reports, which are intended to 
report facts without praise or criticism that may express a certain 
point of view. 

* Departments of State and Labor and National Security Council Staff 
review country reports. After DRL editors complete their reviews of 
the country report embassy drafts, they solicit and address comments 
from other subject matter experts within and outside State. Within 
State, numerous bureaus and offices review the draft reports, with 
State's regional bureaus playing an important role in reviewing 
several report versions for countries in their regions and approving 
the final report language. For example, at State's Bureau of East Asia 
and Pacific Affairs, the Vietnam desk reviews the Vietnam country 
report. State's bureaus and offices review country report sections and 
content relevant to their areas of expertise; for example, State's 
Office of Global Women's Issues reviews country report content on 
women's rights.[Footnote 23] In addition, experts from Labor's 
International Labor Affairs Bureau review the worker rights sections 
of all country reports. DRL staff work closely with relevant embassy 
and regional bureau personnel to incorporate stakeholder suggestions 
through multiple--generally three but possibly more--versions of the 
draft country reports. According to State officials, if reviewers 
identify errors or dispute draft contents during the review process, 
DRL works with the embassy to revise the report and resolve any 
disagreements. Once the embassy and the relevant regional bureau agree 
on country report content, and as the report is being finalized, DRL 
submits selected country reports for additional reviews by high-level 
officials. For example, the Secretary's Office reviews selected 
country reports that are likely to receive intense public scrutiny by 
report users. According to State officials, the National Security 
Council Staff also review selected country reports. State officials 
noted that the reviews by subject matter experts are an important 
means of ensuring that the country reports are as comprehensive and 
objective as possible, since these individuals have access to 
potentially different sources of information and relevant expertise. 
State officials also noted that the multiple layers of review and 
content vetting help ensure that the country reports rarely exclude 
significant events and make the likelihood of a substantial factual 
error very low. 

* State releases country reports on its website and responds to 
feedback from individuals and host countries. DRL publishes the final 
HRR, including the country reports, on State and embassy websites, and 
State holds a press conference announcing the HRR's release.[Footnote 
24] Following the HRR's online publication, DRL may receive comments 
from the public, including foreign governments and individuals. For 
example, according to State officials, other governments sometimes 
express concerns or critiques to the embassy regarding the tone or 
contents of the published reports, and DRL works with the relevant 
U.S. embassy to evaluate such claims. State officials noted, and 
representatives of U.S. and international human rights organizations 
confirmed, that other governments commonly criticize the U.S. 
government for not publishing a report on its own human rights 
practices.[Footnote 25] State officials said that when they become 
aware of an error in an online published country report, they 
immediately correct it. State officials told us, for example, that 
after a published country report described a journalist as having been 
killed, the journalist contacted State to say that he was alive; State 
verified his identity and then revised the report to say that he had 
been injured. However, State officials said that they rarely revise 
published country reports.[Footnote 26] In addition, State officials 
said that because they issue the country reports in electronic form 
only, they do not issue an erratum when they correct an error in a 
published report, and they do not keep a record of these corrections. 
According to State officials, because so many people around the world 
read the country reports, State will not risk its credibility by 
knowingly publishing inaccurate reports. 

State Generally Followed Its Process for Preparing the Worker Rights 
Sections of the 2010 Country Reports: 

State generally followed its process by obtaining expert reviews, 
consulting a variety of sources, and following a consistent structure 
in the worker rights section of the 25 country reports we analyzed. 
[Footnote 27] 

State Obtained Expert Reviews and Consulted Various Sources for 2010 
Worker Rights Sections: 

State followed its process by obtaining multiple reviews of the draft 
country reports, including reviews by subject matter experts, to 
ensure comprehensive coverage of important issues and objective 
presentation of each report topic. In addition, our analysis of the 25 
worker rights sections showed that State consulted a variety of 
sources. 

* Expert reviews. Officials at DRL's Office of International Labor 
Affairs told us that, as worker rights subject matter experts, they 
reviewed the embassy draft of each worker rights section to help 
ensure that the reports included comprehensive coverage of key worker 
rights issues in each country and accurately and objectively discussed 
worker rights laws and practice. Beginning with the 2010 country 
reports, these officials functioned as the primary editors for the 
worker rights sections. In addition, State officials from the other 
bureaus that review the reports had the opportunity to comment on the 
worker rights section. For example, DRL officials noted that comments 
from State's Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons are 
often particularly valuable for preparing relevant topics in the 
worker rights section such as child labor. Labor's Bureau of 
International Labor Affairs also reviewed the reports. Reviewing 
officials whom we spoke with indicated that their reviews were 
intended to help ensure that the worker rights sections omit no 
significant information, include significant events, and present 
information objectively. Labor officials said that they reviewed the 
reports to make sure that they addressed salient issues or events in 
topics such as child labor, export processing zones, conditions of 
work, and occupational safety and health. These officials indicated 
that individuals with country and subject matter expertise also review 
reports to make sure that the reports capture key labor developments 
and events. Additionally, officials from Labor's Office of Child 
Labor, Forced Labor, and Human Trafficking noted that their review is 
intended to make sure that information included in the country reports 
is consistent with their own internal information. Other Labor 
officials said that they sometimes provide comments with updated data 
if information included in the worker rights section are outdated 
relative to Labor's information. State did not provide examples of 
suggested edits for the 2010 country reports. 

* Various information sources. We found that the 25 worker rights 
sections we reviewed cited or attributed information to a variety of 
sources, including governments, UN entities, labor and human rights 
groups, NGOs, and industry. In particular, we found that 24 of 25 
reports specifically attributed information to both government and 
nongovernment sources.[Footnote 28] For example, our analysis of the 
worker rights section for the Dominican Republic identified citations 
for information from the host government, including its labor 
ministry; national and local labor groups; international 
organizations; NGOs; business groups; and several anonymous sources. 
[Footnote 29] In addition, nine reports specifically noted information 
from businesses or regarding specific business activities. For 
example, the worker rights section of the 2010 country report for 
Costa Rica noted that "there were reports that agricultural workers, 
particularly migrant laborers in the pineapple industry, worked in 
unsafe conditions," but also that the Chamber of Pineapple Producers 
and Exporters disagreed with the reports. In another instance, the 
worker rights section of the 2010 country report for Colombia noted 
that child labor remained a problem in the production of several types 
of goods, including emeralds. The Colombia worker rights section also 
indicated that the Colombian National Emerald Federation signed an 
agreement with international partners including the U.S. Agency for 
International Development to, among other things, prevent child labor 
in emerald mines.[Footnote 30] State officials who contributed to 2010 
country reports told us that they consulted with, and weighed 
information from, various sources, such as NGOs, host governments, 
business groups such as chambers of commerce, local and international 
media, and individual workers in preparing the worker rights sections. 

Officials at Labor, USTR, the International Labor Organization, and 
NGOs told us that the country reports worker rights sections did not 
leave out significant information. In addition, officials and 
individuals we spoke with from Labor and USTR, labor organizations, 
the International Labor Organization, and human rights NGOs said that 
they viewed the country reports as accurate and objective and that 
they had not identified significant errors or problems with reported 
information.[Footnote 31] However, many officials said that they 
require more in-depth coverage of labor issues for their purposes and 
noted that other sources of more comprehensive and detailed 
information are available. For example, a USTR official explained that 
although staff in his office find the country reports helpful as 
providing a broad summary of human rights conditions in a country, 
they work directly with embassy labor officers to acquire more 
detailed, up-to-date information for use in trade negotiations or 
trade agreement monitoring. Officials we spoke with who use the 
country reports also recognized that worker rights are not the sole 
focus of the country reports and that State must consider report 
length in determining how much detail to include. 

State Used a Consistent Structure for 2010 Worker Rights Sections: 

We found that the worker rights section of all 25 country reports we 
reviewed followed the structure specified in the 2010 preparation 
instructions, which described in detail the information that worker 
rights section of each 2010 country report should include. For 
example, the sections each addressed these required five elements: the 
right of association, the right to organize and bargain collectively, 
prohibition of forced or compulsory labor, prohibition of child labor 
and minimum age for employment, and acceptable conditions of 
work.[Footnote 32] In addition, per State's instructions, the worker 
rights subsections in all but the report for Singapore began with a 
discussion of worker rights provided by the country's constitution or 
laws. The report for Singapore did not discuss laws regarding the 
right to bargain or organize collectively. 

Agency Comments: 

We provided State with a copy of this draft report for review. State 
provided written comments, which are reprinted in enclosure III. State 
noted that we accurately captured the complex process by which it 
prepared the 2010 Country Reports on Human Rights. Additionally, 
Labor, State, and USTR provided technical comments on a draft of this 
report, which we incorporated, as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 
committees, the Secretary of Labor, and the U.S. Trade Representative. 
The report will also be available at no charge on our website at 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at 
(202) 512-9601 or melitot@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 
page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this 
report are listed in enclosure IV. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Thomas Melito: 
Director, International Affairs and Trade: 

Enclosures - 4: 

[End of section] 

Enclosure I: Scope and Methodology: 

To examine the Department of State's (State) process for preparing its 
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, we reviewed relevant laws 
and department procedures and instructional documents. We also met 
with State officials who issue annual instructions for preparing the 
reports, including staff from State's Bureau of Democracy, Human 
Rights, and Labor (DRL). In addition, we interviewed Foreign Service 
officers--human rights reporting officers and, in some instances, 
officers responsible for reporting on labor issues--who prepared the 
2010 reports for Colombia, Jordan, Russia, and Vietnam, from the U.S. 
embassies in those countries. We selected these countries because, 
respectively, Colombia is a new U.S. free-trade partner, whose 
agreement was signed in October 2011; Jordan was the first country 
with which the United States signed a free trade agreement that 
included labor rights provisions; Vietnam is currently negotiating a 
free trade agreement with the United States, in the context of the 
Trans-Pacific Partnership; and Russia has been approved for accession 
to the World Trade Organization. Additionally, we interviewed the DRL 
officials who served as editors and reviewers of the reports for those 
countries, including officials at DRL's Office of International Labor 
Affairs and State's regional bureaus. We also interviewed officials at 
the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, which assists in 
instruction preparation and report reviewing, as well as the Bureau of 
Economics and Business Affairs, which reviews the country reports. We 
met with Department of Labor officials who have input into the annual 
instructions and who review the worker rights sections of the country 
reports. In addition, one of our staff attended a weeklong State-DRL 
course, "Promoting Human Rights and Democracy," at State's Foreign 
Service Institute, which included instructions on preparing the HRR. 

To determine the extent to which State followed its process in 
preparing the worker rights section of the 2010 country reports, we 
reviewed that section in 25 country reports. These reports included 
the 20 countries with which the United States has signed free trade 
agreements; 4 countries with which the United States is currently 
negotiating trade agreements; and 1 country, Russia, which the World 
Trade Organization approved recently for accession. We selected these 
25 countries because they represent the universe of countries with 
which the United States has existing, new, and potential free trade 
agreements, since all free trade agreements signed by the U.S. since 
2000 have include provisions related to worker rights. The results of 
our analysis are not generalizable to the other 169 country reports 
included in the 2010 HRR. In addition, we met with State officials who 
prepared, edited, and reviewed the country reports for Colombia, 
Jordan, Russia, and Vietnam. We also interviewed officials from the 
Department of Labor; the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative; the 
International Labor Organization; human rights nongovernmental 
organizations, including Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, and 
Freedom House; and labor organizations, including the American 
Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations and the 
International Trade Union Confederation, to obtain their views on the 
country reports' comprehensiveness and objectivity. Further, we 
contacted nine business groups, including the U.S. Russian Business 
Council, the U.S. Association of Southeast Asian Nations Business 
Council, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce South East Asia Team, among 
others, to obtain their views on the worker rights section of the 
country reports. One group, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Jordan, 
agreed to meet with us; representatives of the other eight groups did 
not respond to our outreach, said that they did not follow labor 
issues, or said that they did not have time to meet with us. 

To determine the extent to which the worker rights sections of the 25 
country reports adhered to State's instructions to consult various 
information sources in preparing the reports, we compared the types of 
sources cited in the reports with the types of sources that the 
instructions prescribe, such as U.S. and foreign government officials, 
victims of human rights abuse, academic and congressional studies, 
media reports, international human rights and labor organizations, and 
nongovernmental organizations concerned with human rights. To 
determine the types of sources that State used in its reporting, two 
analysts independently reviewed sources cited in the worker rights 
section of the 25 sample country reports, categorizing 547 citations 
according to the type of source organization. The two GAO analysts 
then discussed and resolved any differences in the results of their 
review and source type determinations, and a supervisor reviewed and 
approved the final results of the analysis. We undertook this analysis 
because State could not provide us with all of the source materials 
consulted for any 2010 country reports; State officials indicated that 
they do not maintain all the supporting records or documentation used 
to compile the reports. Our analysis identified the minimum number of 
sources State consulted because source attribution is not required for 
every statement included in the country reports. For example, drafters 
are not required to provide citations for information that they have 
corroborated with multiple sources. Additionally, drafters and 
reviewers may have different writing style preferences. Therefore, the 
actual number of sources State consulted is likely to be greater than 
the number we identified. 

To determine the extent to which country reports are uniform, we 
analyzed the worker rights section structure in the 25 country reports 
against the criteria outlined in State's instructions. For this 
analysis, two GAO analysts independently reviewed the structure of the 
worker rights sections in the 25 selected 2010 country reports to 
verify that the reports followed these criteria. 

We conducted this audit from September 2011 to May 2012 in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, 
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings 
and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the 
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Enclosure II: Training for Staff Working on Country Reports: 

State provides several forms of training on human and labor rights, 
some of it focused on preparation of the country reports. 

* State's Foreign Service Institute offers several courses covering 
some aspects of human rights. First, the Foreign Service orientation, 
which all Foreign Service officers are required to complete, covers 
some aspects of human rights.[Footnote 33] Second, State established a 
focused human rights course in fiscal year 2011, to cover human rights 
issues previously included in a broader Global Issues course. Third, 
two courses for Foreign Service nationals address human rights content 
including preparation of the country reports. Fourth, the Foreign 
Service Institute, in coordination with State's Bureau of Democracy, 
Human Rights and Labor (DRL) and the Department of Labor, offers labor 
rights training, covering the skills and knowledge required to serve 
as a labor attaché or labor reporting officer and focusing on worker 
rights reporting, major domestic and international labor issues, and 
related topics.[Footnote 34] 

* Since fiscal year 2004, State, in collaboration with the Department 
of Labor, has provided regional labor rights training for Foreign 
Service officers and Foreign Service nationals, particularly those who 
may not have had the opportunity to attend the Foreign Service 
Institute labor course. For example, State hosted two 3-day regional 
conferences in Cairo, Egypt, and Bangkok, Thailand, in fiscal year 
2010, and one in Miami, Florida, in fiscal year 2011, that included 
presentations from the Departments of Labor and State, Office of the 
U.S. Trade Representative, American Federation of Labor-Congress of 
Industrial Organizations, and regional labor groups.[Footnote 35] 
According to State officials, the Foreign Service Institute, in 
conjunction with DRL, is developing distance learning courses for both 
human and labor rights issues, in an effort to minimize the cost 
associated with traveling for training. 

* DRL and some bureaus provide training focused on preparation of the 
country reports. DRL provides country report review training to its 
country report editors as well as reviewers working in State's 
regional bureaus. In addition, State bureaus such as Population, 
Refugees, and Migration conduct training for staff reviewing the 
country reports. Officials in this bureau also provided training to 
the DRL country report editors regarding reproductive rights and other 
issues to be addressed in the country reports. 

Staff working on the country reports are not required to take State's 
human and labor rights training, with the exception of the Foreign 
Service orientation course, and not all of the embassy staff drafting 
the country reports have taken relevant training. Embassy officials 
told us that in the absence of training, State's detailed 
instructions, beginning the drafting process with the previous year's 
country report, and the assistance of colleagues and supervisors who 
had previously worked on the country report had helped them to 
successfully draft the reports. 

[End of section] 

Enclosure III: Comments from the Department of State: 

United States Department of State: 
Chief Financial Officer: 
Washington, DC 20520: 

Mr. Loren Yager: 
Managing Director: 
International Affairs and Trade: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001: 

Dear Mr. Yager: 

We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report,
"Human Rights: State Department Followed an Extensive Process to
Prepare Annual Country Reports," GAO Job Code 320874. 

The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for 
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report. 

If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact
Gregory Heger, Special Advisor, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and 
labor at (202) 736-7599. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

James L. Millette: 

cc: GAO — Thomas Melito: 
DRL — Michael Posner: 
State/OIG — Evelyn Klemstine: 

[End of letter] 

Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report: 

Human Rights: State Department Followed an Extensive Process to
Prepare Annual Country Reports (GAO-12-651R, GAO Code 320874): 

The Department of State (State) commends GAO for its diligent effort 
to understand and examine the process by which State produced the 
Country Reports on Human Rights 2010 (HRR). GAO captured accurately 
the complex year-long process that involves as many as 80 individuals in
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) and several 
thousand State employees worldwide. 

The GAO report accurately noted the worldwide interest in the HRR and 
how it is read and valued by not only Congress but also by foreign 
officials, businessmen, judges, scholars, civil society advocates, and 
citizens around the world. The HRR has become an invaluable diplomatic 
tool for U.S. officials and DRL notes that high-level officials within 
the State Department routinely consult the reports to inform their 
actions on foreign policy matters. No other government or organization 
has the capacity or the credibility to produce these reports to the 
same standard of quality and objectivity. 

DRL has led a State effort this year to produce reports that will be 
even more valuable, accessible, and useful. State synchronized the HRR 
timeline with that of the International Religious Freedom Report. We 
have streamlined the Human Rights Reports to make them less time 
consuming to write. At the same time, we are making the reports easier 
to read for the public, with a new Executive Summary for each country. 
Using new technology, we have given researchers tools to quickly pull 
out sought after information. We have also made it possible for the 
public to share the HRR on social media. 

As the report noted, quoting State's Office of the Inspector General, 
the HRR is among the most labor-intensive of all reports required of 
State by Congress. The HRR strains the capacity of DRL to manage the 
process and edit the reports, taking the combined effort of a 
coalition of full-time employees, part-time retirees, contractors and 
others. A small commitment of resources to further support State goals 
of streamlining and improving the HRR could provide significant 
benefits, for example in the creation of distance learning modules or 
courses on writing the annual HRR and the annual International 
Religious Freedom Report. 

Given the extensive clearance process throughout State and with 
embassies abroad to ensure the upmost accuracy and objectivity of the 
reports, State reaffirms the rarity of the need to revise published 
reports. This comprehensive clearance process, the complexity of the 
HRR, and the Secretary's schedule often make the annual February 25th 
deadline for the submission of the reports impracticable. State 
suggests a more feasible submission date might be March 25. 
Fortunately, the Congressional committees receiving the report have 
recognized in recent years the Department's publishing challenge and 
have raised no objection when consulted about delays in the submission 
date. 

[End of section] 

Enclosure IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Contact: 

Thomas Melito, (202) 512-9601 or melitot@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, key contributors to this 
report were: Cheryl Goodman, Assistant Director; Julie Hirshen; 
Kathryn Bolduc; and Sada Aksartova. Martin de Alteriis, Grace Lui, 
Reid Lowe, David Hancock, Ann Baker, Etana Finkler, and Elizabeth 
Hegedus-Berthold provided technical assistance. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, Pub. L. No. 87-195, §§ 116(d) and 
502B (codified as amended at 22 U.S.C. §§ 2151n and 2304, 
respectively). 

[2] We refer to State's 2010 country reports as the 194 individual 
country reports State published in April 2011 covering the human 
rights conditions in each country during 2010. We use the term HRR to 
refer to these country reports in addition to the introduction and 
appendixes issued concurrently. 

[3] GAO, International Trade: Four Free Trade Agreements GAO Reviewed 
Have Resulted in Commercial Benefits, but Challenges on Labor and 
Environment Remain, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-439] (Washington, D.C.: July 10, 
2009). 

[4] The United States has signed free trade agreements with Australia, 
Bahrain, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El 
Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Jordan, Mexico, Morocco, 
Nicaragua, Oman, Panama, Peru, Singapore, and South Korea. All free 
trade agreements signed since 2000 include provisions related to 
worker rights. 

[5] The United States is currently negotiating free trade agreements 
with Brunei, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Vietnam as part of the Trans-
Pacific Partnership. Other countries that are part of the Trans-
Pacific Partnership Agreement, and with which the United States 
already has trade agreements are Australia, Chile, Peru, and Singapore. 

[6] Individual country references and examples in this report are 
included for illustrative purposes only and are not intended as 
commentary on human rights in those countries. In addition, the 
results of our analysis are not generalizable to the other 169 country 
reports included in the 2010 HRR. 

[7] The International Labor Organization is a United Nations agency 
whose mission is to bring together representatives from governments, 
employers, and workers to jointly shape policies and programs 
promoting decent work for all. 

[8] In this report, "embassies" includes all locations where State 
maintains Foreign Service personnel, such as embassies, consulates, 
and other Foreign Service posts. 

[9] For example, Labor, in consultation with USTR and State, produces 
labor rights reports about countries with which the President is 
negotiating trade agreements, as required under the Trade Act of 2002. 
Additionally, Labor reports annually on the worst forms of child 
labor, focusing on the efforts of certain U.S. trade preference 
beneficiary developing countries to implement commitments to eliminate 
the worst forms of child labor through their legislation, enforcement 
efforts, policies, and social programs. 

[10] 22 U.S.C. §§ 2151n and 2304. By law the HRR is due on February 25 
of each year. According to State, it has informed the congressional 
committees to whom it reports of the difficulty of meeting the 
statutory deadline. 

[11] Trade Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-618, § 504 (codified as amended 
at 19 U.S.C. § 2464). 

[12] The Generalized System of Preferences is a program designed to 
promote economic development in developing countries by providing duty-
free entry of their goods into the United States. As part of the 
program, the President is required to report on worker rights in 
beneficiary countries. 

[13] State bases its assessments of worker rights on internationally 
recognized worker rights as defined by the UN International Labor 
Union's Declaration of Fundamental Principles. 

[14] State includes some trend analysis for those countries where 
abuses are especially serious in the HRR introduction. 

[15] State's Office of Inspector General found that the HRR is among 
the most resource-intensive of the 310 congressionally mandated 
reports for which State is responsible. See U.S. Department of State 
Office of Inspector General, Inspection of Department-Required and 
Congressionally Mandated Reports: Assessment of Resource Implications, 
report number ISP-I-11-11 (Washington, D.C.: 2010). 

[16] The China report includes Hong Kong, Macau, and Tibet. 

[17] 22 U.S.C. § 8222. 

[18] In this report, "worker rights" and "labor rights" are used 
synonymously. 

[19] The Foreign Assistance Act directs that for the purposes of 
compiling data and making assessments for the purposes of the human 
rights report, U.S. "diplomatic mission personnel shall consult with 
human rights organizations and other appropriate nongovernmental 
organizations." 22 U.S.C. § 2151n. 

[20] In addition to State's annual instructions for country report 
preparation, other internal State guidance documents describe steps 
for drafting and reviewing the reports. For example, according to a 
DRL document provided to some Foreign Service Institute students, 
"Guiding Principles and Practical Tips for Human Rights 
Investigations," staff investigating alleged human rights abuses 
"should verify information mainly by checking their consistency with 
independent sources" and "objectively consider all the facts." 

[21] State has 40 dedicated labor officer positions at various 
embassies around the world. Some embassies that do not have dedicated 
labor officers may employ labor reporting officers, who often have 
broader portfolios that include reporting on labor issues. 

[22] Foreign Service nationals, sometimes referred to as locally 
employed staff, include both citizens of the host country and citizens 
of other countries. 

[23] In addition to State's regional bureaus, DRL solicits reviews and 
comments on the draft country reports from subject matter experts in 
State's functional bureaus such as the Bureau of Population, Refugees, 
and Migration, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, and the Bureau 
of Economic and Business Affairs. 

[24] The HRR can also be accessed from DRL's website, accessed April 
26, 2012, [hyperlink, http://www.humanrights.gov/]. 

[25] In 2010, the U.S. government issued its first report about its 
own human rights practices in response to a UN requirement. The Report 
of the United States of America Submitted to the U.N. High 
Commissioner for Human Rights in Conjunction with the Universal 
Periodic Review is available at [hyperlink, 
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/upr/], accessed May 16, 2012. Additionally, 
the U.S. government complies with obligations to report to the UN 
concerning the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 
available at [hyperlink, http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/c16069.htm], 
accessed April 25, 2012. 

[26] State could not quantify the number of revisions it has made to 
2010 country reports, because it does not document this information. 

[27] For more information regarding this analysis, see enclosure I. 

[28] The worker rights section of the 2010 country report for 
Singapore did not directly attribute information to the government of 
Singapore. 

[29] Anonymous citations may include individuals who remain unnamed 
because of safety concerns as well as unclassified summaries of 
classified information. 

[30] Our analysis identifies the smallest possible number of sources 
from which State gathered information because country reports do not 
include a citation for every sentence. For example, State does not 
provide citations if doing so could put the source at risk of 
retribution. See enclosure I for more information regarding our 
analysis. 

[31] We interviewed representatives from labor organizations--the 
American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations and 
the International Trade Union Confederation--and human rights NGOs--
Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, and Freedom House. 

[32] State bases its assessments of worker rights on internationally 
recognized worker rights as statutorily defined by the 1984 
Generalized System of Preferences Renewal Act. State's guidance on 
preparing the worker rights section summarizes the act as follows: 
"[The Act] states that internationally recognized worker rights 
include: '(a) the right of association; (b) the right to organize and 
bargain collectively; (c) a prohibition on the use of any form of 
forced or compulsory labor; (d) a minimum age for the employment of 
children; and (e) acceptable conditions of work with respect to 
minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health.' All 
five aspects of worker rights are discussed in each country report 
under the section heading 'Worker Rights'." 

[33] New officers also often take a course called "Political-Economic 
Tradecraft for Foreign Service officers," which includes some 
discussion of human rights. 

[34] The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative also participates in 
the labor rights training as a presenter. 

[35] Miami, Florida, serves as a travel hub for posts in State's 
Western Hemisphere Affairs bureau. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

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

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select “E-
mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

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

Contact: 
Website: [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: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, DC 20548.