Testimony issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "Unemployment rates for workers of all ages have risen dramatically since the start of the recent recession in December 2007, and workers age 55 and over have faced particularly long periods of unemployment. The seasonally unadjusted unemployment rate for older workers increased from 3.1 percent in December 2007 to a high of 7.6 percent in February 2010, before it decreased to 6.0 percent in April 2012. As in prior recessions, smaller percentages of workers age 55 and over became unemployed in comparison with younger workers. Some researchers attribute older workers’ lower unemployment rates to the fact that older workers tend to have longer job tenure, and are consequently less likely to be laid off than younger workers."

Correspondence issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "Information on the overall effectiveness (or impact) of the CDBG and HOME programs is limited. According to HUD officials, the agency has faced challenges in evaluating the impact of CDBG and HOME because, among other things, such an evaluation would have to compare neighborhoods that received program assistance with those that did not. Our previous work has also identified the difficulties of evaluating the impact of block grant programs that do not represent a uniform package of activities or desired outcomes across the country, as well as the common problem of attributing differences in communities’ outcomes to the effect of a program in the absence of controls for other explanations. As a result, few comprehensive studies on the impact of the CDBG and HOME programs exist, but studies that focused on specific activities have generally found that each of the programs has made positive contributions. We identified two studies that attempted to examine the overall impact of the CDBG program on communities, but both studies encountered evaluation challenges due to the program’s design. For example, a 1995 study that HUD considers the most comprehensive evaluation of CDBG suggests …

A letter report issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "Many State Partnership Program stakeholders, including State Partnership Program Coordinators, Bilateral Affairs Officers, and combatant command officials, cited benefits to the program, but the program lacks a comprehensive oversight framework that includes clear program goals, objectives, and metrics to measure progress against those goals, which limits the Department of Defense’s (DOD) and Congress’ ability to assess whether the program is an effective and efficient use of resources. The benefits described by all stakeholders focused on the program’s contributions to meeting their specific missions, such as building security relationships, providing experience to guardsmen, and supporting combatant commands’ missions. Goals, objectives, and metrics to measure progress are necessary for management oversight, and National Guard Bureau officials told GAO that they recognize the need to update the program’s goals and develop metrics and have initiated efforts in these areas. Officials expect completion of these efforts in summer 2012. Until program goals and metrics are implemented, DOD cannot fully assess or adequately oversee the program."

A letter report issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins ""

A letter report issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "Since GAO’s 2007 review, the Army has taken steps to improve its use of reset in targeting equipment shortages. In 2007, GAO noted that the Army’s reset implementation strategy did not specifically target shortages of equipment on hand among units preparing for deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan in order to mitigate operational risk. GAO recommended that the Army act to ensure that its reset priorities address equipment shortages in the near term to ensure that the needs of deploying units could be met. The Department of Defense (DOD) did not concur, and stated that there was no need to reassess its approaches to equipment reset. However, in 2008, the Army issued its Depot Maintenance Enterprise Strategic Plan, noted that filling materiel shortages within warfighting units is a key challenge facing the depot maintenance enterprise, and called for changes in programs and policies to address materiel shortages within warfighting units. Further, recognizing that retrograde operations—the return of equipment from theater to the United States—are essential to facilitating depot level reset and redistribution of equipment, the Army in 2010 developed the retrograde, reset, and redistribution (R3) initiative to …

A letter report issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "Multiple U.S. agencies and international partners are engaged in efforts to assist Pakistan in countering improvised explosive devices (IEDs) but face a variety of ongoing challenges. The agencies providing counter-IED assistance to Pakistan are primarily the Departments of State (State), Defense (DOD), Homeland Security (DHS), and Justice (DOJ). The following table identifies the types of assistance these U.S. agencies have provided and the corresponding objectives of Pakistan’s National Counter-IED Strategy. According to U.S. officials, U.S. agencies have encountered ongoing challenges to their efforts to assist Pakistan, such as delays in obtaining visas and in the delivery of equipment. U.S. officials have also identified broader challenges to Pakistan’s ability to counter IEDs, including the extreme difficulty of interdicting smugglers along its porous border with Afghanistan. In addition, though Pakistan developed a National Counter-IED Strategy in June 2011, it has yet to finalize an implementation plan for carrying out the strategy."

A letter report issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "The Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) pension program design and management do not adequately ensure that only veterans with financial need receive pension benefits. While the pension program is means tested, there is no prohibition on transferring assets prior to applying for benefits. Other means-tested programs, such as Medicaid, conduct a look-back review to determine if an individual has transferred assets at less than fair market value, and if so, may deny benefits for a period of time, known as the penalty period. This control helps ensure that only those in financial need receive benefits. In contrast, VA pension claimants can transfer assets for less than fair market value immediately prior to applying and be approved for benefits. For example, GAO identified a case where a claimant transferred over a million dollars less than 3 months prior to applying and was granted benefits. Also, VA’s process for assessing initial eligibility is inadequate in several key respects. The application form does not ask for some sources of income and assets such as private retirement income, annuities, and trusts. As a result, VA lacks complete information on a …