A letter report issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "Case processing times under the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) have increased over time, and measures of servicemember satisfaction have shortcomings. Since 2008, annual average processing times for IDES cases have steadily climbed, while the percentage of cases meeting established timeliness goals declined. Average case processing times reached 394 and 420 days for active and reserve component members in fiscal year 2011--compared to goals of 295 and 305 days, respectively, and just 19 percent of active duty and 18 percent of guard or reserve servicemembers completed the process and received benefits within established goals. Of the four phases comprising IDES, the medical evaluation board phase increasingly fell short of timeliness goals, while the physical evaluation board phase, although meeting goals, was taking increasingly more time to complete. With respect to servicemember satisfaction with the IDES process, GAO found shortcomings in how these data are collected and reported, such as unduly limiting who is eligible to receive a survey and computing average satisfaction scores in a manner that may overstate them. Department of Defense (DOD) officials told GAO they are considering alternatives for gauging satisfaction with the …

Correspondence issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "While CRA should increase investor demand for LIHTCs, quantifying the extent of any effect of CRA on LIHTC equity contributions is difficult given data and methodological challenges. In part because of the qualitative nature of the CRA investment test, regulatory ratings cannot be systematically linked to banks' LIHTC investments. Although a bank's overall rating and the associated narrative of its CRA examination are publicly available, the performance evaluation report does not individually list qualified investments and how they were considered for that examination. Furthermore, quantifying potential bank demand for LIHTCs in specific geographic areas is complicated because not every bank assessment area is considered to the same degree in a CRA examination. Although one way to assess demand for LIHTCs is by examining how much equity investors are willing to contribute, the common LIHTC price measure--the ratio of investors' equity contribution to the total amount of LIHTCs in nominal dollars--is subject to misinterpretation. Specifically, an investor's equity contribution reflects the value of not just the LIHTCs, but also any other tax and regulatory benefits--such as higher CRA ratings--plus project risks. Such other tax benefits include deductions for depreciation …