|
Showing 1 - 25 of
1390 matches in All Departments
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the due process
practices at the Departments of Defense (DOD), Energy (DOE), and
State for individuals that have security clearances denied or
revoked, focusing on: (1) the agencies' practices for suspending
individuals' security clearances; (2) whether the agencies give
individuals access to their investigative records; and (3) whether
appeals of unfavorable decisions are heard by independent
decisionmakers who document their decisions. GAO found that: (1)
the three agencies do not require that letters be sent to
individuals to advise them when and why their clearances are
suspended; (2) 70 percent of the individuals in the Army, Navy, and
Air Force whose access or clearances were suspended for security
reasons did not get their cases adjudicated by the services'
central clearance offices and, as a result, their clearances were
never formally revoked but were left indefinitely suspended; (4)
the annual DOD report on clearance activity did not accurately show
the number of clearances revoked or indefinitely suspended for
security reasons; (5) State letters to individuals informing them
of unfavorable security clearance actions also included information
regarding procedures for gaining access to investigative material
about themselves; (6) DOD and DOE regulations do not require that
letters to individuals contain guidance to gain access to
investigative material; (7) the three agencies have established
procedures for employees to appeal unfavorable security clearance
determinations; (8) DOE uses independent individuals to hear
appeals and make recommendations; and (9) DOD and State use
officials with administrative ties to the organizations responsible
for clearance determinations, so their appeal boards do not appear
to be administratively independent.
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on
U.S. and Canadian programs for ensuring workplace safety. GAO found
that: (1) ensuring workplace safety is a federal responsibility in
the United States, but is a provincial responsibility in Canada;
(2) Canadian provinces link programs for preventing and
compensating for work-related injuries and illnesses; (3) Canadian
employers directly fund health and safety programs; (4) Canadian
laws mandate employer and worker responsibility and accountability
for safety and health issues; (5) there is a greater enforcement
presence and potential for immediate response to hazardous
situations in Canada; and (6) differences to consider in evaluating
U.S. programs include the programs' relative sizes, workforce
organization, the potential for litigation, and constitutional
issues.
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed investments in
European aerospace vehicle research and technological development
efforts. GAO found that: (1) France, Germany, and the United
Kingdom are developing the required technologies to secure
independent manned access to space, reduce the cost of launching
payloads into orbit, and ensure a competitive role in high-speed
commercial transport aircraft markets; (2) the United States was
ahead of European countries in developing such critical
technologies as air breathing engines and materials and advanced
high-speed computer programs; (3) only the United States has tested
major large-scale components of an air-breathing aerospace plane;
(4) U.S. government and industry invested almost $1.8 billion in
the National Aero-Space Plane Program (NASPP) between fiscal years
(FY) 1986 and 1990 and the U.S. government anticipates spending
about $2.7 million on NASPP between FY 1991 and 1997; (5) France,
Germany, and the United Kingdom invested a total of about $125
million between 1982 and 1990 for various air-breathing aerospace
plane studies and anticipate spending about $217 million between
1990 and 1992 on such programs; (6) although the United States was
a leader in terms of facility size, productivity, and testing
techniques, the Europeans' progress rate in renovating old
facilities and building new facilities was significantly greater
than that of the United States; (7) European governments and
industries were developing vehicle concepts on a national basis
first before seeking international partners; and (8) the
convergence of national interests, expertise, approaches, and
funding among the European countries, Japan, and the Soviet Union
could prove to be competitive with NASPP.
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Earth Observing
System (EOS) Data Information System (EOSDIS), focusing on EOSDIS
estimated funding requirements. GAO found that: (1) EOS program
costs will total $8.3 billion through fiscal year (FY) 2000; (2)
the EOSDIS Core System contract is expected to cost $826 million
through FY 2003; (3) about one-third of EOS costs will go to
EOSDIS, which will operate EOS satellites and instruments, provide
ground acquisition, processing, storage, management, and
distribution of EOS data, and make the enormous quantity of data
accessible to as many as 10,000 scientists and other users; and (4)
NASA has developed an interim system to make current earth science
data from disparate systems available to users.
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Financial
Crimes Enforcement Network's (FinCEN) products and services in
support of law enforcement, focusing on: (1) trends in the types
and quantities of products and services provided by FinCEN to the
law enforcement community; (2) the extent to which FinCEN's
products and services have been considered useful by the law
enforcement community in identifying, developing, or prosecuting
money laundering and other financial crime cases; (3) the extent to
which FinCEN evaluates the states' compliance with applicable
controls over access to and use of information when state law
enforcement officials directly access FinCEN's resources; and (4)
FinCEN's efforts to provide Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form
8300 information to the law enforcement community.
Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO provided information on
the Administration on Aging's (AOA) efforts to promote service
coordination for the elderly. GAO found that: (1) consistent with
the growth in the elderly population between 1980 and 1990, state
and federal programs serving the elderly grew rapidly, but AOA did
not keep pace with the growing coordination needs; (2) poor service
integration in many states hindered the elderly and their families
in obtaining services; (3) AOA substantially reduced information
dissemination and technical assistance activities, leaving state
and local governments on their own to develop ways to coordinate
services; (4) AOA did not maintain its knowledge base about state
and local advances in service coordination, resulting in a weakened
capacity to provide assistance; and (5) between 1981 and 1989, AOA
staff decreased from 252 to 162, travel funds decreased from
$238,000 to $45,000, and research and demonstration funding dropped
from $54 million to $26 million.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent
agency that works for Congress. The GAO watches over Congress, and
investigates how the federal government spends taxpayers dollars.
The Comptroller General of the United States is the leader of the
GAO, and is appointed to a 15-year term by the U.S. President. The
GAO wants to support Congress, while at the same time doing right
by the citizens of the United States. They audit, investigate,
perform analyses, issue legal decisions and report anything that
the government is doing. This is one of their reports.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent
agency that works for Congress. The GAO watches over Congress, and
investigates how the federal government spends taxpayers dollars.
The Comptroller General of the United States is the leader of the
GAO, and is appointed to a 15-year term by the U.S. President. The
GAO wants to support Congress, while at the same time doing right
by the citizens of the United States. They audit, investigate,
perform analyses, issue legal decisions and report anything that
the government is doing. This is one of their reports.
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on
the United States Information Agency's (USIA) Office of Cuba
Broadcasting (OCB), focusing on the: (1) OCB reinvention plan; (2)
role and use of OCB research analysts; (3) reasons behind a former
OCB director's resignation; (4) extent to which Radio Marti is in
compliance with Voice of America (VOA) broadcast standards; and (5)
investigation into allegations of management reprisals at OCB. GAO
found that: (1) the OCB plan to reduce costs and eliminate
nonessential staff was consistent with overall executive branch
goals and the recommendations of the Radio Marti/TV Marti advisory
panel, but was not based on a comprehensive cost-benefit assessment
of key OCB departments and support functions; (2) the former
director of OCB resigned because of frustration stemming from his
unsuccessful attempts to further streamline OCB or implement the
reinvention plan; (3) in 1992, OCG removed research analysts from
on-air programming, and questions began to surface about their
policy compliance role; (4) current news and program officials
believe that the analytical unit's services have diminished in
importance; (5) the USIA Office of Inspector General (OIG) is
investigating allegations of management reprisals in OCB, but the
investigation has been controversial because of the release of
partial information and affidavits during the investigation; and
(6) USIA referred the conduct of the OIG investigation to the
President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency for investigation.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent
agency that works for Congress. The GAO watches over Congress, and
investigates how the federal government spends taxpayers dollars.
The Comptroller General of the United States is the leader of the
GAO, and is appointed to a 15-year term by the U.S. President. The
GAO wants to support Congress, while at the same time doing right
by the citizens of the United States. They audit, investigate,
perform analyses, issue legal decisions and report anything that
the government is doing. This is one of their reports.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent
agency that works for Congress. The GAO watches over Congress, and
investigates how the federal government spends taxpayers dollars.
The Comptroller General of the United States is the leader of the
GAO, and is appointed to a 15-year term by the U.S. President. The
GAO wants to support Congress, while at the same time doing right
by the citizens of the United States. They audit, investigate,
perform analyses, issue legal decisions and report anything that
the government is doing. This is one of their reports.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent
agency that works for Congress. The GAO watches over Congress, and
investigates how the federal government spends taxpayers dollars.
The Comptroller General of the United States is the leader of the
GAO, and is appointed to a 15-year term by the U.S. President. The
GAO wants to support Congress, while at the same time doing right
by the citizens of the United States. They audit, investigate,
perform analyses, issue legal decisions and report anything that
the government is doing. This is one of their reports.
The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act gives Native American Indian tribes the option
to administer Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
programs, either alone or as part of a consortium with other
tribes, rather than receiving benefits and services from state TANF
programs. Because of the difficult economic circumstances on many
reservations, the law also gives tribal TANF programs more
flexibility than it gives to states. Tribes have used various
strategies to stimulate economic development, but despite these
efforts, unemployment and poverty rates on reservations remain high
and prospects for economic growth may be limited. To improve
economic conditions on reservations, tribes operate enterprises in
a range of commercial sectors. Nationally, the number of American
Indian families receiving TANF assistance has declined in recent
years; however, in some states, American Indians represent a large
and increasing share of the state TANF caseload. To date, 174
tribes, either alone or as part of a consortium, are administering
their own TANF programs and have used the flexibility in the act to
tailor their tribal TANF programs to meet TANF requirements.
However, many tribes have found that TANF caseload and unemployment
data on American Indians is inaccurate, complicating the
determination of TANF grant amounts for tribal programs and making
it difficult to design and plan such programs. Tribes also lack the
infrastructure, such as automated information systems, to
administer their programs efficiently. Because tribes lack
experience administering welfare programs, they have turned to both
states and the federal government for assistance.
GAO discussed the different aspects of countertrade in the world
trading system. GAO found that: (1) countertrade and other trading
practices are viewed as marketing tools to help gain sales; (2) the
United States generally views countertrade as contrary to open and
free trading, but does not oppose U.S. business participation in
countertrade unless the action could have a negative impact on
national security; (3) although the current pilot barter program
will barter surplus commodities for strategic and other materials
for the national stockpile, initiating discussions with foreign
governments for bartering agreements is difficult because of
interdepartmental disagreements over reimbursement and accounting
procedures; (4) although countertrade can balance exports with
imports, countries do not gain because they forego foreign exchange
earnings; and (5) while countertrade does not appear to offer many
benefits for developed countries, it is usually better to make an
export sale through countertrade than not to export at all.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent
agency that works for Congress. The GAO watches over Congress, and
investigates how the federal government spends taxpayers dollars.
The Comptroller General of the United States is the leader of the
GAO, and is appointed to a 15-year term by the U.S. President. The
GAO wants to support Congress, while at the same time doing right
by the citizens of the United States. They audit, investigate,
perform analyses, issue legal decisions and report anything that
the government is doing. This is one of their reports.
The consensus of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the World
Health Organization, and other major health agencies is that the
research to date does not show radiofrequency energy emitted from
mobile phones has harmful health effects, but there is not yet
enough information to conclude that they pose no risk. Although
most of the epidemiological and laboratory studies done on this
issue have found no adverse health effects, the findings of some
studies have raised questions about cancer and other health
problems that require further study. The Cellular Telecommunication
& Internet Association (CTIA) and FDA will jointly conduct
research on mobile phone health affects. Although the initiative is
funded solely by CTIA, FDA's active role in setting the research
agenda and providing scientific oversight should help alleviate
concerns about the objectivity of the report. The media has widely
reported on the debate over whether mobile phones can cause health
problems. Thus, the federal government's role in providing the
public with clear information on this issue is particularly
important. FDA has a consumer information update on mobile phone
health issues but has not revised that data since October 1999.
Consequently FDA does not discuss the significance of major,
recently published research studies that have been reported in the
press. FDA said that it has not revised the update because the
scientific picture has not changed significantly.
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO determined the potential
U.S. financial obligations to the Philippines when the United
States closes two military facilities there, focusing on: (1) the
costs of separation allowances and contract termination; (2)
whether the United States can recover any equipment for reuse
elsewhere; and (3) whether the United States has any obligation for
environmental cleanup or restoration. GAO found that: (1) U.S.
liabilities for separation allowances totalled approximately $71.3
million, as of March 31, 1991; (2) Air Force and Navy activities
underfunded severance pay liabilities by $12.9 million; (3) with
the exception of Navy industrial fund's $10.1-million liability,
the Department of Defense (DOD) stated that it had sufficient
resources available to cover the shortfall; (4) most activities had
not set aside funds for the $15.5 million in sick and annual leave
liabilities because, under DOD policy, those liabilities are not
funded until they are ready to be paid; (5) U.S. liabilities for
contract termination costs are estimated to be $3.7 million; (6)
the United States has invested $2.199 billion in military
facilities in the Philippines, and the Air Force plans to remove 75
percent of the removable property and declare the balance excess to
U.S. requirements; and (7) the Air Force and Navy have identified
significant environmental damage at the bases, basing agreement
does not impose responsibility upon the United States.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent
agency that works for Congress. The GAO watches over Congress, and
investigates how the federal government spends taxpayers dollars.
The Comptroller General of the United States is the leader of the
GAO, and is appointed to a 15-year term by the U.S. President. The
GAO wants to support Congress, while at the same time doing right
by the citizens of the United States. They audit, investigate,
perform analyses, issue legal decisions and report anything that
the government is doing. This is one of their reports.
In response to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the National
Endowment for Democracy's procedures for selecting, monitoring, and
evaluating its grantee programs. GAO found that the Endowment: (1)
relied on its grantees to select, monitor, and evaluate their own
programs in 1984 and 1985; (2) did not implement a comprehensive
planning process or develop an overall plan reflecting its
priorities in terms of geographic areas or project types, thereby
limiting its selection process to funding projects that its
grantees developed and submitted; (3) did little independent
verification of financial and other program information; and (4)
evaluated only a few projects during the first 2 years of
operation, since they were the only projects that were completed by
then. GAO noted that in March 1986, the Endowment approved a policy
statement clarifying its responsibilities for oversight of
appropriated funds and defining its relationship with grantees.
The implementation of sanctions against Rhodesia by the government
was investigated. The economic and political existence of Rhodesia
for the past 11 years is evidence that the United Nations'
sanctions have not been completely effective. Certain allegations
of violations made against U.S. firms have been referred to the
government for investigation and action. The government has taken
action against some domestic businesses and firms in third
countries that have purchased and reexported U.S. products to
Rhodesia. The U.S. generally follows the United Nations' sanctions,
except in matters where restrictions would be contrary to U.S. law.
Under the Executive Orders implementing the sanctions, the
Departments of Treasury, Commerce, and Transportation are delegated
primary responsibility to carry out the purposes of the order. As
U.S. laws take precedence over both the United Nations' Resolution
and the Executive Orders, U.S. firms and individuals are legally
not complying with the sanctions in such areas as allowing for the
import of strategic materials from Rhodesia and traveling to
Rhodesia as tourists. Agencies charged with administering the
sanction regulations have not emphasized enforcement of the United
Nations' sanctions.
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the status of the
Department of Defense's (DOD) Small Intercontinental Ballistic
Missile (ICBM) Program. GAO found that: (1) although DOD
anticipated deploying the Small ICBM weapon system in 1997, it is
reconsidering that goal due to changes in the international
environment, the reduced threat in a post-Strategic Arms Reduction
Talks environment, and the high cost to procure and operate mobile
ICBM; (2) although the DOD ICBM budget for fiscal years 1992
through 1997 will not support achievement of initial deployment in
1997, DOD stated that it is proceeding with ICBM development to
provide a possible replacement for another missile, provide a
survivable basing option for ICBM, and protect an option for basing
ICBM; (3) until DOD provides updated direction, program funding
needs are uncertain; (4) although DOD has made progress in
developing ICBM, such unresolved issues remained as the missile's
capability, viability of the missile's design, and availability of
parts; (5) the Air Force failed to provide sufficient information
to Congress in its ICBM selected acquisition report regarding
information on the status of weapon system acquisitions to permit
meaningful congressional oversight; and (6) DOD anticipates
deploying ICBM with most of the design improvements in 1993.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent
agency that works for Congress. The GAO watches over Congress, and
investigates how the federal government spends taxpayers dollars.
The Comptroller General of the United States is the leader of the
GAO, and is appointed to a 15-year term by the U.S. President. The
GAO wants to support Congress, while at the same time doing right
by the citizens of the United States. They audit, investigate,
perform analyses, issue legal decisions and report anything that
the government is doing. This is one of their reports.
In response to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Department
of Defense's (DOD) joint test-and-evaluations (JT&E) program,
which was established in 1971, to determine how well the military
services can perform their missions and roles in joint operations
under combat conditions. GAO found that the office responsible for
JT&E of DOD weapon systems has been dependent on organizations
with vested interests in JT&E results. Joint tests have been
managed, carried out, and partially funded by the individual
services, which have vested interests in the results. It is not yet
clear how new legislation will affect the organization of the
program or alter JT&E dependence on the services for resources
and capabilities. Most of the JT&E that have been completed
were requested by organizations within the Office of the Secretary
of Defense (OSD) while the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the services
have been infrequent requesters of joint tests. In the three
JT&E which GAO analyzed in depth, it found that: (1) factors
important to judging operational effectiveness were omitted; (2)
the validity of the test data could seriously be questioned; (3)
the data were often not qualified with respect to the tests'
constraints; (4) conclusions and recommendations were not always
supported by test results; (5) the reports did not always address
the concerns of the requesters; and (6) the requesters made little
use of the tests. GAO believed that the reasons for the flaws of
the joint tests could lie in the organizational structure of the
program including: (1) its organizational placement; (2) its
limited staff size; (3) failure to choose staff members for their
testing expertise; (4) its limited budget; (5) its dependence on
the services for resources; and (6) the absence of a strategic plan
that sets priorities.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent
agency that works for Congress. The GAO watches over Congress, and
investigates how the federal government spends taxpayers dollars.
The Comptroller General of the United States is the leader of the
GAO, and is appointed to a 15-year term by the U.S. President. The
GAO wants to support Congress, while at the same time doing right
by the citizens of the United States. They audit, investigate,
perform analyses, issue legal decisions and report anything that
the government is doing. This is one of their reports.
|
You may like...
Loot
Nadine Gordimer
Paperback
(2)
R398
R330
Discovery Miles 3 300
Morbius
Jared Leto, Matt Smith, …
DVD
R179
Discovery Miles 1 790
|