This is the accessible text file for CG Presentation number GAO-12- 882CG entitled 'Partnership and Collaboration: Meeting the Challenges Across All Levels of Government' which was released on June 27, 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. Partnership and Collaboration: Meeting the Challenges Across All Levels of Government 19th Biennial Forum of Government Auditors: June 27, 2012: Alexandria, Va. Gene L. Dodaro: Comptroller General of the United States: U.S. Government Accountability Office: GAO-12-882CG: Fiscal Backdrop: Figure: Debt Held by the Public: Spring 2012 Simulations: [Refer to PDF for image: line graph] Figure: Debt Held by the Public: Spring 2012 Simulations: [Refer to PDF for image: line graph] Percentage of GDP: Historical high: 100% in 1946. Fiscal year: 2000; Baseline extended: 34.7%; Alternative: 34.7%. Fiscal year: 2001; Baseline extended: 32.5%; Alternative: 32.5%. Fiscal year: 2002; Baseline extended: 33.6%; Alternative: 33.6%. Fiscal year: 2003; Baseline extended: 35.6%; Alternative: 35.6%. Fiscal year: 2004; Baseline extended: 36.8%; Alternative: 36.8%. Fiscal year: 2005; Baseline extended: 36.9%; Alternative: 36.9%. Fiscal year: 2006; Baseline extended: 36.5%; Alternative: 36.5%. Fiscal year: 2007; Baseline extended: 36.2%; Alternative: 36.2%. Fiscal year: 2008; Baseline extended: 40.3%; Alternative: 40.3%. Fiscal year: 2009; Baseline extended: 53.5%; Alternative: 53.5%. Fiscal year: 2010; Baseline extended: 62.2%; Alternative: 62.2%. Fiscal year: 2022; Baseline extended: 67.3%; Alternative: 67.3%. Fiscal year: 2012; Baseline extended: 71.2%; Alternative: 71.4%. Fiscal year: 2013; Baseline extended: 72.8%; Alternative: 74.9%. Fiscal year: 2014; Baseline extended: 71.6%; Alternative: 76.3%. Fiscal year: 2015; Baseline extended: 68.7%; Alternative: 75.9%. Fiscal year: 2016; Baseline extended: 67.2%; Alternative: 76.9%. Fiscal year: 2017; Baseline extended: 65.8%; Alternative: 78.0%. Fiscal year: 2018; Baseline extended: 64.3%; Alternative: 79.1%. Fiscal year: 2019; Baseline extended: 63.1%; Alternative: 80.5%. Fiscal year: 2020; Baseline extended: 62.0%; Alternative: 82.2%. Fiscal year: 2021; Baseline extended: 61.0%; Alternative: 84.0%. Fiscal year: 2033; Baseline extended: 60.8%; Alternative: 87.0%. Fiscal year: 2023; Baseline extended: 60.7%; Alternative: 90.5%. Fiscal year: 2024; Baseline extended: 61.1%; Alternative: 94.6%. Fiscal year: 2025; Baseline extended: 61.7%; Alternative: 99.4%. Fiscal year: 2026; Baseline extended: 62.6%; Alternative: 104.9%. Fiscal year: 2027; Baseline extended: 63.6%; Alternative: 110.8%. Fiscal year: 2028; Baseline extended: 64.8%; Alternative: 117.1%. Fiscal year: 2029; Baseline extended: 66.3%; Alternative: 123.9%. Fiscal year: 2030; Baseline extended: 67.8%; Alternative: 131.1%. Fiscal year: 2031; Baseline extended: 69.6%; Alternative: 138.6%. Fiscal year: 2032; Baseline extended: 71.4%; Alternative: 146.4%. Fiscal year: 2033; Baseline extended: 73.4%; Alternative: 154.4%. Fiscal year: 2034; Baseline extended: 75.5%; Alternative: 162.7%. Fiscal year: 2035; Baseline extended: 77.7%; Alternative: 171.3%. Fiscal year: 2036; Baseline extended: 80.1%; Alternative: 180.1%. Fiscal year: 2037; Baseline extended: 82.5%; Alternative: 189.1%. Fiscal year: 2038; Baseline extended: 85.0%; Alternative: 198.1%. Fiscal year: 2039; Baseline extended: 87.5%. Fiscal year: 2040; Baseline extended: 90.3%. Fiscal year: 2041; Baseline extended: 93.2%. Fiscal year: 2042; Baseline extended: 96.1%. Fiscal year: 2043; Baseline extended: 99.0%. Fiscal year: 2044; Baseline extended: 102.0%. Fiscal year: 2045; Baseline extended: 105.1%. Fiscal year: 2046; Baseline extended: 108.2%. Fiscal year: 2047; Baseline extended: 111.4%. Fiscal year: 2048; Baseline extended: 114.6%. Fiscal year: 2049; Baseline extended: 117.9%. Fiscal year: 2050; Baseline extended: 121.1%. Fiscal year: 2051; Baseline extended: 124.5%. Fiscal year: 2052; Baseline extended: 127.9%. Fiscal year: 2053; Baseline extended: 131.5%. Fiscal year: 2054; Baseline extended: 135.0%. Fiscal year: 2055; Baseline extended: 138.5%. Fiscal year: 2056; Baseline extended: 142.3%. Fiscal year: 2057; Baseline extended: 146.0%. Fiscal year: 2058; Baseline extended: 149.7%. Fiscal year: 2059; Baseline extended: 153.6%. Source: GAO. Note: Data are from GAO's Spring 2012 simulations based on the Trustees' assumptions for Social Security and the Trustees' and the CMS Actuary's assumptions for Medicare. [End of figure] Figure: Daily Average Number of People Turning 65: [Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] Year: 2000; Daily average number of people turning 66 each year: 5,500. Year: 2001; Daily average number of people turning 66 each year: 5,500. Year: 2002; Daily average number of people turning 66 each year: 5,500. Year: 2003; Daily average number of people turning 66 each year: 5,800. Year: 2004; Daily average number of people turning 66 each year: 5,800. Year: 2005; Daily average number of people turning 66 each year: 6,000. Year: 2006; Daily average number of people turning 66 each year: 6,200. Year: 2007; Daily average number of people turning 66 each year: 6.700. Year: 2008; Daily average number of people turning 66 each year: 7,200. Year: 2009; Daily average number of people turning 66 each year: 7,200. Year: 2010; Daily average number of people turning 66 each year: 7,151. Year: 2011; Daily average number of people turning 66 each year: 9,100. Year: 2012; Daily average number of people turning 66 each year: 9,100. Year: 2013; Daily average number of people turning 66 each year: 9,200. Year: 2014; Daily average number of people turning 66 each year: 9,100. Year: 2015; Daily average number of people turning 66 each year: 9,400. Year: 2016; Daily average number of people turning 66 each year: 9,400. Year: 2017; Daily average number of people turning 66 each year: 9,700. Year: 2018; Daily average number of people turning 66 each year: 1000. Year: 2019; Daily average number of people turning 66 each year: 10,200. Year: 2020; Daily average number of people turning 66 each year: 10,700. Year: 2021; Daily average number of people turning 66 each year: 10,700. Year: 2022; Daily average number of people turning 66 each year: 11,000. Year: 2023; Daily average number of people turning 66 each year: 11,200. Year: 2024; Daily average number of people turning 66 each year: 11,200. Year: 2025; Daily average number of people turning 66 each year: 11,600. Year: 2026; Daily average number of people turning 66 each year: 11,400. Year: 2027; Daily average number of people turning 66 each year: 11,400. Year: 2028; Daily average number of people turning 66 each year: 11,300. Year: 2029; Daily average number of people turning 66 each year: 11,400. Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data. Note: Data are from the U.S. Census Bureau's National Population Projections. For this analysis, we used data from the low net international migration series. [End of figure] Figure: Number of Workers per Social Security Beneficiary Forecasted to Continue to Fall: [Refer to PDF for image: line graph] Year: 1960; Covered workers per OASDI beneficiary: 5.1. Year: 1980; Covered workers per OASDI beneficiary: 3.2. Year: 2000; Covered workers per OASDI beneficiary: 3.4. Year: 2020; Covered workers per OASDI beneficiary: 2.5. Year: 2040; Covered workers per OASDI beneficiary: 2.0. Year: 2060; Covered workers per OASDI beneficiary: 2.0. Year: 2090; Covered workers per OASDI beneficiary: 1.9. Source: 2012 OASDI Trustees Report. [End of figure] State and Local Governments Face Increasing Fiscal Challenges: [Refer to PDF for image: line graph] Fiscal year: 2005: 0.1%; Fiscal year: 2006: 0.3%; Fiscal year: 2007: 0.1%; Fiscal year: 2008: -0.5%; Fiscal year: 2009: -0.5%; Fiscal year: 2010: 0%; Fiscal year: 2011: -0.4%; Fiscal year: 2012: -0.8%; Fiscal year: 2013: -1.2%; Fiscal year: 2014: -1.4%; Fiscal year: 2015: -1.4%; Fiscal year: 2016: -1.2%; Fiscal year: 2017: -1.2%; Fiscal year: 2018: -1.2%; Fiscal year: 2019: -1.3%; Fiscal year: 2020: -1.3%; Fiscal year: 2021: -1.4%; Fiscal year: 2022: -1.4%; Fiscal year: 2023: -1.5%; Fiscal year: 2024: -1.5%; Fiscal year: 2025: -1.6%; Fiscal year: 2026: -1.6%; Fiscal year: 2027: -1.7%; Fiscal year: 2028: -1.7%; Fiscal year: 2029: -1.8%; Fiscal year: 2030: -1.9%; Fiscal year: 2031: -1.9%; Fiscal year: 2032: -2%; Fiscal year: 2033: -2%; Fiscal year: 2034: -2.1%; Fiscal year: 2035: -2.1%; Fiscal year: 2036: -2.2%; Fiscal year: 2037: -2.2%; Fiscal year: 2038: -2.3%; Fiscal year: 2039: -2.3%; Fiscal year: 2040: -2.4%; Fiscal year: 2041: -2.5%; Fiscal year: 2042: -2.5%; Fiscal year: 2043: -2.6%; Fiscal year: 2044: -2.6%; Fiscal year: 2045: -2.7%; Fiscal year: 2046: -2.7%; Fiscal year: 2047: -2.7%; Fiscal year: 2048: -2.8%; Fiscal year: 2049: -2.8%; Fiscal year: 2050: -2.8%; Fiscal year: 2051: -2.9%; Fiscal year: 2052: -2.9%; Fiscal year: 2053: -2.9%; Fiscal year: 2054: -2.9%; Fiscal year: 2055: -3%; Fiscal year: 2056: -3%; Fiscal year: 2057: -3%; Fiscal year: 2058: -3%; Fiscal year: 2059: -3.1%; Fiscal year: 2060: -3.1%. Source: GAO simulations, updated April 2012. Note: Historical data are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis’s National Income and Product Accounts from 1980 to 2010. Data in 2011 are GAO estimates aligned with published data where available. GAO simulations are from 2012 to 2060, using many Congressional Budget Office projections and assumptions, particularly for the next 10 years. Simulations are based on current policy. [End of figure] Figure: Health and Nonhealth Expenditures of State and Local Governments: [Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] Year: 2005; Nonhealth care expenditures: 10.7%; Health care expenditures: 3.2%. Year: 2006; Nonhealth care expenditures: 10.7%; Health care expenditures: 3%. Year: 2007; Nonhealth care expenditures: 10.9%; Health care expenditures: 3.1%. Year: 2008; Nonhealth care expenditures: 11.3%; Health care expenditures: 3.2%. Year: 2009; Nonhealth care expenditures: 11.4%; Health care expenditures: 3.6%. Year: 2010; Nonhealth care expenditures: 10.9%; Health care expenditures: 3.7%. Year: 2011; Nonhealth care expenditures: 10.5%; Health care expenditures: 4%. Year: 2012; Nonhealth care expenditures: 10.4%; Health care expenditures: 3.9%. Year: 2013; Nonhealth care expenditures: 10.5%; Health care expenditures: 4.1%. Year: 2014; Nonhealth care expenditures: 10.4%; Health care expenditures: 4.5%. Year: 2015; Nonhealth care expenditures: 10.1%; Health care expenditures: 4.7%. Year: 2016; Nonhealth care expenditures: 9.9%; Health care expenditures: 4.8%. Year: 2017; Nonhealth care expenditures: 9.8%; Health care expenditures: 4.9%. Year: 2018; Nonhealth care expenditures: 9.7%; Health care expenditures: 5%. Year: 2019; Nonhealth care expenditures: 9.6%; Health care expenditures: 5%. Year: 2020; Nonhealth care expenditures: 9.6%; Health care expenditures: 5.2%. Year: 2021; Nonhealth care expenditures: 9.5%; Health care expenditures: 5.3%. Year: 2022; Nonhealth care expenditures: 9.5%; Health care expenditures: 5.4%. Year: 2023; Nonhealth care expenditures: 9.4%; Health care expenditures: 5.4%. Year: 2024; Nonhealth care expenditures: 9.4%; Health care expenditures: 5.5%. Year: 2025; Nonhealth care expenditures: 9.4%; Health care expenditures: 5.5%. Year: 2026; Nonhealth care expenditures: 9.3%; Health care expenditures: 5.6%. Year: 2027; Nonhealth care expenditures: 9.3%; Health care expenditures: 5.6%. Year: 2028; Nonhealth care expenditures: 9.2%; Health care expenditures: 5.6%. Year: 2029; Nonhealth care expenditures: 9.2%; Health care expenditures: 5.7%. Year: 2030; Nonhealth care expenditures: 9.2%; Health care expenditures: 5.7%. Year: 2031; Nonhealth care expenditures: 9.1%; Health care expenditures: 5.9%. Year: 2032; Nonhealth care expenditures: 9.1%; Health care expenditures: 5.8%. Year: 2033; Nonhealth care expenditures: 9%; Health care expenditures: 5.9%. Year: 2034; Nonhealth care expenditures: 9%; Health care expenditures: 6%. Year: 2035; Nonhealth care expenditures: 8.9%; Health care expenditures: 6%. Year: 2036; Nonhealth care expenditures: 8.9%; Health care expenditures: 6.1%. Year: 2037; Nonhealth care expenditures: 8.8%; Health care expenditures: 6.2%. Year: 2038; Nonhealth care expenditures: 8.8%; Health care expenditures: 6.2%. Year: 2039; Nonhealth care expenditures: 8.7%; Health care expenditures: 6.3%. Year: 2040; Nonhealth care expenditures: 8.7%; Health care expenditures: 6.5%. Year: 2041; Nonhealth care expenditures: 8.6%; Health care expenditures: 6.6%. Year: 2042; Nonhealth care expenditures: 8.6%; Health care expenditures: 6.6%. Year: 2043; Nonhealth care expenditures: 8.5%; Health care expenditures: 6.7%. Year: 2044; Nonhealth care expenditures: 8.5%; Health care expenditures: 6.7%. Year: 2045; Nonhealth care expenditures: 8.4%; Health care expenditures: 6.8%. Year: 2046; Nonhealth care expenditures: 8.4%; Health care expenditures: 6.8%. Year: 2047; Nonhealth care expenditures: 8.3%; Health care expenditures: 6.9%. Year: 2048; Nonhealth care expenditures: 8.3%; Health care expenditures: 6.9%. Year: 2049; Nonhealth care expenditures: 8.2%; Health care expenditures: 6.9%. Year: 2050; Nonhealth care expenditures: 8.2%; Health care expenditures: 6.9%. Year: 2051; Nonhealth care expenditures: 8.1%; Health care expenditures: 7%. Year: 2052; Nonhealth care expenditures: 8.1%; Health care expenditures: 6.9%. Year: 2053; Nonhealth care expenditures: 8%; Health care expenditures: 7.1%. Year: 2054; Nonhealth care expenditures: 8%; Health care expenditures: 6.9%. Year: 2055; Nonhealth care expenditures: 8%; Health care expenditures: 7%. Year: 2056; Nonhealth care expenditures: 7.9%; Health care expenditures: 7.1%. Year: 2057; Nonhealth care expenditures: 7.9%; Health care expenditures: 7%. Year: 2058; Nonhealth care expenditures: 7.9%; Health care expenditures: 7%. Year: 2059; Nonhealth care expenditures: 7.8%; Health care expenditures: 7%. Year: 2060; Nonhealth care expenditures: 7.8%; Health care expenditures: 7.1%. Source: GAO simulations, updated April 2012. Note: Historical data are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis’s National Income and Product Accounts from 2005 to 2010. Data in 2011 are GAO estimates aligned with published data where available. GAO simulations are from 2012 to 2060, using many Congressional Budget Office projections and assumptions, particularly for the next 10 years. Simulations are based on current policy. [End of figure] Pension Funded Ratios Have Declined Since 2001: Figure: Aggregate Funding Ratio for Large State and Local Government Plans, FY 2001-2010: [Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] Fiscal year: 2001; Aggregate funding ratio: 101.3%. Fiscal year: 2002; Aggregate funding ratio: 97.1%. Fiscal year: 2003; Aggregate funding ratio: 91.3%. Fiscal year: 2004; Aggregate funding ratio: 87.9%. Fiscal year: 2005; Aggregate funding ratio: 86.3%. Fiscal year: 2006; Aggregate funding ratio: 85.3%. Fiscal year: 2007; Aggregate funding ratio: 86.1%. Fiscal year: 2008; Aggregate funding ratio: 85.0%. Fiscal year: 2009; Aggregate funding ratio: 798%. Fiscal year: 2010; Aggregate funding ratio: 75.6%. Source: GAO analysis of data on large plans from the National Association of State Retirement Administrators' Public Fund Survey and the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. [End of figure] Opportunities for Partnership and Collaboration: * Budget constraints and fiscal challenges mean challenges for all levels of government. * Accountability community expected to help identify savings, find efficiencies, increase effectiveness. * With resources constraints facing many governments, collaboration will be necessary. * The Forum is a key opportunity to continue to build partnerships and work on solutions. [End of section] Transportation Infrastructure: Transportation: Intergovernmental Collaboration and Challenges: Surface Transportation: Over the next 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office estimates a $125 billion gap between Highway Trust Fund spending and projected revenues. Upgrading the surface transportation system to meet projected demand is estimated in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Funding surface transportation remains on GAO’s high-risk list. GAO recommended adopting a performance-oriented approach for surface transportation. Highways: The federal government provides $40 billion annually to states for highway and bridge programs. The federal role in the highway program has expanded without a well- defined vision of evident national interests. The Federal Highway Administration uses its partnership with state Departments of Transportation to meet its multiple responsibilities and assist states in executing highway projects. Yet the federal-state partnership also poses risks: We observed FHWA actions that demonstrated lax oversight and lack of independence in decision making. Rail: Amtrak has struggled financially and requires about $1.5 billion in annual federal subsidies. Capital needs for Northeast Corridor improvements are estimated at $52 billion through 2030. Legislation requires states to pay full cost of intercity passenger rail service beyond Amtrak’s basic service. Amtrak, commuter rail, and freight often operate on the same track but sometimes have conflicting priorities regarding services and investments. Without dedicated long-term federal, state, or other funding sources, initiating large projects like High Speed Rail is difficult. Transit: The federal government provided about $12 billion in FY 2011 to states and localities to support transit programs. State and local governments execute most federal transit programs by matching and distributing federal funds and by planning, selecting, and supervising infrastructure projects and safety programs. Coordination between governments and among various federal agencies is key in the delivery of transit programs but faces some challenges: * Potential duplication of efforts; oversight gaps; limited financial resources. Ongoing Work: * Review of tolls and use of funds by transportation authorities established by interstate compacts. * Evaluating the California high speed rail project’s estimates of costs, ridership, revenues, and economic impacts. Future Work: * Identify transit asset management best practices to effectively use transit agencies’, states’, and federal government’s funds. [End of section] National Preparedness: Emergency and Disaster Preparedness: GAO has consistently called for the development of a national preparedness strategy that involves partners from all levels, including federal, state, and local organizations. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina highlighted the need to better define roles and responsibilities across government organizations at all levels. The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 required FEMA to establish a national preparedness system to build tribal, local, state, regional, and national capabilities needed to respond to any type of disaster. Act also required that FEMA develop a comprehensive assessment system to assess preparedness at the local, state and federal level. Figure: Conceptual Illustration for Assessing Capability Requirements and Identifying Capability Gaps for National Preparedness: [Refer to PDF for image: stacked line graph] Vertical axis of graph: Level of incident effect; plotted against: Horizontal axis of graph: Time. Depicted on graph: Line indicating capability requirements; Stacked lines representing local, state, and federal resources; Difference indicated as capability gaps. Source: GAO. [End of figure] National Preparedness: Challenges and Opportunities: * Autonomy issues, different operational structures and civic traditions of states and municipalities; * Competing priorities within and among intergovernmental jurisdictions and agencies; * Incompatible procedures, processes, data, and computer systems •FEMA has faced challenges in implementing a system for assessing local, state and federal capabilities; * The intergovernmental nature of national preparedness provides numerous and wide-ranging opportunities for better integrating development and delivery of disaster response resources and services across multiple levels of government. Recent & Ongoing Work on National Preparedness Issues: * Managing Preparedness Grants and Assessing National Capabilities; * National Preparedness System; * Urban Area Security Initiative and the National Capital Region; * FEMA’s Disaster Declarations and the Disaster Relief Fund; * Capabilities to Manage Early Response To Nuclear Or Radiological Attack; * Biosecurity. [End of section] Housing: Foreclosure Mitigation Review: Loan Modifications: [Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] Loan Modification Is Focus of Foreclosure Response but Activity Level Has Declined: Number of loans: Time period: Q1, 2009; All HAMP Modifications: 0; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Non-HAMP Modifications: 37,041; All FHA, VA, and USDA Modifications: 21,367. Time period: Q2, 2009; All HAMP Modifications: 0; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Non-HAMP Modifications: 32,315; All FHA, VA, and USDA Modifications: 21,888. Time period: Q3, 2009; All HAMP Modifications: 4,742; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Non-HAMP Modifications: 36,699; All FHA, VA, and USDA Modifications: 19,886. Time period: Q4, 2009; All HAMP Modifications: 62,196; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Non-HAMP Modifications: 19,944; All FHA, VA, and USDA Modifications: 34,375. Time period: Q1, 2010; All HAMP Modifications: 163,863; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Non-HAMP Modifications: 47,050; All FHA, VA, and USDA Modifications: 40,475. Time period: Q2, 2010; All HAMP Modifications: 167,220; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Non-HAMP Modifications: 70,330; All FHA, VA, and USDA Modifications: 49,254. Time period: Q3, 2010; All HAMP Modifications: 97,877; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Non-HAMP Modifications: 100,081; All FHA, VA, and USDA Modifications: 44,968. Time period: Q4, 2010; All HAMP Modifications: 83,752; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Non-HAMP Modifications: 81,187; All FHA, VA, and USDA Modifications: 49,486. Time period: Q1, 2011; All HAMP Modifications: 90,536; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Non-HAMP Modifications: 37,797; All FHA, VA, and USDA Modifications: 44,968. Time period: Q2, 2011; All HAMP Modifications: 92,885; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Non-HAMP Modifications: 33,586; All FHA, VA, and USDA Modifications: 41,649. Time period: Q3, 2011; All HAMP Modifications: 93,903; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Non-HAMP Modifications: 47,075; All FHA, VA, and USDA Modifications: 32,741. Time period: Q4, 2011; All HAMP Modifications: 76,353; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Non-HAMP Modifications: 35,633; All FHA, VA, and USDA Modifications: 23,715. Source: GAO analysis of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA, Treasury, USDA, and VA data. [End of figure] Figure: Treasury Provided $7.6 Billion to States Under its Hardest Hit Fund Program: [Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map] State: Oregon; Full Allocation, 1Q, 2012: $220,042,786; Cumulative Assistance Provided as percentage of Allocation: 23%. State: District of Columbia; Full Allocation, 1Q, 2012: $20,697,198; Cumulative Assistance Provided as percentage of Allocation: 16%. State: Rhode Island; Full Allocation, 1Q, 2012: $79,351,573; Cumulative Assistance Provided as percentage of Allocation: 13%. State: North Carolina; Full Allocation, 1Q, 2012: $482,781,786; Cumulative Assistance Provided as percentage of Allocation: 11%. State: Ohio; Full Allocation, 1Q, 2012: $570,395,099; Cumulative Assistance Provided as percentage of Allocation: 8%. State: Kentucky; Full Allocation, 1Q, 2012: $148,901,875; Cumulative Assistance Provided as percentage of Allocation: 8%. State: South Carolina; Full Allocation, 1Q, 2012: $295,431,547; Cumulative Assistance Provided as percentage of Allocation: 7%. State: Alabama; Full Allocation, 1Q, 2012: $162,521,345; Cumulative Assistance Provided as percentage of Allocation: 6%. State: Tennessee; Full Allocation, 1Q, 2012: $217,315,593; Cumulative Assistance Provided as percentage of Allocation: 5%. State: Illinois; Full Allocation, 1Q, 2012: $445,603,557; Cumulative Assistance Provided as percentage of Allocation: 4%. State: Nevada; Full Allocation, 1Q, 2012: $194,026,240; Cumulative Assistance Provided as percentage of Allocation: 3%. State: Arizona; Full Allocation, 1Q, 2012: $267,766,006; Cumulative Assistance Provided as percentage of Allocation: 3%. State: Michigan; Full Allocation, 1Q, 2012: $498,605,738; Cumulative Assistance Provided as percentage of Allocation: 3%. State: California; Full Allocation, 1Q, 2012: $1,975,334,096; Cumulative Assistance Provided as percentage of Allocation: 3%. State: Mississippi; Full Allocation, 1Q, 2012: $101,888,323; Cumulative Assistance Provided as percentage of Allocation: 3%. State: Florida; Full Allocation, 1Q, 2012: $1,057,839,136; Cumulative Assistance Provided as percentage of Allocation: 2%. State: Indiana; Full Allocation, 1Q, 2012: $221,694,139; Cumulative Assistance Provided as percentage of Allocation: 2%. State: Georgia; Full Allocation, 1Q, 2012: $339,255,819; Cumulative Assistance Provided as percentage of Allocation: 2%. State: New Jersey; Full Allocation, 1Q, 2012: $300,548,144; Cumulative Assistance Provided as percentage of Allocation: 1%. Source: GAO analysis of Treasury Hardest Hit Fund data; Map Resources (map). [End of figure] Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Multifamily Housing Financing: Congressional request to provide information on the history and performance of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s (the enterprises) multifamily activities. Our objectives are to determine: * How the enterprises’ multifamily loan activities and loan performance have changed over time. * How the enterprises’ multifamily credit standards compare with those of other mortgage capital sources and how they have managed their credit risk. * The enterprises’ role in the multifamily housing financing marketplace and the extent to which they have met affordable housing goals. Includes analysis of loan-level data going back to 1994. Recent & Ongoing Work on Housing Issues: * Foreclosure mitigation & loan modification; * Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s multifamily financing activities. * Housing Choice Voucher program. * Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration program. * HUD’s block grant programs. * Recovery Act’s Low Income Housing Tax Credit Programs. * Fragmentation and overlap in housing programs. [End of section] Improper Payments, Medicare, Medicaid: Governmentwide Improper Payments: Estimates and Reduction Strategies: OMB and the federal agencies reported improper payment estimates for fiscal year 2011 totaling $115.3 billion. Attributable to 79 programs spread among 17 agencies. The FY 2011 estimate of $115.3 billion was a decrease of $5.3 billion from the revised prior year reported estimate. Primarily caused by: * Decreases in the Unemployment Insurance program outlays. * Earned Income Tax Credit and Medicare Advantage program error rates. Actions are currently underway across government to properly estimate and reduce improper payments. Future initiatives are also needed to move forward with improper payment reduction strategies that include: * Identifying the root causes of improper payments; * Developing effective preventive controls to avoid improper payments; and; * Developing effective detective controls to identify and recover losses to the government, including payment recapture audits. Governmentwide Improper Payments: Medicare and Medicaid: Medicare and Medicaid - two programs on GAO’s high risk list - have among the highest reported improper payments. GAO’s ongoing Medicare work includes examining the effectiveness of federal efforts to: * enroll only legitimate providers; * implement prepayment controls, including those that address vulnerabilities identified through payment recapture audits; and; * use data analytics to identify fraudulent billing. GAO’s ongoing Medicaid work includes assessing the: * effectiveness of federal oversight of and support for state efforts to reduce improper payments; * methodology for estimating Medicaid improper payments and the extent to which state corrective action plans have been developed to address the types of errors identified; and; * implementation of the National Medicaid Audit Program and related federal initiatives aimed at reducing improper payments in Medicaid. [End of section] Duplication, Overlap, and Fragmentation (GAO-12-342SP): * 32 areas where agencies, offices, or initiatives have similar or overlapping objectives or provide similar services to the same populations; or where government missions are fragmented across multiple agencies or programs. * 19 additional areas describing other opportunities for agencies or Congress to either reduce the cost of government operations or enhance revenue collections for the Treasury. * Collectively, we identified about 130 actions that the executive branch or Congress could take. Depending on the extent of actions taken, these savings and revenues could collectively result in billions of dollars in savings. Duplication, Overlap, and Fragmentation: Status of 81 Areas in 2011: The Congress and the executive branch have made some progress in addressing the majority of the 81 areas that we identified; however, additional steps are needed to fully implement the remaining actions to achieve associated benefits. [Figure: refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] Addressed: 4 (5%); Partially addressed: 60 (74%); Not addressed: 17 (21%). Source: GAO analysis, as of February 10, 2012. [End of figure] Duplication, Overlap, and Fragmentation: Status of 176 Actions in 2011: The majority of 176 actions needed within the 81 areas identified by GAO have been partially addressed. [Figure: refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] Addressed: 23 (13%); Partially addressed: 99 (56%); Not addressed: 54 (31%). Source: GAO analysis, as of February 10, 2012. [End of figure] Program Evaluations: Measuring the Effectiveness of Programs: Examples of program areas that have limited or no evaluations of effectiveness: * Economic development; * Employment and training; * Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics (STEM) education; * Teacher quality; * Some nutrition assistance programs; * Transportation for disadvantaged persons; * Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grants; * Green building. [End of section] Workforce of the Future: Nation’s “Workforce System” Transcends All Levels of Government and Includes Public and Private Entities: The workforce system was designed to foster integration of employment and training services. Federal law encourages and, in some cases, requires that service providers co-locate and provide services through “one-stop centers”. Funding for these services comes primarily from the federal government and is overseen by 4 main federal agencies. State and local entities make decisions about how the one-stops operate. Job seekers are the primary customer, but employer demand is intended to drive services. Community colleges play an important role. Federal Agencies Have Taken Steps to Align Programs: Under the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, crosscutting goals were recently established to promote collaboration across federal agencies in this area: * Preparing 2 million workers with skills training by 2015 and improving the coordination and delivery of job-training services; * Increasing the number of graduates with science, technology, engineering, and math degrees by one-third over the next 10 years (an additional 1 million graduates); * Improving the employability of veterans by increasing the percent of service members served by career readiness and preparedness programs from 50 percent to 90 percent. GAO’s Work Suggests that More Can Be Done to Achieve Efficiencies in the Workforce System: Our 2011 report found 47 federal programs spent $18 billion to enhance jobs skills, identify job opportunities, and help job seekers obtain employment. Almost all of the programs overlapped with at least one other program—- provided similar services to similar populations—-but differences may exist in eligibility, objectives, and service delivery. Little is known about the effectiveness of these programs. Intergovernmental Collaboration Creates Specific Challenges for the Workforce System: Leveraging funds from different funding streams: * Requires states and localities to navigate complex rules and regulations. Fostering linkages between the workforce and economic development systems, given that these systems have traditionally been considered separately: * Workforce and economic development are overseen by different federal agencies. Balancing state and local flexibility with accountability. Recent & Ongoing Work on Workforce Issues: * Challenges that unemployed older workers are facing since the recession. * Innovative collaborations among local workforce boards, employers, and education entities. * Department of Labor’s actions to assess effectiveness of employment and training programs. * Coordination of employment and training programs for veterans. * Trade Adjustment Assistance for farmers, firms, workers, and communities. [End of section] Tax Reform: Tax Reform: Concerns Have Led to a Debate About the Design of the Federal Tax System: Issues to consider when assessing alternative tax proposals: * Revenue. * Criteria for a good tax system: - Equity (fairness); - Economic efficiency; - Simplicity, transparency, and administrability. * Implications for state and local government tax revenues Tax reform includes the following choices: * Type of base: income, consumption (e.g., value added tax), or a hybrid of the two. * Rate structure: flatter or more progressive. * Breadth of the base: the extent of tax expenditures. Tax Gap: Noncompliance is Spread Across Various Types of Taxes and Taxpayers: Figure: Tax Gap Components: [REfer to PDF for image: pie-chart and associated vertical bar graph] Nonfiling: $28 billion (6%); Underpayment: $46 billion (10%); Underreporting: $376 billion (84%): Of that 84%: Individual income tax, business income: $179 billion (48%); Employment tax: $72 billion (19%); Corporate income tax: $67 billion (18%); Individual income tax, other income: $56 billion (15%); Estate tax: $2 billion (0,5%). Source: GAO Analysis of IRS data. [End of figure] Tax Gap: Closing the Gap Will Require Multiple Approaches: No single approach is likely to fully and cost-effectively address tax gap, but the following strategies could help: * Enhancing information reporting by third parties; * Ensuring high-quality services to taxpayers; * Devoting additional resources to IRS enforcement; * Expanding compliance checks before IRS issues refunds; * Leveraging external resources, such as paid tax return preparers and whistleblowers; * Modernizing information systems; * Simplifying the tax code * Federal approaches may be informed by state efforts. Recent and Ongoing Work on Tax Issues: * Community development tax expenditures. * Tax expenditures, grants, and loans available for post-secondary education. * Evaluating expiring tax provisions. * Filing season. * Potential revenue enhancement through improved IRS compliance efforts. [End of section] Intergovernmental Delivery System: Figure: Intergovernmental System is a Complex Network of Governmental and Non-governmental Partners: [Refer to PDF for image: illustration] In 2007, there were 89,527 “governmental entities” in the United States. Federal Government: 15 executive departments, 66 Independent Agencies & Government Corporations (Civilian workforce of approximately 2.8 million); 50 States: Many state agencies; Many Local: 3,033 counties; 19,492 municipalities; 16,519 Towns; 14,561 School Districts; 37,381 Special Districts; Nonprofit Sector: Including about 33,000 Human service NPs with federal contracts; For-profit Sector: federal contractors; state/local contractors. Sources: GAO graphic based on U.S. Government Manual: 2009-10; U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2011 (2007 Data); and Urban Institute’s National Study of Nonprofit-Government Contracting Survey Results (2009 Data). [End of figure] Figure: Intergovernmental Funding: Multiple Partners and Funding Streams: [Refer to PDF for image: illustration] Funding of Elementary and Secondary Education: Federal Government: $10.5 billion to State Government; $44.2 billion to Local Education Agencies. State Government: State governments spent a total of $308.2 billion on elementary and secondary education in FY2008[A]. $55.6 billion to Local Governments; $244.4 billion to Local Education Agencies. Local Government: Local governments (including school districts) spent a total of $558.9 billion on elementary and secondary education in FY 2008. $1.6 billion to State Government; $488,7 billion to Local Education Agencies. [A] State expenditures also include $6,651,698,000 for current operations. Note: Federal government totals represent all federal support to local education and state education agencies in FY2008. State and local totals represent total spending for elementary and secondary education in FY 2008. Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2008 Annual Surveys of State and Local Government Finances and U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. [End of figure] Figure: State Revenues: Key and Increasing Role of Federal Grants: [Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] Fiscal year: 1977; Federal Grants & Other Assistance: $134,769,697.30; Income tax: $74,866,880.36; Sales tax: $90,735,660.15; License and charges: $56,461,476.27; Other Taxes and Miscellaneous Revenue: $35,197,810.43; Corporate tax: $26,941,813.92. Fiscal year: 1978; Federal Grants & Other Assistance: $137,764,664.03; Income tax: $79,873,296.96; Sales tax: $96,819,767.15; License and charges: $58,203,960.22; Other Taxes and Miscellaneous Revenue: $38,288,745.67; Corporate tax: $29,469,450.29. Fiscal year: 1979; Federal Grants & Other Assistance: $138,203,720.69; Income tax: $82,652,577.23; Sales tax: $100,091,487.73; License and charges: $58,460,067.56; Other Taxes and Miscellaneous Revenue: $42,770,001.83; Corporate tax: $30,726,419.48. Fiscal year: 1980; Federal Grants & Other Assistance: $143,673,894.72; Income tax: $86,097,672.19; Sales tax: $100,206,961.42; License and charges: $58,579,865.24; Other Taxes and Miscellaneous Revenue: $53,095,503.73; Corporate tax: $30,923,473.68. Fiscal year: 1981; Federal Grants & Other Assistance: $143,969,006.77; Income tax: $86,751,731.17; Sales tax: $98,454,802.32; License and charges: $59,963,495.70; Other Taxes and Miscellaneous Revenue: $60,175,646.43; Corporate tax: $30,002,831.61. Fiscal year: 1982; Federal Grants & Other Assistance: $132,019,387.81; Income tax: $91,312,000.34; Sales tax: $100,688,379.13; License and charges: $62,282,041.21; Other Taxes and Miscellaneous Revenue: $66,428,935.15; Corporate tax: $27,996,355.86. Fiscal year: 1983; Federal Grants & Other Assistance: $132,698,856.30; Income tax: $95,772,133.04; Sales tax: $103,179,513.80; License and charges: $65,094,070.18; Other Taxes and Miscellaneous Revenue: $65,008,322.90; Corporate tax: $25,299,849.81. Fiscal year: 1984; Federal Grants & Other Assistance: $141,155,850.94; Income tax: $109,272,592.39; Sales tax: $115,986,234.79; License and charges: $69,817,010.77; Other Taxes and Miscellaneous Revenue: $69,547,454.70; Corporate tax: $28,756,437.82. Fiscal year: 1985; Federal Grants & Other Assistance: $151,933,185.29; Income tax: $114,998,258.29; Sales tax: $125,299,591.28; License and charges: $74,251,786.06; Other Taxes and Miscellaneous Revenue: $78,710,275.27; Corporate tax: $31,726,202.61. Fiscal year: 1986; Federal Grants & Other Assistance: $163,121,526.29; Income tax: $118,674,307.67; Sales tax: $131,681,582.95; License and charges: $79,028,428.33; Other Taxes and Miscellaneous Revenue: $83,584,554.36; Corporate tax: $32,400,293.92. Fiscal year: 1987; Federal Grants & Other Assistance: $163,479,056.00; Income tax: $130,519,635.47; Sales tax: $135,680,868.32; License and charges: $81,946,004.30; Other Taxes and Miscellaneous Revenue: $82,321,348.98; Corporate tax: $35,066,836.48. Fiscal year: 1988; Federal Grants & Other Assistance: $166,347,240.28; Income tax: $132,665,167.97; Sales tax: $144,164,160.05; License and charges: $85,142,378.90; Other Taxes and Miscellaneous Revenue: $81,744,385.25; Corporate tax: $35,772,265.20. Fiscal year: 1989; Federal Grants & Other Assistance: $172,668,649.64; Income tax: $141,691,637.99; Sales tax: $149,145,307.38; License and charges: $89,744,614.32; Other Taxes and Miscellaneous Revenue: $86,394,550.12; Corporate tax: $38,073,000.00. Fiscal year: 1990; Federal Grants & Other Assistance: $181,768,720.08; Income tax: $147,556,008.70; Sales tax: $153,124,440.10; License and charges: $94,586,803.79; Other Taxes and Miscellaneous Revenue: $90,258,230.75; Corporate tax: $33,405,847.32. Fiscal year: 1991; Federal Grants & Other Assistance: $200,155,310.96; Income tax: $147,274,463.56; Sales tax: $153,039,960.15; License and charges: $99,024,085.60; Other Taxes and Miscellaneous Revenue: $92,028,188.44; Corporate tax: $30,198,224.52. Fiscal year: 1992; Federal Grants & Other Assistance: $230,496,554.28; Income tax: $152,142,672.67; Sales tax: $157,529,127.28; License and charges: $108,004,111.42; Other Taxes and Miscellaneous Revenue: $95,631,984.65; Corporate tax: $31,663,496.98. Fiscal year: 1993; Federal Grants & Other Assistance: $251,344,565.87; Income tax: $158,961,390.37; Sales tax: $162,534,279.43; License and charges: $114,321,667.34; Other Taxes and Miscellaneous Revenue: $93,616,947.42; Corporate tax: $34,305,127.91. Fiscal year: 1994; Federal Grants & Other Assistance: $265,853,648.38; Income tax: $162,646,973.17; Sales tax: $170,809,073.18; License and charges: $118,175,381.05; Other Taxes and Miscellaneous Revenue: $91,095,474.72; Corporate tax: $35,676,856.67. Fiscal year: 1995; Federal Grants & Other Assistance: $275,432,697.43; Income tax: $170,862,526.35; Sales tax: $179,875,660.51; License and charges: $123,600,940.31; Other Taxes and Miscellaneous Revenue: $97,321,304.67; Corporate tax: $39,549,607.96. Fiscal year: 1996; Federal Grants & Other Assistance: $277,632,794.47; Income tax: $178,267,860.81; Sales tax: $186,032,187.60; License and charges: $126,108,587.85; Other Taxes and Miscellaneous Revenue: $101,082,123.17; Corporate tax: $39,132,704.67. Fiscal year: 1997; Federal Grants & Other Assistance: $283,103,138.40; Income tax: $190,121,995.43; Sales tax: $193,353,210.71; License and charges: $131,474,473.15; Other Taxes and Miscellaneous Revenue: $107,486,613.31; Corporate tax: $40,290,717.75. Fiscal year: 1998; Federal Grants & Other Assistance: $291,110,694.71; Income tax: $207,674,085.52; Sales tax: $201,392,881.13; License and charges: $137,322,196.03; Other Taxes and Miscellaneous Revenue: $114,598,113.38; Corporate tax: $40,322,941.98. Fiscal year: 1999; Federal Grants & Other Assistance: $305,417,427.98; Income tax: $220,829,497.08; Sales tax: $210,110,084.94; License and charges: $140,281,586.54; Other Taxes and Miscellaneous Revenue: $112,590,747.34; Corporate tax: $39,325,015.83. Fiscal year: 2000; Federal Grants & Other Assistance: $324,169,649.99; Income tax: $243,424,657.67; Sales tax: $218,263,251.88; License and charges: $148,959,505.36; Other Taxes and Miscellaneous Revenue: $126,481,542.47; Corporate tax: $40,687,343.75. Fiscal year: 2001; Federal Grants & Other Assistance: $352,715,779.36; Income tax: $254,563,707.30; Sales tax: $219,377,826.71; License and charges: $154,046,321.41; Other Taxes and Miscellaneous Revenue: $134,016,646.61; Corporate tax: $38,766,330.68. Fiscal year: 2002; Federal Grants & Other Assistance: $382,372,232.19; Income tax: $223,520,149.29; Sales tax: $216,318,590.84; License and charges: $163,268,750.41; Other Taxes and Miscellaneous Revenue: $130,944,727.35; Corporate tax: $30,248,483.68. Fiscal year: 2003; Federal Grants & Other Assistance: $404,818,299.45; Income tax: $214,529,383.04; Sales tax: $217,670,921.00; License and charges: $167,701,680.48; Other Taxes and Miscellaneous Revenue: $134,323,002.71; Corporate tax: $33,470,123.59. Fiscal year: 2004; Federal Grants & Other Assistance: $428,376,056.14; Income tax: $225,081,831.55; Sales tax: $227,024,323.52; License and charges: $176,148,361.67; Other Taxes and Miscellaneous Revenue: $132,121,532.42; Corporate tax: $34,669,192.29. Fiscal year: 2005; Federal Grants & Other Assistance: $428,774,547.36; Income tax: $245,973,209.46; Sales tax: $236,342,286.69; License and charges: $185,115,299.40; Other Taxes and Miscellaneous Revenue: $141,933,682.02; Corporate tax: $42,946,983.36. Fiscal year: 2006; Federal Grants & Other Assistance: $428,143,504.26; Income tax: $264,117,484.88; Sales tax: $246,897,418.16; License and charges: $194,756,523.72; Other Taxes and Miscellaneous Revenue: $158,064,093.54; Corporate tax: $51,038,619.73. Fiscal year: 2007; Federal Grants & Other Assistance: $428,598,708.47; Income tax: $277,798,465.25; Sales tax: $249,001,637.38; License and charges: $196,722,031.26; Other Taxes and Miscellaneous Revenue: $162,114,019.91; Corporate tax: $55,290,974.43. Fiscal year: 2008; Federal Grants & Other Assistance: $432,641,262.08; Income tax: $284,616,263.01; Sales tax: $246,413,210.05; License and charges: $205,051,459.95; Other Taxes and Miscellaneous Revenue: $170,639,961.06; Corporate tax: $51,897,554.38. Source: GAO Analysis of U.S. Census Bureau Government Finance Statistics. Note: The components of general revenue are own-source revenues (taxes, charges, miscellaneous revenues, etc.) and intergovernmental revenues (revenues received from federal and local government). These data represent aggregates for the sector. State revenue sources vary considerably by state. For example, seven states have no state income tax: Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming. Two others, New Hampshire and Tennessee, tax only dividend and interest income. [End of figure] Figure: Aggregate Shifts in State and Local Intergovernmental Grants: [Refer to PDF for image: 2 pie-charts] Federal Grant Revenues, 1980: General Public service: 10%; Economic affairs: 16%; Housing and community services: 6%; Health: 24%; Education: 11%; Income security: 30%; Other: 3%. Federal Grant Revenues, 2010: General Public service: 1%; Economic affairs: 3%; Housing and community services: 4%; Health: 58%; Education: 14%; Income security: 18%; Other: 2%. Source: GAO analysis of historical data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis’s National Income and Product Accounts. Note: Medicaid grants comprised 91 percent of health grants in 2010. ‘Other’ includes national defense, public order and safety, and recreation and culture. [End of figure] Figure: Projected & Actual Federal Outlays to States & Localities under the Recovery Act: [Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] Fiscal year: 2009; Estimated Outlay: $48.9 billion; Actual Outlay: $52.9 billion. Fiscal year: 2010; Estimated Outlay: $107.7 billion; Actual Outlay: $111.9 billion. Fiscal year: 2011; Estimated Outlay: $63.4 billion; Actual Outlay: $68.8 billion. Fiscal year: 2012; Estimated Outlay: $23.3 billion; Actual Outlay: $19 billion. Fiscal year: 2013; Estimated Outlay: $14.4 billion. Fiscal year: 2014; Estimated Outlay: $9.1 billion. Fiscal year: 2015; Estimated Outlay: $5.7 billion. Fiscal year: 2016; Estimated Outlay: $2.5 billion. $252.5 billion in Actual Total Federal Outlays as of June 1, 2012. Source: GAO analysis of data from CBO, Recovery.gov and Federal Funds Information for States. [End of figure] Future Intergovernmental Challenges: * Post-Recovery Act; * Streamlining and improved efficiency; * Greater collaboration between levels of government: - Strong strategic intergovernmental partnerships in managing programs and providing oversight will be needed to achieve desired outcomes and meet national goals. Opportunities for the Forum: * Continue to evolve partnerships; * Develop solutions to cross-cutting challenges; * Find opportunities for increased collaboration; * Expand networks to leverage limited resources. GAO on the Web: Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/] Contact: Chuck Young, Managing Director, Public Affairs, youngc1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800, U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room 7149, Washington, D.C. 20548. Copyright: This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, 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. [End of presentation]