Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program: Performance Measurement Would Strengthen Accountability and Enhance Awareness among Potential Claimants
Published: 2009-10-29T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In 1976, Congress established the Public Safety Officers' Benefits (PSOB) program, which is administered by the Department of Justice (Justice) and provides lump-sum payments to eligible public safety officers and their survivors after a line-of-duty death or permanent and total disability. The program also provides educational benefits to an eligible officer's spouse and children. GAO was asked to determine (1) the extent to which claimants receive PSOB program benefits and how long the claims process takes, (2) any issues raised by state and local agencies and others who assist claimants in seeking benefits, and (3) the extent to which the PSOB program follows recognized government standards and guidelines for effective program management. To address these objectives, we reviewed PSOB claims that were opened during fiscal years 2006 to 2008 for all three types of claims, reviewed relevant agency documents, and interviewed PSOB program officials, representatives of advocacy organizations, and state and local officials in five selected states.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: GAO found that all education claims and over three-quarters of death claims opened in fiscal years 2006 through 2008 were closed and approved as of April 2009, while only about 31 percent of disability claims initiated during that period had determinations. The majority of disability claims remained pending because they took significantly longer to process than other claims--while education and death claims were generally processed in under a year, disability claims took between 17 and 26 months. GAO was unable to pinpoint which steps of the claims process were most time-consuming because claims files that GAO reviewed did not consistently document the date when claims passed through each step of the process. State and local officials GAO interviewed were generally concerned about their lack of awareness of certain PSOB program benefits, challenges with establishing eligibility, and the perceived long wait time for benefits. Specifically, officials were generally more aware of death than disability and education benefits. Officials also stated that submitting all the necessary paperwork to prove eligibility was difficult and time-consuming due, in part, to how long it took to obtain necessary documents from other organizations. Officials most frequently expressed concern about perceived long wait times for receiving benefits and also reported difficulties obtaining information about claims status. While it is taking steps to improve, the PSOB program does not follow government guidelines for performance monitoring. Specifically, according to Justice officials, the PSOB program has not set strategic goals and measures, monitored performance, or reported results because it is a payment program, and its budget is largely mandatory. However, other federal programs that provide benefits after work-related injury and illness have established performance measures, such as ones for claims-processing timeliness, and report their results publicly. Also, while the PSOB program has initiated several outreach and assistance efforts to claimants and state and local agencies in recent years, these efforts are not monitored, resulting in uncertainty as to whether they are adequate.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Public safety officers, including law enforcement officers, firefighters, and  emergency medical technicians, are among the first to respond to  potentially dangerous and life-threatening situations, putting themselves at  risk of catastrophic injury or death. The acute dangers these workers can  face have been highlighted in recent years following the terrorist attacks  of September 11, 2001, and the natural disasters of Hurricanes Katrina and  Rita in 2005. Over 1.8 million people have served as public safety officers  since 2006, and this population has averaged about 200 work-related  deaths a year. In appreciation for the service of public safety officers and  in recognition of the potential inadequacy of state and local benefits for  officers and their survivors, Congress established the Public Safety  Officers’ Benefits (PSOB) program in 1976.
The PSOB program, administered by the Department of Justice’s (DOJ)  Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), provides three types of benefits:  death, disability, and education. In cases of line-of-duty death or injuries  that result in permanent and total disability preventing the performance of  any gainful work, public safety officers and their beneficiaries are  currently eligible to receive a onetime lump-sum payment of $315,746. In  addition to the lump-sum death and disability benefits, the officer’s spouse  and children may also qualify to receive postsecondary education benefits  up to $915 a month. Typically, the officer’s employer (i.e., the state or local  agency for which the officer worked at the time of death or disability)  assists with filing death and disability claims on the officer’s behalf, while  claimants generally file for education benefits on their own.
Questions about DOJ’s administration of the PSOB program have  increased in recent years, in part because of the time required by the  agency to implement the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits Act of  2003, which expanded program eligibility requirements to include public  safety officers whose work under certain conditions results in death by  heart attack or stroke while on duty or within 24 hours thereafter. DOJ  took nearly 3 years after the law was enacted to publish final regulations  and, in the meantime, did not finalize any Hometown Heroes-related  claims, resulting in a backlog of about 200 claims filed under this law.
In light of these issues, we examined the following questions:  (1) To what extent do claimants receive PSOB program benefits and how  long does it take to process claims?  (2) What issues, if any, were raised by state and local agencies and  advocacy organizations seeking benefits on the behalf of claimants?  (3) To what extent does the PSOB program follow recognized government  standards and guidelines for effective program management?
For all three questions, we reviewed claims outcomes, stakeholder  concerns, program management, and relevant federal laws and regulations  related to the PSOB program. To determine receipt of program benefits  and length of the processing time, we drew a stratified random probability  sample of 233 out of the 1,632 PSOB death, disability, and education  claims that were opened during fiscal years 2006 to 2008. Our sample of  cases is generally of a sufficient size to allow us to project our findings to  the universe of death, disability, and education claims for this time period.  All of our percentage estimates are within a margin of error of plus or  minus 10 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level for claims  approval and denial outcomes, and 95 percent confidence intervals are  reported for estimates of time, unless otherwise noted. To determine what  aspects of the program raised issues among agencies that assist with  benefit applications, we interviewed PSOB program officials and state and  local officials that serve both larger urban and smaller, more rural  communities in the following five states—California, Iowa, Louisiana,  Maryland, and New York. We selected these states based on a range in the  number of public safety officer deaths in recent years, geographic  location, and other characteristics. The officials we interviewed  represented local police and firefighting departments; employee advocacy  groups, such as chapters of Concerns of Police Survivors, Inc. (COPS); and  the Fraternal Order of Police; state firefighters associations; and unions.  We also interviewed the national affiliates of these state and local  organizations, including the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation  (NFFF) and the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF). Finally,  to evaluate the effectiveness of the PSOB program’s management, we  interviewed program officials and reviewed and analyzed available  documents on performance monitoring, program outreach, assistance for  those seeking benefits, and current and future plans for automating the  claims process. We analyzed this information based on criteria set forth in  GAO’s and the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) guidelines for  internal controls, strategic planning and reporting, and information system  development and acquisition. We conducted this performance audit from  September 2008 to October 2009 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. For  more information about our objectives, scope, and methodology, see  appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Congress established the PSOB program in 1976 to demonstrate  appreciation for men and women in public safety careers and assist in  their recruitment and retention, among other purposes. The program  provides death, disability, and education benefits to public safety officers  and their families in the event of the officer’s death or permanent and total  disability resulting from employment. While Congress established that  funding for death claims is mandatory, funding for the disability and  education portions of the program is discretionary. As such, in fiscal year  2009, Congress appropriated “such sums as are necessary” for death  benefits (approximately $119 million), $5 million for disability benefits,  and $4.1 million for education benefits. In fiscal year 2009, after adjusting  for inflation, the onetime lump-sum death and disability benefits were  $315,746, and the maximum education benefit was $915 per month.
By law, PSOB death and disability benefits are provided in addition to  other benefits to which the officer is entitled and generally should not  affect the receipt of other benefits, including state and local benefits. (See  app. II for more information on benefits provided by the 5 states we  contacted and app. III for benefits provided by all 50 states.) In addition, if  officers qualify for Social Security Disability Insurance (DI), their DI  benefits are not affected by the receipt of PSOB benefits.
The PSOB program is administered by the PSOB Office, a unit of BJA  within DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP). It employs a total of 10  staff, including the program director, and had an administrative budget of  $3,000,000 in fiscal year 2009. In fiscal years 2006 through 2008, a total of  1,632 PSOB claims were filed. The majority, or about 57 percent, were  death claims; about 32 percent were education claims; and about 11  percent were disability claims, as shown in figure 1.
subsections: section_title: Program Eligibility
paragraphs: To qualify for program benefits, claims must be associated with an officer  who worked for a public agency in one of the following official capacities:  rescue squad or ambulance crew;    employee of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) who is  responding to a federally declared disaster or emergency;    state, local, or tribal officials who are working in cooperation with FEMA  during a federally declared disaster or emergency; or  fire or police department chaplain.
For survivors to qualify for death benefits, an officer’s death must have  been the direct and proximate result of an injury sustained in the line of  duty. The Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits Act of 2003 expanded  program eligibility to include public safety officers who die as a direct and  proximate result of heart attacks or strokes while on duty or within 24  hours after engaging in a nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical public  safety activity or training. To qualify for disability benefits, the public  safety officer has to be permanently and totally disabled as the direct  result of catastrophic injury sustained in the line of duty that permanently  prevents the individual from performing any gainful work. An officer’s  spouse or children may also qualify for education benefits only after the  officer’s eligibility for death or disability benefits has been established.  Spouses may receive education benefits at any point during their lifetime,  while children generally may receive benefits until the age of 27. In  addition, educational assistance is provided for a maximum of 45 months  of full-time enrollment and students must maintain a cumulative C  average. Consequently, claimants can apply for PSOB education benefits  multiple times over several years.
section_title: Application Process
paragraphs: Typically, the officer’s employer (i.e., the state or local agency for which the  officer worked at the time of the death or disability) assists with filing death  and disability claims on the officer’s behalf, while spouses and children  seeking education benefits typically file on their own behalf. By statute, the  BJA director is authorized to use no less than $150,000 of appropriated  program funds to maintain and enhance national peer support and  counseling programs to assist families of public safety officers who have  died in the line of duty. To that end, the PSOB program funds two  organizations, COPS and NFFF, and expects them to use a portion of the  money to assist claimants and agencies with filing PSOB program claims.
Before the PSOB Office drafts an initial determination about whether a  claimant will receive program benefits, it requires claimants to submit  documentation for each type of claim, some of which must be signed by  the officer’s employer. See table 1 for a list of basic documentation  required for each claim type.
section_title: Claims Processing
paragraphs: Upon receipt of all the required documentation associated with a claim, a  PSOB benefits specialist reviews the claim and its supporting  documentation and drafts an initial determination on whether to approve  or deny the claim. This draft determination is then reviewed by a senior  benefits specialist, the PSOB director, and OJP’s Office of the General  Counsel (OGC) before a final determination is rendered. Furthermore,  some death claims are reviewed by a contracted pathologist and all  disability claims are reviewed by independent medical reviewers of  various medical specialties and subspecialties who provide additional  information as to whether claims meet medical standards for eligibility. A  claim may go through different phases of the process multiple times if at  any phase DOJ officials determine that more information may be needed  to make a determination. If a claim is denied, claimants have a right to  appeal to a hearing officer, who reviews the claim and makes a second  determination, which is independent of the initial denial. If the hearing  officer denies the claim, the claimant may appeal to the director of BJA.  And finally, claimants can appeal claims denied by the director of BJA to  the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Figure 2 illustrates the  process for death and disability claims, while Figure 3 lays out the process  for education claims.
A May 2004 Attorney General’s memorandum directed the PSOB Office to  make a determination on all filed PSOB claims within 90 days of receiving  all necessary information and identifying all potential beneficiaries. The  memo also directed the PSOB Office to then draft written determinations  and send all claims to OGC within 30 days for review. Upon receipt of the  draft determination and necessary supporting documents, OGC should  complete its review and submit recommendations for any changes to the  PSOB Office within 45 days. However, if at any point, PSOB program  officials or OGC attorneys determine that more information or  documentation is needed to make a determination, the 90-day, 30-day and  45-day clock is reset.
section_title: Government Guidelines for Performance Monitoring
paragraphs: All federal executive branch agencies are required by the Government  Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) to set strategic goals,  measure performance, and report on the degree to which goals were met  in an effort to ensure government accountability and enhance public  awareness about agencies’ accomplishments. Agencies are also subject  to the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982, which requires  that they establish and maintain systems of administrative controls. GAO  and OMB have established guidelines for implementing these two acts.  The guidelines include establishing goals and performance measures,  monitoring progress—including collecting reliable data on program  outcomes—and communicating program operations and outcomes to  relevant stakeholders such as Congress and the public, including program  participants. While GPRA is applicable to the department or agency-level,  performance goals and measures are important management tools  applicable to all levels of an agency, including the program, project, or  activity level, consistent with leading management practices and internal  controls related to performance monitoring.
section_title: All Education Claims and Most Death Claims Were Approved and Were Processed Significantly Faster than Disability Claims
paragraphs: On the basis of our sample, as of April 2009, the PSOB Office had closed  and approved most death and all education claims opened in fiscal years  2006 through 2008. By contrast, an estimated 31 percent of disability  claims were closed during that same time period, and we could not  reliably determine the outcomes of these claims. The majority of disability  claims remained pending because they took significantly more time to  process than death and education claims.
subsections: section_title: All Education Claims and Over Three-Quarters of Closed Death Claims Were Approved, while Most Disability Claims Remained Pending
paragraphs: While we estimated that about 80 percent of all PSOB program claims  initiated in fiscal years 2006 through 2008 were closed as of April 2009, we  found that the closure rate varied by type of claim—about 100 percent for  education claims, 78 percent for death claims, and 31 percent for disability  claims. Similarly, of the closed claims we reviewed, 100 percent of  education claims and about 80 percent of death claims were approved.  However, we were unable to reliably determine the extent to which closed  disability claims were approved because our stratified sample produced an  insufficient sample size of closed disability claims considering the  relatively longer time frame to process disability claims. (See fig. 4.)
Most education claims were associated with law enforcement officers, as  opposed to other types of officers such as firefighters or corrections  officers. During fiscal years 2006 through 2008, about 15 percent of  education claims were filed by the officer’s spouse, while about 85 percent  were filed by the officer’s children. Accordingly, the age of education  claimants at the time they began to receive benefits was between 18 and  46, with an average age of about 22 years. In addition, we found that  education claimants had received benefits for about 2 and 3 years, on  average, at the time of our review and that each claimant received, on  average, between $3,300 and $6,140 per year.
As with education claims, most death claims were associated with law  enforcement officers and were for full-time employees. In general, the  most frequently cited causes of death were motor vehicle accidents, heart  attacks, and gunshot wounds. The average age of the officers at the time of  death was 46 years. Officials told us that death claims were denied  because the claimant was deemed ineligible—for example, the deceased  did not die in the line of duty or did not meet the definition of a public  safety officer.
Although we were unable to reliably determine the outcomes of closed  disability claims, our sampling methodology allowed us to determine  demographic characteristics for all disability claims initiated during our  time frame. Specifically, most initiated disability claims were associated  with law enforcement officers, and the average age of the officers at time  of disability was 42 years. Similarly, most disability claims were filed for  full-time employees, and the most frequently cited causes of disability for  such claims were motor vehicle accidents, assaults, falls, and exposure to  harmful substances or environments.
section_title: Death and Education Claims Were Processed in about a Year or Less after the PSOB Office Received Them, while Disability Claims Took about 2 Years
paragraphs: We found significant variation by type of claim when it came to the length  of time claimants waited to receive a final determination. The overall  length of time from occurrence of death or disability to the claimant’s  receipt of a final determination from the PSOB Office is the sum of two  phases. The first is from occurrence of death or disability to when the  PSOB Office begins to process the claim (prefiling phase), and the second  is from when the PSOB Office begins to process the claim to when it sends  the final determination letter to the claimant (program processing time).  Specifically, we found that while the prefiling phase varied significantly by  type of claim, it took the PSOB office approximately 1 year or less to  process death and education claims and about 2 years to process disability  claims after receiving a claim.
The prefiling phase was the shortest for death claims and longest for  education claims. For death claims filed in fiscal years 2006 through 2008,  the prefiling phase took an average of 7 to 12 months from the date of  death to when the PSOB Office started to process the claim. Disability  claims took an average of 49 to 68 months (or about 4 to 6 years), between  the date of disability to when the PSOB Office began to process the claim.  Education claims associated with approved death claims took the  longest—between 89 and 123 months (or about 7 to 10 years) on average  from the date of death to when the PSOB Office began processing the  claim. (See fig. 5.) The relatively lengthy prefiling phase for education  claims is not unusual given that an officer’s children may not reach college  age until years after the officer’s death or disability.
PSOB officials told us that several factors may affect the length of the  prefiling phase during which claimants wait to file death and disability  claims, including claimants’ difficulty with obtaining necessary  documentation to prove eligibility and potential lack of awareness about  the program. According to PSOB officials, obtaining this documentation  may take months or years. We found that less than 40 percent of the death  claims filed in fiscal year 2008 utilized the online application that the  PSOB Office has recently made available to speed up the application  process.
For the second phase of the process, during which the PSOB Office and  OJP’s OGC actually processed the claim, processing times averaged 4 to 6  months for education, 9 to 13 months for death, and 17 to 26 months for  disability claims. (See fig. 6.)
PSOB officials told us that disability claims are generally more challenging  and may take longer to process than death and education claims, in part  because eligibility may be less easily established. To prove eligibility for a  disability claim, officials must ensure that claimants submit adequate  medical documentation and that all disability claims undergo an  independent medical review by BJA contractors. Both these steps could  increase the time needed to process these claims. PSOB officials also  noted that, unlike death claims, some disability claims encounter  processing delays caused by the reluctance of former employers to  provide necessary documents to support the claim, many of which must be  approved by the employer. In addition, according to our sample, disability  claims were more likely to be appealed than death or education claims— about 27 percent of disability claims initiated in fiscal years 2006 through  2008 were appealed, compared with about 8 percent of death claims— which contributed to longer processing times for disability claims. Given  all of these factors that contributed to the relatively longer processing  times, most disability claims initiated in fiscal years 2006 through 2008  were still awaiting an agency determination. At the time of our review,  program processing time for these pending disability claims was already  23 to 28 months, on average, since the PSOB Office started to process the  claim.
For each type of closed claim, the agency processing phase included the  time required for PSOB Office staff to review the claim and draft an initial  determination and for attorneys in OJP’s OGC to complete legal review of  the claim. However, we could not determine how long the attorney review  portion of the process took because of the PSOB Office’s inconsistent  claim file documentation on the dates during which the reviews occurred.  Furthermore, we were unable to determine how long the independent  medical reviews by BJA contractors took because the dates the reviews  began were often missing from the file documentation. However, on the  basis of our sample, we found that the overall length of time from  occurrence of death or disability to the claimant’s receipt of a final  determination was an average of 16 to 21 months for death claims, 60 to 92  months (or 5 years to about 7.5 years) for disability claims, and 96 to 126  months (or about 8 to 10.5 years) for education claims.
Once the program had made its final determination to approve the claim, it  took an average of a few days to about 10 weeks from the date of the final  determination to the date that the payment was sent to the claimant,  regardless of type of claim. We found that the agency may have taken  longer to issue payments when it needed to obtain information from  claimants about their bank accounts, payment addresses, or both.
section_title: Some State and Local Officials We Interviewed Were Concerned about Their Lack of Awareness of Some Program Benefits, Difficulties with Establishing Eligibility, and Perceived Long Wait Times for Benefits
paragraphs: State and local officials were not always aware of PSOB program benefits,  especially those for disability and education. Officials said that when  applying for program benefits, submitting all the necessary paperwork to  establish eligibility was difficult and often time-consuming. Overall,  officials most frequently expressed concern about what they believed to  be a long wait time for PSOB benefits, and frustration about the lack of  communication from the PSOB Office about claim status and estimated  wait times for receiving benefits.
subsections: section_title: State and Local Officials Were Not Always Aware of PSOB Program Benefits, Especially Disability and Education Benefits
paragraphs: Local police and fire departments and officials from other public safety  officer organizations did not always know about PSOB program benefits.  Additionally, some local officials we met with did not recall receiving any  information or program materials from the PSOB Office explaining the  program’s benefits. In particular, representatives of 15 of the 44  organizations we spoke with mentioned a lack of awareness about  disability or education benefits, while officials from another 6  organizations were concerned that their constituents had a general lack of  knowledge of the PSOB program. The general lack of awareness posed a  particular problem among smaller rural and volunteer departments. In  some cases, officials we interviewed from small local departments were  not aware of the program benefits until a line-of-duty death occurred. At  that time, they were contacted by unions or larger departments to let them  know about the PSOB death benefit and to assist them with the  application process. For example, one official from a local fire department  in California noted that although he was put in charge of assisting the  family of a firefighter who died in the line of duty, he did not know about  the PSOB program until one of the city’s volunteer firefighters, the former  chief of a large city fire department, informed him about the program.
The lack of awareness had an adverse effect for some claimants. For  instance, an official representing a police officers’ union in Louisiana  recalled a case in which a local police department unfamiliar with the  PSOB disability benefits did not seek benefits on behalf of a severely and  permanently disabled officer until the officer happened to seek  educational assistance for his child, who was preparing to attend college.  Likewise, an official from a police officers’ employee association in  Louisiana recalled an accident in which one officer was killed and another  was permanently injured. However, while the local police department  applied for PSOB death benefits for the deceased officer, a corresponding  disability claim was not filed for the disabled officer for 1 year because of  lack awareness of PSOB disability benefits.
Officials from some public safety officer unions and the PSOB program  said that they are more focused on promoting awareness of death benefits  than the other two types of benefits. According to officials from a  firefighters union, they do not see a reason to promote awareness of the  disability benefits because few officers would meet the very stringent  eligibility criteria for disability. Several officials told us that the types and  levels of disabilities that would qualify claimants to receive PSOB benefits  (i.e., permanent and total injury preventing any type of work) tend to be  rare, which may be a factor in the public safety officer community’s  general lack of awareness of such benefits, resulting in the relatively few  number of disability claims filed. Additionally, local departments did not  always know about education benefits, which may be due in part to  education claims often being filed by family members many years after a  death occurs. Furthermore, PSOB officials told us that they made a  conscious decision to focus the 2008 PSOB program awareness outreach  materials—the first of their kind to be produced—on death benefits.  Therefore, although the outreach materials the PSOB Office provided  contained program information about all three types of benefits—death,  disability, and education—an application checklist only for death benefits  was included.
section_title: Officials Said That Submitting All Necessary Paperwork to Prove Eligibility Was Difficult and Time-consuming
paragraphs: Officials in all five states we visited also told us that when applying for  benefits, submitting all the necessary paperwork to prove eligibility was  difficult and can be time-consuming. Specifically, officials mentioned that  it was sometimes difficult for smaller local departments that may not have  experienced line-of-duty deaths and would be unfamiliar with the process,  further complicating their experience with gathering required documents.  For example, officials from firefighters’ employee associations in  Louisiana and Iowa mentioned how difficult generating the toxicology  report for a fallen officer can be if the agency does not know to draw a  blood sample from the officer as soon as possible. The Iowa official  stated that because of this lack of knowledge, the claimants in one case  had to locate donated organs of the officer in order to create a toxicology  sample for the PSOB report.
Gathering the required documentation can also be time-consuming, and  our review of claims showed that it took about as much time (7 to 12  months on average) to file a death claim as it took for the program to  process the claim (9 to 13 months on average). According to local officials,  the application process can be delayed by long wait periods to obtain  necessary documents, including accident reports and medical and birth  records, from other state, local, and private organizations. For example,  one official from a firefighters’ employee association in New York  described a recent case in which it took several months to obtain  necessary documents from a hospital, resulting in the officer’s family  having to wait 6 months before they could submit the death claim.  Similarly, an official from a local police department in California explained  that he had been waiting about 4 months for an accident report for a line- of-duty death, which hinged on an investigation being conducted by a  different department. This process of obtaining documents can be even  more time-consuming for smaller departments, which may not have  enough staff to systematically follow up with beneficiaries and coordinate  with other local agencies.
State and local officials in Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, and New York and  PSOB officials also stated that a significant amount of time is often  required to collect the information needed by the PSOB Office to  determine eligible beneficiaries. State and local officials told us that public  safety officers tend not to update their beneficiary information following a  life change, such as a divorce or birth of a child, and this can lead to  complications when determining who should receive benefits. Outdated  beneficiary information could affect the time it takes to process the claim  and determine which beneficiaries should receive payment.
Furthermore, some of the officials we interviewed had mixed experiences  in receiving assistance from COPS and NFFF, two national organizations  tasked by the PSOB program with helping claimants and departments  navigate the application process. While several officials in the firefighting  community mentioned receiving assistance from NFFF with the PSOB  application process, many officials we interviewed from state and local  police departments and agencies that work with police officers said they  have not received application assistance from COPS. A July 2008 report  from COPS to BJA noted that COPS provided training to its liaisons to  local departments in January 2008 to assist agencies with applications.  Following the training, COPS contacted 56 agencies with known line-of- duty deaths, and 20 of them accepted assistance from the organization,  while the remaining 36 did not, according to the COPS progress report. A  COPS grant report from January 2009 stated that the low take-up rate of  COPS assistance by local agencies may be due to local police departments’  reluctance to share department matters with an external organization.
Moreover, several officials from national, state, and local organizations  mentioned that the PSOB Office has occasionally lost claimants’  documents that then have to be resubmitted, or that PSOB officials have  asked that the same documents be submitted multiple times. For example,  an official from a local fire department in California described a situation  in which a claimant did not hear from the PSOB program officials for  almost a year after submitting a claim. When the claimant inquired about  the claim status, she learned that the PSOB program had lost her file. OJP  officials acknowledged that this happens sometimes. While they were not  entirely certain why documentation is lost or misplaced, program officials  noted that there are times when required pieces of documentation may be  lost or misplaced by the PSOB Office, and times when claimants send  documents to another agency or incorrect address, making it more likely  that the PSOB Office will unintentionally misplace documents. PSOB  officials added that they plan to address this concern through automation  of the claims process and anticipate that with more frequent use of the  online application form, the likelihood of misplaced documents will  diminish. PSOB officials told us that the ability to fully submit death  claims electronically, including supporting documentation, has been  available to the public since the spring of 2006, but the vast majority of  claims are still submitted on paper. Further, to better facilitate document  collection, the PSOB Office will be hiring additional staff to proactively  outreach to claimants and local agencies to obtain missing documentation  for pending claims.
section_title: Officials Most Frequently Expressed Concerns about Perceived Long Wait Times for Benefits while Not Knowing Claim Status
paragraphs: Officials most frequently expressed concerns about what they perceived  as long wait times for PSOB benefits, cited by just over half of the 44  organizations we interviewed. While our claims file review indicated that  the average total time from date of death to date of a final determination  was about 1 ½ years (an average of 16 to 21 months), some of the officials  we interviewed mentioned that they experienced much longer waits. For  example, officials from a national police employees’ organization and a  Louisiana police union said that they assisted claimants who had waited 2  or more years to receive PSOB benefits. Furthermore, officials from four  states—California, Louisiana, Maryland, and New York—noted that  sometimes they do not receive requests from PSOB Office staff for missing  or additional documentation for claims until long after initial paperwork  has been submitted, contributing to the wait time.
State and local officials generally said that, in contrast, the application  process for state and local onetime death benefits was much faster and  that benefits were provided much quicker than for federal PSOB benefits.  Some local officials also mentioned that they were concerned about the  effects that relatively long PSOB wait times can have on families in need of  the financial assistance and that are seeking closure on the officer’s death.  An official from a local police department in California explained that  relatively long wait times for PSOB benefits can impose a financial burden  on families that often count on federal benefits.
In addition, officials from two COPS chapters and a local police officers’  agency expressed concern about the PSOB program practice of not  informing claimants or agencies of how long claims processing is expected  to take. Officials from Maryland and California noted that without this  information, claimants may develop unrealistic expectations about how  soon they will receive benefit payments. A few local and state officials told  us that the lack of information from PSOB Office staff on expected  processing times restricts the local department’s ability to provide clear  answers and good customer service to the claimants they are assisting.  The PSOB program director explained that the program does not provide  estimated time frames for processing claims because the average  processing time varies widely based on the circumstances surrounding  each claim (e.g., how complex the documentation is, how long the PSOB  Office has to wait for additional documentation, and legal issues). The  office instead provides survivors and agencies with information on the  PSOB claims review process, and shares at what stage their claim is in the  review process, even though PSOB benefit specialists do not tell a  claimant how long it will take to process any one claim.
Further, some state and local department officials experienced difficulty in  getting through to PSOB Office staff for information on claims status. One  official from a local police department in California reported that despite  several attempts to contact the PSOB program office, he has never spoken  to a staff member or received any return calls. In contrast, a few local and  state officials cited positive interactions with PSOB Office staff, and one  state official noted that in her experience, PSOB benefit specialists were  always responsive and gave timely and clear answers to questions on  claim status. The PSOB program director acknowledged that all calls and  e-mails from claimants or agencies are not always returned and stated that  addressing issues regarding claims status is a priority for the PSOB  program. PSOB officials anticipate having staff dedicated to providing  claims status information to claimants and agencies as early as November  2009.
section_title: While It Is Taking Steps to Improve, the PSOB Office Does Not Yet Follow Government Guidelines for Performance Monitoring
paragraphs: Overall, we found that while it is taking steps to improve, the PSOB Office  does not follow government standards and guidelines for setting goals and  monitoring performance. All federal executive branch agencies are  required by GPRA to set strategic goals, measure performance, and report  on the degree to which goals have been met in an effort to ensure  government accountability and enhance public awareness about agencies’  accomplishments. GAO’s previous work has noted that measuring  performance allows organizations to track progress in meeting their goals  and gives managers crucial information to identify gaps in program  performance and plan any needed improvements. However, DOJ has not  established strategic goals or performance measures related to GPRA for  the PSOB Office and therefore does not track or report such information  to the public. OJP officials who are responsible for overseeing PSOB’s  strategic efforts said the program is not subject to strategic planning and  goal setting because it is considered a payment program, and a  significant portion of the program’s budget is mandatory. According to  OJP, it was OMB’s practice under the previous administration to n subject mandatory programs, such as PSOB’s death benefits, and small OJP accounts, such as the PSOB disability and education programs to  Program Assessment Review Tool (PART) assessments, which are used byfederal executive branch agencies to help develop and identify mean ingful  performance measures to support GPRA reporting, among other purposes.  Furthermore, the PSOB program director told us that the office decided  not to establish performance measures specifically for timeliness because  the measures could create disincentives for staff to work on claims that  may require more time to process, such as those for which documentation  is pending. However, we found that other federal programs that provide  benefits after work-related injury and illness have been able to set  strategic goals and monitor performance. For example, the Department of  Labor’s Black Lung and Energy Employees Occupational Illness  Compensation programs, which require workers or their survivors to  prove their eligibility after the workers become ill or die because of  exposure to hazardous working conditions, both have GPRA performance  measures related to claims-processing times and publicly report their  results.
While the PSOB program lacks GPRA-related strategic goals and  performance measures, there are two claims-processing goals established  under a 2004 Attorney General memorandum, but neither the PSOB Office  nor OJP’s Office of General Counsel tracks these goals for their respective  offices. The PSOB program director stated that the PSOB Office did not  track the first goal of processing a claim within 90 days of receiving all  necessary documentation because it lacked automated data that would  have enabled the program to establish a baseline and gauge progress. As a  result, the PSOB Office is not fully aware of how long the claims review  process takes. Likewise, an OGC official told us that OGC has not  established mechanisms for monitoring the second goal to review claims  within 45 days of receiving all necessary documentation. Even if the  program were to track progress toward its timeliness goals using currently  available information in the claims files, we found problems with the  quality and consistency of documentation pertaining to key processing  dates during our review, including when the file initially went to the  attorneys or the medical reviewers. In addition, the timeliness goals  established in the memorandum may be outdated and inappropriate given  that the PSOB Office had no data with which to establish and monitor  them and that the goals do not reflect the potentially time-consuming step  of collecting documentation.
While most claims are still processed on paper, the PSOB Office is  implementing a new automated information management system, known  as Workflow, to help ensure efficient claims processing and improve the  available data on claims. According to the PSOB program director, BJA  has been planning the Workflow system since 2004 and according to  program officials, as of July 2009, was transitioning toward processing all  three types of PSOB claims using the completed claims-processing  components of the system. In addition, the PSOB program plans to use  data from this system to establish programwide performance measures  and generate public reports. To ensure that Workflow is addressing agency  needs, success metrics—including reducing application processing times  and improving the program’s ability to provide data on pending or closed  claims—were articulated in the system’s planning document. However, the  PSOB program does not have plans for how it will monitor Workflow’s  success metrics, but program officials had planned to revisit these metrics  with stakeholders in conjunction with planning future components of the  system. In addition, as mentioned earlier, the program has no baseline  information on claims-processing times, precluding it from determining  whether the capabilities of the new system will have enhanced timeliness.
In addition, the PSOB program has initiated several efforts in an attempt to  address concerns about the lack of program awareness, the burdensome  application process, and obtaining claims status. Since 2007, the PSOB  program has conducted several outreach activities, including sending a  mailing about its benefit programs to about 60,000 law enforcement and  fire fighting organizations identified by the National Criminal Justice  Reference Service and NFFF. The PSOB director has also attended several  conferences, by invitation, to provide information on the program to  relevant constituencies, such as the National Sheriffs’ Association and the  Police Conference of New York. Furthermore, PSOB’s national partners,  COPS and NFFF, assist claimants and local agencies with filing for the  benefits. With respect to communicating claims status, PSOB benefits  specialists are expected to respond to claims status inquiries in a timely  manner—defined as within 72 hours of the inquiry, according to the PSOB  director.
Although the program has taken steps to enhance its external  communications, it has not systematically monitored these efforts to help  ensure that relevant external parties understand the agency’s mission and  objectives and that PSOB Office staff provide the quality of customer  service expected by the program office. Regarding the difficult application  process, COPS has reported that it has not been successful in providing  direct claims assistance to law enforcement officers even though this  group makes up the bulk of PSOB’s claims workload. However, the PSOB  program has not established criteria to evaluate this external assistance  effort to better understand the problems and develop ways to address  them. In addition, the PSOB program director is aware, based on  complaints received directly from claimants and agencies, that PSOB  Office staff do not always address some inquiries regarding claims status  in a timely manner. However, the program does not systematically track  when inquiries are received and when responses are provided, nor is the  72-hour guideline formally incorporated into staff’s performance  expectations. As a result, the PSOB Office cannot ensure that all claims  status inquires are addressed in a consistent and timely manner.  Furthermore, although the program director has provided information at  several conferences, the PSOB program has not systematically solicited  feedback from conference attendees that could be used to determine  whether the information met their needs.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The PSOB Office has had a long history of serving law enforcement  officers, firefighters, and others who, in turn, serve their communities and  face potentially dangerous circumstances every day. To effectively manage  this program, the PSOB Office would need to know its clients’ needs,  target efforts to address those needs, and monitor its performance on an  ongoing basis. While the office has established goals related to its key  activities, (i.e., claims processing, outreach, and claimant assistance), lack  of performance monitoring in these areas diminishes the agency’s ability  to pinpoint problems and take corrective action accordingly. Additionally,  the PSOB Office strives to help the public safety officer community  understand the program and its benefits, yet does not systematically set  goals or collect information on its claims-processing, outreach, and  assistance efforts. Thus, the PSOB Office has no way of knowing whether  these efforts are appropriate or effective. In addition, without reliable  claims data, the PSOB Office will not be able to obtain a complete and  accurate picture of how quickly claims are being processed and whether  the process can be made more efficient. Without this information, the  program office cannot communicate with claimants and other public  stakeholders about how long the claims process is expected to take and  whether program constraints, such as required procedures and limited  resources, are affecting the process. The PSOB director has acknowledged  that there are some gaps in management of the program and is taking  steps to address them. A more focused and systematic approach to  managing the PSOB program can help ensure that the office achieves its  ultimate goal of effectively and efficiently administering benefits that  honor the work of many public officers who give up their lives or are  injured in the line of duty.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To strengthen PSOB’s accountability, enhance potential claimants’ and the  general public’s awareness about its benefits and program  accomplishments, and ensure claimants and those who assist them receive  the most efficient, consistent, and effective service, the Assistant Attorney  General of OJP should direct the Director of BJA to    establish appropriate performance goals and measures related to the  program’s key activities, such as claims processing, outreach, and  application assistance, based on reliable information about processing  times, feedback from stakeholders and cost-effective approaches, and    once goals and measures have been established, collect and use reliable  data to monitor and publicly report on how well key program activities are  being performed, including how successfully PSOB’s automated claims- processing system, Workflow, is addressing agency needs.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to OJP for review and comment, and its  comments are reprinted in appendix IV. OJP also provided technical  comments, which were incorporated into the report as appropriate.
OJP agreed with our recommendations and stated that by October 2010,  BJA will implement appropriate performance measures for the PSOB  program and ensure that reliable program performance data are collected  and publicly reported. Specifically, in addition to plans to make greater  use of its new case management system, OJP stated that it has assigned a  senior advisor to work with BJA and OGC to identify areas where simple  process changes can lead to earlier and more effective identification of  issues.
In addition, several enhancements to the PSOB program’s business  process, communications, and marketing have been implemented or are  scheduled to be in place by December 2009. For example, the PSOB Office  will formalize the feedback it receives from external stakeholders by  developing a PSOB Advisory Group to identify issues that affect the PSOB  Office, program, and processes. Additional details on these program  enhancements can be found in the agency’s reprinted comments.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its  issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Assistant  Attorney General of OJP, relevant congressional committees, and other  interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon  request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s  Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions  concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7215 or  sherrilla@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional  Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report.  Staff members making key contributions to this report are listed in  appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: In response to a congressional request, we addressed the following  questions about the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits (PSOB) program:  (1) To what extent do claimants receive PSOB program benefits and how  long does it take to process claims?  (2) What issues, if any, were raised by state and local agencies and  advocacy organizations seeking benefits on the behalf of claimants?  (3) To what extent does the PSOB program follow recognized government  standards and guidelines for effective program management?
For all three questions, we reviewed claims outcomes, stakeholder  concerns, program management, and relevant federal laws and regulations  related to the PSOB program. Specifically, to determine receipt of program  benefits and length of processing time, we drew a stratified random  probability sample of 233 of the 1,632 PSOB death, disability, and  education claims that were opened during fiscal years 2006 to 2008.  Because education benefits can be provided over multiple years, the  education claims in our sample were ones that were paid during fiscal  years 2006 to 2008, although they may have been first opened several years  prior to our time frame. With this probability sample, each member of the  study population had a nonzero probability of being included, and that  probability could be computed for any member. Each sample element  selected was subsequently weighted in the analysis to account statistically  for all the members of the population. Table 2 provides details about the  number of claims in our sample by type compared with the total number  opened in fiscal years 2006 to 2008.
We collected most of the data for our sample by manually reviewing paper  claims files from February to April 2009 using a data collection instrument  (DCI). The only data for our sample that were not contained in the paper  claims files pertained to payment dates for all approved claims and  payment amounts for the approved education claims. These data were  obtained from the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) finance office and were  determined to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report after  we reviewed the data for any discrepancies and information on how they  were collected and maintained.
In general, our sample of claims is of a sufficient size to allow us to project  our estimates to the population of death, disability, and education claims  for fiscal years 2006 to 2008 within a margin of error of plus or minus 10  percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level for claims approval  and denial outcomes, and 95 percent confidence intervals are reported for  estimates of time, unless otherwise noted. However, in specific instances,  we were not able to project to the population when the number of claims  in the sample that met a certain criterion for our analysis was too small.  For example, only 20 disability cases in our sample were closed at the time  of our review, and therefore this sample size was too small to create  reliable estimates of the extent to which all disability cases were approved  or denied. Also, the sample size prohibited us from estimating the  proportion of all three types of claims that came from any single state.
In addition to sampling error, the practical difficulties of collecting data  may introduce other errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors.  As mentioned above, we collected most of the data for our sample by  manually reviewing paper claims files. Variation in the quality or  completeness of the entries in these claims files or in our ability to  correctly interpret or transcribe the entries onto our DCI can introduce  unwanted variability into the results. We took steps in developing our DCI,  collecting the data, and analyzing the results to minimize such errors. For  example, the instrument was developed by a survey specialist in  collaboration with GAO subject matter experts. The DCI was also  reviewed by relevant DOJ officials prior to our use to help ensure that we  maximized the information that could be collected by using it. A sample of  completed DCIs was reviewed by another GAO analyst to ensure that  entries were being interpreted and entered correctly. Completed DCIs  were then entered into an electronic database by a contract data entry  service and a sample of entries was verified. Finally, data were analyzed by  a GAO data analyst, and a second independent data analyst checked all  computer programs for accuracy.
To determine what aspects of the program raised issues among agencies  that assist with benefit applications, we interviewed PSOB program  officials and a judgmentally selected sample of state and local officials that  serve both larger urban and smaller, more rural communities in the  following five states—California, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, and New  York. These interviews were held with representatives from a total of 44  organizations. As shown in table 3, the states were selected based on  geographic location, the percentage of the national total number of public  safety officers that was in a state for calendar years 2006 to 2008, the  number of work-related deaths among public safety officers in a state for  calendar years 2005 to 2007, variation in the amount of state workers’  compensation benefits, variation in the availability and amount of state  lump-sum death benefits, and recommendations from advocacy groups  and employee organizations. (For more details on the benefits available to  public safety officers, see apps. II and III.)
We focused on interviewing local officials who assisted with filing PSOB  claims during fiscal years 2006 to 2008, but in a few cases, in order to  ensure we were obtaining a variety of perspectives, we interviewed  officials who assisted with claims associated with deaths that occurred in  2005. The officials we interviewed represented local police and firefighting  departments; employee advocacy groups, such as chapters of Concerns of  Police Survivors, Inc. (COPS); and the Fraternal Order of Police; and state  firefighters associations and unions. We also interviewed the national  affiliates of these state and local organizations, including the National  Fallen Firefighters Foundation (NFFF) and the International Association  of Fire Fighters (IAFF).
To evaluate the effectiveness of the PSOB program’s management, we  interviewed program officials and reviewed and analyzed available  documents on performance monitoring, program outreach and assistance  for those seeking benefits, and current and future plans for automating the  claims process. We analyzed this information based on criteria set forth in  GAO’s and the Office of Management and Budget’s guidelines for internal  controls, strategic planning and reporting, and information system  development and acquisition. Overall, we conducted this performance  audit from September 2008 to October 2009 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.
section_title: Appendix II: Summary of Statewide Benefits for the Five States We Studied
paragraphs: This section provides general information on benefits available to public  safety officers and their beneficiaries after line-of-duty deaths and  permanent and total injuries on a statewide level in California, Iowa,  Louisiana, Maryland, and New York. These benefits are not the full extent  of what officers may receive in each state because localities may provide  additional benefits. To prepare this information, we interviewed state and  local officials during our site visits to collect information about the kinds  of statewide benefits available to public safety officers and reviewed  program materials that were either provided by these officials or obtained  through the programs’ Web sites. Our descriptions are based on our  interviews and any written materials we obtained. We did not do any  independent legal research or otherwise verify this information.
subsections: section_title: California Statewide Line-of-Duty Benefits for Police Officers and Firefighters
paragraphs: Onetime death benefits. None are available.
Workers’ compensation: disability benefit. Officers who are permanently  and totally disabled can receive two-thirds of their wages up to $728 per  week for the rest of their lives, along with medical treatment related to the  injury.
Workers’ compensation: death benefit. Benefits are paid to the officers’  dependents on a weekly basis until a maximum of $320,000 is reached.
State pension system: disability benefit. For officers whose employers  have contracted with the California Public Employees System to provide  retirement benefits, if the officers are permanently and totally disabled  because of a line-of-duty incident, they will receive monthly payments for  life. The payments are based on a formula that factors in years of service  and final compensation amounts.
State pension system: death benefit. For officers whose employers have  contracted with the California Public Employees System to provide  retirement benefits, surviving spouses, registered domestic partners,  children, or eligible stepchildren will receive 50 percent of the officer’s  final compensation. If there is a surviving spouse (or registered domestic  partner) and children, they will can receive a maximum of 75 percent of  the final compensation. Benefits for the spouse (or registered domestic  partner) are payable until death, or for children are payable until age 22.  Furthermore, health care for the survivors will continue if they are  receiving a monthly benefit from the system.
Education benefit. Children and spouses of public safety officers who are  killed or become totally disabled in the line of duty can receive grants that  will cover the cost of tuition, fees, books, educational supplies, and living  expenses associated with an undergraduate education at an accredited  California postsecondary institution.
section_title: Iowa Statewide Line- of-Duty Benefits for Firefighters, Police Officers, and Sheriffs
paragraphs: Onetime death benefit. Available to volunteer firefighters, career  firefighters, police officers, and sheriffs: $100,000 provided to beneficiaries  by either the Iowa State Fire Marshal’s Office (for volunteer firefighters)  or the state pension programs.
Workers’ compensation: death benefit. Available to volunteer firefighters:  Dependents (either spouse or children up to age 18 or 25, if they can prove  they were still dependent) can receive the weekly payments of 100 percent  of actual weekly earnings or 140 percent of the statewide average weekly  wage, whichever is greater. Upon remarriage, if there are no children, the  spouse will receive a 2-year lump-sum settlement. Also, burial expenses  not to exceed 12 times the statewide average weekly wage will be paid.
Workers’ compensation: disability benefit. Available to volunteer  firefighters: As long as the worker is totally and permanently disabled, he  or she will receive 100 percent of actual weekly earnings or 140 percent of  the statewide average weekly wage, whichever is greater. All medical  expenses related to injury will be paid.
State pension: death benefits.
For career firefighters and police officers: In the case of accidental death  in the line of duty, state pension systems provide the surviving spouse with  monthly pension benefits for life equal to 50 percent of the officer’s  average final compensation. The officers’ children also receive a monthly  amount equal to 6 percent of the officer’s final average compensation.
For sheriffs: If vested, beneficiaries will receive the greater of either the  lump sum of present value of accrued benefits or a lump sum based on a  formula including years of service, highest salary covered under the  system, and other factors. If not vested, beneficiaries will receive a lump  sum based on years of service, highest salary covered under the system,  and other factors.
State pension: disability benefits. Available to career firefighters, police  officers, and sheriffs: In the case of permanent and total disability incurred  in the line of duty, state pension systems provide the greater of 60 percent  of the member’s final average compensation or the retirement allowance  that the member would receive if the member has attained 55 years of age.
Education benefit. None are available.
section_title: Louisiana Statewide Line-of-Duty Benefits for Firefighters, Police Officers, and Sheriffs
paragraphs: Onetime death benefit. Available to volunteer firefighters, career  firefighters, police officers, and sheriffs: $250,000 to the surviving spouse,  designated beneficiary, or estate, and $25,000 to each dependent child.
Workers’ compensation: disability benefit.
For volunteer firefighters: Covers medical expenses related to injuries but  does not replace wages.
For career firefighters, police officers, and sheriffs: If an officer is  permanently and totally disabled, he or she will receive two-thirds of the  weekly salary for life, with a maximum of $546 a week. Workers’  compensation will provide for related medical costs for life.
Workers’ compensation: death benefit. Available to career firefighters,  police officers, and sheriffs: If the officer is survived by a spouse, the  spouse will receive 32.5 percent of the public safety officer’s wage, and if  survived by a spouse and children, they will receive 65 percent of the  officer’s wages, with a weekly maximum of $319. A maximum funeral  benefit of $3,000 is also available.
State pension system: death benefit.
For career firefighters: Most career firefighters are covered under this  system, but it excludes the New Orleans and Baton Rouge fire  departments. For line-of-duty deaths, the spouse is eligible for two-thirds  of the average annual salary if the officer was not eligible to retire. If the  officer was retirement eligible, then the spouse will receive 3.5 percent of  the officer’s annual salary time the number of years of service, which is  one of the standard retirement options. This benefit is for the rest of the  spouse’s life. Furthermore, the surviving children are eligible for 10  percent of the annual salary or $200 a month, whichever is greater. This  benefit continues until the children are 18 or, if in college, 22 years old.  However, the spousal and children’s benefit cannot total more than 100  percent of the officer’s annual salary. Furthermore, the spouse must be  married to and living with the officer at the time of death to receive the  benefits. Also, there are no benefits for surviving parents if the officer does  not have a spouse or children.
For police officers: Most local police officers are covered under this  system. If the officer dies in the line of duty, the spouse is provided with  100 percent of the final average salary, less the benefit for the children. If  the officer had a spouse and children, the children will receive 10 percent  of the final average salary or $200 a month, whichever is greater. If there is  no spouse, the children will receive 30 percent each (not to exceed 60  percent of the salary; therefore, if there are more than 3 children, the 60  percent has to be shared among them) of the salary until age 18 or, if in  college, age 23. If there is no spouse or children, the surviving parents can  receive the officer’s retirement fund contributions. Although this program  does not have restrictions related to the length of marriage, the spouse  cannot remarry before the age of 55 and continue to receive benefits.
For sheriffs: The surviving spouses of sheriffs receive the greater of 50  percent of the average compensation or, if the officer has served for at  least 12 years, about $1,600 a month. Benefits are for life regardless of  remarriage. Each minor child receives 15 percent of the officer’s  compensation until the age of 18 or, if in college, age 23, but the  combination of the spousal and children’s benefits cannot exceed more  than 100 percent of the final compensation. If there is no surviving spouse  and five or more children, 60 percent of the final compensation will be  divided evenly among them. Spouses must be married and living with the  officer at the time of death.
State pension system: disability benefit.
For volunteer firefighters: The state fire marshal’s office provides for  medical expenses up to $30,000.
For career firefighters: Most career firefighters are covered under system,  but it excludes the New Orleans and Baton Rouge fire departments. For  total disability, the officer can receive 60 percent of the average final  salary, a portion of which is tax-free. This benefit is offset by other sources  of income.
For police officers: Most local police officers are covered under this  system. For catastrophic injuries, the officer receives 100 percent of his or  her salary, but this is offset by other sources of income.
For sheriffs: Officers are provided the lesser of 45 percent of the final  compensation or the accrued retirement benefit at the time of employment  termination.
Education benefit. Children of police officers and sheriffs who died in the  line of duty and the children and spouses of deceased or disabled  firefighters who died or were injured in the line of duty are provided  benefits to cover the costs of tuition, fees, room and board, and books.
section_title: Maryland Statewide Line-of-Duty Benefits for Police Officers and Firefighters
paragraphs: Onetime death benefit. A onetime benefit of $128,500 is available (if the  death occurred as of July 1, 2008) to the surviving spouse, children,  dependent parents, or estate of a law enforcement officer; career or  volunteer firefighter; correctional officer; rescue squad member; or sworn  officer of the State Fire Marshal. Also, the state provides an additional  $10,000 for funeral expenses.
Workers’ compensation: death benefit. All part-time and full-time public  safety officers are covered. Benefit level to the surviving spouse or  children is based on the level of financial dependency. If fully dependent,  the surviving spouse or children receive two-thirds of the employee’s  average weekly salary, not to exceed 100 percent of the state average  weekly salary, or no more than $906 a week for the remainder of the  spouse’s life or until children are 18 years old or, if attending college, 22  years old. If partially dependent, the surviving spouse receives a weekly  payment of two-thirds of the average employee’s salary up to the  maximum of $75,000. If survived only by partially dependent children, the  children can receive two-thirds average employee salary, not to exceed  two-thirds of the state average wage, or no more than $604 a week, until 18  years old or, if in college, 22 years old.
Workers’ compensation: disability benefits. All part-time and full-time  public safety officers are covered. The officer receives two-thirds of his or  her average weekly salary, not to exceed 100 percent of the state average  weekly salary, or no more than $906 a week for the remainder of his or her  life. Health care related to the injury is provided for life.
Education benefits. The former, unmarried spouses and children of all  public safety officers who died or are 100 percent disabled can receive up  to $19,000 a year to attend a Maryland postsecondary educational  institution. The disabled officer is also eligible for this benefit.
section_title: New York Statewide Line-of-Duty Benefits for Police Officers, Career Firefighters, and Volunteer Firefighters
paragraphs: Onetime death benefit. None are available.
Workers’ compensation: death benefit. For volunteer firefighters: For  deaths occurring after January 1, 2006, $56,000 to spouse or estate. For  deaths that occur after January 2, 2006, the spouse without children also  receives $887 per week until remarriage. After remarriage, the spouse  receives a lump-sum payment of $92,219. If the deceased had a spouse and  children, the spouse receives $488 per week and the children receive $400  per week. Upon remarriage, the spouse with children will receive $50,720  and the children continue to receive the weekly payment. The children  receive the benefit until age 18, or, if in college, age 25. Funeral costs up to  $6,700 are also payable, but this maximum does not apply if the death  occurs as a direct result of firefighting.
Workers’ compensation: disability benefit. For volunteer firefighters: If  permanently and total disabled, the officer receives $400 per week and  medical benefits directly related to the original injury or illness.
State pension: death benefit. Available to police officers and career  firefighters: If the officer’s death is deemed to be accidental (i.e., natural  and proximate because of an on-the-job accident that did not occur  because of willful personal negligence), the spouse, minor children, or  dependent parent (in that order) will receive 50 percent of the officer’s  final annual salary in the form of a pension. Sheriffs’ spouses can no  longer receive this pension if they remarry.
State pension: disability benefit. Available to police officers and career  firefighters: If the disability is deemed to be accidental (i.e., permanently  incapacitated—mentally or physically—and unable to perform the job as a  result of an on-the-job injury accident not due to personal negligence), the  officer will receive 75 percent of his or her final annual salary and an  annuity for life based on his or her pension contributions. If eligible, the  officer is expected to file for workers’ compensation, and pension  payments will be offset by this.
Education benefit. Available to police officers and career and volunteer  firefighters: Memorial Scholarships provide funds to help meet the cost of  attending college in New York for children, spouse, or financial  dependents after a line-of-duty death. The award covers up to 4 years of  full-time undergraduate study (or 5 years in an approved 5-year bachelor’s  degree program) and includes the following components: in-state public  college or university: actual tuition and mandatory educational fees; actual  room and board; and allowances for books, supplies, and transportation;  at a private institution: an amount equal to an in-state public university  tuition and average mandatory educational fees and allowances for room  and board, books, supplies, and transportation.
section_title: Appendix III: Summary of Benefits in 50 States
paragraphs: The following table provides information on the availability of selected  benefits provided statewide after public safety officers experience line-of- duty death or disability. To prepare the following table, we analyzed  information made available by two organizations—the Concerns of Police  Survivors, Inc. and the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation. We did not  do any independent legal research or otherwise verify this information.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Office of Justice Programs
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Meeta Engle, Assistant Director; Danielle Giese, Analyst-in-Charge; Nora  Boretti; Jessica Gray; Jennifer McDonald; Wati Kadzai; and Paula Moore  made significant contributions to this report. In addition, Roger Thomas,  Sheila R. McCoy, and Sarah Cornetto provided legal assistance; Stuart  Kaufman, Justin Fisher, and Beverly Ross provided methodological  assistance; and Charles Willson assisted in report development.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Federal Compensation Programs: Perspectives on Four Programs for  Individuals Injured by Exposure to Harmful Substances. GAO-08-628T.  Washington, D.C.: April 1, 2008.
Disability Benefits: Benefit Amounts for Military Personnel and  Civilian Public Safety Officers Vary by Program Provisions and  Individual Circumstance. GAO-06-4. Washington, D.C.: April 7, 2006.
Federal Compensation Programs: Perspectives on Four Programs.  GAO-06-230. Washington, D.C.: November 18, 2005.
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.  GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. Washington, D.C.: November 1999.
Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance  and Results Act. GAO/GGD-96-118. Washington, D.C.: June 1996.