<mods xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3" version="3.3" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-3.xsd" ID="P0b002ee18037c445">
<name type="corporate">
 <namePart>United States Government Publishing Office</namePart>
 <role>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">publisher</roleTerm>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="code">pbl</roleTerm>
</role>
 <role>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">distributor</roleTerm>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="code">dst</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="corporate">
 <namePart>United States</namePart>
 <namePart>Government Accountability Office</namePart>
 <namePart>General Government Division</namePart>
 <role>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="code">aut</roleTerm>
</role>
 <description>Government Organization</description>
</name>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<genre authority="marcgt">government publication</genre>
<language>
 <languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm>
</language>
<extension>
 <collectionCode>GAOREPORTS</collectionCode>
 <category>Legislative Agency Publications</category>
 <waisDatabaseName>gao</waisDatabaseName>
 <branch>legislative</branch>
 <dateIngested>2010-08-12</dateIngested>
</extension>
<originInfo>
 <publisher>U.S. Government Printing Office</publisher>
 <dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">1999-03-19</dateIssued>
 <issuance>monographic</issuance>
</originInfo>
<physicalDescription>
 <note type="source content type">deposited</note>
 <digitalOrigin>born digital</digitalOrigin>
 <extent>160 p.</extent>
</physicalDescription>
<classification authority="sudocs">GA 1.13:GGD-99-45</classification>
<identifier type="uri">https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-GGD-99-45</identifier>
<identifier type="local">P0b002ee18037c445</identifier>
<identifier type="former package identifier">f:gg99045</identifier>
<recordInfo>
 <recordContentSource authority="marcorg">DGPO</recordContentSource>
 <recordCreationDate encoding="w3cdtf">2010-08-12</recordCreationDate>
 <recordChangeDate encoding="w3cdtf">2011-03-28</recordChangeDate>
 <recordIdentifier source="DGPO">GAOREPORTS-GGD-99-45</recordIdentifier>
 <recordOrigin>machine generated</recordOrigin>
 <languageOfCataloging>
  <languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm>
</languageOfCataloging>
</recordInfo>
<accessCondition type="GPO scope determination">fdlp</accessCondition>
<extension>
 <docClass>REPORT</docClass>
 <accessId>GAOREPORTS-GGD-99-45</accessId>
 <reportNumber>GGD-99-45</reportNumber>
 <subject>Federal employee retirement programs</subject>
 <subject>Government retirement benefits</subject>
 <subject>Retirement pensions</subject>
 <subject>Comparative analysis</subject>
 <subject>Employee retirement plans</subject>
 <subject>Civil service pensions</subject>
 <subject>State employees</subject>
 <subject>State programs</subject>
 <subject>Social security benefits</subject>
 <identifier>Federal Thrift Savings Plan</identifier>
 <identifier>Federal Employees Retirement System</identifier>
 <identifier>Civil Service Retirement System</identifier>
 <type>Letter Report</type>
 <seriesAbbrev>GGD</seriesAbbrev>
 <law congress="95" isPrivate="false" number="600"></law>
</extension>
<titleInfo>
 <title>State Pension Plans: Similarities and Differences Between Federal and State Designs</title>
</titleInfo>
<abstract>GAO provided information on the: (1) design components of retirement
programs that states offer to their general employees and compared them
to the design components of the two principal retirement programs for
federal employees; and (2) changes states have considered and made to
their retirement programs.&lt;p/&gt;GAO noted that: (1) all states used two or more of the four design
components, but few of their retirement programs had all of the same
components as the Federal Employees&apos; Retirement System (FERS) or the
Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS); (2) the majority of
states--35--included three components and differed by only one component
from either FERS or CSRS; (3) the lack of employer contributions to
defined contribution (DC) plans distinguished these programs from FERS,
and the inclusion of social security coverage distinguished them from
CSRS; (4) in the final analysis, three state programs had the same
components as FERS and six had the same components as CSRS; (5) GAO&apos;s
review showed that all states have in some way changed the design
components of their retirement programs since the programs were
established; (6) developments in federal law that might enhance employee
benefits prompted most of these changes; (7) officials representing 21
of the 48 state retirement programs with a defined benefit (DB)
component told GAO that their states had recently considered dropping
their DB plan component in favor of a program consisting solely of a DC
component with an employer contribution and social security; (8)
however, only two states have no DB plan, and one of these
states--Michigan--recently dropped its DB plan and switched to a DC plan
with an employer contribution for its state-sponsored retirement
benefits; (9) officials from the 21 states cited reducing government
costs, enhancing portability, and lobbying by special interests as the
major reasons for considering such a change; (10) they also cited a
number of reasons for not dropping their DB plans, the most common were
that: (a) studies showed no need for the change; (b) further study was
needed; (c) labor unions opposed the change; or (d) there was lack of
interest or support for the change; (11) officials representing the
other 27 state programs told GAO that their states had never considered
dropping their DB component; and (12) the most common reasons state
officials gave for not considering such a change were that: (a) the DB
component provided greater benefits, including survivor and disability
benefits; and (b) they regarded the DB plan as a better way to retain
employees.</abstract>
<location>
 <url displayLabel="HTML rendition" access="raw object">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-GGD-99-45/html/GAOREPORTS-GGD-99-45.htm</url>
 <url displayLabel="PDF rendition" access="raw object">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-GGD-99-45/pdf/GAOREPORTS-GGD-99-45.pdf</url>
</location>
<identifier type="preferred citation">GAO/GGD-99-45</identifier>
<location>
 <url displayLabel="Content Detail" access="object in context">https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-GGD-99-45</url>
</location>
<note>Letter Report</note>
<extension>
 <searchTitle>GAO/GGD-99-45; State Pension Plans: Similarities and Differences Between Federal and State Designs;
            </searchTitle>
</extension>
<subject>
 <topic>Federal employee retirement programs</topic>
 <topic>Government retirement benefits</topic>
 <topic>Retirement pensions</topic>
 <topic>Comparative analysis</topic>
 <topic>Employee retirement plans</topic>
 <topic>Civil service pensions</topic>
 <topic>State employees</topic>
 <topic>State programs</topic>
 <topic>Social security benefits</topic>
 <topic>Federal Thrift Savings Plan</topic>
 <topic>Federal Employees Retirement System</topic>
 <topic>Civil Service Retirement System</topic>
</subject>
<relatedItem type="isReferencedBy">
 <titleInfo>
  <title>United States Public Law 600 (95th Congress)</title>
</titleInfo>
 <identifier type="public law citation">Public Law 95-600</identifier>
</relatedItem>
</mods>