jurisdiction: US

text: b" SOCIAL SECURITY\nMEMORANDUM\n\nDate: May 12, 2009 Refer To:\n\nTo: The Commissioner\n\nFrom: Inspector General\n\nSubject: Quick Response Evaluation: Processing of Railroad Worker Disability Claims\n (A-05-09-29119)\n\n\n The attached final quick response evaluation presents the results of our review.\n Our objectives were to determine the risks, if any, to the Social Security\n Administration\xe2\x80\x99s Disability Insurance Trust Fund due to allegations related to\n Railroad Retirement Board disability claims from Long Island Rail Road\n employees.\n\n If you wish to discuss the final report, please call me or have your staff contact\n Steven L. Schaeffer, Assistant Inspector General for Audit, at (410) 965-9700.\n\n\n\n\n S\n Patrick P. O\xe2\x80\x99Carroll, Jr.\n\n Attachment\n\x0cQUICK RESPONSE\n EVALUATION\n Processing of Railroad\nWorker Disability Claims\n\n A-05-09-29119\n\n\n\n\n May 2009\n\x0c Mission\nBy conducting independent and objective audits, evaluations and\ninvestigations, we inspire public confidence in the integrity and security of\nSSA\xe2\x80\x99s programs and operations and protect them against fraud, waste and\nabuse. We provide timely, useful and reliable information and advice to\nAdministration officials, Congress and the public.\n\n Authority\nThe Inspector General Act created independent audit and investigative\nunits, called the Office of Inspector General (OIG). The mission of the OIG,\nas spelled out in the Act, is to:\n\n \xef\x81\xad Conduct and supervise independent and objective audits and\n investigations relating to agency programs and operations.\n \xef\x81\xad Promote economy, effectiveness, and efficiency within the agency.\n \xef\x81\xad Prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in agency programs and\n operations.\n \xef\x81\xad Review and make recommendations regarding existing and\n proposed legislation and regulations relating to agency programs\n and operations.\n \xef\x81\xad Keep the agency head and the Congress fully and currently informed\n of problems in agency programs and operations.\n\n To ensure objectivity, the IG Act empowers the IG with:\n\n \xef\x81\xad Independence to determine what reviews to perform.\n \xef\x81\xad Access to all information necessary for the reviews.\n \xef\x81\xad Authority to publish findings and recommendations based on the\n reviews.\n\n Vision\nWe strive for continual improvement in SSA\xe2\x80\x99s programs, operations and\nmanagement by proactively seeking new ways to prevent and deter fraud,\nwaste and abuse. We commit to integrity and excellence by supporting an\nenvironment that provides a valuable public service while encouraging\nemployee development and retention and fostering diversity and\ninnovation.\n\x0c Background\nOBJECTIVE\nTo determine the risks, if any, to the Social Security Administration\xe2\x80\x99s (SSA)\nDisability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund due to allegations related to Railroad\nRetirement Board (RRB) disability claims from Long Island Rail Road (LIRR)\nemployees.\n\nBACKGROUND\nThe RRB is a Federal agency that administers comprehensive income security\nprograms for the nation\xe2\x80\x99s railroad employees, retirees, and their families under\nthe Railroad Retirement (RRA) and Railroad Unemployment Insurance Acts.1\nThe RRB administers the RRA, which provides for two types of disability\nannuities \xe2\x80\x94occupational disability and total and permanent disability (hereafter\nreferred to as \xe2\x80\x9cpermanent disability\xe2\x80\x9d). Occupational disability benefits, funded\nsolely by RRB, are paid to workers who are unable to perform the work of their\nregular railroad occupation. Permanent disability benefits are paid to workers\nwho are totally disabled for all types of employment. SSA and RRB use the\nsame definition of permanent disability, which is more stringent than the criteria\nfor establishing an occupational disability.2 In addition, both SSA and RRB fund\nthe RRB permanent disability program.3\n\nAn example of an occupational disability situation would be a railroad engineer,\nwhose work often requires that he climb, bend, stretch, reach, crouch and kneel,\ninjuring his leg. If, based on medical evidence, the engineer is precluded from\nperforming these actions, the engineer would be determined to be occupationally\ndisabled. However, if his condition is not severe enough to prevent him from\nperforming other substantial gainful work elsewhere in the economy, he would\nnot meet SSA\xe2\x80\x99s definition of permanent disability.4\n\n\n\n\n1\n In this report, we are only focusing on disability benefits.\n2\n The non-medical eligibility for an occupational disability is more stringent than for a permanent\ndisability. See Appendix B for more information on the eligibility criteria for both programs.\n3\n RRB funding comes from a variety of sources, including SSA reimbursement (see Appendix C).\n4\n In addition, if an employee is found disabled under the RRA, the RRB will determine whether\nthe employee is disabled under the Social Security Act to qualify for a period of disability\n(disability freeze).\n\n\nProcessing of Railroad Worker Disability Claims (A-05-09-29119) 1\n\x0cDISABILITY WORKLOADS\n\nIn September 1983, SSA\xe2\x80\x99s Great Lakes Program Service Center (GLPSC) in\nChicago was given the responsibility for processing railroad workers\xe2\x80\x99 disability\nclaims.5 The GLPSC-Disability Processing Branch (DPB) serves as a de facto\ndisability determination services (DDS)6 for this program. The DPB and RRB\nprocess a number of workloads, including the following.\n\n\xef\x82\xa7 Dual Eligibility Claim: Relates to a career railroad worker\xe2\x80\x99s claim that\n originated in an SSA field office (see Appendix D).\n\n\xef\x82\xa7 Joint Freeze:7 Relates to a career railroad worker\xe2\x80\x99s claim that originated with\n the RRB. The claimant\xe2\x80\x99s medical evidence is reviewed by both SSA and\n RRB for concurrence for a period of disability that may relate to benefits\n under both programs (see Appendix E).\n\n\xef\x82\xa7 Unilateral Freeze: Relates to a career railroad worker\xe2\x80\x99s claim that originated\n with the RRB. The claim went through the Joint Freeze process whereby\n RRB coordinates the decision with SSA. In this case, SSA does not agree\n with RRB\xe2\x80\x99s approval, but RRB independently decides to approve the claim\n and fund the disability benefits from its own resources (see Appendix F).\n\n\xef\x82\xa7 Single Freeze: Relates to a career railroad worker\xe2\x80\x99s claim that originated\n with RRB. In general, RRB makes an independent decision on the claim\n without SSA\xe2\x80\x99s review of the decision (see Appendix F).8\n\n\n\n\n5\n The GLPSC also performs the other primary missions of a program service center, including\n(1) processing Social Security claims and post-adjudicative changes after beneficiaries have\nbeen entitled and (2) performing formal and informal reconsideration of determinations.\n6\n DDSs in each State perform disability determinations of claimants' medical eligibility for SSA\nprograms and ensure that adequate evidence is available to support its determinations.\n7\n A \xe2\x80\x9cfreeze\xe2\x80\x9d is a determination of eligibility for permanent disability benefits.\n8\n As we discuss later in this section, Single Freeze cases in the 1-percent sample are reviewed\nby both agencies as part of the Financial Interchange process.\n\n\n\nProcessing of Railroad Worker Disability Claims (A-05-09-29119) 2\n\x0cFINANCIAL INTERCHANGE\n\nWhile RRB and SSA are separate entities, they closely coordinate the financing\nof permanent disability benefits. Under the Financial Interchange, SSA\nreimburses RRB for permanent disability benefit payments in excess of collected\npayroll and income taxes. RRB\xe2\x80\x99s trust fund is reimbursed from SSA\xe2\x80\x99s DI Trust\nFund (see Appendix C).9 The Financial Interchange is based on a 1-percent\nsample of railroad workers in the economy, including those receiving SSA\xe2\x80\x99s Title\nII disability benefits or RRB\xe2\x80\x99s permanent disability benefits (considered as Title II\nequivalent).\n\nLIRR\n\nIn September 2008, Federal agents searched the Westbury, New York, RRB\noffice on Long Island. News articles alleged the RRB made medical\ndeterminations for occupational disability cases based on questionable medical\nevidence submitted to the Westbury office by applicants. While SSA does not\nreimburse RRB for occupational disability benefits, the allegations highlighted\npotential vulnerabilities within the RRB\xe2\x80\x99s overall disability process. Following the\nmedia attention, the RRB initiated changes to the occupational disability process\n(see Appendix G).\n\n\n\n\n9\n These amounts are adjusted for certain costs, such as administrative expenses and interest.\n\n\nProcessing of Railroad Worker Disability Claims (A-05-09-29119) 3\n\x0c Results of Review\nWe found the risk to SSA\xe2\x80\x99s DI Trust Fund depends on the controls in the SSA\nand RRB disability review processes. The two agencies have established\nvarious disability determination processes, each of which has its own risks. In\naddition, we found that RRB initiated the occupational and permanent disability\nprocesses with the same medical evidence. Moreover, SSA does not see all of\nthe cases that will be reimbursed by the DI Trust Fund but instead reviews a\n1-percent sample. In this regard, we identified a number of areas related to\nprogram oversight as well as policies and procedures where stronger controls\nand better documentation could help mitigate the risk to the DI Trust Fund.\n\nREVIEW OF MEDICAL EVIDENCE\nIn our review of the RRB disability process, we determined that both RRB and\nSSA initially rely on medical evidence developed for an RRB occupational\ndisability claim. Moreover, SSA does not review all of the permanent disability\ndecisions made by RRB. Instead, SSA based its financial transfers to RRB on a\n1-percent sample of cases reviewed by both SSA and RRB.\n\nSOURCE OF MEDICAL EVIDENCE\n\nRRB and SSA have agreed to provide each other with copies of medical\nevidence received in connection with disability claims to avoid duplication of\ndevelopment. Railroad workers file one application with RRB to qualify for either\noccupational or permanent disability benefits.10 In general, RRB starts with this\nsame medical evidence when making a permanent disability decision under the\nSingle Freeze process,11 which may lead to SSA\xe2\x80\x99s funding of the disability case.\nMoreover, during the Joint Freeze process where SSA also reviews the case,\nSSA obtains all medical evidence from RRB rather than independently. Finally,\neven if SSA receives an application directly from a railroad worker at a field office\nunder the Dual Eligibility process, SSA requests from RRB any medical evidence\nof record that it may have on former RRB workers. If the medical evidence of\nrecord is complete and sufficient for SSA to make a disability determination, SSA\nwill rely on the medical evidence received from RRB to make its determination. If\nnot, SSA will further develop the claim by requesting additional medical evidence\nor scheduling a medical examination.\n\n\n10\n Not all applicants are eligible to receive both types of benefits. It is possible that an individual\ndoes not have enough time with the RRB to qualify for occupational disability but is still eligible for\na permanent disability decision.\n11\n A finding of permanent disability requires sufficient evidence that indicates a greater degree of\nimpairment.\n\n\n\nProcessing of Railroad Worker Disability Claims (A-05-09-29119) 4\n\x0cAs a result, SSA relies on RRB's internal controls over medical evidence for\nmany of the permanent disability cases that will eventually be reimbursed as part\nof the Financial Interchange. This being the case, it is essential SSA ensures\nthat RRB maintains credible internal controls over its process for collecting this\nmedical evidence.\n\nSSA REVIEW OF FREEZE DECISIONS\n\nMost career railroad workers\xe2\x80\x99 permanent disability cases are not sent to SSA for\nan independent review. As an independent Federal agency, RRB has the\nauthority under the RRA to make decisions regarding railroad workers\xe2\x80\x99 eligibility\nfor permanent disability benefits.12 Currently, RRB makes an independent\ndecision, commonly called a Single Freeze, for approximately two-thirds of\nrailroad workers\xe2\x80\x99 permanent disability benefit applications that are subject to\nreimbursement through the SSA and RRB Financial Interchange. RRB shares\nthe remaining one-third of the applications with SSA as part of the Joint Freeze\nprocess.13\n\nThe one-third of applications shared with SSA under the Joint Freeze includes\nsample cases used as part of the Financial Interchange process.14 This sample\ncomprises cases where the two terminal digits of the railroad workers\xe2\x80\x99 Social\nSecurity number end in \xe2\x80\x9c30.\xe2\x80\x9d15 As a result, approximately 1 percent of all cases,\nwhether they were originally slated for a Single Freeze or a Joint Freeze,\nundergoes a review by both agencies before being used in the Financial\nInterchange process to determine the volume of transfers between SSA and\nRRB. For FY 2007, approximately $418 million in monetary transfers through the\nFinancial Interchange was dependent on a 1-percent sample of permanent\ndisability cases.16 SSA actuaries stated it is necessary to maintain the same\nSocial Security number selection criterion from year to year to ensure consistent\ntreatment regarding periodic revisions of benefits.\n\n\n\n\n12\n Disability decisions are categorized as a Single or Joint Freeze based on set criteria.\n13\n In Fiscal Year (FY) 2008, the GLPSC reported it processed approximately 1,956 Joint Freeze\ncases from RRB. We did not independently verify this number, and neither SSA nor RRB could\nprovide additional support for the number of Joint Freeze awarded versus denied.\n14\n See Appendix C for more on the Financial Interchange process.\n15\n SSA, Program Operations Manual System (POMS) DI 44001.025, \xc2\xa7 A.4.b\xe2\x80\x94Joint\nDetermination Cases.\n16\n In the FY 2007 determination, the Financial Interchange sample contained 329 items related to\nan estimated universe of 34,312 permanently disabled cases. We did not independently verify\nthese numbers.\n\n\nProcessing of Railroad Worker Disability Claims (A-05-09-29119) 5\n\x0cPROGRAM OVERSIGHT\nWe identified a number of areas where stronger program oversight could help\nmitigate the risk to the DI Trust Fund, including greater monitoring of (1) Dual\nEligibility decisions and (2) sample cases used as part of the Financial\nInterchange.\n\nOVERSIGHT OF GLPSC-DPB DECISIONS\n\nDPB performs the same functions of a State DDS but is not subject to the same\nrequirements. In addition, SSA\xe2\x80\x99s guidance is inconsistent on the oversight of the\nDPB workload. DPB has jurisdiction for disability claims filed by railroad\nworkers.17 These cases are adjudicated in the DPB and approved by the\nRegional Medical Consultant Staff (RMCS).18 However, unlike the DDSs, the\nDPB claims are not subject to quality assurance (QA) reviews.19 QA reviews\ninvolve an independent review of a sample of disability decisions. These reviews\ndetermine whether individual State DDSs perform acceptably in terms of\ndecisional accuracy and documentation requirements.\n\nDuring our review, we also found contradictory policies regarding GLPSC\xe2\x80\x99s\nresponsibilities to perform QA reviews for railroad workers\xe2\x80\x99 claims. One SSA\nPOMS section requires that SSA perform quality reviews of railroad workers\xe2\x80\x99\nclaims.20 Specifically, POMS states, \xe2\x80\x9cPeriodically, SSA does a [QA] review of the\nSocial Security disability determinations on railroad claims in the Disability\nQuality Branch (DQB) in the Chicago Office of Regional Program and Integrity\nReviews.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nAnother POMS section indicates that the railroad workers\xe2\x80\x99 claims will not\nroutinely be reviewed even though they are selected for quality review.21\nSpecifically this reference states, \xe2\x80\x9cSince the Chicago [RMCS] will have already\nevaluated the medical evidence, impairment severity, and when applicable,\nresidual functional capacity, it will not routinely review railroad claims selected for\nquality review.\xe2\x80\x9d Moreover, in a March 1988 memorandum, SSA\xe2\x80\x99s Associate\nCommissioner for Program and Integrity Reviews22 issued a directive to\n17\n SSA, POMS, DI 44001.005, \xc2\xa7 A\xe2\x80\x94General. This section also indicates that the GLPSC has\njurisdiction over disabled dependents of deceased career railroad workers.\n18\n RMCS staff is contracted by the GLPSC to perform medical reviews of disability claims. In\ngeneral, RMCS staff also performs QA reviews at State DDSs.\n19\n SSA, POMS, DI 30005.005\xe2\x80\x94Types of Federal Quality Reviews.\n20\n SSA, POMS, GN 04442.001\xe2\x80\x94Overview-Background of Quality Assurance Review of Railroad\nDisability Claims.\n21\n SSA, POMS, GN 04442.110, \xc2\xa7 A.2\xe2\x80\x94Medical Review Policy.\n22\n This component is now called the Office of Quality Performance.\n\n\nProcessing of Railroad Worker Disability Claims (A-05-09-29119) 6\n\x0cdiscontinue ongoing quality reviews of railroad disability determinations at the\nGLPSC. However, the directive indicated the ongoing quality reviews were to be\nsubstituted with short-term reviews twice a year. GLPSC representatives stated\nthere are no records of any short-term reviews being done or any directives\nconcerning them.\n\nThe least amount of oversight by SSA relates to the Dual Eligibility cases23 since\nonly SSA staff adjudicates these claims for railroad workers. By comparison, the\nJoint Freeze claims are reviewed by medical consultants at both SSA and RRB.\nBecause SSA does not perform QA reviews, it lacks assurance the Dual\nEligibility claims are being processed and approved in accordance with SSA\xe2\x80\x99s\nguidelines. We believe SSA should subject its own operations to the same level\nof review used at the State DDS level. SSA management said the Agency is\ninitiating steps for an ongoing quality review.\n\nFINANCIAL INTERCHANGE\n\nThe Financial Interchange sample data have not been reviewed for about\n7 years. The last review was completed in June 2002 and related to the 1996 \xe2\x80\x93\n1997 Financial Interchange determinations. Such reviews assess the accuracy\nof non-medical issues, such as benefit calculations, entitlement, work deductions,\nand clerical errors. GLPSC conducted the June 2002 review and examined\n540 cases,24 of which 55 had errors affecting the Trust Funds for historical\nactions taken through the 1997 determination, for a case accuracy rate of\n89.8 percent.25 According to the RRB Actuary, the 540 cases represented a\njudgmental sample of more difficult cases with a greater potential for error and\nconsisted largely of retirement and survivor cases charged to the Old-Age and\nSurvivors Insurance Trust Fund. Neither the GLPSC staff nor Office of the\nActuary staff knows when the next Financial Interchange review will take place.\nGiven the importance of this process in verifying the underlying transfers from\nSSA\xe2\x80\x99s Trust Funds, the Agency should establish a schedule for ensuring these\nreviews regularly occur.\n\n\n\n\n23\n In FY 2008, the DPB reported it processed approximately 1,237 dual eligibility cases. We did\nnot independently verify this number.\n24\n The 540 sample cases included retirement and disability cases.\n25\n According to the review document, about half of these errors represented adjustment amounts\n(before inflation) of less than $100. Overall, SSA owed RRB approximately $19,000 as a result of\nthe detected errors. The review also covered years outside the scope of the review and identified\nanother $57,000 due to SSA, for a net effect (with the above amount) of $38,000 due to the SSA\nTrust Funds.\n\n\nProcessing of Railroad Worker Disability Claims (A-05-09-29119) 7\n\x0cPOLICIES AND PROCEDURES\nWe identified a number of areas where improved policies and procedures could\nhelp mitigate the risk to the DI Trust Fund, including reviews of (1) the disability\nMemorandum of Understanding (MOU) between SSA and RRB, (2) POMS, and\n(3) RRB changes to the occupational disability process.\n\nDISABILITY AND FINANCIAL INTERCHANGE MOUs\n\nWe found the disability process documented in an MOU between SSA and RRB\nhad not been modified since 1987, and portions of the MOU were not being\nfollowed during our review period. For example, we learned that RRB was not\nsharing management information with SSA related to its decision to grant\nUnilateral Freeze benefits to railroad workers denied by SSA.26 According to the\n1987 MOU with SSA, RRB may make a Unilateral Freeze decision if an\nagreement with SSA cannot be reached. The MOU also states that RRB must\nnotify SSA when a Unilateral Freeze decision is made. In FYs 2007 and 2008,\nRRB estimates it granted 85 and 82 Unilateral Freezes, respectively, at the initial\nand reconsideration levels, of the total initial decisions of 5,786 for FY 2007 and\n5,214 for FY 2008.27\n\nSince we began our review, RRB has updated it procedures regarding its\nnotification of Unilateral Freeze cases. In a January 20, 2009 Office of Programs\nProcedure Transmittal, RRB stated it will formally advise SSA of its decision\nregarding Unilateral Freeze cases, including any additional evidence or\nsupporting rationale it may choose to provide.\n\nWe also found that the disability MOU was not consistent with other RRB\ndocuments. The MOU states, \xe2\x80\x9cUnilateral and single disability freeze claims are\nawarded by the RRB or the RRB appeals process and are certified solely from\nRRB funds.\xe2\x80\x9d However, in our discussions with RRB staff involved in the\nFinancial Interchange process, we were told that this MOU statement is incorrect,\nand SSA reimburses RRB for the Single Freeze awards. While we were able to\nconfirm this statement using other internal documents from RRB, we were not\nable to find specific mention of Single or Unilateral Freezes in the Financial\nInterchange document.28 Actuary staff at both SSA and RRB agreed that the\n\n\n\n\n26\n Any disability benefits rendered to a railroad worker because of an approval of a Unilateral\nFreeze is paid by RRB, and SSA should not reimburse RRB through the Financial Interchange\nprocess for those benefits.\n27\n These figures were provided by RRB. We did not independently verify these numbers.\n28\n See Appendix C for some of the language in the Financial Interchange document.\n\n\nProcessing of Railroad Worker Disability Claims (A-05-09-29119) 8\n\x0cFinancial Interchange itself does not have a formal MOU outlining the\ninterchange procedures, to include issues regarding which cases SSA has\nagreed to reimburse. The staff stated that the annual document serves as the\nMOU.\n\nA periodic review of the disability MOU by both agencies may detect other issues\nthat may be in need of correction. Moreover, a second MOU to cover the\nFinancial Interchange process may also be useful since it could document the\nexisting process for calculating the amounts interchanged, highlight past and\npresent changes due to new legislation and other factors, and ensure a single set\nof procedures is readily available to current and future staff responsible for the\nFinancial Interchange process. SSA management stated that the Agency has\ntaken steps to (1) clarify and update the Financial Interchange process;\n(2) review and update policies and procedures, including the MOU; and\n(3) initiate an information exchange agreement with RRB.\n\nPOMS\n\nThe POMS sections describing the DPB processing of railroad claims was not\ncurrent at the time of our review. A clear set of updated and published\nprocedures will be necessary if SSA is to hold the DPB accountable in future QA\nreviews.29 Moreover, POMS is a public document that makes the SSA process\nmore transparent to interested parties, including the RRB. The DPB has a\nbusiness process document for performing its workload. However, the DPB\nbusiness process has not been formalized and incorporated into the POMS.\nWhile the field office procedures related to railroad workers was updated in 2008,\nan SSA representative acknowledged the GLPSC-related POMS had not been\nupdated since March 1986. The SSA representative stated she was using the\nDPB business process document to update the DPB disability process in the\nPOMS. SSA management noted that the Agency has initiated steps to review\nand update policies and procedures, including POMS, and train personnel on the\nidentification and proper handling of these claims.\n\nCHANGES TO THE OCCUPATIONAL DISABILITY PROCESS\n\nRRB has initiated greater controls over portions of the occupational disability\nreview process but has not modified the permanent disability review process. As\na result of the LIRR allegations, RRB is reevaluating its controls over the\noccupational disability review process and has implemented some changes. On\nOctober 21, 2008, the Chairman to the RRB issued the transcript of the Board\xe2\x80\x99s\norder to consider several recommendations concerning occupational disability\nclaims, including a recommendation that \xe2\x80\x9c\xe2\x80\xa6the RRB will develop and implement\na program to conduct independent medical reviews of present and future\n\n29\n As noted earlier, some POMS sections are contradictory on such issues as the need for QA\nreviews.\n\n\n\nProcessing of Railroad Worker Disability Claims (A-05-09-29119) 9\n\x0coccupational disability applications. The independent medical evaluators must\nbe RRB-approved physicians, not specifically labor or management affiliates,\nwho are familiar with railroad injuries.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nOther recommendations relating to the LIRR allegations include (1) reevaluating\ndubious disability claims, (2) greater oversight controls over the Long Island RRB\noffice and its employees, (3) program changes that would trigger internal\ninvestigations, and (4) stringent reviews of management employees accessing\nthe occupational disability program.30\n\nRRB staff informed us they were not aware of any adjustments to the\noccupational or permanent disability process beyond the LIRR employees.31 We\nbelieve SSA may benefit from discussions with the RRB concerning these\nchanges to determine whether they should be expanded beyond the LIRR\nemployees to the rest of the disability process, since this same medical evidence\nis used to initiate both occupational and permanent disability claims. SSA\nmanagement stated the Agency has an initiative to possibly reopen those LIRR\ncases potentially impacting SSA\xe2\x80\x99s DI Trust Fund.\n\n\n\n\n30\n See Appendix G for more information on these recommendations to the RRB.\n31\n RRB staff also stated that any decision on program changes would most likely occur after the\ncompletion of the multiple audits of their program. At the time of our review, in addition to our\nSSA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) review, RRB\xe2\x80\x99s disability process was being reviewed\nby the RRB OIG and the Government Accountability Office.\n\n\nProcessing of Railroad Worker Disability Claims (A-05-09-29119) 10\n\x0c Matters for Consideration\nRailroad disability claims received by SSA often started as part of the\noccupational disability application process in RRB, the same process involved in\nthe recent allegations involving LIRR employees. As a result, the risk to the DI\nTrust Fund is dependent on the controls in SSA and RRB\xe2\x80\x99s disability review\nprocesses. Our review has identified a number of areas related to program\noversight as well as policies and procedures where stronger controls could help\nmitigate the risk to the DI Trust Fund. We believe SSA could improve the\nunderlying policies and procedures to ensure they are well documented, adhered\nto, and periodically reviewed by the two agencies. Moreover, we believe SSA\nshould consider increased oversight of the SSA/RRB disability determination and\nFinancial Interchange processes to ensure consistency and accuracy between\nthe two agencies. SSA management noted the Agency is initiating steps in a\nnumber of these areas to improve the overall process.\n\n\n\n\nProcessing of Railroad Worker Disability Claims (A-05-09-29119) 11\n\x0c Appendices\nAPPENDIX A \xe2\x80\x93 Acronyms\nAPPENDIX B \xe2\x80\x93 Railroad Retirement Board\nAPPENDIX C \xe2\x80\x93 Social Security Administration and Railroad Retirement Board Financial\n Interchange Process\nAPPENDIX D \xe2\x80\x93 Railroad Worker Claim Processing \xe2\x80\x93 Social Security Administration\nAPPENDIX E \xe2\x80\x93 Railroad Worker Claim Processing \xe2\x80\x93 Joint Freeze\nAPPENDIX F \xe2\x80\x93 Railroad Worker Claim Processing \xe2\x80\x93 Railroad Retirement Board\nAPPENDIX G \xe2\x80\x93 Occupational Disability Process Changes\nAPPENDIX H \xe2\x80\x93 Scope and Methodology\nAPPENDIX I \xe2\x80\x93 OIG Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments\n\n\n\n\nProcessing of Railroad Worker Disability Claims (A-05-09-29119)\n\x0c Appendix A\n\nAcronyms\n DCM Disability Claims Manual\n\n DDS Disability Determination Services\n\n DI Disability Insurance\n\n DPB Disability Processing Branch\n\n DQB Disability Quality Branch\n\n FO Field Office\n\n FY Fiscal Year\n\n GLPSC Great Lakes Program Service Center\n\n LIRR Long Island Rail Road\n\n MOU Memorandum of Understanding\n\n OASI Old-Age and Survivors Insurance\n\n OIG Office of the Inspector General\n\n OQP Office of Quality Performance\n\n RMCS Regional Medical Consultant Staff\n\n POMS Program Operations Manual System\n\n QA Quality Assurance\n\n RRA Railroad Retirement Act\n\n RRB Railroad Retirement Board\n\n SSA Social Security Administration\n\n SSEB Social Security Equivalent Benefit\n\n\n\n\nProcessing of Railroad Worker Disability Claims (A-05-09-29119)\n\x0c Appendix B\n\nRailroad Retirement Board\nThe Railroad Retirement Board (RRB), as an independent agency in the Executive\nBranch of the Government, is responsible for administering the Railroad Retirement\n(RRA) and Railroad Unemployment Insurance Acts. The RRB is headed by three\nBoard Members appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate.\nThe Board Members\xe2\x80\x99 terms of office are 5 years and are scheduled to expire in different\nyears. The role of the RRB includes determining and paying benefits under the railroad\nretirement, survivor and disability insurance programs. The RRB has a field structure\ncomprised of 53 offices nationwide, and it is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.\n\nThe RRB was created by 1930\xe2\x80\x99s legislation establishing a retirement benefit program for\nthe nation\xe2\x80\x99s railroad workers. Legislation was enacted in 1934, 1935, and 1937 to\nestablish a railroad retirement system separate from the Social Security Administration\n(SSA) program legislated in 1935. While the railroad retirement system has remained\nseparate from the SSA system, the two systems are closely coordinated with regard to\nearnings credits, benefit payments, and taxes. The financing of the two systems is\nlinked through a Financial Interchange under which, in effect, the portion of railroad\nretirement annuities that is equivalent to SSA benefits is coordinated with the SSA\nsystem (see Appendix C for more information on the Financial Interchange).\n\nLegislation enacted in 1974 restructured railroad retirement benefits into two tiers to\ncoordinate them more fully with SSA benefits. Tier One benefits are based on\ncombined SSA and RRB credits, using SSA\xe2\x80\x99s Old-Age, Survivors and Disability\nInsurance benefit formulas.1 Tier Two benefits are based on railroad service only and\nthese benefits are comparable to the private pensions paid over and above SSA\nbenefits in other industries. RRB and SSA share jurisdiction over the payment of\ndisability benefits.\n\n\n\n\n1\n Railroad employees are taxed under Tier One at the same SSA and Medicare rates as employees in\nother industries.\n\n\nProcessing of Railroad Worker Disability Claims (A-05-09-29119) B-1\n\x0cOCCUPATIONAL DISABILITY BENEFITS\nThe occupational disability program is funded entirely from the RRB\xe2\x80\x99s trust fund, which\nis funded from taxes imposed on all railroad employees and railroad companies. SSA\nTrust Fund money or revenues are not used to fund the occupational disability program.\n\nTo receive an RRB occupational disability annuity, a worker must be unable to work in\nhis or her regular job. Specifically, the worker must\n\n \xef\x82\xa7 have a current connection with the railroad industry; and\n\n \xef\x82\xa7 have 240 months of creditable railroad service, or 120 months of creditable\n railroad service and be at least 60; and\n\n \xef\x82\xa7 be permanently disabled for work in his or her regular railroad occupation.\n\nTOTAL AND PERMANENT DISABILITY BENEFITS\nPermanent disability benefits are paid to workers who are totally disabled for all types of\nemployment. RRB uses SSA\xe2\x80\x99s definition of permanent disability in deciding claims.\nThe RRB total and permanent disability program is funded by both SSA and RRB.\n\nTo receive a total and permanent disability annuity, a worker must be totally disabled for\nall work. Specifically, the worker must\n\n \xef\x82\xa7 stop all work; and\n\n \xef\x82\xa7 have 120 months of creditable railroad service, or at least 60 months of\n creditable railroad service after 1995; and\n\n \xef\x82\xa7 be permanently disabled for any kind of regular work.\n\n\n\n\nProcessing of Railroad Worker Disability Claims (A-05-09-29119) B-2\n\x0c Appendix C\n\nSocial Security Administration and Railroad\nRetirement Board Financial Interchange Process\nThe Financial Interchange process places the Social Security Administration\xe2\x80\x99s (SSA)\nDisability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund in the same position it would be in if railroad service\nwas covered by the SSA program instead of the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB)\nprogram.1 Every year, estimates are made of the additional benefits and administrative\nexpenses that would have been paid from the DI Trust Fund as well as the additional\npayroll taxes and income taxes that would have been received by the Trust Fund. The\namounts transferred are the result of a complex statistical projection summarized in a\ndocument prepared by the RRB with input from SSA and the Centers for Medicare &\nMedicaid Services.2\n\nFor example, as of September 2007, the RRB\xe2\x80\x99s Social Security Equivalent Benefit\n(SSEB)3 Account was due approximately $417.6 million from the DI Trust Fund.4 A\nbreakout of this amount is provided in Table C-1.\n\n\n\n\n1\n This is also true with the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund, but in this review we are\nfocusing on the DI Trust Fund.\n2\n The latest report is RRB-SSA-CMS Financial Interchange: Calculations for Fiscal Year 2007 With\nRespect to OASI, DI, and [Health Insurance] Trust Funds, Summary and Documentation, 56th\nDetermination, RRB, 2008.\n3\n The SSEB Account, established in Fiscal Year (FY) 1985, pays the portion of railroad retirement\nbenefits equivalent to a SSA benefit from various income sources related to these benefits.\n4\n This includes interest through June 2, 2008.\n\n\nProcessing of Railroad Worker Disability Claims (A-05-09-29119) C-1\n\x0c Table C-1: Calculation of SSA DI Trust Fund Transfer to RRB SSEB Account\n Type of Balance Description Subtotal Total\n September 30, 2006 Amount Due\n Prior Balance $431 million\n to RRB\n 1\n Plus RRB Expenses Benefit Payments $664.4 million\n Administrative Expenses2 $8.6 million\n Interest $33.9 million $706.9 million\n Less RRB Revenues Payroll Taxes3 $282.7 million\n Income Taxes4 $6 million ($288.7 million)\n Less Prior Transfer to Transferred to SSEB Account on\n ($445.2 million)\n RRB June 4, 2007\n September 30, 2007 Amount Due\n Amount Due to RRB to RRB (includes $13.6 million $417.6 million\n in interest through June 2, 2008)\nNotes: (1) Estimated benefit amounts that would have been payable if the railroad workers were\n receiving benefits from SSA.\n (2) Estimated administrative costs to maintain the benefit program.\n (3) Estimated payroll taxes collected from railroad workers.\n (4) Estimated income taxes liability on benefits paid to railroad workers.\n\nSSA DI Trust Fund transfers to RRB have increased over the years. See Figure C-1 for\nSSA transfers over the past 15 years.\n\n Figure C-1: DI Trust Fund Transfers from SSA to RRB\n (Financial Interchange Amounts by Year of Transfer)\n\n $450\n $400\n $350\n Millions of Dollars\n\n\n\n\n $300\n $250\n $200\n $150\n $100\n $50\n $0\n 1994\n\n 1995\n\n 1996\n\n 1997\n\n 1998\n\n 1999\n\n 2000\n\n 2001\n\n 2002\n\n 2003\n\n 2004\n\n 2005\n\n 2006\n\n 2007\n\n 2008\n\n\n\n\n Calendar Year\n\n Note: Reduced amounts in 1996 and 2001 related to adjustments due to military credits.\n\n\n\n\nProcessing of Railroad Worker Disability Claims (A-05-09-29119) C-2\n\x0cThe Financial Interchange provides SSA with the tax revenues that would otherwise be\ncollected directly from railroad workers, while SSA provided to RRB the funds that\nwould otherwise be paid directly to railroad beneficiaries.5 When benefit payments\nexceed payroll and income taxes, the difference, with an allowance for interest and\nadministrative expenses, is transferred from the DI Trust Fund to the SSEB Account. If\ntaxes exceed benefit payments, a transfer would be made in favor of the DI Trust Fund.\n\nThe Financial Interchange is based on a 1-percent sample of railroad workers. The\nsample control group is constant in that only railroad workers with a certain two-digit\nidentifier (\xe2\x80\x9c30\xe2\x80\x9d) in their Social Security number are in the sample. In FY 2007, the DI\nTrust Fund transfer to RRB was based on a 1-percent sample that included 329 cases\nassociated with a universe of 34,312 permanent disability cases.6 Benefit payments per\ncase were estimated from the 329 sample items and then applied to RRB\xe2\x80\x99s entire\nuniverse of 34,312 permanent disability cases. RRB actuary staff noted that the sample\nand universe were expected to be proportional, noting any significant variances would\nbe investigated.\n\nFor example, the FY 2007 Financial Interchange document defines the benefit\ncalculation as follows.\n\n The railroad beneficiary universe for the calendar year, to which sample\n amounts are inflated, consists of all accounts on which a monthly benefit was\n in force (payable or withheld) under the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA) for at\n least one month of the year and on which a monthly benefit might have been\n payable under the [SSA] eligibility conditions. Also included are those on\n which an SSA lump sum based on death in the year would have been\n payable. The corresponding one-percent sample consists of cases carried\n over from earlier determinations and new cases in the universe with employee\n SSA account numbers ending in the digits \xe2\x80\x9c30.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nThe 65-page FY 2007 Financial Interchange document contains extensive calculations,\nestimates and projections. In addition, SSA provides input based on its own program\nexperience. For example, SSA prepares unit cost factors for the DI program related to\nthe maintenance of earnings accounts, initial enrollment of wage earners, initial\nenrollment of auxiliaries, and maintenance of the rolls.\n\n\n\n\n5\n RRB has multiple sources of funding to pay the Tier One (SSA equivalent benefits) and Tier Two\nbenefits, including payroll taxes, Financial Interchange transfers, the National Railroad Retirement\nInvestment Trust transfers, federal income taxes, interest on investments and general appropriations.\n6\n We did not independently verify these numbers.\n\n\nProcessing of Railroad Worker Disability Claims (A-05-09-29119) C-3\n\x0c Appendix D\n\nRailroad Worker Claim Processing \xe2\x80\x93 Social\nSecurity Administration\n\n Railroad Worker\n\n\n Worker with both Federal Insurance Contributions Act taxes\n and railroad earnings applies for Title II Disability benefits.1\n\n Field Office reviews claim against non-medical eligibility requirements.2\n Does claimant meet non-medical eligibility requirements?\n\n\n No Yes\n\n\n Non-career Railroad3\n Career Railroad4\n Claimant is denied a Title II Claims are processed the same as all other\n Claimant is eligible for Title II benefits or a period\n disability benefit. claims and are not coordinated with the\n of disability freeze and RRB benefits.\n Railroad Retirement Board (RRB).\n\n Request local State Disability Determination Dual Eligibility5\n Services (DDS) perform development for Claims are adjudicated by the SSA, Great Lakes\n the medical decision. Program Service Center-Disability Processing\n Branch (DPB) and the decision is coordinated\n with RRB.\n Social Security Administration\n (SSA) makes a decision to Notify RRB of Dual Eligibility claim and request medical\n approve/deny claim. evidence if a current or prior claim was filed with RRB.\n\n Does RRB have a current or prior claim?\n\n No Yes\n\n A prior claim was not filed with RRB. A prior or recent claim was filed with RRB. RRB\n RRB has no recent medical evidence. has recent medical evidence.\n\n\n\n Obtain medical evidence from treating sources and ask local DPB requests medical evidence from RRB.\n State DDS for assistance with obtaining a consultative exam.6 Medical evidence is reviewed for sufficiency.6\n\n Does RRB\xe2\x80\x99s medical evidence\n sufficiently meet SSA medical\n DPB makes a decision to approve/deny claim.7 eligibility requirements?\n\n No Yes\n DPB informs RRB of the allowance/denial decision.8\n\n\n\n\nProcessing of Railroad Worker Disability Claims (A-05-09-29119) D-1\n\x0c Railroad Worker Claim Processing \xe2\x80\x93 SSA Notes\n1. There are two ways a career railroad worker may file a disability application: Dual Eligibility benefits\n with the Social Security Administration (SSA) or a railroad disability annuity application with the\n Railroad Retirement Board (RRB), which is deemed an SSA application for freeze only purposes.\n See SSA, Program Operations Manual System (POMS), DI 44001.010\xe2\x80\x94Initial Processing.\n\n2. Applications and non-medical development are initiated in the SSA field office (FO). Information\n provided by the claimant to the FO during the disability interview is critical to the Disability\n Determination Services' (DDS) medical development. See SSA, POMS, DI 11005.001 Introduction\xe2\x80\x94\n Disability Interviews. At this time, SSA will also consider an individual\xe2\x80\x99s eligibility for Supplemental\n Security Income payments, which is unrelated to the RRB program.\n\n3. If the claimant is a non-career railroad worker as defined in Note 5, the disability claim is processed at\n an SSA FO in the same manner as non-railroad cases. See SSA, POMS, DI 11050.010\xe2\x80\x94Jurisdiction\n of Disability Applications Filed by Non-Vested Railroad Employees and Auxiliary Dependent Railroad\n Annuitants.\n\n4. A worker is considered career railroad if he or she has at least 120 months of railroad service\n (or 60 months after December 31, 1995), or has been awarded a retirement or disability annuity\n under the Railroad Retirement Act. See SSA, POMS, DI 11050.005, \xc2\xa7 A\xe2\x80\x94Categories of Railroad\n Related Claims.\n\n The Great Lakes Program Service Center\xe2\x80\x99s (GLPSC) Disability Processing Branch (DPB) has\n jurisdiction of claims involving career railroad workers and dependent railroad survivor annuitants. If\n one of these two criteria is not met, the case should go to the DDS in the claimant\xe2\x80\x99s State of\n residence. See GLPSC-DPB, Training Career Railroad cases 2008\xe2\x80\x94Dual Eligibility Claims, page 4.\n\n5. After a FO action, a disability claim that fits the career railroad criteria is then forwarded to DPB\n instead of the DDS. After making the decision, DPB routes Title II allowance determinations to the\n GLPSC module for effectuation. However, DPB returns Title II denials and all Title XVI\n determinations to the FO for effectuation. See SSA POMS DI 11050.015\xe2\x80\x94Jurisdiction of Disability\n (DIB) and Freeze Applications for Career Railroad (RR) Employee and Surviving Dependent RR\n Annuitant.\n\n6. The DPB contacts the RRB and requests copies of all medical, vocational, and any other pertinent\n evidence from the RRB file. If evidence is insufficient to adjudicate the current disability claim(s), the\n DPB develops the medical evidence directly from the treating sources. The DPB contacts the\n appropriate State DDS before adjudicating the claim if a consultative examination is needed. See\n SSA, POMS, DI 11050.045, \xc2\xa7 B\xe2\x80\x94GLPSC-DPB Actions in Developing Medical Evidence for Railroad\n Cases.\n\n7. Coordination cannot be completed until the DPB disability examiner and SSA medical consultant sign\n the Disability Determination Transmittal (SSA-831). At this point, a Notice of Disability Determination\n and Transmittal (SSA-415) is prepared and sent to RRB advising them of the decision. See SSA,\n POMS, DI 44001.020\xe2\x80\x94Other Communications and Coordination with RRB.\n\n8. A copy of the medical and non-medical evidence supporting the DPB decision is also sent to RRB. If\n no answer is received from RRB in 30 days, DPB will effectuate the decision. See SSA, POMS, DI\n 44001.020\xe2\x80\x94Other Communications and Coordination with RRB.\n\n\n\n\nProcessing of Railroad Worker Disability Claims (A-05-09-29119) D-2\n\x0c Appendix E\n\nRailroad Worker Claim Processing \xe2\x80\x93 Joint\nFreeze\n Railroad Worker\n\n\n Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) pays claimant\n occupational or total and permanent disability benefits.1\n\n\n Joint Freeze2 disability decisions are coordinated\n with the Social Security Administration(SSA).\n\n RRB makes a Joint Freeze decision. Case folder is sent to\n the SSA, Great Lakes Program Service Center-Disability\n Processing Branch (DPB) for review of the RRB decision.\n\n Does SSA agree with the\n RRB approval or denial of Joint Freeze?\n\n\n Yes No\n\n DPB signs SSA-831, Disability DPB does not sign the SSA-831,\n Determination Transmittal. Disability Determination Transmittal.\n\n\n Is the RRB-DPB decision to grant or deny? RRB reviews DPB\xe2\x80\x99s findings.\n\n\n Conflict or Unresolved Conflict Case:6 Does\n Grant Deny RRB agree with SSA\xe2\x80\x99s full decision and/or\n submit additional evidence to SSA?\n RRB and SSA denial\n letters sent to claimant\n with appeal rights.3\n Yes No\n Period of Disability:4\n Disability onset date period\n of eligibility established.\n\n RRB can choose to resolve the RRB can choose to grant\n Benefits are funded within the issue via the rebuttal process.8 a Unilateral Freeze.9\n Financial Interchange (see\n Appendix C).5\n Benefits are not funded by SSA\n RRB returns the case to within the Financial Interchange.\n DPB for review.7\n\n\n\n\nProcessing of Railroad Worker Disability Claims (A-05-09-29119) E-1\n\x0cRailroad Worker Claim Processing \xe2\x80\x93 Joint Freeze Notes\n1. Disability awards are based on either occupational disability or total and permanent disability. See\n Appendix F for a flowchart on this process.\n\n2. Joint Freeze decisions protect certain railroad employees and their families against the possible\n adverse effect of independent and/or conflicting disability freeze decisions made by two agencies.\n Joint decisions also eliminate any potential administrative problems for both agencies because of\n uncoordinated decisions. See Railroad Retirement Board (RRB), Disability Claims Manual (DCM),\n Section 6.7.1\xe2\x80\x94Introduction to Joint Freeze.\n\n3. In Joint Freeze decisions, a Social Security Administration (SSA) letter and an RRB denial letter\n with appeal instructions are sent to claimants. See RRB, DCM, Section 6.4.6\xe2\x80\x94Disability Freeze\n Notices.\n\n4. The Great Lakes Program Service Center-Disability Processing Branch (DPB) must verify the\n accuracy of the disability onset date, if an allowance is granted. See SSA, Program Operations\n Manual System (POMS), DI 44001.025\xe2\x80\x94Joint Determination Cases. RRB and SSA may agree to\n grant a disability freeze, but there are times when a conflict exists as to the appropriate disability\n onset date. While the agencies try to resolve the conflict, if one still remains, the RRB will use the\n RRB\xe2\x80\x99s own date\xe2\x80\x94for purposes of taxation and Medicare determinations. However, the benefits are\n funded by SSA via the Financial Interchange starting with the SSA onset date. See RRB, DCM,\n Section 6.7.5\xe2\x80\x94RRB/SSA Disability Onset Date Conflict In Joint Freeze Decisions.\n\n5. The purpose of the Financial Interchange is to place SSA\xe2\x80\x99s Trust Funds in the same position they\n would be in if railroad service were covered by the SSA program instead of the RRB program. See\n Appendix C for more on the Financial Interchange.\n\n6. A conflict case is a Joint Freeze case in which SSA either believes there is insufficient evidence to\n make a determination, or disagrees with RRB\xe2\x80\x99s determination. An unresolved conflict case is a\n case in which, after RRB submits additional evidence and/or a supporting rationale for its\n determination, the DPB still believes there is insufficient documentation or still disagrees with RRB's\n determination. See SSA, POMS, DI 44095.001\xe2\x80\x94Overview.\n\n7. The DPB reviews the decision for concurrence. Any differences between agencies are worked out\n before the DPB representative certifies the decision on the Disability Determination Transmittal\n (SSA-831). See RRB, DCM, Section 6.7.4\xe2\x80\x94Making Joint Decisions.\n\n8. There is a three-level rebuttal process when the RRB decision differs with the proposed decision of\n the DPB or with the request by the DPB for additional documentation. The first level rebuttal is\n RRB to the DPB, the second level rebuttal is RRB to the Chicago Region\xe2\x80\x99s Disability Quality\n Branch, and the third level rebuttal is RRB to SSA\xe2\x80\x99s Office of the Associate Commissioner for\n Quality Performance (formerly the Office of the Associate Commissioner for Program and Integrity\n Reviews). See SSA, POMS, DI 44095.001, \xc2\xa7 F\xe2\x80\x94Description of Formal Rebuttal Process.\n\n9. Unilateral claims are awarded by the RRB or the RRB reconsideration process. These claims are\n paid solely from RRB funds.\n\n\n\n\nProcessing of Railroad Worker Disability Claims (A-05-09-29119) E-2\n\x0c Appendix F\n\nRailroad Worker Claim Processing \xe2\x80\x93 Railroad\nRetirement Board\n\n Railroad Worker\n\n\n Worker files an application with RRB for disability benefits.\n\n\n RRB reviews claims against non-medical eligibility requirements.\n Does the claimant meet RRB non-medical eligibility requirements for\n occupational disability?1\n\n\n Yes No\n\n Does the claimant meet RRB medical eligibility requirements?2 Evaluate for RRB total and permanent disability.3\n\n\n Does claimant qualify for RRB total and permanent disability?\n Yes No\n\n RRB occupational disability Claimant is denied\n annuity is awarded. Benefits disability benefits.5 Yes No\n are funded by RRB.4\n RRB denial letter is\n sent toclaimant with RRB Disability annuity is Claimant is denied\n appeal rights. awarded. Benefits are Disability benefits.\n initially funded by RRB.\n RRB denial letter is sent to\n DetermineTotal and Permanent Disability Freeze.6\n claimant with appeal rights.\n\n\n Joint Freeze:7 Single Freeze:\n Claims require a Claims only require a\n RRB-SSA joint decision. decision by RRB.\n\n Joint freeze decisions are sent to the Grant Deny RRB denial letter is sent to claimant\n Social Security Administration (SSA) with appeal rights.\n Great Lakes Program Service Center,\n Disability Processing Branch for\n Benefits are funded by both SSA\n coordination. See the Appendix C\n and RRB within the Financial\n on the Joint Freeze process.8\n Interchange (see Appendix C\n on the Financial Interchange\n process).9\n\n\n\n\nProcessing of Railroad Worker Disability Claims (A-05-09-29119) F-1\n\x0c Railroad Worker Claim Processing \xe2\x80\x93 Railroad Retirement\n Board Notes\n1. Non-medical and vocational factors are considered when determining the ability of the employee to\n perform his or her regular railroad occupation. See Railroad Retirement Board (RRB), Disability\n Claims Manual (DCM), Part 5, Non-Medical and Vocational Factors, Section 5.1.1\xe2\x80\x94Purpose of\n Chapter.\n\n2. Medical evidence is furnished by the claimant. RRB may also ask the claimant to be examined at\n RRB\xe2\x80\x99s expense if more evidence is needed to make the medical determination or to resolve conflicts\n or differences in evidence already on file. See RRB, Employee Disability Benefits, Form RB-1d (03-\n 08).\n\n3. The annuity for total and permanent disability is payable under the full retirement age for any\n employee with at least 120 months of railroad service, or with 60 months of railroad service after\n 1995, as long as the individual's combined credits for work under SSA and the RRB program meet\n the eligibility requirements for SSA disability benefits.\n\n4. Many employees who are disabled for all employment are initially awarded occupational disability\n annuities to expedite payments.\n\n5. The RRB sends a notice explaining why disability benefits were denied.\n\n6. Joint Freeze cases are claims for disability filed with RRB by a career railroad worker. See SSA,\n Program Operations Manual System (POMS), DI 44001.001\xe2\x80\x94Introduction.\n\n7. Joint Freeze disability decisions are made for career railroad employees when there is potential\n entitlement to SSA benefits. A joint decision is made in one of the following situations: (a) the\n employee does not have a current connection with the railroad industry; (b) the employee has\n sufficient wage quarters to be eligible for a SSA Disability Insurance benefit as of the alleged quarter\n of disability onset; (c) SSA reports wages of over $5,000 but does not identify the quarters of\n coverage for that year; or (d) the case is included in the Financial Interchange sample.\n\n8. Joint Freeze cases are reviewed by the Great Lakes Program Service Center\xe2\x80\x99s Disability Processing\n Branch to ensure the freeze decision was made based on SSA program standards. See SSA,\n POMS, DI 44001.001\xe2\x80\x94Introduction. See Appendix E for more on this process.\n\n9. The purpose of the Financial Interchange is to place SSA\xe2\x80\x99s Trust Funds in the same position they\n would be in if railroad service were covered by the SSA program instead of the RRB program. See\n Appendix C for more on the Financial Interchange.\n\n\n\n\nProcessing of Railroad Worker Disability Claims (A-05-09-29119) F-2\n\x0c Appendix G\n\nOccupational Disability Process Changes\nOn October 20, 2008, the Railroad Retirement Board issued Board Order 08-63 to\nimplement five recommendations related to the Long Island Railroad (LIRR) and its\nemployees.\n\n\n Board Order 08-63\n Implementation Plan for Long Island Employers\nOn October 10, 2008, the three Board Members met with Sen. Schumer, Cong. Bishop\nand staff from other members of the New York Congressional Delegation. The Board\nMembers agreed to consider several recommendations concerning occupational\ndisability claims. The Board has adopted and will implement five recommendations.\nThese five recommendations relate solely to the Long Island Rail Road and its\nemployees who file for an occupational disability annuity or who are currently receiving\nan occupational disability annuity.\n\nTo increase oversight of new occupational disability applications, the Railroad\nRetirement Board (RRB) will establish a sub-unit within the initial section of the disability\ndivision. This sub-unit will consist of two [General Schedule]-11 disability examiners\nwho will be responsible for adjudicating all new Long Island occupational disability\napplications. Centralizing this function will allow the examiners to more easily detect\nany unusual patterns that may occur and will facilitate data gathering that will be\nessential after the recommendations are implemented.\n\nThe Director of Programs will conduct a cost analysis to cover the implementation of\nthese recommendations. Moreover, she will be directed to submit to the Board a\nmonthly status report on the implementation of these recommendations.\n\nA description of the implementation plan for each recommendation follows.\n\nRecommendation 1: The RRB will develop and implement a program to conduct\nindependent medical review of present and future occupational disability applications.\nThe independent medical evaluators must be RRB-approved physicians, not\nspecifically labor or management affiliates, who are familiar with railroad injuries.\n\nThe RRB currently has a nationwide contract with QTC [Management, Inc.] that\nprovides consultative examinations (CE) when requested by the RRB. The QTC\nphysicians are all either Board-eligible or Board-certified and are well-versed in the\nnecessary protocols required in the occupational disability program. These physicians\nhave no affiliation with either rail labor or rail industry.\n\n\n\nProcessing of Railroad Worker Disability Claims (A-05-09-29119) G-1\n\x0cCEs will be ordered in present and future Long Island occupational disability cases\nwhen it is clear that the applicant is not totally and permanently disabled, does not suffer\nfrom a terminal illness or does not suffer from cancer. The usual procedure will be\nfollowed when ordering a CE in these Long Island cases.\n\nRecommendation 2: The RRB will develop and implement a program to re-evaluate\ndubious disability claims. This program should create a mechanism that will allow for\nmore regular and frequent re-evaluations of disability annuitants.\n\nThe RRB currently has a program in place to review cases awarded an occupational\ndisability that is codified in the RRB\xe2\x80\x99s regulations. The post section of the disability\ndivision, which consists of the more experienced disability claims examiners, currently\nconducts a continuing disability review (CDR) on employees receiving an occupational\ndisability annuity who are totally and permanently disabled for all work. The post\nsection will expand its review of occupational disability cases for Long Island retirees\nand begin reviewing those Long Island cases where the employee is occupationally\ndisabled and not totally and permanently disabled. The disability staff will follow\nprocedures already in place when conducting these reviews.\n\nRecommendation 3: The RRB will outline how it will institute greater oversight controls\nover the Long Island regional RRB office and its employees.\n\nThe Board will direct the Director of Programs to assign the district manager of the\nNewark office, who is the Network Manager over the Westbury office, to conduct on-site\nquarterly office reviews. Additional[ly], the Network Manager will also conduct\nscheduled biweekly telephone meetings with the Westbury district manager and her\nstaff to ensure that [the] office is operating efficiently.\n\nRecommendation 4: The RRB will institute programmatic changes that will trigger\ninternal investigations into high numbers of particular ailment claims.\n\nThe Board will direct the Director of Programs to assign this task to the Director of\nAssessment and Training, who will coordinate her efforts with the disability divisions and\nany other unit she deems necessary. Her task will be, on an ongoing basis, to collect\ndata and analyze information that identifies the diagnoses of each pending and future\nLong Island case to ascertain if there are any unusual patterns. The Director of\nAssessment and Training will also be charged with analyzing relevant data collected\nfrom the increased number of CDRs that will be conducted for those Long Island\nemployees who have been already awarded an occupational disability, as described in\nour plan for Recommendation 2. The focus of these analyses will be on those cases\nwhere the main diagnosis is degenerative arthritis but will also look for unusual patterns\ninvolving other diagnoses as well.\n\nRecommendation 5: The RRB will institute more stringent review of management\nemployees accessing the occupational disability program.\n\n\n\n\nProcessing of Railroad Worker Disability Claims (A-05-09-29119) G-2\n\x0cThe Board will direct the Director of Programs to assign this task to the Director of\nAssessment and Training, who will coordinate her efforts with the disability division and\nany other unit she deems necessary. Her task will be, on a continuing basis, to identify\nthose Long Island employees receiving an occupational disability annuity who retired\nfrom the Long Island as non-bargaining managers, collect data and analyze this\ninformation to ascertain if there are any unusual patterns in this area. This ongoing\neffort will also apply to those individuals with pending applications as well as those who\nfile in the future.\n\n\n\n\nProcessing of Railroad Worker Disability Claims (A-05-09-29119) G-3\n\x0c Appendix H\n\nScope and Methodology\nTo accomplish our objective, we:\n\n\xef\x82\xb7 Reviewed applicable laws, regulations and Social Security Administration (SSA)\n policies and procedures, including sections of SSA\xe2\x80\x99s Online Handbook and Program\n Operations Manual System. We also reviewed applicable sections of the Railroad\n Retirement Act, Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) Handbook and RRB policies and\n procedures.\n\n\xef\x82\xb7 Reviewed prior SSA and RRB Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and\n Government Accountability Office reports.\n\n\xef\x82\xb7 Reviewed a sample of Joint Freeze, Unilateral Freeze, and occupational case files\n maintained by SSA and RRB to obtain a general understanding of the RRB and SSA\n disability claims process.\n\n\xef\x82\xb7 Interviewed and held discussions at SSA with representatives from the Great Lakes\n Program Service Center\xe2\x80\x99s Disability Processing Branch, Office of Financial Policy\n and Operations, Office of Quality Performance, and the Office of the Chief Actuary.\n\n\xef\x82\xb7 Interviewed and held discussions at RRB with representatives from the OIG Office of\n Audit, Office of Programs and the Bureau of the Actuary to learn more about the\n railroad worker disability claims process.\n\nThis review did not entail a review of the (1) reliability of the SSA and RRB workload\ncounts or (2) internal controls related to the Financial Interchange. The SSA entities\nreviewed were the Offices of the Deputy Commissioner for Retirement and Disability\nPolicy and the Chief Actuary. We performed our review in Chicago, Illinois, between\nJanuary and March 2009 in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspections\nissued by the President\xe2\x80\x99s Council on Integrity and Efficiency.\n\n\n\n\nProcessing of Railroad Worker Disability Claims (A-05-09-29119)\n\x0c Appendix I\n\nOIG Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments\n\nOIG Contacts\n Walter E. Bayer, Jr., Director, Chicago Audit Division\n\n Annette Dunn, Audit Manager, Chicago Audit Office\n\nAcknowledgments\nIn addition to those named above:\n\n Lorrie Clement, Auditor-in-Charge\n\nFor additional copies of this report, please visit our web site at\nwww.socialsecurity.gov/oig or contact the Office of the Inspector General\xe2\x80\x99s Public\nAffairs Staff Assistant at (410) 965-4518. Refer to Common Identification Number\nA-05-09-29119.\n\n\n\n\nProcessing of Railroad Worker Disability Claims (A-05-09-29119)\n\x0c DISTRIBUTION SCHEDULE\n\nCommissioner of Social Security\nOffice of Management and Budget, Income Maintenance Branch\nChairman and Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means\nChief of Staff, Committee on Ways and Means\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Social Security\nMajority and Minority Staff Director, Subcommittee on Social Security\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on the Budget, House of\nRepresentatives\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Oversight and Government\nReform\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Appropriations, House of\nRepresentatives\nChairman and Ranking Minority, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,\nEducation and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of\nRepresentatives\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human\nServices, Education and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Finance\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Social Security Pensions\nand Family Policy\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Senate Special Committee on Aging\nSocial Security Advisory Board\n\x0c Overview of the Office of the Inspector General\nThe Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is comprised of an Office of Audit (OA), Office of Investigations\n(OI), Office of the Counsel to the Inspector General (OCIG), Office of External Relations (OER), and Office of\nTechnology and Resource Management (OTRM). To ensure compliance with policies and procedures, internal\ncontrols, and professional standards, the OIG also has a comprehensive Professional Responsibility and Quality\nAssurance program.\n Office of Audit\nOA conducts financial and performance audits of the Social Security Administration\xe2\x80\x99s (SSA) programs and\noperations and makes recommendations to ensure program objectives are achieved effectively and efficiently.\nFinancial audits assess whether SSA\xe2\x80\x99s financial statements fairly present SSA\xe2\x80\x99s financial position, results of\noperations, and cash flow. Performance audits review the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of SSA\xe2\x80\x99s\nprograms and operations. OA also conducts short-term management reviews and program evaluations on issues\nof concern to SSA, Congress, and the general public.\n Office of Investigations\nOI conducts investigations related to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement in SSA programs and operations.\nThis includes wrongdoing by applicants, beneficiaries, contractors, third parties, or SSA employees performing\ntheir official duties. This office serves as liaison to the Department of Justice on all matters relating to the\ninvestigation of SSA programs and personnel. OI also conducts joint investigations with other Federal, State,\nand local law enforcement agencies.\n Office of the Counsel to the Inspector General\nOCIG provides independent legal advice and counsel to the IG on various matters, including statutes,\nregulations, legislation, and policy directives. OCIG also advises the IG on investigative procedures and\ntechniques, as well as on legal implications and conclusions to be drawn from audit and investigative material.\nAlso, OCIG administers the Civil Monetary Penalty program.\n Office of External Relations\nOER manages OIG\xe2\x80\x99s external and public affairs programs, and serves as the principal advisor on news releases\nand in providing information to the various news reporting services. OER develops OIG\xe2\x80\x99s media and public\ninformation policies, directs OIG\xe2\x80\x99s external and public affairs programs, and serves as the primary contact for\nthose seeking information about OIG. OER prepares OIG publications, speeches, and presentations to internal\nand external organizations, and responds to Congressional correspondence.\n Office of Technology and Resource Management\nOTRM supports OIG by providing information management and systems security. OTRM also coordinates\nOIG\xe2\x80\x99s budget, procurement, telecommunications, facilities, and human resources. In addition, OTRM is the\nfocal point for OIG\xe2\x80\x99s strategic planning function, and the development and monitoring of performance\nmeasures. In addition, OTRM receives and assigns for action allegations of criminal and administrative\nviolations of Social Security laws, identifies fugitives receiving benefit payments from SSA, and provides\ntechnological assistance to investigations.\n\x0c"


type: other

text:
⭐A Paloznaki Civil Egyesület Közhasznúsági jelentése évi működéséről
 A Paloznaki Civil Egyesület Közhasznúsági jelentése évi működéséről
 Download "A Paloznaki Civil Egyesület Közhasznúsági jelentése 2008. évi működéséről"
 1 Paloznaki Civil Egyesület Paloznak, Balatoni u.7. KSH nyilvántartási szám: 1156/06 KSH azonosító: Jogállás: közhasznú Bírósági bejegyzés száma: 2.591/2005 A Paloznaki Civil Egyesület Közhasznúsági jelentése évi működéséről Tartalma: 1. Számviteli beszámoló 2. Költségvetési támogatás felhasználása 3. Vagyonfelhasználással kapcsolatos kimutatás 4. Cél szerinti juttatások 5. Központi költségvetési szervtől, elkülönített állami pénzalapból, helyi önkormányzattól, pályázatokból kapott támogatás mértéke. 6. A közhasznú szervezet vezető tisztségviselőinek nyújtott juttatások mértéke, összege 7. A közhasznú szervezet működéséről szóló rövid tartalmi beszámoló Paloznak,2 A Paloznaki Civil Egyesületet év júniusában a Veszprém megyei Bíróság közhasznú szervezetként nyilvántartásba vette. A közhasznú szervezetekről szóló évi CLVI. Tv. 19. alapján az alábbi közhasznúsági jelentést terjesztem elő:. 1.) Számviteli beszámoló: Alaptevékenység bevételei: Tagdíj Ft Egyéb alaptev. Kapcs. Bevétel Ft Egyéb támogatás Ft Önkormányzattól kapott támogatás Ft Egyéb szervtől kapott támogatás Ft Kamat bevétel Ft Összesen Ft Alaptevékenység költségei, kiadásai:3 Anyagköltség Ft egyéb anyag ktg Ft (rendezvényekhez vásárolt agok) Irodaszer, nyomtatvány Ft Sportfelszerelés - Ft közüzemi díjak Ft Igénybevett szolgáltatások ktg-ei Ft Szállítási díjak Ft Bérleti díjak Ft Reklám ag Ft Oktatási ktg - Ft Telefon, posta ktg Ft Könyvelési díj Ft E. ig.bevett szolg ktg-ei Ft Egyéb szolgáltatások ktg-ei Ft bankktg-ek Ft Különféle e. ktg-ek Ft Személyi jellegű kifizetések Ft gk. ktg térítés Ft Értékcsökkenés Ft egyösszegben elszám. ÉCS Ft Egyéb ráfordítás Ft Nyújtott támogatás (rendezv.sátor) Ft Összesen: Ft Pénzeszközök állománya december 31- én Bankszámlán Ft Házipénztár Ft Összesen Ft Összes bevétel Ft Összes költség, kiadás Ft Eredmény (összes bev-összes kltg, kiadás) Ft Eredménytartalék (2007-s eredmény) Ft Szállítói tartozás (pályázati díj Ft Pénzeszközök összesen Ft A 224/2000 Korm.rendelet szerinti beszámolót mellékelten csatolom. 2.) Költségvetési és támogatások felhasználása:4 Egyesületünk közvetlen költségvetési támogatásban nem részesült, az egyéb támogatások az e) pontban kerülnek részletezésre. 3.) Vagyon felhasználásával kapcsolatos kimutatás; Az Egyesület nagy érték ű vagyontárggyal nem rendelkezik. A kis érték ű tárgyi eszközöket (< Ft) túlnyomórészt az Önkormányzat által rendelkezésre bocsátott helyiségben tartja. Elkészült a Farkas-féle ház lépcsőfeljárójában kialakított egyesületi szertár novemberében kezelésre megkaptuk a Paloznaki Sportpályát.. Gondnoki szerző dést kötöttünk Szente Zsolttal ( Paloznak, Sáfrány u.4) a pályát a jó gazda gondosságával üzemeltetjük. A pálya nyereségesen üzemel. 4.) Cél szerinti juttatások kimutatása; Magánszemélyt vagy gazdasági társaságot cél szerinti juttatásban nem részesítettünk. Célfeladatra az egyesületen belül működ ő csoportok az alábbi támogatást kapták. Csoport támogatások: Terv Tény Sport Ft Ft Nyugdíjasklub Ft Ft Kórus Ft Ft Hímzőkör Ft Ft 2008.decemberében új csoport alakult, Faluvéd ő Csoport ( PaCiFa) néven, mely a településkép megő rzésében, településfejlesztési tevékenységben, az épített-és a természeti környezet védelmében mű ködik közre. A csoport nem részesült juttatásban. A csoport bírósági bejegyzése márciusára várható. 5.) A központi költségvetési szervtő l, az elkülönített állami pénzalaptól, a helyi önkormányzattól, a települési önkormányzatok társulásától és mindezek szerveitő l kapott támogatás mértéke: Paloznak Község Önkormányzatától: évre kapott támogatás Ft, 2009 februárban Önkormányzat felé elszámolva. A beszámolót a Képviselő testület egyhangúan elfogadta.5 NCA Közép dunántúli regionális kollégiumának mű ködési célú pályázata: Megvalósítás idő szaka: 2007 június május 31. Elnyert összeg: Ft júniusban elszámolva Az adó 1%-ából befolyt összeg Ft- felhasználásáról ig kell elszámolni. A támogatásokat az Egyesület alapszabályában foglalt célok megvalósítására használta fel. 6.) A közhasznú szervezet vezet ő tisztségviselő inek nyújtott juttatások értéke, illetve összege: Tisztségviselő k társadalmi munkában végezték munkájukat. Munkabért, költségtérítést részükre nem számoltunk el. Természetbeni juttatásban nem részesültek. Minden felmerülő költségüket térítésmentesen adták az Egyesület részére. 7.) A közhasznú tevékenységrő l szóló rövid tartalmi beszámoló: Egyesületünket a hét tagú Elnökség irányítja. Tagjaink száma 133 f ő, akik zöme paloznaki lakos. Az Ellenőrző Bizottság az Elnökség üléseire mindig meghívást kapott, munkánkat figyelemmel kísérte. Rendezvényeinkhez a helyiségeket az Önkormányzat térítésmentesen bocsátja rendelkezésünkre. Az egyesület tevékenysége nyilvános, az általa nyújtott szolgáltatások közösségi célokat szolgálnak. A keletkezett eredményt nem osztotta fel, azt a közhasznú célok megvalósítása érdekében használta fel. Az egyesület politikai tevékenységet nem folytatott, pártoktól függetlenül működött, tőlük anyagi támogatást nem kapott, nem fogadott el. Programjaink jellege szerint: -közösség építő (falunapok, kirándulások, bálok, disznóvágás, Márton nap) -sport és egészség megőrző (sportversenyek, gyalogtúrák, biciklitúra) -kulturális- ismeretterjesztő (kiállítások, előadások) körbe sorolhatók. Programjaink nyitottak, az egész faluközösség számára hozzáférhetőek. Egyesületünk tagjai az elmúlt évek során is jelentős társadalmi tevékenységet végeztek, aktívan részt vettek és részt kívánnak venni a közösségi életben, immár szervezett formában.6 Programlista 2008 dátum program rendező január 5. Pohárköszöntő Önkormányzat január 19. Pótszilveszter Nyugdíjasklub január 25. Ökumenikus imahét zárás Ref. Egyházk. január 26. Disznóvágás PaCi, január 26. Fazekas kiállítás PaCi, február 14. Egészségnap Önk.-Asszonyklub-PaCi március Békéscsaba textilkonferencia Hímzőkör, március 16. Húsvéti játszóház PaCi március 21. Passió Csopak Kórus műsor, Református Egyház március 24. Barkatúra PaCi március 28. Gólyafészek PaCi április 5. Faluszépítés Önkormányzat, társadalmi munka április 11. Mandulaünnep,kiálítás felsőörs Riviéra,hímzőkör április 12. Mandulaünnep Riviéra, Kórus. április 17. Alalkuló ülés Éltető-Balaton F.E É.B.F.E április Papírgyűjtés PaCi április 25. Színház Petőfi színház május 1. Focikupa PaCi május 5. Hangfelvétel Kórus május Magyarpolány pünkösdi forgatag Mpolány Önkormányzat május 24. Kirándulás Tata,Komárom,Komárno PaCi május 25. Csereber piac/lángos sütés PaCi május Mór továbbképzés Régió,Hímzőkör május 31. Jutalomkirándulás Cuha völgy PaCi június 7. Színház Petőfi színház Paloznak június éves a hímzőkör Önk.PaCi Hímzékör,Kórus június Országos hímzőtábor Tálya Tálya Önk.Hímzőkör június 21. Ürgeleső túra PaCi június 24. Román Magy.Népm.Egyesület Hímzőkör, július 4. Magyar kézm.vajdahunyadvára Nemz.Kult.Örökség, Hímzőkör július 29. Papsoka Balatonfüred B.für.önk.Kórus augusztus Pusztaszentlászló, kirándulás Hímzőkör, 6. Szüret-elő P.SzH.E,PaCi 9. Madárijesztő megbeszélés Riviéra, Csopak Önk. 10. Falunapi megbesz. Paloznak Önk. 11. Falumegújítás Paloznak Önk. 17. Márton napi megbeszélés PaCi 20. Madárijesztő Riviéra, Csopak Önk. 26. Falunap Paloznak Önk. október Hangfelvétel II. Kórus7 november 8. Márton nap PaCi,P.SzH.E november Budapest zsűrizés Nemz.Kult.Örökség, Hímzőkör november 14. Berecz est Pal.önk.Alapítvány,PaCi november 22. Biblia éve PaCi november 28. Sz.f.v.adventi kiállítás Sz.f.vönk,Hímzőkör november 29. Megyei Kórus Találkozó Pétf.önk,Kórus december 6. Szépkorúak ünnepsége Paloznak Önk.Kórus december 12. Ünnepv. kar.fa díszítő Alsóörs Alsóörsi önk.hímzőkör december 13 Játszóház,Luca napi ping-pong PaCi Állandó programok: Paloznaki Kórus próbái hetente, Paloznaki Hímzőkör összejövetelei novembertől áprilisig hetente, tömegsport (jóga, futbal, asztalitenisz heti rendszerességgel.)nyugdíjas klub 2 hetente ősztől tavaszig Kapcsolattartás, publikáció: Külkapcsolataink rendezettek. A Paloznakon belüli Civil szervezetekkel, Alapítványokkal, Katolikus és Református egyházzal, Önkormányzattal napi munkakapcsolatunk van. A Paloznaki Hírmondóban havonta tájékoztatjuk a lakosságot tevékenységünkről. A Balatonfüredi térségi Civil kerekasztal munkájában részt veszünk, Leitold József az elnökség tagja. A Balatonfüredi Mozgáskorlátozott Egyesülettel együttműködési megállapodásunk van. A környező településeken a Kórus és a Hímzőkör rendszeresen részt vesz előadóként, kiállítóként a programokon. Veszprém megye: o A munkánkról a Veszprém megyei Napló évente többször tudósít. o A Balatonfelvidék Leader Akciócsoport alapító tagjai vagyunk, üléseiken részt veszünk.. o A Veszprém megyei Közművelődési Intézettel együttműködési megállapodásunk van. o A Veszprémi Civil Ház rendezvényein részt veszünk. Országos kapcsolatok: Az MTV1 és a Kossuth rádió programismertetőiben jelentősebb programjainkról ismertetőt adnak (Ürge leső kerékpár túra, disznóvágás, falunap, Márton nap). Az Országos Turisztikai Egyesület Márton napi rendezvényünket a 2009-as programajánlójában szerepelteti. Együttműködési megállapodásunk van a Csákánydoroszlói Civil Egyesülettel. Kárpát- medence: Pálpataka testvértelepüléssel való kapcsolattartásban aktívan részt veszünk. Kérem a Közgyűlést, hogy beszámolómat elfogadni szíveskedjék. Paloznak, március 24 Hernádi Péter8 Elnök Hasonló dokumentumok
 Paloznaki Civil Egyesület Paloznak, Balatoni u.7. KSH nyilvántartási szám: 1156/06 KSH azonosító: 602006 Jogállás: közhasznú Bírósági bejegyzés száma: 2.591/2005 A Paloznaki Civil Egyesület Közhasznúsági Részletesebben A Lovas Jövőjéért Egyesület. Közhasznúsági jelentése 2010. évi működéséről
 Lovas Jövőjéért Egyesület Lovas, Fő u. 8. KSH azonosító: 721338 Jogállás: közhasznú Bírósági bejegyzés száma: 60.067/2009/5. A Lovas Jövőjéért Egyesület Közhasznúsági jelentése 2010. évi működéséről Tartalma: Részletesebben K Ö Z H A S Z N Ú S Á G I J E L E N T É S
 A számviteli törvény szerinti egyéb szervezetek közhasznú egyszerűsített éves beszámolója 2012 év Tüttő János Nótaklub Közhasznú Egyesület egyéb szervezet megnevezése 8800 Nagykanizsa, Munkás u. 1/B címe Részletesebben 2011. évi. Közhasznúsági jelentése
 Varázshangok az Egészségért Egyesület 8315 Gyenesdiás, Madách u. 24. 2011. évi Közhasznúsági jelentése Amely készült a Varázshangok az Egészségért Egyesület 2011. évi működéséről A közhasznú szervezetekről Részletesebben A számviteli törvény szerinti egyéb szervezetek egyszerűsített éves beszámolója
 KÖRZETI TŰZOLTÓ EGYESÜLET LETENYE 8868 Letenye, Kossuth L. u.58. KÖZHASZNÚSÁGI JELENTÉS 2013 évről Készítette: Talentum Kontakt kft 2014-04-22 Tartalom 1. A szervezet alapadatai 2. Számviteli beszámoló Részletesebben Közhasznúsági jelentés 2003. évről
 Moravcsik Alapítvány K Ö Z H A S Z N Ú S Á G I J E L E N T É S 2003 Budapest, 2004. 2 T a r t a l o m 1. A szervezet alapadatai 2. A Moravcsik Alapítvány számviteli beszámolója 3. Kimutatás a költségvetési Részletesebben Közhasznú Egyéb Szervezet Egyszerűsített Beszámolója
 Budafoki Nyolcévfolyamos Oktatásért Alapítvány 1223.Budapest Közgazdász utca 9-11 KÖZHASZNÚSÁGI JELENTÉS 2012 évről Tartalom 1. A szervezet alapadatai 2. Számviteli beszámoló 3. Kimutatás a költségvetési Részletesebben Közhasznúsági jelentés 2014 év
 K Ö Z H A S Z N Ú S Á G I J E L E N T É S 2006 Üllıi Mozgáskorlátozottak Egyesülete székhely: 2225. Üllı, Pesti út 124. adószám: 18664940213 közhasznúsági fokozat: kiemelkedıen közhasznú szervezet kiemelkedıen Részletesebben TASSI HELYTÖRTÉNETI EGYESÜLET 6098 Tass, Dózsa György út 24.
 Magyar NetGombász Közhasznú Egyesület 1142 Budapest, Dorozsmai u. 9/c. 2010. évi Közhasznúsági jelentése Budapest, 2011. február 26. Mezei György elnök 1 1. SZÁMVITELI BESZÁMOLÓ Magyar NetGombász Közhasznú Részletesebben K Ö Z H A S Z N Ú S Á G I J E L E N T É S
 Közhasznúsági jelentés Békés és Környéke Biokultúra Közhasznú Egyesület Időszak: 2008.január 1,-2008.december I. A beszámoló tartalma: 1, Számviteli beszámoló. A költségvetési támogatás felhasználása. Részletesebben K Ö Z H A S Z N Ú S Á G I J E L E N T É S
 BJO Nonprofit Kft. K Ö Z H A S Z N Ú S Á G I J E L E N T É S 2011 Budapest, 2012. május 25. 2 T a r t a l o m 1. A kettős könyvvitelt vezető BJO Nonprofit Kft. egyszerűsített éves beszámolója 2. Kimutatás Részletesebben MAGYAR ATLANTI TANÁCS Budapest,1016. Bérc.u.13-16
 MAGYAR ATLANTI TANÁCS Budapest,1016. Bérc.u.13-16 Közhasznúsági jelentés és a 2010. évi beszámoló kiegészítő melléklete 1. A szervezet alapadatai, működési formája: Működési forma: társadalmi szervezet Részletesebben K Ö Z H A S Z N Ú S Á G I J E L E N T É S
 Magyar Viselkedéstanulmányi és Kognitív Terápiás Egyesület K Ö Z H A S Z N Ú S Á G I J E L E N T É S 2007 Budapest, 2008. 2 T a r t a l o m 1. A szervezet alapadatai 2. A Magyar Viselkedéstanulmányi és Részletesebben FACULTAS NONPROFIT KÖZHASZNÚ KFT.
 KÖZHASZNÚSÁGI JELENTÉS FACULTAS KÖZHASZNÚ NONPROFIT KFT 2011. évi tevékenységéről (készült a közhasznú szervezetekről szóló 1997. évi CLVI. Törvény 19. előírásai szerint) FACULTAS NONPROFIT KÖZHASZNÚ KFT. Részletesebben ŐCSÉNYI REPÜLŐKLUB SE K Ö Z H A S Z N Ú S Á G I J E L E N T É S
 ŐCSÉNYI REPÜLŐKLUB SE K Ö Z H A S Z N Ú S Á G I J E L E N T É S 2010 TARTALOM 1. Számviteli beszámoló 2. Költségvetési támogatás felhasználása 3. A vagyon felhasználásával kapcsolatos kimutatás 4. Cél Részletesebben KÖZHASZNÚSÁGI JELENTÉS (TERVEZET) Környezeti Tanácsadók Egyesülete 2008
 KÖZHASZNÚSÁGI JELENTÉS (TERVEZET) Környezeti Tanácsadók Egyesülete 2008 1. Számviteli beszámoló A Mérleg és az Eredménylevezetés mellékelve. 2. A költségvetési támogatás felhasználása Az egyesület ilyen Részletesebben Pomázi Zenekastély Nonprofit Kft Közhasznúsági jelentés. Készítette: Quadrantida Kft. 2015 március 31.
 Pomázi Zenekastély Nonprofit Kft Közhasznúsági jelentés Készítette: Quadrantida Kft. 2015 március 31. Pomázi Zenekastély Nonprofit Kft. 2013 Pomáz, Templom tér 3. 2014. évi Közhasznúsági jelentése Budapest, Részletesebben 2010. évi Közhasznúsági jelentés
 Törökbálinti Városőrség Polgárőr Egyesület, Törökbálint 18028049-1-13 i Közhasznúsági jelentés Kelt: Törökbálint, 2011. május 10. képviselő 1. SZÁMVITELI BESZÁMOLÓ A szervezet ben gazdálkodásáról a számviteli Részletesebben Budakeszi Cserkészekért Alapítvány 2092 Budakeszi, Rózsa u. 3.
 KÖZHASZNÚSÁGI JELENTÉS 2009 Az egyéb szervezet megnevezése: Budakeszi Cserkészekért Alapítvány Az egyéb szervezet címe (székhely): Adószám: 18693805-1-13 Közhasznúsági fokozat: közhasznú Közhasznúsági Részletesebben SZKÉNÉ SZÍNHÁZ NONPROFIT KÖZHASZNÚ KFT. 2011. évi közhasznúsági jelentése
 SZKÉNÉ SZÍNHÁZ NONPROFIT KÖZHASZNÚ KFT. 2011. évi közhasznúsági jelentése A Nonprofit Közhasznú Kft. a közhasznú szervezetekről szóló 1997. évi CLVI. Törvény 19. meghatározott módon közhasznúsági jelentést Részletesebben NÉZZ JÉZUSRA REFOR MÁTUS HITÉLETI ALAPÍTVÁNY
 Adószám: 18560293-1-09 Bejegyző szerv: Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Bíróság Regisztrációs 2053 szám: 4025 Debrecen, Barna u. 2. fsz./1. Közhasznúsági jelentés 2010. Fordulónap: 2010. december 31. Beszámolási időszak: Részletesebben Magyar Hangszermíves Céh Közhasznú Egyesület 1039 Budapest, Barátpatak u. 6/B. 2011. évi Közhasznúsági jelentése
 Magyar Hangszermíves Céh Közhasznú Egyesület 1039 Budapest, Barátpatak u. 6/B. i Közhasznúsági jelentése Budapest,2012.március 7. A Magyar Hangszermíves Céh Közhasznú Egyesület Közhasznúsági jelentése Részletesebben 2013. évi. Közhasznúsági jelentése
 FAKULT Egyesület 2023 Dunabogdány, Hegy u.7. Fiatalok a Kultúráért Közhasznú Egyesület 2008. ÉVI K Ö Z H A S Z N Ú S Á G I J E L E N T É S E 1 Dunabogdány, 2009. május 20. Tóth László FAKULT Egyesület Részletesebben FIATALOK KÜLDETÉSSEL ALAPÍTVÁNY 1061. BUDAPEST, PAULAY EDE UTCA 15.
 FIATALOK KÜLDETÉSSEL ALAPÍTVÁNY 1061. BUDAPEST, PAULAY EDE UTCA 15. 2012. évi Közhasznúsági jelentése Budapest, 2013. május 30. Steven Johnson képviselő FIATALOK KÜLDETÉSSEL ALAPÍTVÁNY Közhasznúsági jelentés Részletesebben KIEGÉSZÍTŐ MELLÉKLET. Szt. Márton Ifjúsági és Vizisport Közhasznú Egyesület. 2014. évi Egyszerűsített Éves Beszámolójához
 KIEGÉSZÍTŐ MELLÉKLET a Szt. Márton Ifjúsági és Vizisport Közhasznú Egyesület 2014. évi Egyszerűsített Éves Beszámolójához 1. Számviteli beszámoló 1.1 A számviteli beszámoló bemutatása A számviteli beszámoló Részletesebben Közhasznúsági jelentése a 2011. évről
 "Együtt a gyermekekért" Alapítvány Kaposvár,Petőfi u. 2. 74 212. évi közhasznúsági jelentés 1. Név: "Együtt a gyermekekért" Alapítvány Székhely: 74 Kaposvár, Petőfi u. 2. Bejegyző határozat száma: Pk.21.218/1991/19/I.szám Részletesebben KOSSUTH ISKOLA GYŐR A KORSZERŰ SZAKKÉPZÉSÉRT ALAPÍTVÁNY 9025 Győr, Kossuth Lajos u. 7. 2009. évi közhasznúsági jelentése
 Gyógyszerészeti Dolgozók Szakszervezete a Munkanélküliekért Alapítvány K Ö Z H A S Z N Ú S Á G I J E L E N T É S 2004 Budapest, 2005. 2 T a r t a l o m 1. A szervezet alapadatai 2. A GYDSZ a Munkanélküliekért Részletesebben ZALASZENTGYÖRGYI IFJÚSÁGÉRT KULTURÁLIS ÉS SPORT KÖZALAPÍTVÁNY ZALASZENTGYÖRGY KÖZHASZNÚSÁGI JELENTÉSE 2010. ÉV
 ZALASZENTGYÖRGYI IFJÚSÁGÉRT KULTURÁLIS ÉS SPORT KÖZALAPÍTVÁNY ZALASZENTGYÖRGY KÖZHASZNÚSÁGI JELENTÉSE 2010. ÉV TARTALMI BESZÁMOLÓ A Zalaszentgyörgyi Ifjúságért Kulturális és Sport Közalapítványt 2001. Részletesebben Közhasznúsági jelentés
 Taita Alapítvány 1011 Budapest, Hunyadi János u. 22. Közhasznúsági jelentés 2010.12.31 Budapest, 2011.05.10 Az éves beszámoló adati könyvvizsgálattal nincsenek alátámasztva TARTALOMJEGYZÉK A Taita Alapítvány Részletesebben BESZÁMOLÓ. A Jász- Nagykun- Szolnok Megyei Polgári Védelmi Szövetség 2013. évi költségvetési gazdálkodásának alakulásáról
 1103 Budapest Kőér 2/B Adószám: 18191970-1-42 Bíróság nyilvántartási szám: 60.092 KÖZHASZNÚSÁGI JELENTÉS 2007. évi egyszerűsített éves beszámolóhoz Budapest, 2008.03.28 Általános rész A tevékenységét 2006-ben Részletesebben Hajós Alfréd Általános Iskola Alapítvány
 A számviteli törvény szerinti Közhasznú szervezetek egyszerűsített beszámolója 2010. év Hajós Alfréd Általános Iskola Alapítvány Gödöllő, 2011. március 8. Közhasznúsági jelentés 2010. A Hajós Alfréd Általános Részletesebben SIKERES GAZDASÁGÉRT KÖZHASZNÚ EGYESÜLET 2007. ÉVI KÖZHASZNÚSÁGI JELENTÉS
 18566945-8042-569-09 REVITA ALAPÍTVÁNY 4225 Debrecen, Csonkatorony u 4. KÖZHASZNÚSÁGI JELENTÉS 2007. ----------------------------------------------------- az egyéb szervezet képviselıje 1 EGYSZERES KÖNYVITELŐ Részletesebben 2010. évi Közhasznúsági jelentése
 A Sonkádi Európa Nostra Díjas Református Templomért Alapítvány 4954 Sonkád, Rákóczi u. 36. i Közhasznúsági jelentése Sonkád, 2011.03.21. Róka Edit Alapítvány elnöke 1. SZÁMVITELI BESZÁMOLÓ A Sonkádi Európa Részletesebben Közhasznúsági jelentése
 Az Alfa Polgárőr Egyesület Közhasznúsági jelentése a 2012. évről. A Fővárosi Bíróság 2009. szeptember hó 24-én kelt 12. Pk. 60.217/2009. sz. végzésével a13451.. sorszám alatt nyilvántartásba vett Alfa Részletesebben GRÓF ESTERHÁZY KÓRHÁZ JÖVŐJÉÉRT ALAPÍTVÁNY 8500 Pápa, Jókai u. 5-9. 2010. évi Közhasznúsági jelentése. kuratóriumi elnök
 KÖZHASZNÚSÁGI JELENTÉS FACULTAS Közhasznú Nonprofit Kft 2010. évi tevékenységéről (készült a közhasznú szervezetekről szóló 1997. évi CLVI. Törvény 19. előírásai szerint) FACULTAS KÖZHASZNÚ NONPROFIT KFT Részletesebben KÖZHASZNÚSÁGI JELENTÉS 2011. ALU-SE Alapítvány
 II. A költségvetési támogatás felhasználásáról Támogatást Támogatás Felhasználás Felhasználás összege Elszámolás nyújtó megnevezése Időpontja Összege (Ft) célja Előző évi Tárgyévi Tárgyévet követő időpontja Részletesebben Élő Kövek Alapítvány 8056 Bakonycsernye Dózsa Gy. út 1. 2013. évi Közhasznúsági jelentése
 Adószám: 18689156-1-13 Bejegyző szerv: PEST MEGYEI BÍRÓSÁG Regisztrációs szám: 1100 SZENTJÁNOSBOGÁR KÖZHASZNÚ EGYESÜLET 2099. Dobogókő, Fény utca 1. KÖZHASZNÚSÁGI JELENTÉS 2003. Fordulónap: 2003. december Részletesebben KÖZHASZNÚSÁGI JELENTÉS. 2013. év
 KÖZHASZNÚSÁGI JELENTÉS 2013. év Alapítvány neve, címe: Mohács és Vidéke Ipari és kereskedelmi Szakképzéséért Alapítvány 7700 Mohács, Kossuth L. u. 71. Alapítvány adószáma: 18303913-1-02 Nyilvántartási Részletesebben A szervezet megnevezése: Dobogókőért Közhasznú Alapítvány. A szervezet székhelye: 2099 Dobogókő Eötvös sétány 10
 A szervezet megnevezése: Dobogókőért Közhasznú Alapítvány A szervezet székhelye: 2099 Dobogókő Eötvös sétány 10 Statisztikai számjel: 18666777-9133-569-13 (adószám, csekkszámlaszám) 18666777-1-13 Cégjegyzék Részletesebben SM Betegek Gy-M-S M. Egyesülete
 1 2 3 2 2-4 - 5 2-0 0 Töltéstava, Petőfi út 51. Közhasznú Egyéb Szervezet Egyszerűsített Éves Beszámolója Éves zárómérleg 2014. január 01. - 2014. december 31. 2014 Kelt Töltéstava, 2015. május 2. P. H. Részletesebben KÖZHASZNÚSÁGI JELENTÉS mely készült a. Magyar Történelmi Társulat 2007.évi működési támogatásairól és költségeiről
 KÖZHASZNÚSÁGI JELENTÉS mely készült a Magyar Történelmi Társulat 2007.évi működési támogatásairól és költségeiről Részei: 1. Számviteli beszámoló 2. Kapott támogatások és felhasználásuk 3. Vagyon felhasználása Részletesebben K Ö Z H A S Z N Ú S Á G I J E L E N T É S
 K Ö Z H A S Z N Ú S Á G I J E L E N T É S 2007 Újlak Diákalapítvány székhely: 1173 Budapest, Újlak utca 110. adószám: 19668521-1-42 közhasznúsági fokozat: közhasznú szervezet Tartalom 1. Számviteli beszámoló Részletesebben Okányi Horgász Egyesület 5534, Okány, Rákóczi u. 55. 2011. évi Közhasznúsági jelentése
 DUNA EGYESÜLET Közhasznúsági jelentés 2011. május 17. 1 Duna Egyesület 1126 Budapest, Orbánhegyi út 30. 2010. évi Közhasznúsági jelentése Budapest, 2011. május 17. Dr. Nagy Péter Elnök 2 A Duna Egyesület Részletesebben Egészség és Egység a Természettel Egyesület Veszprém, Diófa u. 5. 2010. közhasznúsági jelentés
 Egészség és Egység a Természettel Egyesület Egészség és Egység a Természettel Egyesület 8200 2010. évi Közhasznúsági jelentéssel azonos tartalmú jelentése 2011. február 17. Stéger Ildikó A 2010. évi pénzügyi Részletesebben Közhasznúsági jelentés 2007.
 Adószám: 18259089-1-43 Bejegyző szerv: Fővárosi Bíróság Regisztrációs szám: 12215. Közhasznúsági jelentés 2007. Fordulónap: 2007. december 31. Beszámolási időszak: 2007. január 01. - 2007. december 31. Részletesebben PICI-TALPAK Gyermekgondozó Egyesület Közhasznúsági jelentés. 2010. április 10.
 PICI-TALPAK Gyermekgondozó Egyesület Közhasznúsági jelentés 2010. április 10. PICI-TALPAK Gyermekgondozó Egyesület 6500 Baja, Viza u. 13. 2009. évi Közhasznúsági jelentése Baja, 2010. április 10. Bertáné Részletesebben T A R T A L O M. 1. A szervezet alapadatai. 2. Egyszeres könyvvitelt vezető alapítványok közhasznú beszámolójának mérlege
 Hit és Fény Alapítvány KÖZHASZNÚSÁGI JELENTÉS 2008. Budapest, 2009. május 30. 2 T A R T A L O M 1. A szervezet alapadatai 2. Egyszeres könyvvitelt vezető alapítványok közhasznú beszámolójának mérlege 3. Részletesebben Szórakaténusz Európai Játékközpont Alapítvány. 6000 Kecskemét, Gáspár András utca 11. Közhasznú alapítványok közhasznú egyszerűsített beszámolója
 Szórakaténusz Európai Játékközpont Alapítvány 6000 Kecskemét, Gáspár András utca 11. Közhasznú alapítványok közhasznú egyszerűsített beszámolója 2011 A Szórakaténusz Európai Játékközpont Alapítványt a Részletesebben KÖZHASZNÚSÁGI JELENTÉS 2002 1
 Közhasznúsági jelentés Csillogó Gyermekszemek Alapítvány 4100 Berettyóújfalu Vass Jenő u. 8. 2011. évi Közhasznúsági jelentése Gálné Tóth Klára elnök 1. SZÁMVITELI BESZÁMOLÓ A Csillogó Gyermekszemek Alapítvány Részletesebben T A R T A L O M. 1. A szervezet alapadatai. 2. Egyszeres könyvvitelt vezető alapítványok közhasznú beszámolójának mérlege
 Hit és Fény Alapítvány KÖZHASZNÚSÁGI JELENTÉS 2010. Budapest, 2011. május 20. 2 T A R T A L O M 1. A szervezet alapadatai 2. Egyszeres könyvvitelt vezető alapítványok közhasznú beszámolójának mérlege 3. Részletesebben KÖZHASZNÚSÁGI JELENTÉS. 2012. év
 KÖZHASZNÚSÁGI JELENTÉS 2012. év Alapítvány neve, címe: Mohács és Vidéke Ipari és kereskedelmi Szakképzéséért Alapítvány 7700 Mohács, Kossuth L. u. 71. Alapítvány adószáma: 18303913-1-02 Nyilvántartási Részletesebben Közhasznúsági jelentés
 MTH Magyar Túra Hajó Közhasznú Vitorlás Egyesület 2400 Dunaújváros, Semmelweis utca 1. III./12. 2011. évi Közhasznúsági jelentése Dunaújváros, 2012. május 19. Katona Dániel elnök Az MTH Magyar Túra Hajó Részletesebben A Byblos Alapítvány közhasznú szervezet. 2012. évi közhasznúsági jelentése
 A Byblos Alapítvány közhasznú szervezet székhely: 1026 Budapest, Pasaréti út 66/b a.sz.: 18132283-1-41 2012. évi közhasznúsági jelentése Hudecz András a Kuratórium elnöke 2013. május 18. A közhasznú szervezetekről Részletesebben KÖZHASZNÚSÁGI JELENTÉS 2008. Tartalom
 Közhasznúsági jelentés TORNATEREMÉRT Kiemelten Közhasznú alapítvány Kuratóriumának 1/2013. (13.04.24.) sz. határozata:(kivonat a jegyzőkönyvből): A Kuratórium elfogadta a 2012. évi TORNATEREMÉRT alapítvány Részletesebben Összefogás a Börtönügyért Egyesület 9021 Győr, Jókai utca 18. 2011. évi Közhasznúsági jelentése
 Összefogás a Börtönügyért Egyesület 9021 Győr, Jókai utca 18. 2011. évi Közhasznúsági jelentése Győr, 2012. február 4. elnök Az Összefogás a Börtönügyért Egyesület Közhasznúsági jelentése a 2011-es esztendőről Részletesebben Kecskeméti Vadaskert Nonprofit Kft 2011. ÉVI KÖZHASZNÚSÁGI JELENTÉS
 KÖZHASZNÚSÁGI JELENTÉSE 2009 Tartalmazza: - Költségvetési támogatás felhasználása - Vagyon felhasználásával kapcsolatos kimutatás - Cél szerinti juttatások kimutatása - Kapott támogatásokról szóló kimutatás Részletesebben KERESZTÚRI REFORMÁTUS MISSZIÓ ALAPÍTVÁNY. Tartalom
 Közhasznúsági jelentés 2005 MISKOLCZI BORBARÁTOK TÁRSASÁGA KÖZHASZNÚ EGYESÜLET 3527 Miskolc, Besenyõi u. 8. www.miskolciborbaratok.hu 2 Tartalom 1. Számviteli beszámoló 2. Kimutatás központi költségvetési Részletesebben KÖZHASZNÚSÁGI JELENTÉS. A Magyarországi Camphill Egyesület 2012. évi működéséről
 KÖZHASZNÚSÁGI JELENTÉS A Magyarországi Camphill Egyesület 2012. évi működéséről A beszámoló tartalma: 1. Egyszerűsített éves közhasznú beszámoló 2. A vagyon felhasználásával kapcsolatos kimutatás 3. A Részletesebben Bevételek alakulása: Kiadások alakulása:
 Alapítvány a Dányi Iskolásokért 2118 Dány, Szent Imre tér 1. KÖZHASZNÚSÁGI JELENTÉS 2008. év I. ALAPÍTVÁNY BEMUTATÁSA: Az alapítvány neve: ALAPÍTVÁNY A DÁNYI ISKOLÁSOKÉRT Székhelye: 2118 Dány, Szent Imre Részletesebben EGYÉB BERENDEZÉSEK, FELSZERELÉSEK, GÉPEK, JÁRMŰVEK
 FŐKÖNYVI KIVONAT 2013.01.01-2013.12.31 Psalmus Humanus Egyesület - 2013 Forgalom Fők.szám Megnevezés Tartozik Követel 1 14 3 31 36 38 381 384 39 392 4 41 45 454 463 464 471 474 49 5 51 143 145 149 1491 Részletesebben Mozdulj! Lellei Diáksport Egyesület
 1 8 7 7 6 4 2 9-9 3 1 2-5 2 1-1 4 Közhasznú Egyéb Szervezet Egyszerősített Beszámolója Éves zárómérleg 2011. január 01. - 2011. december 31. Kelt Balatonlelle, 2012. március 12. P. H. 1 8 7 7 6 4 2 9-9 Részletesebben Közhasznúsági jelentés