Federal Reports

The Postal Service develops a range of financial projections as part of its financial planning. A financial projection is an estimate or forecast of a future situation or trend based on a study of present and historical trends. The main projection the Postal Service completes is the annual financial plan, which estimates revenue, volume, and expenses for each fiscal year. The fiscal year (FY) 2020 plan was approved by the U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors in February 2020. On March 13, 2020, the President of the United States issued the national emergency declaration concerning the COVID-19 pandemic (pandemic). During the ongoing pandemic, the Postal Service has provided essential services as part of the nation’s critical infrastructure by continuously processing and delivering mail and packages. The pandemic continues to have an unpredictable impact on the economy, the Postal Service, and Postal Service finances. Our objective was to evaluate the reasonableness of the Postal Service’s projected financial scenarios as a result of the impact of the pandemic.

Without a sufficient management-control system and other improvements, the SLN program will not effectively promote risk reduction and pollution prevention.

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) evaluated allegations related to inappropriate language and conduct toward women veterans by a gynecological provider; a nurse chaperone’s failure to provide patient support; and three additional concerns related to compliance with patient complaint processes, facility leaders’ response to the gynecological provider’s misconduct, and deficiencies in reporting misconduct to state licensing board(s) and the National Practitioner Data Bank.The OIG substantiated that the gynecological provider’s conduct was unprofessional, unethical, and insensitive. The nurse chaperone did not provide support to, or advocate on behalf of, the patients. The OIG found the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has not incorporated key best practice strategies, such as trauma-informed care and sensitive examination policies, into training, policy, and practice. Further, VHA policies fall short in outlining expected chaperone responsibilities, duties, training, or competencies.Although facility patient advocates and quality management leaders tracked and trended patient complaints, the data was incomplete, limiting the accuracy and value of identified trends.Facility leaders had prior knowledge of the gynecological provider’s misconduct; however, leaders failed to effectively address misconduct for years by not timely performing informal or formal investigations and not reporting the provider to state licensing board(s) or the National Practitioner Data Bank despite evidence that the conduct may have met the reporting standards. The OIG made two recommendations to the Under Secretary for Health related to the role and training of providers and chaperones who conduct or provide support to patients during sensitive exams. The OIG made one recommendation to the Veterans Integrated Service Network Director related to facility processes for recording and tracking patient complaints.The OIG made three recommendations to the Facility Director regarding staff education on misconduct policies, administrative investigation policies, and review of the subject gynecologist’s conduct and quality of care provided.

We investigated allegations of improper conduct and actions by a GS-15 National Park Service (NPS) employee toward another NPS employee.The NPS employee said she felt uncomfortable when the GS-15 employee placed his hand on her lower back on multiple occasions, made inappropriate comments, and reached for her cell phone when it was in her lap during a taxi ride. The NPS employee said she did not express her discomfort to the GS-15 employee until he reached for her cell phone. The GS-15 employee said he did not specifically recall placing his hand on the NPS employee’s lower back to guide her through a door, although he said he had done that with both men and women in the past. The GS-15 employee told us he could not recall taking the cell phone from the junior employee’s lap in the taxi but that he may have in order to check the time because they were running late.We determined that the GS-15 employee’s conduct violated U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) and NPS policies on preventing and eliminating harassing conduct (Personnel Bulletin No. 18-01 and NPS Director’s Order 16E, respectively) in that it was unwelcome, was based on sex, and could reasonably be considered to have adversely affected the work environment.

What We Looked AtThe Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Airport Improvement Program (AIP) provides grants to public and private entities to enhance safety and security, maintain infrastructure, increase capacity, and mitigate airport noise. According to FAA, between 2019 and 2023, U.S. airports will need approximately $35.1 billion for these types of projects. Under the State Block Grant Program (SBGP), FAA provides AIP funds directly to Block Grant States (BGS), which then take on certain responsibilities for administering the AIP. Given the need to ensure that Federal funds are spent appropriately, as well as Congress’ recent expansion of the SBGP, we initiated this audit with the following objectives: to assess FAA’s oversight of (1) State project selection and (2) grantee and subgrantee compliance with Federal laws and regulations on the use of funds. What We FoundFAA performs few oversight activities during the project selection process. For example, while entitlement funds represent the majority of SBGP awards, FAA policy directs Agency officials to focus on projects seeking discretionary funds. We estimate that, as a result, FAA did not evaluate projects awarded $87.9 million in Federal funds. FAA did not provide BGS with consolidated guidance for almost 3 decades; consequently, BGS still do not fully understand their responsibilities. FAA also has never performed an assessment to ensure compliance with Federal requirements or required BGS to document their decisions. Thus, FAA may be funding airport projects that do not meet national priorities. Furthermore, FAA’s oversight does not prevent compliance gaps or resolve persistent programmatic issues. Finally, the Agency’s own reviews of the program have been inconsistent and do not assign responsibility for corrective actions or track grantee compliance. As a result, staff are unsure where to direct their oversight. Our RecommendationsWe made 13 recommendations to improve FAA’s oversight of SBGP project selection and grantee compliance with Federal financial laws and regulations. The Agency concurred with 11 of our recommendations and partially concurred with 2, proposing alternative actions. We consider all 13 recommendations to be resolved but open pending completion of planned actions.

What We Looked AtWe queried and downloaded 52 single audit reports prepared by non-Federal auditors and submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse between October 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020, to identify significant findings related to programs directly funded by the Department of Transportation (DOT). What We FoundWe found that reports contained a range of findings that impacted DOT programs. The auditors reported significant noncompliance with Federal guidelines related to eight grantees that require prompt action from DOT’s Operating Administrations (OA). The auditors also identified questioned costs totaling $5,130,999 for three grantees. RecommendationsWe recommend that DOT coordinate with the impacted OAs to develop a corrective action plan to resolve and close the findings identified in this report. We also recommend that DOT determine the allowability of the questioned transactions and recover $5,130,999, if applicable.

The unclassified version of the SAR covers the period from April 1, 2020 through September 30, 2020, and reflects what the NSA OIG could release publicly about its work for that Front Cover of the SARreporting period. The OIG issued 11 oversight products during the period, making 221 recommendations to assist the Agency in addressing the findings and deficiencies identified. NSA's management agreed with all but one OIG recommendation that was made during the reporting period (and has subsequently indicated that it intends to take action sufficient to meet the intent of that recommendation as well). The Director of the NSA and Congress received the classified version of the SAR in accordance with the IG Act.