Federal Reports

On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) was enacted. It included $8 billion for direct payments to Indian Tribes and $522 million of direct appropriations to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) for COVID-19 response. Given this infusion of funding, we examined the impact of COVID-19 on the Indian detention system from April 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020, including the actions the BIA and the tribes have taken to respond to outbreaks of this virus, and how other longstanding challenges have affected the BIA’s response.We worked with the Office of Justice Services (OJS) to distribute a questionnaire to all 96 Indian Country detention facilities, reviewed OJS policies, and conducted interviews with Bureau and detention facility officials. We received responses from 59 of the 96 facilities (61 percent). The results provided us with overall case numbers and insight on how Indian Country detention facilities implemented the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidance for social distancing, cleaning, personal protective equipment (PPE), and health screenings. To address the spread of COVID-19 in Indian Country detention facilities, we found that the OJS issued guidance and screening tools, provided funding for deep cleaning, and provided PPE.Inmate overcrowding and inadequate staffing levels are two longstanding challenges that continue to affect Indian Country detention facilities. These challenges further increase the risk that inmates will contract COVID-19. Facility officials told us that they attempted to obtain COVID-19 tests, work with tribal governments to obtain early releases or home confinement, increase social distancing, and screen inmates and staff within the unique constraints of each detention facility.Detention facilities, including those in Indian Country, face significant challenges in overcoming COVID-19 outbreaks because inmates live, work, eat, and participate in activities in close proximity to each other. It is critical that OJS and detention facility officials remain focused on this issue and continue to monitor, communicate, and implement the latest guidance from health professionals.

We conducted this limited review to determine the use of landlord incentives to increase landlord participation and retention and expand housing options for program participants outside areas of low-income or minority concentration.The majority (28 of 34) of responsive MTW PHAs used the program and funding flexibilities of the MTW program to offer landlord incentives. These PHAs offered many types of landlord incentives as a tool to increase landlord participation and retention and expand housing options outside areas of low-income or minority concentration. PHAs offered nonmonetary or monetary incentives or a combination of both. Because each PHA operates in a unique rental housing market, there was no consensus on the best or most effective type of incentives. However, PHAs generally stated that the incentives they offered were at least somewhat effective. PHAs that did not use any form of incentive stated that their voucher holders had no difficulty in finding a suitable unit or that they were considering an incentive in the future.These insights from PHAs can help HUD better serve and connect with its crucial partners, the landlords. At the same time, it should be acknowledged that the effectiveness of an incentive varies widely, depending the environment in which the PHA operates. HUD should considerconducting further studies to determine the effectiveness of incentives,assessing whether expanding implementation of incentives beyond MTW PHAs is appropriate, andusing the results of this review to assist with its Landlord Task Force and Housing Choice Voucher Mobility Demonstration.This report contains no recommendations.

The United States currently faces a nationwide public health emergency due to the opioid crisis. Opioid treatment programs (OTPs) provide medication coupled with counseling services (referred to in this report as “OTP services”) for people diagnosed with an opioid use disorder. This audit is part of OIG’s oversight of the integrity and proper stewardship of Federal funds used to combat the opioid crisis. To perform an initial assessment of the risk of improper Medicaid reimbursement for OTP services, we selected for audit an OTP provider that received the highest Medicaid reimbursement for OTP services in California for calendar year 2018.Our objective was to determine whether California claimed Medicaid reimbursement for the selected provider’s OTP services in accordance with Federal and State requirements.

The Medicaid program pays for nonemergency medical transportation (NEMT) services that a State determines to be necessary for beneficiaries to obtain care. Prior OIG audit reports have consistently identified NEMT services as vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse.Our objectives were to determine whether Massachusetts: (1) claimed Federal Medicaid reimbursement for NEMT service claims in accordance with Federal and State requirements and (2) ensured that NEMT providers adequately documented driver qualifications and maintained vehicle records.We reviewed Massachusetts’s monitoring and oversight of its NEMT brokerage program, including compliance with certain Federal and State requirements to determine whether: (1) the beneficiary received a qualifying medical service on the date of transportation, (2) there was adequate documentation supporting the NEMT service, (3) the NEMT service was provided, and (4) driver and vehicle qualifications complied with State regulations. We reviewed 100 randomly sampled claim lines of service from the 896,792 lines of service between January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2017, for which Massachusetts paid $17.3 million.

The DHS Privacy Office established a comprehensive framework to administer its privacy program. However, it does not yet have effective oversight to ensure consistent execution of its privacy program across DHS components. Specifically, the DHS Privacy Office has not established controls to ensure that privacy compliance documentation and Information Sharing Access Agreements are completed and submitted as required. The DHS Privacy Office did not monitor completion of required privacy training across the Department. These shortfalls existed because the DHS Privacy Office did not have sufficient measures in place to ensure DHS components adhered to its privacy program. Without such measures, DHS may not be able to identify and address new privacy risks in existing systems and programs or prevent inappropriate dissemination of personally identifiable information. We made three recommendations to the DHS Privacy Office to improve oversight of privacy compliance, information sharing access agreements, and privacy training. DHS concurred with all three recommendations.

The Office of the Inspector General conducted a review of the Commercial Energy Solutions Pricing, Structuring, Analysis/Contracts (P&C) organization to identify factors that could impact P&Cs organizational effectiveness. During the course of our evaluation, we identified behaviors that had a positive impact on P&C. These included positive interactions with management and team members. However, we also identified behavioral risks in two groups related to accountability and reporting concerns or offering a differing opinion with management. In addition, we identified risks to operations that could hinder P&C’s effectiveness. These risks were related to effective collaboration with business partners and resource needs in the organization.