Federal Reports

To see our report, click on the link below

DHS OIG conducted this investigation in response to complaints made by Lieutenant Commander [Redacted] (“Complainant 1”), and Lieutenant [Redacted] (“Complainant 2”) of the United States Coast Guard (USCG) alleging that Lieutenant Commander (Responsible Management Official 1 [Redacted] (“RMO 1”) and Captain [Redacted] (“RMO 2”) retaliated against the Complainants for making protected communications, in violation of the Military Whistleblower Protection Act (“MWPA”), 10 U.S.C. § 1034.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) did not properly review the requests for Public Assistance grant funds for damages to the Holland Tunnel. FEMA did not follow Federal regulations nor its own guidelines for reviewing cost estimates and documenting its determinations. FEMA Region II personnel could not provide documentation to justify changes made to the cost estimates or prove they reviewed the cost estimates for reasonableness, resulting in a lack of assurance the costs obligated are accurate and reasonable. We recommend FEMA deobligate $123 million in ineligible costs, in addition to two other recommendations that, when implemented, will improve FEMA’s review and obligation of Public Assistance grant funds. FEMA concurred with one recommendation, which we consider resolved and open. FEMA did not concur with two recommendations that remain unresolved and open.

DHS has not fully met requirements of the Act to assess its cybersecurity workforce and develop a strategy to address workforce gaps. The Department has not submitted annual workforce assessments to Congress by the statutorily defined due dates for the past four years. DHS did not include all required information in the submitted assessments. Further, the Department did not submit an annual cybersecurity workforce strategy to Congress, as required between 2015 and 2018. We made three recommendations to the Chief Human Capital Officer to timely complete the required cyber workforce assessments and strategies by assigning necessary staff resources, establishing a department-wide and coordinated approach to compiling centralized cybersecurity workforce data, and conducting oversight of component stakeholders to ensure department-wide commitment to addressing legislative reporting and data submission requirements. The Department concurred with all three recommendations.

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted a healthcare inspection to assess allegations regarding patient care concerns in the departments of ophthalmology and gastroenterology (GI) at the New Mexico VA Health Care System (facility) in Albuquerque. A patient’s CHOICE referral for cataract surgery was denied but the denial was supported by Veterans Health Administration (VHA) policy. The OIG did not substantiate a delay in scheduling of the patient’s cataract surgery but determined that the ophthalmology department failed to meet VHA consult management scheduling expectations and followed a standard operating procedure for cataract surgery intake evaluations that had not gone through an approval process. The OIG also found delays in the authorization of non-VA care consults for comprehensive eye appointments. While it was not determined that 500 or more consults for outpatient GI procedures were awaiting scheduling as alleged, significant delays in access to outpatient GI care were identified. Facility leaders attributed the delays to loss of staff. The facility did not monitor and conduct performance improvement efforts on known GI consult performance deficiencies, and GI providers did not consistently communicate test results to patients per facility policy. Possible factors contributing to the inconsistent communication included a lack of knowledge of test results notification requirements, an absence of a standardized process for delegating responsibility, and a failure of GI leaders to address known issues. The OIG did not substantiate a failure to train GI Fellows on endoscope precleaning but found a lack of documentation of the training. There was no evidence that patients underwent procedures with endoscopes that GI Fellows did not properly preclean. The OIG made 13 recommendations related to non-VA care appeals, consult management, the timeliness of eye appointments and surgery, test results issues, and precleaning of endoscopic instruments.