Federal Reports

In this evaluation, we found that the National Park Service (NPS) did not use philanthropic partner donations in compliance with policies, regulations, and laws. Philanthropic partners are organizations that assist parks by providing services and financial support.The NPS is authorized to work with philanthropic partners to help further the NPS’ mission. Partners provide financial support to parks in two ways: the partner either donates the funds directly to the park, for the park to manage, or maintains the funds in an account and spends them at the park’s request. One of the ways that partners donate funds to parks is in the form of “superintendent’s funds.”We visited 30 parks and found that 26 of them made, or requested their partners to make, purchases for food and beverages totaling $282,472, and for personal gifts totaling $12,553. We questioned all food, beverage, and gift expenses as the form and level of detail of supporting documentation was insufficient: it varied by park and partner, and did not consistently have written justifications for how the expenses were necessary to accomplish the mission of the NPS. Food and beverage purchases from superintendent’s funds, in particular, did not meet requirements that donated funds be treated like appropriated funds and that purchases made with donated funds be for official agency purposes.The NPS misused donations because it (1) did not oversee the use of donated funds, (2) did not compile and report total donated funds, (3) did not have an accurate directory of philanthropic partners and amounts donated, and (4) did not have policy for the use of superintendent’s funds.Because the NPS did not ensure donations were appropriate, its parks did not receive the full benefit of partner donations. In addition, by not ensuring proper use of donations though oversight, tracking, and policy, the NPS increased its risk of fraud, waste, and abuse. By strengthening controls and oversight, the NPS can help keep the public’s trust in its philanthropic partnerships and their critical role in preserving history and enhancing visitor experiences.We made eight recommendations that, if implemented, will help prevent future misuse of donations and improve oversight, reporting, and policies. The NPS responded to our draft report on February 14, 2019. Based on its response, we consider Recommendations 1, 7, and 8 resolved and implemented, Recommendations 2 and 3 unresolved and not implemented, and Recommendations 4 – 6 resolved but not implemented. We will refer Recommendations 2 – 6 to the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget for resolution and to track implementation.

The Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) (Public Law 113-283) requires Federal agencies to have an annual independent evaluation of their information security programs and practices. This evaluation can be performed by either the agency’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) or by an independent external auditor, as determined by the OIG, to determine the effectiveness of such programs and practices. KPMG, an independent public accounting firm, performed the DOI fiscal year 2018 FISMA audit under a contract issued by the DOI and monitored by the OIG.KPMG reviewed information security practices, policies, and procedures at the DOI Office of the Chief Information Officer and 11 DOI bureaus and offices, and identified needed improvements in the areas of configuration management, identity and access management, data protection and privacy, contingency planning and incident response. KPMG made 18 recommendations related to these control weaknesses that were intended to strengthen the Department’s information security program, as well as those of the Bureaus and Offices. In its response to the draft report, the Office of the Chief Information Officer concurred with all recommendations and established a target completion date for each corrective action.

Williams, Adley & Company – DC LLP, under contract with DHS OIG, issued an Independent Accountant’s Report on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) fiscal year 2018 Performance Summary Report. ICE’s management prepared the Performance Summary Report (PSR) and related disclosures in accordance with the requirements of the Office of National Drug Control Policy’s Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary, dated May 8, 2018 (the Circular). Williams Adley was unable to assess the accuracy of the number of products reported in Metric 2, “Number of counter-narcotics intelligence requests satisfied,” as part of the PSR. With the exception of the effects of this issue, Williams Adley is not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the PSR or the related assertions for the year ended September 30, 2018, in order for them to be in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Circular. Williams Adley did not make any recommendations as a result of its review.