Federal Reports

We audited costs claimed by the State of Connecticut’s Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD) on Grant No. P13AF00113 with the National Park Service (NPS) to determine whether (1) they were reasonable, supported, allowable, and allocable and (2) the DECD complied with Federal regulations, State and NPS policies and procedures, and grant agreement terms and conditions. We also reviewed the use of grant funds for site survey work and determined that it was allowable under the governing legislation.We reviewed $5,002,392 in costs claimed between July 1, 2013, and March 31, 2017, and determined that $1,912 of the costs claimed by the DECD on the grant was unallowable, and that there was an undetermined amount of unallowable administrative costs under Federal regulations, State and NPS policies and procedures, and grant agreement terms and conditions. We also identified $244,978 in unallowable costs, but the DECD provided us with the required approval after we brought these costs to the DECD’s attention. In addition, we identified deficiencies in compliance. Specifically, the DECD:• Did not track administrative costs• Paid costs outside the period of performance without obtaining timely approval• Did not properly segregate Federal funds• Made an ineligible purchase of $1,912• Did not identify a computer in use as Federal Government property• Did not properly document subgrant monitoring• Did not properly complete the Federal Financial ReportsThese deficiencies occurred because the DECD misapplied or misunderstood the Federal regulations, State and NPS policies and procedures, and grant agreement terms and conditions. These deficiencies led to $1,912 in ineligible costs (for a computer charged to the grant but not used) and an undetermined amount of other questioned costs because the DECD did not properly track expenditures.In this audit report, we made nine recommendations to help the NPS develop policies and procedures to ensure the DECD’s compliance with Federal regulations, State and NPS policies and procedures, and grant agreement terms and conditions.

During an audit of the costs claimed by the State of Connecticut’s Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD) on Grant No. P13AF00113 with the National Park Service (NPS), we found several issues with NPS oversight over the DECD’s performance. Specifically, the NPS did not:• Clearly define administrative costs when monitoring expenses• Properly review the Federal Financial Reports (SF-425s)• Document or communicate major funding changes to CongressIn this management advisory, we make three recommendations to the NPS to resolve these issues.

The Government Charge Card Abuse Prevention Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-194) requires Offices of Inspector General to, among other things, conduct periodic assessments of the government purchase card program to identify and analyze risks of illegal, improper, or erroneous purchases and payments. According to the Office of Management and Budget memorandum M-13-21, this risk assessment should be performed annually. The purpose of this special report is to fulfill the requirements of the Act and OMB guidance. Generally, we found that PBGC has policies and procedures in place to address the requirements in the Act, and has internal controls to assist in the monitoring of this program. Based on our review, we determined that the risk of illegal, improper, or erroneous purchases in PBGC’s Purchase Card program is low. We conclude that an OIG audit of this program is not warranted at this time.

For our final audit report conducted to review the NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations (OMAO) ship fleet, our objective was to determine whether NOAA OMAO coordinates ship maintenance and repairs of its fleet using the Shipboard Automated Maintenance Management System (SAMMS).

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted a focused evaluation of the quality of care delivered in the inpatient and outpatient settings of the South Texas Veterans Health Care System (facility). The review covered key clinical and administrative processes associated with promoting quality care—Leadership and Organizational Risks; Quality, Safety, and Value; Medication Management: Anticoagulation Therapy; Coordination of Care: Inter-Facility Transfers; Environment of Care; High-Risk Processes: Moderate Sedation; and Long-Term Care: Community Nursing Home Oversight. OIG also provided crime awareness briefings to 105 employees.The facility had stable executive leadership with the exception of the vacancy for the Associate Director; however, it appears that the vacancy has not impacted the provision of quality care. Facility leaders were actively engaged with employees and patients and were working to improve satisfaction scores. Organizational leaders support patient safety, quality care, and other positive outcomes. OIG’s review of accreditation organization findings, sentinel events, disclosures, Patient Safety Indicator data, and Strategic Analytics for Improvement and Learning (SAIL) results did not identify any substantial organizational risk factors. Although the senior leadership team was knowledgeable about selected SAIL metrics, the leaders should continue to take actions to improve performance of the Quality of Care and Efficiency metrics likely contributing to the facility’s current 3-star rating. OIG noted findings in two of the areas of clinical operations reviewed and issued three recommendations that are attributable to the Chief of Staff, Nurse Executive, and Assistant Director. The identified areas with deficiencies are:(1) Environment of Care• Safety and infection prevention on the cardiac intensive care unit at the parent facility• Locked mental health unit employee and Interdisciplinary Safety Inspection Team member training(2) Long-Term Care: Community Nursing Home Oversight• Clinical visits for patients residing in community nursing homes

This briefing paper highlights challenges the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) faces in managing and improving its Information Technology (IT) program. This document analyzed past HUD OIG and GAO IT related reports and recommendations to highlight key management challenges in HUD’s IT program. We are highlighting these challenges so HUD leadership is aware of and can be better prepared to address them.The OIG has determined that the contents of this report would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials. Please contact the Office of Evaluation at evaluations@hudoig.gov to request a copy of this report.

OIG investigated allegations that a National Park Service (NPS) senior official in the Northeast Region used his position for personal gain when he requested unnecessary design and construction improvements to a park housing unit he expected to rent as his personal residence. We also investigated allegations that the senior official made improper position changes by preselecting a staff member who did not meet qualifications and that he improperly served on park partner organization boards.We found that the NPS senior official created the appearance of using his public office for private gain when he asked his subordinate employee to include specific design and construction changes in the renovation proposal for a historic townhouse, which was the park housing unit in which he planned to reside. The changes were included in the final design plans and added approximately $32,000 to the cost of the project, but at the time of our report, the senior official had decided not to move into the unit and NPS had delayed the renovations.We also found that some employees and contractors did not agree with the proposed changes, and only one person raised these concerns before the project was awarded. Additionally, we found that members of the Regional Development Advisory Board, whose role was to review and approve the proposed renovation plans, were not aware that the senior official had intended on moving into the unit.We did not substantiate that the NPS senior official made improper position changes by preselecting staff members, and we found that while the senior official did serve as an NPS liaison for two park partners, his participation did not violate NPS or ethics regulations.

OIG investigated an allegation that an employee with the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) attempted to send a spreadsheet containing personally identifiable information (PII) for over 180 DOI employees to his personal email account.We found that the employee made repeated attempts to send the spreadsheet from his Government email account to his personal account, in violation of the DOI’s employee policy on network use. We confirmed, however, that the DOI’s IT security systems blocked the emails and prevented the PII from being transmitted to his personal account or computer. The employee’s supervisor confiscated the employee’s work computer the day he learned of the attempts to email the spreadsheet and placed the employee on administrative leave. When we first interviewed the employee, he denied trying to send the spreadsheet containing PII to his personal email, but during a later interview he admitted that he had. He also told us that he tried to send the spreadsheet because he liked to save and organize files on his home computer and not for illegal or inappropriate purposes. In addition, we found that he had attempted to send the PII knowing that his home computer had a software program installed on it that allowed for outside access. Finally, we learned that the employee had been disciplined in the past for lack of candor.We referred this case to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, which declined to prosecute.