Federal Reports

The DOI will award most of its CARES Act funding to Indian Country through grants to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE). Of the $756 million, $522 million (69.0 percent) will be funded to Indian Country. As of June 13, 2020, $419,462,721, or 80.4 percent, had been obligated.These emergency response awards from the DOI–together with more than $8.7 billion in awards to Indian Country from other Federal departments—present a higher risk because they must be spent in a short period of time. In addition, we have identified Indian Country as a high-risk area in our recent Top Management Challenges reports because in the past, the BIA, the BIE, and tribes have faced many challenges with handling grant funds. This further increases the risk that Federal tax dollars will be misused, abused, and vulnerable to fraud. In addition, emergency situations could grow rapidly in size, scope, or complexity, thereby elevating the risk even higher.In this report we present lessons learned in our prior work that the DOI, the BIA, and the BIE should consider as they make awards, promote safety, and provide oversight under the CARES Act. In our previous reports, we found that the following areas are important for improved safety and successful oversight:• Ensuring Indian school safety and health while providing educational services• Providing oversight to help prevent mismanagement of financial awards• Minimizing the spread of the virus while maintaining safety within tribal detention centersThe BIA, the BIE, tribes, and tribal organizations will have specific challenges in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. We know there are risks and complexities surrounding emergency funds that can be difficult to manage. As such, we plan to help provide oversight and ensure the CARES Act moneys are spent appropriately.

In response to the outbreak of the Coronavirus (COVID-19), the National Park Service (NPS) closed most park buildings, facilities, and restrooms, and in some cases, entire parks. With States now easing stay-at-home restrictions, and in response to the White House’s emphasis to open the national parks, some parks have already increased access by implementing a phased reopening. To facilitate a safe reopening, the NPS issued the National Park Service COVID-19 Adaptive Operations Recovery Plan to the parks on May 28, 2020. We contacted each of the 62 national park superintendents to report on each national park’s current operating status, anticipated reopening date, and whether the park had begun developing a COVID-19 response operating plan.During our review, we learned that as of May 12, 2020, most of the national parks were entirely closed or still partially closed. Of the 62 national parks, we noted that 32 did not yet have an anticipated date to increase recreational access, visitor services, or use of some facilities, while 30 parks, including Everglades National Park, Yellowstone National Park, and Bryce Canyon National Park, had either already began a phased reopening or anticipated an opening date between May 2020 and July 2020. Twenty of those 30 parks had developed or had begun developing a phased reopening plan with COVID-19 considerations, while 10 parks had not started developing such a plan.We acknowledge the challenge the NPS has had in this ever-changing and unprecedented situation. We also recognize that the NPS cannot take a one-size-fits all approach to reopening its locations, as each national park must consider guidance from Federal, State, and local officials. Considering the risks associated with COVID-19 and the phased reopening of the national parks, it is imperative that all NPS locations have a park-specific plan to operate in a way that provides public access while protecting visitors and staff from further transmission of the virus.

Our objective was to gather information on the Social Security Administration's (SSA) reconsideration level of appeal.

OIG reviewed the proposed Modernization of Swine Slaughter Inspection rule to determine whether FSIS’ worker safety analysis complied with applicable rulemaking requirements.

Five individuals who worked for Empire Care Dental at various California locations, including one dentist, one dental hygienist, and three office managers pleaded guilty to Health Insurance Fraud and to Practicing Dentistry Without a License. Our investigation disclosed that representatives of Empire Care Dental offered $50 - $100 payments to Amtrak employees if they used their services. In addition, our investigation found that Empire Care Dental submitted false claims for procedures more expensive than the ones performed and that the dentist practiced dentistry without a license. The five individuals were sentenced to 2-3 months in prison and ordered to pay joint restitution in the amount of $62,836.

We evaluated the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) practices for identifying and protecting personally identifiable information (PII). The evaluation assessed HUD’s current capabilities to properly manage and protect PII and to properly maintain paper and electronic PII records. This evaluation was conducted in conjunction with the fiscal year (FY) 2019 Federal Information Security Act of 2014 (FISMA) evaluation 2019-OE-0002.We determined that HUD had taken positive steps to improve its records management practices. It had initiated modernization efforts to transition paper-based processes to electronic processes, begun addressing and closing OIG privacy-related recommendations that had been open for several years, and developed a formal communications plan to increase program awareness. The records officer had increased and improved training for records specialists in program offices and was directing an extensive records inventory project. However, HUD had not designated a Senior Agency Official for Records Management (SAORM) at the Assistant Secretary level as required by OMB, and was not meeting certain Federal requirements. HUD was not able to identify and inventory all PII, or search for or track PII. Recordkeeping practices and retention schedules were outdated, and HUD had not fully integrated the records program with risk management and information technology programs.We provide nine new recommendations designed to address HUD’s most significant legal and regulatory obligations, along with other critical challenges laid out in this report.