Open Recommendations

(U) Rec. g: This recommendation is Controlled Unclassified Information

(U) Rec. h: This recommendation is Controlled Unclassified Information

(U) Rec. i: This recommendation is Controlled Unclassified Information

Recommendation 1: EXIM’s Office of External Engagement, in coordination with the Office
of the Chairman, should establish consistent nomination processes for all award categories
that delineate roles and responsibilities.

Recommendation 2: EXIM’s Office of External Engagement, in coordination with the Office
of the Chairman, should establish criteria for selecting awardee(s) for each award category,
including special award categories.

Recommendation 3: EXIM’s Office of External Engagement, in coordination with the Chief
Risk Officer, should complete a risk profile, or assessment, to identify all potential risks to
the awards program.

Recommendation 4: EXIM’s Office of External Engagement should identify and implement
due diligence activities, as needed, to mitigate the potential risks based upon its risk profile,
such as determining when character, reputational, and transaction integrity (CRTI) reviews
or other ethical, legal, law enforcement, Office of Inspector General, or non-public source
reviews are needed.

We recommend that the Washington Office issue guidance to its regions to strengthen the LRT project selection process to formally document the information reviewed and decisions made when determining LRT project eligibility and scoring in a manner that allows for independent review.

We recommend that the Washington Office establish a plan to monitor the regions’ implementation of its April 3, 2024, guidance, which clarified that regions should solicit and consistently consider public input regionally in the ranking of IIJA projects for funding.

We recommend that the Washington Office establish a process to confirm that all tasks within an LRT project are eligible before approving the project and funding allocation.

Define in policy
a. the process that examiners should use to request access to files in the Supervision Examination System.
b. the criteria that managers and regional analysts should use to assess whether a need to know exists in accordance with the least privilege principle.
c. the requirement that regional analysts document an examiner’s need to know before granting access to supervision files in the Supervision Examination System.
d. consequences for accessing confidential supervisory information without a need to know or providing access to confidential supervisory information when a need to know does not exist.

Update the document handling directive to require supervision staff to share files by emailing Supervision Examination System links.

Develop and require training for CFPB staff involved in the examination process for the policy and guidance resulting from recommendations 1 and 2.

Update the guidance for prioritizing and scheduling examinations to reflect the current link sharing practice and to limit access to the supporting analysis to those with a need to know.

Update the guidance for managing breaches of confidential supervisory information to include expectations for
a. assessing and documenting the level of harm associated with a breach.
b. counseling, training, or taking other measures to hold CFPB staff responsible for breaches accountable, as appropriate, and documenting such actions.
c. analyzing the causes of breaches to identify trends and implement appropriate control adjustments, as necessary.

Develop required training on the updated guidance after it is implemented.

Update the CFPB’s confidential information breach response directive to
a. provide guidance for assessing the risk to institutions affected by breaches of confidential supervisory information and notifying those institutions.
b. define the roles and responsibilities for those involved in the process.

We recommend that USAID/Kenya and East Africa determine the allowability of $74,752 in ineligible questioned costs on pages 34 to 37 of the audit report and recover any amount that is unallowable.

Rec 1.a: The DoD OIG recommended that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness revise and reissue policy requiring the Military Departments to follow a uniform process to identify, notify, and report child abuse allegations to parents or legal guardians across all DoD?sanctioned activities, including child development centers.

Rec 1.b: The DoD OIG recommended that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness revise and reissue policy requiring the Military Departments to follow a uniform process to maintain parental or legal guardian notification documentation for child abuse allegations across all DoD?sanctioned activities, including child development centers.

Rec 2.a: The DoD OIG recommended that, when the revised DoD policy is issued, the Chief, Army Child and Youth Services revise and reissue policy to align with the requirements established in the updated DoD policy in Recommendation 1 requiring uniform parental or legal guardian notifications of child abuse allegations.

Rec 2.b: The DoD OIG recommended that, when the revised DoD policy is issued, the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations revise and reissue policy to align with the requirements established in the updated DoD policy in Recommendation 1 requiring uniform parental or legal guardian notifications of child abuse allegations.

Rec 2.c: The DoD OIG recommended that, when the revised DoD policy is issued, the Director, Marine and Family Programs revise and reissue policy to align with the requirements established in the updated DoD policy in Recommendation 1 requiring uniform parental or legal guardian notifications of child abuse allegations.

Rec 2.d: The DoD OIG recommended that, when the revised DoD policy is issued, the Director, Air Force Policy and Resources revise and reissue policy to align with the requirements established in the updated DoD policy in Recommendation 1 requiring uniform parental or legal guardian notifications of child abuse allegations.

(U) Rec 1: The DoD OIG recommended that the Chief of Staff of the Army conduct a review of Army units responsible for conducting joint logistics over-the-shore missions and determine what recommendations should be made to the Secretary of the Army on force structure, training, and equipment acquisition and maintenance to meet the Army's requirement to conduct joint logistics over-the-shore. At a minimum, the Chief of Staff's recommendations should include the development and implementation of an action plan to improve the 7th Transportation Brigade (Expeditionary) readiness to meet established Service manning, training, and
equipment readiness standards, as well as any…