Inspector General’s

Semi-Annual Report to Congress

April 1, 2005–September 30, 2005
October 2005 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE FEDERAL CO-CHAIR 

SUBJECT: Semiannual Report to Congress 

In accordance with the requirements of the Inspector General Act Amendments of 1988, 

Public Law 100-504, I am pleased to submit the Office of Inspector General Semiannual 

Report to Congress for the period April 1, 2005 through September 30, 2005. 

This Semiannual Report to Congress summarizes the activities of our office for the 6-

month period ending September 30, 2005. During this year, we issued twenty reports to 

the Appalachian Regional Commission, eight of which came during this Semiannual 

period. There was one investigation closed due to the declination by the Department of 

Justice. 

During the period, the Inspector General continued to serve as representative of the 

Executive Council on Integrity and Efficiency. Also, the Inspector General continued to 

serve as the Inspector General of the Denali Commission in line with a Memorandum of 

Agreement between the Appalachian Regional Commission Inspector General and the 

Denali Commission Federal Co-Chair. The relationship with the Denali Commission was 

terminated at the end of the reporting period. One report was issued during this period to 

the Denali Commission. 

The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended by the Inspector General Act 

Amendments of 1988, provides that this report be forwarded to appropriate Congressional 

committees within 30 days and that you provide whatever additional comments you 

consider appropriate. 

I appreciate the Commission’s and your offices’ cooperation with the Office of Inspector 

General in the conduct of our operations. 

Clifford H. Jennings 

Inspector General 

Enclosure
i

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii 

Purpose and Requirements of the OIG Semiannual Report . . . . . . . . . . . iii 

 I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

 II. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

Appalachian Regional Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

Office of Inspector General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 

 III. OIG Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 

Audits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 

Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 

 IV. Audit Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 

 V. OIG Hotline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 

 VI. Legislative & Regulatory Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 

 VII. Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 

Appendices A. Schedule of Audit Reports Issued, 

 April 1, 2005, through September 30, 2005 

B. Schedule of Audit Reports with Questioned or Unsupported Costs 

C. Schedule of Audit Reports with Recommendations that Funds be put to 

Better Use 

D. Definition of Terms Used 
ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

During this reporting period, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued 8 reports to the 

Appalachian Regional Commission covering over $5 million audited with $171,075 questioned and 

$34, 020 identified to be put to better use. Recommendations in grant and revolving fund reviews 

were directed at improved reporting and eligibility of expenditures. 

Grant reviews disclosed projects were generally being implemented in accordance with program 

requirements and grantees generally had satisfactory accounting systems and internal controls. A 

change in audit reporting procedures has brought more oversight to grants by the program managers. 

The J-1 Visa Waiver program provides a waiver of requirements for a foreign physician to return to 

his/her home country after completion of medical training in the United States. ARC participates as 

a Federal Entity sponsor to assist Appalachian communities in providing healthcare services to 

medically underserved areas. The applicable ARC policies and procedures require J-1 physicians to 

practice 40 hours of primary care per week in a designated Health Profession Shortage Area (HPSA) 

in the Appalachian Region and serve at least 3 years (unless a State has a longer period). There is no 

prohibition on J-1 physicians working extra hours or practicing subspecialties after fulfilling primary 

care requirements. 

During the reporting period, the IG served on the Executive Council on Integrity and Efficiency. 

The IG was a member of the Government Audit Training Institute Advisory Committee. The IG 

continued as the Inspector General of the Denali Commission under a Memorandum of Agreement 

with the Denali Commission Federal Co-Chair until July of this reporting year. 
iii

PURPOSE AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE 

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL SEMIANNUAL REPORT

The Inspector General Act of 1978 requires the IG to keep the Federal Co-Chair and Congress fully 

and currently informed about problems and deficiencies in the Commission's operations and the 

necessity for corrective action. In addition, the Act specifies that semiannual reports will be 

provided to the Federal Co-Chair by April 30 and October 31 and to Congress 30 days later. 

The Federal Co-Chair may transmit comments to Congress along with the report but may not change 

any part of the report. The specific requirements prescribed in the Act, as amended (Public Law 

100-504), are listed below. 

 Reporting Requirements

Section 4(a)(2) Review of legislation and regulations Page 8 

 

Section 5(a)(1) Problems, abuses, and deficiencies Page 6 

Section 5(a)(2) Recommendations with respect to problems, abuses, and deficiencies Page 6 

Section 5(a)(3) Prior significant recommendations not yet implemented * 

Section 5(a)(4) Matters referred to prosecutive authorities Page 6 

Section 5(a)(5) and 

6(b)(2) 

 Summary of instances where information was refused * 

Section 5(a)(6) Listing of audit reports showing number of reports and dollar value

of questioned costs 

 App A 

Section 5(a)(7) Summary of each particularly significant report ** 

Section 5(a)(8) Statistical table showing number of reports and dollar value of

questioned costs 

 App B 

 

Section 5(a)(9) Statistical table showing number of reports and dollar value of

recommendations that funds be put to better use 

 App C 

 

Section 5(a)(10) Summary of each audit issued before this reporting period for which

no management decision was made by end of the reporting period 

 Page 6 

Section 5(a)(11) Significant revised management decisions * 

Section 5(a)(12) Significant management decisions with which the Inspector General

disagrees 

 * 

 

 * None. 

** See references to Sections 5(a)(1) and 5(a)(2) for discussion of significant reports.
1

I. INTRODUCTION

The Inspector General Act Amendments of 1988 (P.L. 100-504) provided for the establishment of an 

Office of Inspector General (OIG) at 30 designated Federal entities, including the ARC. The ARC 

OIG became operational on October 1, 1989, with the appointment of an IG and provision of 

budgetary authority for contracted audit and/or investigation activities. 

II. BACKGROUND

A. APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

The Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-4) established the Appalachian 

Regional Commission. The Act authorizes a Federal/State partnership designed to promote longterm economic development on a coordinated regional basis in the 13 Appalachian States. The 

Commission represents a unique experiment in partnership among the Federal, State, and local levels 

of Government and between the public and private sectors. It is composed of the Governors of the 

13 Appalachian States and a Federal representative who is appointed by the President. The Federal 

representative serves as the Federal Co-Chair with the Governors electing one of their numbers to 

serve as the States' Co-Chair. 

 - Through joint planning and development of regional priorities, ARC funds are used to assist 

and encourage other public and private resources to address Appalachia's unique needs. 

Program direction and policy are established by the Commission (ARC Code) by the vote of 

a majority of the State members and the affirmative vote of the Federal Co-Chair. Emphasis 

has been placed on highways, infrastructure development, business enterprise, and human 

resources programs. 

 - Administratively, the Office of the Federal Co-Chair, with a staff of 11, and the Commission, 

with a staff of 48, are responsible for ARC operations. The States maintain an Office of 

States' Representative (3 persons) that has primarily liaison responsibilities. All personnel 

are located in Washington, DC. The Commission staff's administrative expenses, including 

salaries, are funded jointly by Federal and State funds; the States' Representative staff is 

funded entirely by the States; and the Federal Office staff is funded entirely from Federal 

funds. 

- The Commission's appropriation for FY 2005 was $65.6 million. ARC was fully 

reauthorized by Congress in FY 1999, for the first time since 1982, and reauthorized in 

March 2002. Also, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) authorized 

$2.25 billion for the construction of the Appalachian Development Highway System 

(ADHS) under Section 201 of the 1965 Appalachian Regional Development Act. Enacted in 

1998, TEA-21 authorized $450 million to be appropriated from the Highway Trust Fund 

annually from FY 1999 through FY 2003. Funding in FY04 and through May of FY05 is 

provided through TEA-21 extension legislation. For FY’s 2005-2009, the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act - A Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA-LU) makes $470 million available. These funds are derived from the Federal 

Highway Trust Fund but remain under ARC’s programmatic jurisdiction.
2

- Program funds are distributed to State and local entities in line with an allocation formula 

intended to provide fair and reasonable distribution of available resources. ARC staff has 

responsibilities for program development, policy analysis and review, grant development, 

technical assistance to States, and management and oversight. 

 - In order to avail itself of Federal agency expertise and administrative capability in certain 

areas, the ARC often relies on other departments and agencies for program administration, 

especially with respect to highways and infrastructure projects. For example, the 

Appalachian Regional Development Act authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to 

administer the Commission's highway programs. Under this arrangement, the Commission 

retains responsibility for priorities, highway locations, and fund allocations. 

Federal Alternate 

Inspector General Executive Director 

Planning and Research Program Operations Finance and Administration 

General Counsel 

Public Affairs 

Entrepreneurship Publications 

Human Resources 

Local Development Districts 

Transportation 

Federal Office 

Governors’ Alternates 

States’ Washington Office 

Federal CoAppalachian Regional Commission 

13 Governors/States’ Co-
3

Appalachia as defined in the legislation, from which the Appalachian Regional Commission derives its 

authority, is a 200,000-square-mile region that follows the spine of the Appalachian Mountains from southern 

New York to northern Mississippi. It includes all of West Virginia and parts of twelve other states: Alabama, 

Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, 

Tennessee, and Virginia.
4
5

 B. OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

 

The ARC OIG is an independent audit and investigative unit. An independent Inspector General 

who reports directly to the Federal Co-Chair heads the OIG. 

Role and Authority

The Inspector General Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-452), as amended in 1988, states that the IG is 

responsible for (1) audits and investigations; (2) review of legislation; and (3) recommendation of 

policies for the purpose of promoting economy and efficiency in the administration of, or preventing 

and detecting fraud and abuse in, the program and operations of the establishment. In this regard, 

the IG is responsible for keeping the Federal Co-Chair and Congress fully informed about the 

problems and deficiencies in ARC programs and operations and the need for corrective action. The 

IG has authority to inquire into all ARC programs and activities that are federally funded. The 

inquiries may be in the form of audits, surveys, investigations, personnel security checks, or other 

appropriate methods. The two primary purposes of these inquiries are (1) to assist all levels of ARC 

management by identifying and reporting problem areas, weaknesses, or deficiencies in procedures, 

policies, program implementation, and employee conduct and (2) to recommend appropriate 

corrective actions. 

Relationship to Other Principal ARC Offices

The States’ and Federal Co-Chairs, acting together as the Commission, establish policies for ARC's 

programs and its administration. These policies are codified in the ARC Code and implemented by 

the Commission staff, which is responsible for monitoring project performance and providing 

technical assistance as needed. The Federal Co-Chair, as the Federal fiscal officer, is responsible for 

the proper use and protection of Federal funds, for ensuring compliance with applicable Federal laws 

and regulations, and for taking appropriate action on conditions needing improvement, including 

those reported by the OIG. The operations of the OIG neither replace established lines of operating 

authority nor eliminate the need for the Commission offices to take reasonable measures to protect 

and enhance the integrity and effectiveness of their operations. All Commission offices are 

responsible for monitoring and evaluating the programs entrusted to them and reporting information 

or incidences needing further audit and/or investigation to the IG. 

Funding and Staffing

The OIG funding level for FY 2005 was $462,000 prior to a rescission. For FY 2005, approximately 

22 percent will be used for contract audit services; 69 percent, for salaries and benefits; 2 percent, 

for travel; and 7 percent, for all other activities (training, equipment, space, supplies, etc.). 

 

Staffing consists of the Inspector General, an auditor, and a confidential assistant. Grant review 

activities continue to emphasize use of contracted services (e.g., independent public accounting 

firms or other OIG offices) supplemented by programmatic and performance reviews directed by 

OIG staff. Investigative assistance has been provided by other OIG offices on an as-needed basis 

through memoranda of understanding. This approach has been deemed the most appropriate to date 

in view of the nature of ARC operations and limited resources. 

III. OIG ACTIVITY
6

A. AUDITS

During the reporting year, 20 reports were issued dealing with programs, grants and grantees. Eight 

of the reports were during this semi-annual reporting period. Other ongoing reviews are in their 

final stages. The division of OIG resources results in audit work being performed by a combination 

of permanent and contractor’s staff. Emphasis will continue to be placed on surveys of ARC 

operations and programs, completion of grant audits, audit resolution and followup, and physician 

compliance with J-1 Visa Waiver program requirements. 

Revolving Loan Funds (RLF) 

A RLF is a business development revolving loan fund that is used by eligible grantees to make 

loans to create and/or save jobs. As borrowers repay loans, the money is returned to the RLF to 

make other loans. RLF loans are not intended to match or replace the capacity of lending 

institutions, rather, RLF’s fill gaps in local lending, and provide capital which otherwise would 

not be available for economic development. 

Six RLF audits were conducted during this reporting period covering a total of $5,073,922 of 

ARC funds. ARC currently has a total of 46 RLF grants. Findings were mainly 

recommendations to strengthening internal controls. The responses by the grantees are 

considered generally responsive to the recommendations of the audit reports. 

Recovered Funds 

Funds recovered during this fiscal year consisted of two checks from Auburn University – one 

for $52,400 covering Grant No. 13484; and $109,640 for Grant No. 13495 for funds spent not 

according to the grant requirements. 

A check for $281,440.90 was received from the Maryland Department of Housing and 

Community Development representing funds no longer required for grant related activities and 

will be used for additional projects. Further, approximately $670,000 was identified as potential 

funds to be put to better use as the funds were currently unused. 

B. INVESTIGATIONS

 

The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, provides that the IG may receive and investigate 

complaints or information concerning the possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of 

law, rules, or regulations; mismanagement; gross waste of funds; or abuse of authority. The OIG 

does not employ criminal investigators. When the need has arisen, the matter would be referred to 

the Federal Bureau of Investigation or assistance would be contracted with another Federal OIG. 

Also, the results of investigations may be referred to the appropriate Federal, State, or local 

prosecutive authorities for action. 

The OIG had two investigations with the support of OIG criminal investigators from the Tennessee 

Valley Authority and the Department of Education. During this period in one of these cases, the 

Department of Justice declined prosecution of the case. Further, the OIG is monitoring two other 

investigations being conducted by state law enforcement or ethics organizations that relate to ARC 
7

programs. In one instance the case was referred to the state by the OIG. One investigation has 

resulted in the federal indictment and arrest of two grantees. As is the policy of the office, no 

information will be given while the case is ongoing. 

IV. AUDIT PLANNING

The OIG will be alert for new or revised areas of ARC operations based on the priorities and 

emphasis of ARC management, including results of strategic planning initiatives. Audit planning 

will include consideration of such initiatives with the overall goal being to ensure coverage of high 

priority, including high dollar, areas in order to assist management to fulfill their responsibilities for 

effective and efficient program operations. 

Of particular importance is maintaining the flexibility of the audit plan to address changing needs 

and priorities. Coordination with ongoing ARC efforts to implement an entity-wide strategic plan is 

considered an important element of planning, and discussions with ARC management have 

identified several areas for review. 

The OIG's strategies and objectives for the next 5 years are defined in a strategic plan. The FY 2003 

Annual Plan provides the operational details for OIG activities during FYs 2002-2005 to implement 

this strategic plan. 

Planned audit work included about 30 individual grant audits in the Appalachian States; additional 

followup on grants with completed budget periods, grant extensions, and project results; and tests of 

the J-1 Visa Waiver program. The work not performed during the past fiscal year will be carried 

over to the upcoming fiscal year. Continued emphasis will be placed on audit followup and 

corrective action plans, including working with agency management to address open issues and 

achieve audit resolution and closure. Further emphasis will be placed on audits performed prior to 

grant completion. This method will allow the auditors to spot problems during the period of 

performance and will allow the grantees, who are usually smaller entities, to correct problems midstream and avoid grant closeout problems that, in many cases, the grantee cannot afford to remedy. 

The proactivity with the grantees serves not only the grantee but also the Commission as it allows 

for a better use of funding and a greater likelihood of mission accomplishment. 

In order to maximize use of available resources directed at reviewing ARC activities, emphasis will 

continue to be placed on nonstandard reporting formats including memorandum, letter, and survey 

reports. Although such reporting formats reduce the time and resources necessary for review 

completion, the results and information included in such reports are based on evidence and 

supporting documentation consistent with generally accepted auditing standards. 

V. OIG HOTLINE
8

A regionwide toll-free hotline was previously established to enable direct and confidential contact 

with the ARC OIG in line with governmental and longstanding OIG initiatives as identified in the IG 

Act of 1978 to afford opportunities for identification of areas subject to fraud, waste, or abuse. 

However, contacts with the ARC OIG relative to public complaints or concerns continue to be 

primarily received through ARC staff, on regular OIG phone lines, or from other OIG offices. 

Also, numerous hotline calls were received with respect to matters for which other agencies have 

jurisdiction. This resulted primarily from the ARC OIG hotline apparently being the first such OIG 

listing in some telephone directories, resulting in ARC OIG being contacted by citizens who did not 

know the appropriate agency for handling their concerns. The ARC OIG facilitated the complaint 

process by identifying the applicable agency based on complainant information and providing the 

correct OIG hotline number. The ARC OIG Hotline also serves as the hotline for the Denali 

Commission. 

VI. LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY REVIEW

Primary efforts in this area continued to be related to potential legislative initiatives with respect to 

OIG operations. The ARC OIG continues to support legislation that would provide improved 

protections for IGs, including designated and career IGs, by consideration of alternatives such as 

removal for cause criteria and term limits. The IG disagrees with current proposals about 

consolidation of designated federal entity IG offices. 

VII. OTHER

The Inspector General also worked with the Denali Commission to resolve single audit issues that 

had arisen and in consultation with the U. S. Office of Management and Budget issued a very narrow 

waiver from certain A-133 requirements to certain subrecipients of Denali Commission grants for 

the construction of energy infrastructures. The Inspector General addressed the Pacific Northwest 

Intergovernmental Audit Forum meeting along with the Federal Co-Chair of the Denali Commission 

and attended the Denali Commission meeting in January of this year. Further, the Inspector General 

issued the first ever financial statement audit of the Denali Commission during this year. 
9

APPENDIX A 

 SCHEDULE OF REPORTS ISSUED APRIL 1, 2005 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2005

ARC

Report 

No. 

Entity and Title Program Dollars 

or Contract/Grant 

Amount* 

Questioned/ 

Unsupported 

Costs** 

Funds to Better 

Use***

05-13 J-1 Mississippi 

05-14 4-C Economic Development Authority $715,000.00 

 

05-15 Rural Health Development Inc. $114,000.00 

 

 

05-16 Internal Control Review 

05-17 Georgia Department of Community Affairs 

$1,437,176.00 

05-18 Mid-Ohio Valley Regional Planning and Development Council $1,215.000.00 

05-19 Tri-County Council for Western MD Inc. $1,146.700.00 

05-20 Northern Tier Regional Planning and Development Council $446,046.00 $171,075.00 $34,020.00 

TOTALS $5,073,922.00 $171,075.00 $34,020.00 

 * Grant amounts reported are for ARC grant amounts and do not include matching funds. 

 ** A cost the Office of Inspector General has questioned because of an alleged violation of law, regulation, contract, or other 

agreements governing the expenditure of funds; such cost is not supported by adequate documentation; or the expenditure of funds for the intended purpose is 

unnecessary or unreasonable. Includes required matching contributions. 

 *** Funds the Office of Inspector General has identified in an audit recommendation that could be used more efficiently by reducing outlays, deobligating 

program or operational funds, avoiding unnecessary expenditures, or taking other efficiency measures, such as timely use of funds. 
APPENDIX B

SCHEDULE OF AUDIT REPORTS WITH 

 QUESTIONED OR UNSUPPORTED COSTS

 ($ in thousands) 

 No. of 

 Reports

 Questioned 

 Costs 

 Unsupported 

 Costs 

 

A. For which no management decision

was made by the commencement of

the reporting period 

 2 $ 93 

 

B. Which were issued during the

reporting period 

 1 $ 171 $ 0

 Subtotals (A + B) 3 $ 264 $ 

 

C. For which a management decision

was made during the reporting

period

 $ 

 

(i) dollar value of disallowed

costs 

 0 $ $ 

 

(ii) dollar value of costs not

disallowed

 0 $ 

 

D. For which no management decision

has been made by the end of the

reporting period 

 3 $ 264 

 

E. Reports for which no management

decision was made within 6 months 

of issuance 

 2 $ 93 

 

∗ Summary numbers shown above under part C will not match detailed information due to recovery of funds 

exceeding questioned costs. This results from repayment, obligation and transfer of funds from a grant. 
APPENDIX C

SCHEDULE OF AUDIT REPORTS WITH 

 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT FUNDS BE PUT TO BETTER USE

 No. of 

 Reports

 Dollar Value 

 ($ in thousands)

 

A. For which no management decision was made by the

commencement of the reporting period 

 2 $37 

 

B. Which were issued during the reporting period 1 $34 

 

Subtotals (A + B) 3 $71 

 

C. For which a management decision was made during the 

reporting period 

 0 $ 

 

(i) dollar value of recommendations that were agreed

to by management

 $ 

 --based on proposed management action - 

 --based on proposed legislative action - 

 

(ii) dollar value of recommendations that were not

agreed to by management

 - 

 

D. For which no management decision has been made by the

end of the reporting period 

 3 $71 

 

E. Reports for which no final management decision was made

within 6 months of issuance 

 3 $71 

 
APPENDIX D

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED

The following definitions apply to terms used in reporting audit statistics: 

Questioned Cost A cost which the Office of Inspector General (OIG) questioned 

because of an alleged violation of a provision of a law, regulation, 

contract, or other agreement or document governing the expenditure 

of funds; such cost is not supported by adequate documentation; or 

the expenditure of funds for the intended purpose is unnecessary or 

unreasonable. 

Unsupported Cost A cost which the OIG questioned because the cost was not supported 

by adequate documentation at the time of the audit. 

Disallowed Cost A questioned cost that management, in a management decision, has 

sustained or agreed should not be charged to the Commission. 

Funds Be Put To Better Use A recommendation made by the OIG that funds could be used more 

efficiently if management took actions to implement and complete 

the recommendation. 

Management Decision Management's evaluation of the findings and recommendations 

included in the audit report and the issuance of a final decision by 

management concerning its response to such findings and 

recommendations, including actions concluded to be necessary. 

Interim decisions and actions are not considered final management 

decisions for the purpose of the tables in this report. 

Final Action The completion of all management actions that are described in a 

management decision with respect to audit findings and 

recommendations. If management concluded that no actions were 

necessary, final action occurs when a management decision is issued. 
THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION 

 serves American taxpayers 

 by investigating reports of waste, fraud, or abuse 

 involving Federal funds. 

 If you believe an activity is 

 wasteful, fraudulent, or abusive of Federal funds, 

 please call 

 toll free 1-800-532-4611 

 or (202) 884-7667 in the Washington metropolitan area 

 or write to: 

 Office of Inspector General 

 Appalachian Regional Commission 

 1666 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Rm 215 

 Washington, DC 20009-1068 

 Information can be provided anonymously. 

 Federal Government employees are protected from reprisal, 

 and anyone may have his or her identity held in confidence.
COVER PHOTO

Big Stone Gap, Virginia 

Photo by Ken Murray 

 Appalachian Regional Commission 

 Office of Inspector General 

 1666 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 215 

 Washington, DC 20009-1068