Department of Health and Human Services 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

JUNE GIBBS BROWN 

Inspector General 

NOVEMBER 1998 

OEI-04-97-00060 

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE 

A Management Evaluation of 

Program Integrity and Ethics Functions 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

The mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452, is to 

protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services programs as well as the 

health and welfare of beneficiaries served by them. This statutory mission is carried out through a 

nationwide program of audits, investigations, inspections, sanctions, and fraud alerts. The 

Inspector General informs the Secretary of program and management problems and recommends 

legislative, regulatory, and operational approaches to correct them. 

Office of Evaluation and Inspections 

The Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) is one of several components of the Office of 

Inspector General. It conducts short-term management and program evaluations (called 

inspections) that focus on issues of concern to the Department, the Congress, and the public. The 

inspection reports provide findings and recommendations on the efficiency, vulnerability, and 

effectiveness of departmental programs. 

OEI's Atlanta Regional Office prepared this report under the direction of Jesse Flowers, Regional 

Inspector General, and Christopher Koehler, Deputy Regional Inspector General. Principal OEI 

staff included: 

REGION HEADQUARTERS 

Peggy Daniel, Project Leader Al Levine, Program Specialist

Ron Kalil, Team Leader

Jackie Watkins, Program Analyst

Graham Rawsthorn, Program Analyst

Betty Apt, Program Analyst

To obtain copies of this report, please call the Atlanta Regional Office at (404) 562-7732. 

Reports are also available on the World Wide Web at our home page address: 

http://www.dhhs.gov/progorg/oei 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE 

To determine whether or not the program integrity and ethics function within the Indian Health 

Service is organized, staffed, and operating effectively. 

BACKGROUND 

Within the Department of Health and Human Services, the Indian Health Service (IHS) is the 

primary provider of health care to an estimated 1.4 million American Indians and Alaska Natives. 

The IHS employs about 14,000 people nationwide. Its Fiscal Year 1997 budget was $2.3 billion. 

The program integrity and ethics staff have three major responsibilities. They 

< investigate complaints and allegations about IHS and tribal employees, 

< perform ethics activities, and 

< coordinate personnel suitability investigations. 

The IHS Director asked the Office of Inspector General to evaluate, for effectiveness, the 

operation of its program integrity and ethics function. We did so by comparing IHS’ program 

integrity and ethics operations to those of four other organizations. The four selected 

organizations were the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health 

(NIH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and Health Resources and Services 

Administration (HRSA). We also surveyed and interviewed staff at IHS headquarters and 11 of 

its 12 area offices. 

FINDINGS 

The Mission, Policies, and Procedures for Program Integrity and Ethics Are Not Clear 

Staff at IHS headquarters seem to understand the mission, policies, and procedures for program 

integrity and ethics. However, over half of the staff at area offices said the mission, policies, and 

procedures are not clear to them. The IHS has not finalized its operating policies and procedures 

which have been in draft for over 2 1⁄2 years. Over half of the IHS area offices had not received 

copies of the draft manual. Because of confusion over policies and procedures, personnel 

suitability functions were not completed or not completed timely. 

Organizational Structure Obscures Visibility and Prominence 

The program integrity and ethics function is not clearly identifiable in the current organizational 

structure. Its visibility and prominence was obscured during a March 1997 reorganization. 

))))))))))) i 
Organizational Placement Fragments Responsibility for Personnel Suitability 

Responsibility for one program integrity and ethics function--personnel suitability is fragmented. 

The conduct of personnel suitability investigations is shared by several IHS components. IHS 

policies and procedural guidance does not clearly delineate the specific responsibilities of each 

organization, or the processes for sharing responsibilities. The four other organizations we 

reviewed all placed the personnel suitability function in one office--Division of Human Resources. 

Staffing May Be Inadequate 

The IHS had one program integrity and ethics staff member for every 4,666 agency employees. 

This ratio was less than that of any of the other four organizations we reviewed. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Effective administration of IHS’ program integrity and ethics function can be improved by 

clarifying responsibilities, and enhancing visibility and prominence within the organization. 

We recommend that the IHS Director 

< Finalize its policies and procedures manual and distribute it to all offices as soon as 

possible. The manual should clearly delineate the integrity and ethics responsibilities of all 

IHS components, and procedures for components to follow in carrying out IHS' overall 

policy. 

< Disseminate materials such as letters, brochures, and pamphlets to all IHS staff. Such 

materials should explain the program integrity and ethics functions and how they are 

carried out. 

Regarding the question on adequacy of staff for effective accomplishment of program integrity 

and ethics functions, we recognize that this difficult decision can only be made by IHS 

management. In making the decision, management must consider many variables, including the 

relative importance of all organizational goals and objectives, the priority use of limited staff 

resources for accomplishment of those goals and objectives, and the relative strengths of assigned 

staff. Simply increasing staff size may or may not be the solution for meeting IHS’ program 

integrity and ethics objectives, although this may be one consideration. Another option that 

management could consider is transferring some functions to other organizational components. 

For example, the personnel suitability function could be transferred to the Division of Human 

Resources. These and other such staffing options could help assure effective and timely 

completion of IHS’ program integrity and ethics objectives. 

))))))))))) ii 
AGENCY COMMENTS 

We received comments from the Assistant Secretary for Management and Budget (ASMB) who 

concurred with our recommendation that IHS finalize its policies and procedures manual and 

distribute it to all offices as soon as possible. However, ASMB raised questions about the 

significance of our original finding on the organizational location of the personnel suitability 

function. We revised our findings to emphasize that the unspecified sharing of duties and 

responsibilities among the two components has resulted in confusion and inconsistent 

administration of the personnel suitability duty. 

The IHS did not comment on the draft report, but plans to provide comments on the final report. 

Appendix C shows the full text of ASMB’s comments. 

))))))))))) iii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION .......................................................... 1

FINDINGS ................................................................ 3

Mission, Policies, Procedures Unclear ........................................... 3

Visibility and Prominence Obscured ............................................. 5

Personnel Suitability Responsibility Fragmented. ................................... 6

Staffing May Be Inadequate ................................................... 7

RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 9

AGENCY COMMENTS .................................................... 10

APPENDICES

Former Organizational Charts ............................................... A-1

Current Organizational Charts ............................................... B-1

Text of Agency Comments ................................................. C-1
INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE 

To determine whether or not the program integrity and ethics function within the Indian Health 

Service is organized, staffed, and operating effectively. 

BACKGROUND 

Indian Health Service 

Within the Department of Health and Human Services, the Indian Health Service (IHS) is the 

primary provider of health care to an estimated 1.4 million American Indians and Alaska Natives. 

The IHS employs about 14,000 people nationwide. Its Fiscal Year 1997 budget was $2.3 billion. 

Program Integrity and Ethics 

The program integrity and ethics staff is located in IHS headquarters in Rockville, Maryland. 

Organizationally, program integrity and ethics is located within the Office of Management 

Support. The Office of Management Support is one of three major components of the IHS. The 

two remaining components are the Office of Director and Office of Public Health. 

The program integrity and ethics staff have three major responsibilities. They 

< investigate complaints and allegations about IHS and tribal employees, 

< perform ethics activities, and 

< coordinate personnel suitability investigations. 

Complaints and allegations may be submitted to the IHS or referred by the Office of Inspector 

General, Office of Investigations. Ethics activities include providing ethics training, coordinating 

outside activities reports and financial disclosure reports. Personnel suitability generally refers to 

verification of a person's character, reputation, trustworthiness, and fitness for Federal service. 

METHODOLOGY 

The IHS Director asked the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to conduct a management review 

on the effectiveness of the organization of its program integrity and ethics function. 

Specifically, the IHS Director asked us to determine whether or not the IHS program integrity 

and ethics function is organized, staffed, and operating effectively. We did so by comparing the 

operations of IHS' program integrity and ethics function to the program integrity and ethics 

operations of four other organizations. The organizations selected for comparison were the Food 

and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention (CDC), and Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). 

))))))))))) 1 
---------------

At IHS and each selected organization, we examined the organizational structure, staffing 

numbers and types, workload, policies, and operating procedures and practices. At each selected 

organization, we conducted on-site reviews of program integrity and ethics operations. 

We also obtained opinions from staff at IHS headquarters, including the program integrity and 

ethics staff, and 11 of the 12 IHS area offices.1 One area office did not respond to our survey. 

We personally interviewed IHS headquarters staff and the staff of one area office during on-site 

reviews. We obtained operating data and opinions from staff at the remaining ten area offices 

through use of a mail survey questionnaire. As necessary for clarification, we followed up by 

conducting telephone interviews with area office staff. 

We also conducted telephone interviews with OIG hotline staff to determine referral and 

investigative procedures for allegations and complaints about the IHS, and for the other 

organizations. Further, we interviewed, by telephone, staff at the Office of Government Ethics to 

determine its relationship with the IHS and other organizations on ethics requirements. 

Finally, we reviewed mission statements, policies, procedures, and program operations at the IHS 

for the program integrity and ethics function, and at each organization selected for comparison. 

We conducted our inspection between April 1997 and August 1997. We conducted the 

inspection in accordance with Quality Standards for Inspections issued by the President's Council 

on Integrity and Efficiency. 

1

The 12 Area Offices are Aberdeen, Albuquerque, Alaska, Bemidji, Billings, California, Nashville, 

Navajo, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, Portland, and Tucson. 

))))))))))) 2 
FINDINGS

MISSION, POLICIES, AND PROCEDURES ARE NOT CLEAR 

Staff at IHS headquarters seem to understand the mission, policies, and procedures for program 

integrity and ethics. However, over half of the staff at area offices said the mission, policies, and 

procedures are not clear to them. They did not understand what the program integrity and ethics 

staff was expected to accomplish, or how it operated. Staff at a few area offices said they have 

limited communications with the program integrity and ethics staff because they do not 

understand the purpose and procedures. Staff at one area office said training is needed to help 

clarify the role of the program integrity and ethics staff. 

IHS Has Not Finalized Policies and Procedures 

One reason the mission, policies, and procedures are not clear for the program integrity and ethics 

function is that the IHS has not published final operating policies and procedures. At the time of 

our inspection, the policies and procedures manual had been in draft for over 2 1⁄2 years. 

More significantly, over half of area office staff responding to our inspection survey said they had 

not been provided copies of the draft manual. 

Also, the draft manual itself needs further revisions. It covers a wide range of program integrity 

and ethics functions, but policies and procedures for some functions appear to be incomplete. To 

illustrate, the draft policies and procedures manual requires the program integrity and ethics staff 

to receive, investigate, and track complaints received through the OIG hotline referral process. 

However, it is silent on what to do with complaints that are received directly by area offices. 

Likewise, the manual lacks clarity on the responsibilities, relationships, and procedures for IHS 

components that share program integrity and ethics duties. 

To illustrate, IHS area office staff have directly received complaints and allegations about IHS 

employees. The area office staff did not refer such complaints to the program integrity and ethics 

staff, nor did they notify them of the existence or resolution of complaints. The area office staffs 

told us they do not coordinate with the program integrity and ethics staff on complaints they 

receive directly because they have not been instructed to do so. As a result, the program integrity 

and ethics staff may be unaware of any complaints and allegations received directly by area 

offices. 

Lack of Clarity in IHS Draft Policies and Procedures Leads to Inefficiencies and 

Ineffectiveness Particularly for Personnel Suitability 

IHS area offices, program integrity and ethics staff, and Division of Human Resources share 

certain responsibilities for personnel suitability investigations with the Federal Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM). The area offices work with OPM to review cases for area office positions. 

))))))))))) 3 
However, the program integrity and ethics staff also review some area office cases, and those for 

headquarters positions. Likewise, the IHS program integrity and ethics staff share responsibilities 

with OPM and the IHS Division of Human Resources for processing personnel suitability cases 

within the IHS. 

Responsibilities Are Not Clearly Delineated Between IHS Organizational Components 

The overlapping and sharing of responsibilities within and outside the IHS does not necessarily 

create inefficiency or ineffectiveness. However, IHS policies and procedural guidance does not 

clearly delineate the specific responsibilities of each organization, or the processes for sharing 

responsibilities. 

As a result, personnel suitability case investigations do not flow smoothly and timely through the 

organization. To illustrate, the OPM normally sends personnel suitability cases for 2 of the 11 

area offices directly to the appropriate area office rather than to the program integrity and ethics 

staff. This procedure seems to conflict with IHS draft policy and procedure guidance. However, 

this seems to be the procedure preferred by most area office staff. 

Conversely, the OPM normally sends personnel suitability cases for 8 of the 11 area offices to 

IHS program integrity and ethics staff. This procedure seems to be consistent with IHS draft 

policy manual. However, area office staffs said that they prefer OPM to send the cases directly to 

the area office. 

Staff at the remaining area office said they did not know whether or not OPM normally sends 

personnel suitability cases to its area office or to the program integrity and ethics staff. 

Routing Personnel Suitability Cases Through Program Integrity and Ethics Staff May Be 

Unnecessary and Ineffective 

In instances where OPM sent area office cases to the program integrity and ethics staff, that staff 

largely performed only a pass-thru function. The cases typically were not reviewed by the 

program integrity and ethics staff, but instead were rerouted to the appropriate area office for 

review. 

Area office staffs said that routing personnel suitability cases through the program integrity and 

ethics staff is an unnecessary step that makes the review and approval process untimely. Further, 

some said that the program integrity and ethics staff were not always timely in rerouting cases to 

the appropriate area offices for their review. 

For example, staff at one area office said the program integrity and ethics staff took about a year 

to route some cases to them. Staff at another area office said the program integrity and ethics 

staff routed them the personnel suitability cases for another area office. Thus, the personnel 

suitability reviews were not completed timely. 

Finally, area office staffs seemed confused about which organizational component had what 

responsibility. To illustrate, staff at 8 of the 11 area offices responding to our survey said they 

))))))))))) 4 
contact and rely on the Division of Human Resources for help with personnel suitability issues. 

The remaining 3 said they use the program integrity and ethics staff. This practice may or may 

not result in communication of consistent information and guidance to area offices on personnel 

suitability issues. 

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OBSCURES VISIBILITY AND PROMINENCE 

Prior to March 1997, program integrity and ethics was a staff function under the IHS Office of 

Administration and Management (See Chart 1). According to some IHS staff, this organizational 

scheme gave the program integrity and ethics function a clearly visible, identifiable position on 

IHS' organizational chart. Appendix A provides a detailed organizational chart. 

CHART 1

FORMER ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR 

OFFICE OF 

ADMINISTRATION 

AND 

MANAGEMENT 

PROGRAM INTEGRITY 

AND ETHICS STAFF 

OFFICE OF 

PLANNING, 

EVALUATION 

AND 

LEGISLATION 

OFFICE OF 

TRIBAL 

ACTIVITIES 

OFFICE OF 

HEALTH 

PROGRAMS 

OFFICE OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

HEALTH AND 

ENGINEERING 

OFFICE OF 

HEALTH 

PROGRAM 

RESEARCH AND 

DEVELOPMENT 

OFFICE OF 

INFORMATION 

RESOURCES 

MANAGEMENT 

OFFICE OF 

HUMAN 

RESOURCES 

The visibility and prominence of the program integrity and ethics function was obscured, 

however, during a March 1997 reorganization (See Chart 2). At that time, the program integrity 

and ethics function was blended into the Office of Management Support. The program integrity 

and ethics function is no longer clearly visible on the organizational chart. The oversight and 

results of the program integrity and ethics function flow through the Director, Office of 

Management Support. Appendix B provides a more detailed organizational chart. 

))))))))))) 5 
CHART 2

CURRENT ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

OFFICE OF THE 

DIRECTOR 

DIVISION OF 

ADMINISTRATIVE 

SUPPORT 

DIVISION OF 

FINANCIAL 

MANAGEMENT 

DIVISION OF 

ACQUISITION AND 

GRANTS 

MANAGEMENT 

DIVISION OF 

HUMAN 

RESOURCES 

DIVISION OF 

INFORMATION 

TECHNOLOGY 

SUPORT 

DIVISION OF 

REGULATORY 

AND LEGAL 

AFFAIRS 

DIVISION OF 

HEALTH 

PROFESSIONS 

OFFICE OF PUBLIC 

HEALTH 

OFFICE OF 

MANAGEMENT 

SUPPORT 

As can be seen, the new organizational chart does not specifically identify the location of program 

integrity and ethics staff. A May 1997 Office of Government Ethics review also pointed out the 

lack of visibility and prominence for the program integrity and ethics function in the revised 

organizational structure. 

ORGANIZATIONAL PLACEMENT FRAGMENTS RESPONSIBILITY FOR 

PERSONNEL SUITABILITY 

In the March 1997 reorganization, the IHS placed both the program integrity and ethics staff and 

the Division of Human Resources staff under one head--the Office of Management Support. 

Therefore, after the reorganization, the Director, Office of Management Support had overall 

responsibility for integrity, ethics, and personnel suitability functions. Within that Office, 

however, the personnel suitability function remains fragmented between the Director’s Office and 

the Division of Human Resources. Those duties are also shared by area offices. As observed 

elsewhere in this report, this unspecified sharing of duties has resulted in confusion and 

inconsistent administration of duties. 

We observed that the selected organizations we reviewed all located the personnel suitability 

function in one office. They generally chose to locate this function in the Office of Human 

Resources. (See Table 1). We did not evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the personnel 

suitability function in the selected organizations, however, it seems logical that they chose not to 

fragment such functions. 

)))))))))))

6 
TABLE 1

ORGANIZATIONAL LOCATION OF PROGRAM INTEGRITY AND

ETHICS FUNCTIONS

FUNCTION IHS FDA CDC NIH HRSA 

Integrity 

(Complaints) 

Office of 

Management 

Support 

Commissioner's 

Office 

Office of 

Management 

Operations 

Office of 

Management 

Assessment 

Office of 

Management & 

Program Support 

Ethics 

(Training and 

Other 

Activities) 

Office of 

Management 

Support 

Office of 

Human 

Resources 

Office of 

Human 

Resources 

Office of 

Human 

Resources 

Office of Human 

Resources 

Personnel 

Suitability 

Office of 

Management 

Support 

Office of 

Human 

Resources 

Office of 

Human 

Resources 

Office of 

Human 

Resources 

Office of Human 

Resources 

STAFFING MAY BE INADEQUATE 

Program Integrity and Ethics Staffing Is Smaller than That of Other Organizations 

At June 17, 1997, IHS had 1 program integrity and ethics staff member for every 4,666

employees in the agency. This ratio of program integrity and ethics staff to agency

employees was much less than that of any of the other four selected organizations we examined

(See Table 2). 

Our finding corroborated findings reported by the Office of Government Ethics in its 1997 report.

TABLE 2

COMPARISON OF IHS HEADQUARTERS PROGRAM INTEGRITY AND ETHICS

STAFFING TO THAT OF OTHER SELECTED ORGANIZATIONS

Agency Employees 

Agency 

Personnel Suitability 

to Integrity, Ethics, and 

Headquarters Staff Assigned 

Agency Employees 

Personnel Suitability Staff to 

Ratio of Integrity, Ethics, and 

IHS 14,000 3 1:4,666 

FDA 9,000 29 1:310 

CDC 6,000 11 1:545 

NIH 17,000 16 1:1,062 

HRSA 1,800 2 1:90 

)))))))))))

7 
Number of Staff

Office of General Counsel, Office of Government Ethics, United States Department of Health and Human 2

Services, Office of Government Ethics Review of IHS’ Ethics Program, May .

))))))))))) 8

Program Integrity and Ethics Staffing Has Decreased Over the Past Few Years

From December 1993 to June 1997, IHS' program integrity and ethics staffing decreased from

seven staff members to three (See Chart 3).

CHART 3

 PROGRAM INTEGRITY AND ETHICS STAFFING

Functions Were Not Completed Timely

The Office of Government Ethics reported in 1997 that certain ethics functions had not been

completed, or were not completed timely--particularly financial disclosures and training functions. 

The Office of Government Ethics expressed concern that IHS had not allocated sufficient staffing

resources to administer such ethics functions, while also administering integrity functions. 

time, IHS had four members assigned to its program integrity and ethics function.

Our findings corroborated those of the Office of Government Ethics. Also, we found that IHS 2

had not responded timely to OIG hotline complaints about IHS employees and programs. 

IHS staff told us that integrity and ethics functions were not completed timely because the small

program integrity and ethics staff gave priority to the personnel suitability function. However, as

discussed earlier in this report, personnel suitability investigations were also not always done in a

timely manner.

Coordinating and investigating personnel suitability, according to IHS headquarters staff, requires

significant staff resources. 

Prevention Act requires character investigations on all individuals who have regular contact with,

or control over Indian children. 

employee. 

6, 1997

At the

Some

To illustrate, the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence

Also, such investigations must be done for every potential IHS

Therefore, little time is left for program integrity and ethics staff to do other functions.
RECOMMENDATIONS

Effective administration of IHS’ program integrity and ethics function can be improved by 

clarifying responsibilities, and enhancing visibility and prominence within the organization. 

We recommend that the IHS Director 

< Finalize its policies and procedures manual and distribute it to all offices as soon as 

possible. The manual should clearly delineate the integrity and ethics responsibilities of all 

IHS components, and procedures for components to follow in carrying out IHS' overall 

policy. 

< Disseminate materials such as letters, brochures, and pamphlets to all IHS staff. Such 

materials should explain the program integrity and ethics functions and how they are 

carried out. 

Regarding the question on adequacy of staff for effective accomplishment of program integrity 

and ethics functions, we recognize that this difficult decision can only be made by IHS 

management. In making the decision, management must consider many variables, including the 

relative importance of all organizational goals and objectives, the priority use of limited staff 

resources for accomplishment of those goals and objectives, and the relative strengths of assigned 

staff. Simply increasing staff size may or may not be the solution to meeting IHS’ program 

integrity and ethics objectives, although this may be one consideration. Another option that 

management could consider is transferring some functions to other organizational components. 

For example, the personnel suitability function could be transferred to the Division of Human 

Resources. These and other such staffing options could help assure effective and timely 

completion of IHS’ program integrity and ethics objectives. 

))))))))))) 9 
AGENCY COMMENTS

We received comments from the Assistant Secretary for Management and Budget (ASMB) who 

concurred with our recommendation that IHS finalize its policies and procedures manual and 

distribute it to all offices as soon as possible. However, ASMB raised questions about the 

significance of our original finding on the organizational location of the personnel suitability 

function. We revised our findings to emphasize that the unspecified sharing of duties and 

responsibilities among the two components has resulted in confusion and inconsistent 

administration of the personnel suitability duty. 

The IHS did not comment on the draft report, but plans to provide comments on the final report. 

Appendix C shows the full text of ASMB’s comments. 

))))))))))) 10 
A P P E N D I X A

FORMER ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS

OFFICE OF THE 

DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS STAFF 

OFFICE OF 

ADMINISTRATION 

AND 

MANAGEMENT 

OFFICE OF 

PLANNING, 

EVALUATION 

AND 

LEGISLATION 

OFFICE OF 

TRIBAL 

ACTIVITIES 

OFFICE OF 

HEALTH 

PROGRAMS 

OFFICE OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

HEALTH AND 

ENGINEERING 

OFFICE OF 

HEALTH 

PROGRAM 

RESEARCH AND 

DEVELOPMENT 

OFFICE OF 

INFORMATION 

RESOURCES 

MANAGEMENT 

OFFICE OF 

HUMAN 

RESOURCES 

OFFICE OF TRIBAL 

SELF-GOVERNANCE 

POLICY REVIEW AND 

COORDINATION STAFF 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY AND CIVIL 

RIGHTS STAFF 

AREA 

OFFICES 

OFFICE OF 

ADMINISTRATION 

AND MANAGEMENT 

D IVISI ON OF 

MANAGEM ENT 

POL ICY 

DIVIS ION OF 

AD MINI STRATIVE 

SERVIC ES 

DIVISION OF 

RESOURCES 

MANAGEM ENT 

DIVIS ION O F 

CONT RACT S AND 

GRANTS 

M ANAGEM ENT 

DIVISION OF 

SUPPLY 

M ANAGE MENT 

DIVISION OF 

ACQU ISIT ION AND 

GRA NTS 

OPERATIONS 

PROGRAM 

INTEGRITY 

AND ETHICS 

))))))))))) A - 1 
APPENDIX B

CURRENT ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS 

OFFICE OF THE 

DIRECTOR 

OFFICE OF 

MANAGEMENT 

SUPPORT 

OFFICE OF 

PUBLIC HEALTH 

OFFICE OF 

MANAGEMENT 

SUPPORT 

EXECUTIVE 

SECRETARIAT 

DVISION OF 

ADMINISTRATIVE 

SUPPORT 

DIVISION OF 

FINANCIAL 

MANAGEMENT 

DIVISION OF 

ACQUISITION AND 

GRANTS 

MANAGEMENT 

DIVISION OF 

HUMAN 

RESOURCES 

DIVISION OF 

INFORMATION 

TECHNOLOGY 

SUPPORT 

DIVISION OF 

REGULATORY 

AND LEGAL 

AFFAIRS 

DIVISION OF 

HEALTH 

PROFESSIONS 

MANAGEMENT 

POLICY SUPPORT 

STAFF 

(Note that the program integrity and ethics staff cannot be identified on this organizational chart.) 

))))))))))) B - 1 
APPENDIX C

ASMB COMMENTS

))))))))))) C - 1
))))))))))) C - 2
))))))))))) C - 3