type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b"\x0cPAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK\n\x0c PEACE CORPS\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Vision:\nProvide high impact work products that agency management acts upon to increase\n the Peace Corps\xe2\x80\x99 efficiency and effectiveness.\n Mission:\n Through audits, evaluations, and investigations, the Office of Inspector General\n (OIG) provides independent oversight of agency programs and operations in\nsupport of the goals set forth in the Peace Corps Act while making the best use of\n taxpayer dollars.\nOIG:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Promotes integrity, efficiency, effectiveness, and economy\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Prevents and detects waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Identifies risk and vulnerabilities and offers expert assistance to improve\n Peace Corps programs and operations\n\n\n\n Established in February 1989, OIG receives its legal authority from the Inspector\n General Act of 1978, as amended. The law requires that OIG fully and currently\ninform the Peace Corps Director and the Congress about problems and deficiencies\n identified by OIG relating to the administration of agency programs and\n operations.\n\n\n\n Semiannual Report to Congress\n\n April 1 to September 30, 2013\n\x0cPAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK\n\x0c P EACE CORPS OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\n\n Table of Contents\nHighlights from this Report................................................................................................... 1\n Message from the Inspector General ................................................................................. 1\nManagement and Administration.......................................................................................... 4\n Agency Context ............................................................................................................... 4\n OIG Staffing .................................................................................................................... 4\n OIG Organizational Chart ................................................................................................ 5\nAdvice and Assistance Provided to the Agency and Others .................................................. 8\n Management Advisory Report: Certification of Volunteer Payments.................................. 8\n Update on Management Advisory Report: Peace Corps Drug-Free Workplace Plan ........... 8\n Developed a Briefing about Stalking with the Office of Safety and Security....................... 9\n Supported the Implementation of Presidential Policy Directive 19 ..................................... 9\n Provided Advice on Conference Reporting ....................................................................... 9\n Participated in Overseas Staff Trainings and Country Director Conferences ..................... 10\n Conducted Investigative Outreach .................................................................................. 10\n Developed Prosecutorial Options for Victims of Crime ................................................... 10\n Reviewed Agency Regulations, Policies, and Procedures................................................. 10\n Advised Congress on Denial of Access to Agency Information........................................ 13\nAudits ...................................................................................................................................16\n Overview ....................................................................................................................... 16\n Agency-wide Reports......................................................................................................... 16\n The Peace Corps FY 2013 Financial Statement Audit...................................................... 16\n Annual Review of the Peace Corps FY 2013 Information Security Program..................... 17\n Capstone Report: 2012 Medical Inventory Issues ............................................................ 17\n Audits of Overseas Operations ........................................................................................... 18\n PC/Jamaica: Audit ......................................................................................................... 18\n PC/Zambia: Audit .......................................................................................................... 19\nEvaluations ...........................................................................................................................22\n Overview ....................................................................................................................... 22\n Country Program Evaluations............................................................................................. 23\n PC/Colombia: Country Program Evaluation .................................................................... 23\n PC/Moldova: Country Program Evaluation ..................................................................... 24\n\x0cInvestigations ........................................................................................................................26\n Overview ....................................................................................................................... 26\n Legacy Cases..................................................................................................................... 27\n Homicide Investigation at a Post in Central Africa .......................................................... 27\n Criminal and Misconduct Related Investigations................................................................. 27\n Homicide Investigation at a Post in West Africa.............................................................. 27\n Fraternization Allegation at a Post in West Africa ........................................................... 27\n Fraternization Allegation at a Post in Central Asia........................................................... 28\n Ethics Violations Allegation at a Post in West Africa ...................................................... 28\n Employee Arrested for Theft at Headquarters.................................................................. 28\n Embezzlement Allegation at a Post in Eastern Europe ..................................................... 28\n Abuse of Position Allegation at a Post in West Africa ..................................................... 29\n Abuse of Position Allegation at a Post in Eastern Europe................................................. 29\nTables ...................................................................................................................................32\n 1: List of Reports: Audits and Evaluations ...................................................................... 32\n 2: Reports with Questioned Costs, Unsupported Costs, and Funds Put to Better Use......... 33\n 3: Status of Reports Issued by OIG with Questioned and Unsupported Costs.................... 34\n 4: Status of Reports Issued by OIG with Funds to be Put to Better Use ............................ 35\n 5: Recommendations on which Corrective Action has not been Completed ...................... 36\n 6: Summary of Investigative Activities and Outcomes ..................................................... 38\n 7: Summary of Hotline and Other Complaints ................................................................. 39\n 8: References to Reporting Requirements of the Inspector General Act ............................ 40\nAppendices............................................................................................................................42\n A: Reporting of Peer Reviews ............................................................................................ 42\n Audit Unit ..................................................................................................................... 42\n Investigation Unit .......................................................................................................... 42\n B: Contract Audit Reports .................................................................................................. 42\n C: Review of Legislation and Regulations .......................................................................... 43\n Implementation Highlights of the Kate Puzey Volunteer Protection Act ........................... 43\n\x0c P EACE CORPS OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\n\n\n Highlights from this Report\n Message from the Ins pector Ge neral\n\n\n I am pleased to present the Peace Corps Office of Inspector General\xe2\x80\x99s\n (OIG) Semiannual Report to Congress (SARC) for the period of April 1\n to September 30, 2013. In addition to performing our general oversight\n activities under the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended (IG\n Act), a significant portion of OIG resources were devoted to monitoring\n the agency\xe2\x80\x99s progress in implementing the requirements of the Kate\n Puzey Peace Corps Volunteer Protection Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-57)\n (Kate Puzey Act), which enhances Volunteer safety and security.\n\n The Evaluation and Audit units continued work on three separate\n reports mandated by t he Kate Puzey Act due to Congress by November\n21, 2013. The Evaluation Unit\xe2\x80\x99s reports focus on the effectiveness and implementation of the\nPeace Corps\xe2\x80\x99 sexual assault policy and on the Peace Corps\xe2\x80\x99 sexual assault risk-reduction and\nresponse (SARRR) training. The focus of the Audit Unit\xe2\x80\x99s report is on t he Peace Corps\xe2\x80\x99 overseas\nstaffing. In addition, we provided advice and assistance to the agency and Congress on t he\npolicies implementing the Kate Puzey Act. As part of this advice and assistance, we expressed\nserious concerns with the agency\xe2\x80\x99s decision to issue policies and procedures that impede our\nbroad right of access to all agency records, documents, and information under Section 6 of the IG\nAct. As a result, the agency is denying OIG critical information and documents to conduct our\noversight work, particularly the work required by the Kate Puzey Act. These concerns have been\ncommunicated to the acting Director and relevant congressional committees. Our concerns are\ndetailed in the Advice and Assistance section of this report.\n\nDuring this reporting period, OIG issued a management advisory report (MAR) to the acting\nDirector, which determined that the Peace Corps was out of compliance with the laws and\nregulations governing the certification of claims and disbursement of government funds. As a\nresult, payments totaling $2.8 million were made to Volunteers during fiscal years (FY) 2010\xe2\x80\x9313\nthat were not properly certified.\n\nThe Audit Unit issued final reports for post audits of Jamaica and Zambia and an agency-wide\ncapstone report on the Peace Corps\xe2\x80\x99 medical inventory issues. The capstone report summarizes\nthe work we conducted on t his subject at nine Peace Corps posts in FY 2012. Our work\ndemonstrated that agency management needs to place stronger emphasis on improving\naccountability of medical supplies. In addition, we reported medical inventory as a management\nand performance challenge in the agency\xe2\x80\x99s FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report\n(PAR). The Audit Unit announced post audits of Senegal and The Gambia.\n\nThe Evaluation Unit issued final reports on post evaluations of Colombia and Moldova. The\nEvaluation Unit also completed fieldwork and is preparing a preliminary report for a post\n\n\nA p r i l 1 to S ep t e mbe r 30 , 20 13 1\n\x0cevaluation of Ecuador, announced post evaluations of Mexico and Armenia, and has started work\non a review of the new country entry/reentry process based on data collected during prior\nevaluations and audits.\n\nThe Investigation Unit closed seven investigations and 82 preliminary inquiries. The\nInvestigation Unit also made significant progress on an unsolved homicide that occurred in 1998.\nIn addition, as a result of an OIG debarment referral made during the previous reporting period, a\nformer Peace Corps medical officer was debarred for misuse of government property and\nresources and is prohibited from conducting business with the government for three years.\n\nBecause of the government shutdown, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the\nDepartment of Treasury revised the year-end financial reporting calendar, which includes the\nPAR. Therefore we will provide our statement on t he Management and Performance Challenges\nfacing the agency in the subsequent SARC.\n\nFinally, I am pleased to announce the Council of Inspectors General on I ntegrity and Efficiency\n(CIGIE) recognized OIG for excellence for the international team who investigated and\nsuccessfully prosecuted former Peace Corps/South Africa Volunteer Jesse Osmun, and for our\naudit of Peace Corps/Tonga, which lead to changes in controls to deter cashiers from embezzling\nfunds. The awards ceremony is scheduled for November.\n\n\n\n\n Kathy A. Buller\n Inspector General\n\n\n\n\n 2 S e mi a n n u a l R ep or t to Co n g re s s\n\x0cManagement and Administration\n\n\n\n\nNew OIG staff and interns (l-r): Renita Davis, Kaitlyn Large (RPCV Ecuador), Ben\nSimasek (RPCV Dominican Republic), Anastasia Merinova, Katie Welsh, and Jos\xc3\xa9\nVega.\n\x0c Management and Administration\n\nAgency Context\n\nAs of September 30, 2013, 7,209 Peace Corps Volunteers and trainees were serving in 65\ncountries at 61 posts. This total includes 801 V olunteers and trainees funded by the President\xe2\x80\x99s\nEmergency P lan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) to work on HIV/AIDS projects at 18 posts and 184\nPeace Corps Response Volunteers serving in short-term assignments in 32 posts.\n\nThe Volunteers and their programs are supported by 896 American direct-hire staff: 175 abroad,\n105 in regional recruiting offices, and the remaining 616 at headquarters. Approximately 2,000\nlocally hired personnel complete post staffing. The Peace Corps also has corporate contracts\ndomestically and abroad, principally for guard services and training, and hires expert consultants,\nlargely for training and financial management.\n\n\nOIG Staffing\n\nRenita Davis joined OIG as an auditor in May 2013. Davis previously worked as an auditor with\nthe Department of Health and Human Services OIG, conducting performance attestation reviews,\naudits, and audit resolution relating to Head Start programs, health-care centers and OIG hotline\ncomplaints. Davis holds a bachelor\xe2\x80\x99s degree in accounting from Carlson School of Management\nat the University of Minnesota and is a certified public accountant.\n\nKaitlyn Large joined OIG as a program analyst in July 2013. Large previously worked as an\naccount manager at The Washington Post and a monitoring and evaluation specialist for Kaya\nChildren International. Large served as a youth and families Volunteer in Ecuador from 2008\xe2\x80\x93\n10. She holds a bachelor\xe2\x80\x99s degree in international studies from the University of North Carolina\nat Chapel Hill and a master\xe2\x80\x99s degree in sustainable international development from Brandeis\nUniversity.\n\nJos\xc3\xa9 Vega joined OIG as a law clerk in August 2013. Vega graduated from the Columbus School\nof Law at the Catholic University of America in May 2013. While in law school, Vega was a\nlegal fellow at the World Bank Integrity Vice Presidency, and clerked for the Department of\nJustice and for Patton Boggs LLP. Prior to law school, Vega served three years as chief of\nprotocol for the city of San Antonio. Vega holds a bachelor\xe2\x80\x99s degree in international affairs from\nTrinity University in San Antonio.\n\n\n\n\n 4 S e mi a n n u a l R ep or t to Co n g re s s\n\x0c P EACE CORPS OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\nOIG Organizational Chart\n\n Inspector General\n Kathy A. Buller\n\n\n Deputy Inspector\n General and Legal\n Counsel\n Joaquin Ferrao\n\n\n Chief Administrative Administrative\n Writer-Editor Assistant\n Officer\n Lisa Chesnel Christopher Fontanesi\n Sarah O'Neill Gerwin\n\n\n\n\n AIG/Investigation AIG/Audit AIG/Evaluation\n John Warren Bradley Grubb Jim O'Keefe\n\n\n\n\n Senior Investigator Lead Auditor Lead Evaluator\n Joseph Bodensteiner Snehal Nanavati Heather Robinson\n\n\n\n\n Senior Investigator Lead Auditor Senior Evaluator\n Douglas Bonaro Rebecca Underhill Jeremy Black\n\n\n\n\n Senior Investigator Senior Auditor Senior Evaluator\n Joyce Shores Waheed Nasser Susan Gasper\n\n\n\n\n Investigator Auditor Senior Evaluator\n Nathan Lampert Renita Davis Reuben Marshall\n\n\n\n\n Investigator Evaluator\n Expert\n Jeffrey Reichert Danel Trisi\n Jeffrey Lee\n\n\n\n Program Analyst\n Senior Investigator Auditor\n Kaitlyn Large\n Vacant Vacant\n\n\n\n\nA p r i l 1 to S ep t e mbe r 30 , 20 13 5\n\x0cPAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK\n\x0cAdvice and Assistance Provided to the\nAgency and Others\n\n\n\n\nGraphic illustrating the Peace Corps\xe2\x80\x99 medical supply workflow from the OIG\nCapstone Report: 2012 Medical Inventory Issues.\n\x0c Advice and Assistance Provided to the\n Agency and Others\n\nManageme nt Advisory Report: Ce rtification of Volunteer Payments\n\nOn September 24, 2013, OIG issued a MAR that the Peace Corps was out of compliance with the\nlaws and regulations governing the certification of claims and disbursement of government\nfunds, specifically Title 31 U.S. Code Section 3521(b)(1). The Peace Corps\xe2\x80\x99 certifying official\ndid not have a systematic methodology to select and examine non-recurring payments to\nVolunteers to ensure payments were proper, legal, and correct. Although the certifying official\noccasionally selected non-recurring payments for further examination and obtained supporting\ndocumentation from the posts, the certifying official did not maintain a record of the items\nselected for examination and did not maintain the vouchers obtained from the post.\n\nAs a result, payments totaling $2.8 million were made to Volunteers during FYs 2010\xe2\x80\x9313 that\nwere not properly certified. Until the agency changes the process for financial management\nofficers in the Office of Volunteer and Personal Services Contractor Financial Services (VPS) to\nreview non-recurring payments, it will continue to be out of compliance with laws and\nregulations concerning certification of claims and disbursement of funds.\n\n\nUpdate on Manageme nt Advisory Report: Peace Corps Drug-Free Workplace Plan\n\nAs reported in the last two SARCs, OIG issued a MAR on August 16, 2012, about the agency\xe2\x80\x99s\nnon-compliance with Executive Order (EO) 12564, which mandates a drug-free federal\nworkplace. The agency remains out of compliance.\n\nImplementing procedures 1 issued to agencies by t he U.S. Department of Health and Human\nServices, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration2 (SAMSHA) provide that\nall employees serving in \xe2\x80\x9cpresumptive\xe2\x80\x9d and \xe2\x80\x9cpreferred\xe2\x80\x9d3 positions be included in a pool of\ntesting designated positions (TDP) and randomly tested for drug use. Federal employees\noccupying positions in those categories require written justification to be excluded from the TDP\nlist contained in the agency\xe2\x80\x99s drug-free workplace plan (DFWP).\n\nIn April 2013, the agency\xe2\x80\x99s Office of General Counsel (OGC) told representatives from\nSAMSHA that given limited resources, and a number of higher priority it might be \xe2\x80\x9csome time\xe2\x80\x9d\nbefore the agency would be able to update the DFWP and the TDP pool. The GC did however\n\n1\n Guidance for Selection of Testing Designated Positions (TDP) was issued on May 6, 2013.\n2\n SAMSHA is responsible for agency DFWP certification under a delegation from the Interagency Coordinating\nGroup Executive Committee convened by the Office of National Drug Control Policy.\n3\n Positions requiring access to national security classified information and PAS positions are \xe2\x80\x9cpreferred\xe2\x80\x9d positions.\nAgencies desiring to exclude any of these positions from the pool of TDPs must provide a \xe2\x80\x9cclear justification\xe2\x80\x9d for\ndoing so.\n\n 8 S e mi a n n u a l R ep or t to Co n g re s s\n\x0c P EACE CORPS OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\nagree to move toward compliance via the initiation of random testing for the agency\xe2\x80\x99s two\npresidential appointee-senate confirmed (PAS) positions. The GC reiterated this arrangement to\nSAMSHA in August 2013, but to date no PAS random drug testing has occurred. In addition,\nneither a timeline for establishing an updated TDP pool nor an update to the agency\xe2\x80\x99s DFWP has\nbeen completed. OIG remains concerned about the agency\xe2\x80\x99s continued lack of compliance with\nEO 12564, its inability to establish a timeline to achieve compliance, and any potential resulting\nimpact on both agency operations and national security.\n\n\nDeveloped a Briefing about Stalking with the Office of Safety and Security\nIn response to concerns raised by recent incidents and investigations, the Investigation Unit\nworked with the Peace Corps Office of Safety and Security (SS) to develop a briefing about\nstalking, which that office will use to alert and train all Volunteers.\n\n\nSupported the Imple mentation of Presidential Policy Directive 19\n\nOn October 10, 2012, the President issued Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) 19, which\nrequires government agencies to develop policies and procedures to protect whistleblowers\neligible for access to classified information. PPD 19 prohibits reprisal action(s) affecting an\nemployee\xe2\x80\x99s eligibility for access to classified information in response to making a protected\ndisclosure such as reporting fraud, waste, or abuse. The directive calls for a review process of\nsuch action by the agency\xe2\x80\x99s OIG as well the ability to appeal to an external review panel. OIG\ncollaborated with SS to incorporate PPD 19 into existing agency policy.\n\n\nProvided Advice on Conference Reporting\n\nDuring FY 2013, the agency worked to comply with federal laws and regulations regarding the\nmonitoring and reporting of conference spending. 4 The requirements mandate annual reporting\nfor conferences costing more than $100,000 and regular reporting (within 15 days of the\nconference) to OIG of conferences in excess of $20,000. OIG provided advice on t he agency\xe2\x80\x99s\nconference reporting policy and implementing procedures.\n\nIn July 2013, the acting Director approved an internal memorandum outlining agency policy on\nthe new requirement. However, the implementing guidance was not issued until August 2013\nand the training was not delivered until September 2013. The guidance included some elements\nthat appear not to have been approved by the acting Director as it had been changed subsequent\nto her approval and there is no documentation suggesting that the guidance had been resubmitted\nto the acting Director. This guidance further clarified the definition of a conference provided in\nOMB\xe2\x80\x99s Circular M-12-12 and developed a mechanism for reporting conference costs to OIG.\nThe guidance expressly excludes \xe2\x80\x9c\xe2\x80\xa6routine operational meeting, technical assistance visit, new\ncountry entry visit, or a Peace Corps core activity\xe2\x80\x9d from the agency conference definition. OIG\nwill utilize the reporting mechanism to monitor costs spent on agency conferences.\n4\n See Section 3003 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6), March 26,\n2013, and OMB Circular M-12-12, Promoting Efficient Spending to Support Agency Operations, May 11, 2012.\n\nA p r i l 1 to S ep t e mbe r 30 , 20 13 9\n\x0cParticipate d in Ove rseas Staff Trainings and Country Director Confere nces\n\nOIG participated in an overseas staff training in June where it briefed 35 staff members on best\npractices and common deficiencies noted by OIG. Participants included programming and\ntraining officers, directors of management operations, and financial assistants. An OIG overview\npresentation was delivered to four country directors (CDs). OIG also attended three regional CD\nmeetings and made presentations about OIG and its oversight function.\n\n\nConducted Investigative Outreach\n\nOIG investigators continued an outreach initiative started during FY 2012. During the current\nreporting period, the initiative reached 137 Peace Corps staff members and Volunteers, educating\nthem about the role of OIG investigators, the mission of OIG, the types of allegations typically\nreferred, and OIG\xe2\x80\x99s readiness to respond to allegations. Additionally, discussions included ways\nto detect potential fraud, waste, and abuse of Peace Corps resources. Briefings were followed by\nan open forum to address concerns and answer questions.\n\n\nDeveloped Prosecutorial Options for Victims of Crime\n\nDuring the reporting period, OIG issued guidance to assist Volunteers who are victims of crime.\nThe document, \xe2\x80\x9cProsecutorial Options for Volunteers When the Alleged Perpetrators are Other\nVolunteers, Trainees, or Staff Members,\xe2\x80\x9d provides Volunteers with an explanation of\nprosecutorial options based on the circumstances of the assault, and focuses on how U.S.\ncriminal laws can apply when they are a victim of crimes committed overseas. The guidance also\noutlines OIG\xe2\x80\x99s role in responding to and supporting Volunteers. OIG coordinated with the Office\nof Victim Advocacy to develop the guidance and the agency agreed to include it in its procedures\nfor responding to sexual assault.\n\n\nReviewed Agency Regulations, Policies, and Procedures\n\nOIG continues to provide advice and assistance to the Peace Corps Senior Policy Committee by\ncommenting on drafts of new or updated policies and procedures. During this reporting period,\nOIG reviewed 34 Peace Corps Manual sections (MS), corresponding procedures, and interim\npolicy statements (IPS). The following are some of the key issues from the reviews.\n\nComments to IPS 1-12 (Sexual Misconduct)\nOIG expressed concerns that the agency\xe2\x80\x99s sexual misconduct policy limits the acting Director\xe2\x80\x99s\nbroad discretion under the Peace Corps Act to terminate Volunteers, and that the agency did not\ntake into account the cost of establishing a hearing panel 5 and its impact on overall agency\nefficiency and effectiveness. Specifically, OIG expressed concern about the following:\n\n\n5\n The Hearing Panel is selected by each regional director and is a standing panel of three members from\nheadquarters staff (at least two must be returned Peace Corps Volunteers) empowered to hear allegations made by\n\n 10 S e mi a n n u a l R ep or t to Co n g re s s\n\x0c P EACE CORPS OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Providing enhanced procedural rights to Volunteers accused of sexual assault, including\n the right to have cases heard by a hearing panel and to appeal the hearing panel\xe2\x80\x99s\n decision, rights not afforded to Volunteers accused of other types of misconduct.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Allowing the hearing panel to consider mitigating factors without clarifying that no\n mitigating factors would prevent terminating a Volunteer who is found to have\n committed a rape or an aggravated sexual assault.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Limiting the deputy director\xe2\x80\x99s ability to overturn a hearing panel\xe2\x80\x99s decision if the hearing\n panel finds the Volunteer did not commit the act.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Allowing a Volunteer to resign, without a notation to the Volunteer\xe2\x80\x99s file indicating that\n the resignation occurred \xe2\x80\x9cin lieu of administrative separation,\xe2\x80\x9d despite the fact that the\n report of investigation may have contained sufficient facts substantiating an allegation of\n rape or sexual assault.\n\nOIG also expressed concerns about the policy\xe2\x80\x99s impact on OIG\xe2\x80\x99s ongoing criminal\ninvestigations. In response, the agency made changes to ensure that the administrative process\ndoes not interfere with criminal investigations.\n\nComments to IPS 2-13 (Sexual Assault Response Liaisons)\nOIG raised concerns about the agency\xe2\x80\x99s intent to allow non-Peace Corps staff members to be\ndesignated as sexual assault response liasions (SARLs). Specifically, OIG expressed concerns\nabout whether the agency can ensure non-Peace Corps staff members will meet performance\nstandards and whether they could be trusted with sensitive information relating to a sexual\nassault when there is no employer-employee relationship to keep them accountable. OIG also\nquestioned how the agency would compensate non-Peace Corps staff SARLs for costs incurred\nwhile assisting victims. Finally, OIG noted that the procedures fail to define how much\nautonomy should be given to SARLs and how SARLs should communicate problems with the\nresponse, performance, or support provided by a country director or a victim advocate.\n\nComments to IPS 3-13 (Responding to Sexual Assaults)\nOIG strongly objected to provisions related to restricted reporting 6 denying OIG\xe2\x80\x99s right of access\nto agency documents and information as provided under section six of the Inspector General\xe2\x80\x99s\nAct of 1978, as amended. OIG repeatedly emphasized the requirement in the Kate Puzey Act\nmandating OIG to conduct a series of oversight activities related to the implementation and\neffectiveness of how the agency responds to sexual assaults, including the requirement for a case\nreview of a statistically significant number of cases. By establishing restricted reporting as the\ndefault reporting avenue for Volunteers\xe2\x88\x92and denying OIG access to any information from such\nreports\xe2\x88\x92the agency is establishing a process that impedes effective oversight or accountability\n\n\n\nVolunteers of sexual misconduct against another Volunteer. The panel makes findings and recommendations on\ndisciplinary or other action to the regional director.\n6\n Restricted reporting as mandated by the Kate Puzey Act allows a Volunteer who is the victim of sexual assault to\nconfidentially disclose the details of his or her assault to specified individuals and receive services without the\ndissemination of his or her personally identifiable information and without triggering an official investigation.\nRestricted reporting provides for four exceptions including an exception in cases where state or federal courts order\ndisclosure, or if disclosure is required by federal or state statute.\n\nA p r i l 1 to S ep t e mbe r 30 , 20 13 11\n\x0cmaking the agency\xe2\x80\x99s response to Volunteer allegations of sexual assault susceptible to\nmismanagement and impunity. 7 OIG also raised concerns about the following:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The language in the procedures lack a clear and consistent message mandating that\n sexual assaults be reported to OIG when the Volunteer elects standard reporting and the\n perpetrator is another Peace Corps staff member or Volunteer.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The blanket prohibition on reporting sexual assaults to OIG when a Volunteer elects\n restricted reporting. The KPA only prohibits the dissemination of personally identifying\n information, not the reporting of sexual assaults.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The conditions outlined in the procedures that would prompt the agency to offer a\n Volunteer a sexual assault forensic examination. The imposition of these conditions is\n not victim-centered and will unnecessarily prevent OIG investigators from accessing\n physical evidence, which would be needed in a criminal case against the perpetrator\n should it be brought in the United States.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The language in a Volunteer form that states a restricted report will be converted into a\n standard report if the Volunteer reports the assault to OIG. OIG asserts that a Volunteer\n should not lose the ability to keep the report restricted if the Volunteer chooses to report\n mismanagement of the sexual assault to OIG. Such a policy discourages whistleblowing\n and goes against one of the primary purposes of the KPA.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Deviations in the policy and procedures for restricted reporting from the statutory\n language in the Kate Puzey Act. On this issue the agency responded by making some\n changes to the policies but not the procedures.\n\nComments to MS 202 (Volunteer Leaders)\nOIG expressed concern that the policy will likely result in Volunteer leaders being treated as\noffice staff. OIG is concerned that if Volunteer leaders are treated as \xe2\x80\x9cno cost\xe2\x80\x9d human resource\nstaff, they risk becoming disengaged with the culture, people, and volunteer work in their host\ncountry. OIG also expressed concern about revising existing policy to assign Volunteer leaders\nduties and tasks normally reserved for staff without assigning them the same governmental\nethical obligations. OIG asserts the agency ought to subject Volunteer leaders to ethical\nobligations similar to that of a staff member through some type of agreement, commitment, or\npolicy. Finally, OIG recommends the policy be revised to subject Volunteer leaders to MS 522\n\xe2\x80\x9cMotor Vehicles Use and Insurance,\xe2\x80\x9d including its provisions on the personal use of vehicles.\n\nComments to MS 271 (Confidentiality Protection)\nOIG raised objections to revising existing policy to provide for agency management\ninvestigations of Volunteer whistleblower allegations related to reporting or cooperating with\nOIG. Currently such investigations are conducted by OIG.\n\nOIG asserts the allegers are likely to perceive such investigations as self-serving, retaliatory, and\nas lacking credibility and independence. Such investigations would be duplicative and could\ninterfere with the integrity of an existing OIG investigation. OIG also expressed concerns about\nmanagement assigning such investigations to the Office of Civil Rights and Diversity. This\n\n7\n See section below on \xe2\x80\x9cOIG Advises Congress on Denial of Access to Agency Information\xe2\x80\x9d for additional\ninformation on this matter.\n\n 12 S e mi a n n u a l R ep or t to Co n g re s s\n\x0c P EACE CORPS OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\ncollateral assignment is outside the scope of Management Directive 110 and the U.S. Equal\nEmployment Opportunity Commission guidance provided to all federal Equal Employment\nOpportunity Offices (EEOs). OIG has been unable to identify a single precedent in the federal\ngovernment for an EEO office handling retaliation cases outside of employment discrimination.\nOIG also expressed concerns with the lack of training and specific guidance to the Office of\nCivil Rights and Diversity contract investigators on matters unrelated to employment\ndiscrimination. Finally, OIG noted in its comments that OIG was specifically excluded from the\nworking group developing the procedures for this policy even though the decisions of the group\ndirectly impacted OIG investigations.\n\n\nAdvised Congress on Denial of Access to Agency Information\n\nOn July 12, 2013, OIG responded to an inquiry 8 from Sen. Tom Coburn, ranking member of the\nSenate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, and Sen. Chuck Grassley,\nranking member of the Senate Committee on Finance, 9 requesting a list of any instances when\nthe agency resisted or objected to oversight activities or restricted OIG\xe2\x80\x99s access to information or\nwhere the agency caused temporary delays to information access.10 OIG\xe2\x80\x99s response informed the\nsenators that the agency has denied OIG information and documents that are critical for it to\nconduct the oversight work required by the Kate Puzey Act. More specifically, OIG informed the\nsenators that the agency\xe2\x80\x99s GC has determined that the Kate Puzey Act overrides OIG\xe2\x80\x99s broad\nright of access to agency documents and information provided by the IG Act, even though the\nKate Puzey Act provides exceptions that allow OIG to obtain such documents and information\nwhen another federal statute, such as the IG Act, requires disclosure. OIG\xe2\x80\x99s response also\ninformed the senators that the agency has used the Kate Puzey Act to deny OIG information that\nis not covered by the statute, and has instructed its CDs to not provide OIG with third-party\ncomplaints or allegations, even though such information is not covered by t he Kate Puzey Act. In\nshort, OIG advised Congress that without this information OIG will be unable to fulfill the Kate\nPuzey Act\xe2\x80\x99s mandates and, as a result, Congress will be unable to determine whether the agency\nis adequately implementing the Kate Puzey Act.\n\nSince responding, OIG has also briefed staffers for the House committees on Government\nReform (HOGR) and Foreign Affairs and the Senate committees on Foreign Relations and\nHomeland Security and Governmental Affairs. On September 16, the acting Director made a\ncommitment to the IG and the chairman of the HOGR to provide OIG with access to three pieces\nof non-personally identifying information not covered by t he statute. The agency has yet to\nprovide such information but asserts that it will do so. OIG remains concerned that the agency is\ndenying OIG access to information it is entitled to receive under the IG Act. If such denial\ncontinues, it is likely to impact OIG\xe2\x80\x99s ability to comply with the Kate Puzey Act and perform its\nstatutory mission.\n\n\n\n8\n The inquiry was sent to all OIGs on April 8, 2010, requesting updates on a biannual basis.\n9\n Sen. Grassley was the ranking member from 2001\xe2\x80\x9310, he remains a senior member of the committee.\n10\n The letter also requested information on closed investigations and any nonpublic audits, evaluations, or other\nreviews.\n\nA p r i l 1 to S ep t e mbe r 30 , 20 13 13\n\x0cPAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK\n\x0cAudits\n\n\n\n\nOIG staff during the Peace Corps/Jamaica audit, pictured (l-r): Auditor Waheed\nNasser, Volunteer Wanda Eddy, Peace Corps staff Frank Yanicheck, Auditor Hal\nNanavati, and Peace Corps/Jamaica staff Trevor Chance.\n\x0c Audits\n\nOvervie w\n\nThe Audit Unit conducts audits of agency programs and operations that support the Peace Corps\nmission. These include overseas posts, regional recruitment offices, and headquarters functions.\nAudits are conducted in accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Government Auditing\nStandards (GAGAS) issued by t he comptroller general of the United States. In addition, the unit\noversees the annual audit of the agency\xe2\x80\x99s financial statements and review of information system\nsecurity performed by an independent public accounting firm.\n\nThe objective of OIG audits is to independently examine the financial and administrative\noperations of the Peace Corps, promote economy and efficiency, and ensure compliance with\nfederal law, regulations, and Peace Corps policy. Audits are wide ranging, covering agency\nactivities carried out at overseas posts, as well as agency-wide operations that affect multiple\noffices. Auditors report their conclusions and recommendations based on data and document\nanalysis, interviews, and direct observation.\n\nAt overseas posts auditors review the financial and administrative operations for operational\nefficiency and effectiveness, financial stewardship, and compliance with agency policies and\nfederal regulations. OIG\xe2\x80\x99s overseas post audits frequently identify reoccurring issues and trends.\nIts reports contain recommendations to posts and headquarters for strengthening controls to\nprevent and detect systemic weaknesses. OIG also monitors the agency\xe2\x80\x99s progress in correcting\nsystemic weaknesses identified in audit reports by obtaining and assessing evidence of corrective\nactions, reviewing the implementation of policy and procedural revisions, and conducting\nfollow-up audits when necessary. For example, in response to OIG\xe2\x80\x99s work the Peace Corps\nrevised and strengthened policies and procedures on imprest fund management and medical\nsupply accountability.\n\nAlong with the final reports described below, the Audit Unit issued a preliminary report on\nMacedonia and initiated work on audits of Armenia, Senegal, and The Gambia. The Audit Unit\nis finalizing its review of the Peace Corps\xe2\x80\x99 overseas staffing, mandated by the Kate Puzey Act,\nand is continuing to work on an audit of agency eligibility and suitability determinations for\nPeace Corps Volunteer applicants.\n\n\nAgency-wide Reports\n\nThe Peace Corps FY 2013 Financial Stateme nt Audit\n\nDuring this reporting period, OIG engaged accounting firm Kearney & Company to conduct an\naudit of the Peace Corps FY 2013 financial statements. As of September 30, 2013, the audit was\n\n 16 S e mi a n n u a l R ep or t to Co n g re s s\n\x0c P EACE CORPS OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\nongoing. Due to the government shutdown, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and\nthe Department of Treasury revised the year-end financial reporting calendar. OIG intends to\nissue the accounting firm\xe2\x80\x99s reports through a transmittal memorandum by the revised OMB-\nmandated reporting date of December 16, 2013. Details regarding the audit results will be\nincluded in the next SARC.\n\n\nAnnual Review of the Peace Corps FY 2013 Information Security Program\n\nThe Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) requires federal agencies to\nestablish security protections and a program to secure information systems from unauthorized\naccess, use, disclosure, modification, and other harmful impacts. In addition, FISMA requires\nthat each OIG review its agency\xe2\x80\x99s information security program and report results to OMB\nannually. To meet this requirement, OMB has developed an online data collection system for\nFISMA reporting from federal agencies and their respective OIGs. During this reporting period,\nOIG engaged accounting firm Williams, Adley & Company to conduct the FY 2013 FISMA\nreview. The review was ongoing as of September 30, 2013. Comments on final review results\nwill be covered in the next SARC.\n\n\nCapstone Report: 2012 Medical Inve ntory Issues\n\nOIG issued a capstone report on medical supply accountability. The report summarizes the\nresults of eight audits and one review of Peace Corps posts during FY 2012. At those posts,\nauditors evaluated the implementation of Peace Corps policies and procedures, determined\ncompliance with laws and regulations, and identified improvements to controls. It is essential\nthat posts implement the required controls over medical accountability to ensure Volunteers\xe2\x80\x99\nmedical needs are met in a timely manner, that medical supplies are not expired and are\nauthentic, and that medical supply inventory records are accurate and complete. Failure to fully\nimplement medical supply policies creates opportunities for theft, diversions, waste, or other\nabuses at the posts that could have a serious negative impact on Volunteers\xe2\x80\x99 health.\n\nOIG found that the posts\xe2\x80\x99 medical inventory systems required improvement in a number of areas\nand did not fully comply with agency policy. Additionally, OIG noted recurring issues with\ninadequate separation of duties, lack of physical security over medical supplies, undocumented\nmedical supply transfers, insufficient inventory reconciliations, and inaccurate medical supply\ninventories. The Office of Health Services has made improvements through its policy and\nguidance, training, and oversight. However, Health Services needs to provide more training on\nthe various roles in medical supply management and regional management must hold CDs\naccountable for poor medical supply management.\n\nAt the end of the reporting period, four recommendations remain open.\n\n\n\n\nA p r i l 1 to S ep t e mbe r 30 , 20 13 17\n\x0cAudits of Overseas Operations\n\nPC/Jamaica: Audit\nIG-13-05-A\n\nOIG issued its final audit of PC/Jamaica in July 2013. More than 3,370 Peace Corps Volunteers\nhave served in Jamaica since the program began in 1962. At the time of the audit, the post had\ntwo U.S. direct hires (USDHs), three foreign service nationals, one U.S. personal services\ncontractor, and 17 full-time personal services contractors. The post\xe2\x80\x99s FY 2012 budget was $2.6\nmillion to support 65 Volunteers working in the following project sectors: Education,\nEnvironment, and Health and HIV/AIDS. Furthermore, at Peace Corps headquarters the Inter-\nAmerica and Pacific region incurred an average of $414,000 per overseas post. 11\n\nOIG found that the post did not have the appropriate supporting documents to disburse\napproximately $373,000 in lease costs to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade. In\naddition, the post did not consistently present a tax exemption certificate at point of sale and did\nnot claim refunds for value added tax (VAT) of approximately $1,500. The post did not have a\nconsistent and verifiable methodology for allocating indirect costs to PEPFAR funds. OIG also\nidentified approximately $21,000 in cost savings if the post reduced its total number of vehicles.\n\nManagement concurred with all 10 recommendations. At the end of the reporting period, four\nrecommendations remain open.\n\nQuestioned Costs \xe2\x80\x93 Unsupported Costs\nRecommendation Number 1: Lease expenses paid without sufficient obligating documents --\n$373,000\n\nFunds to be Put to Better Use\nRecommendation Number 6: Estimated sale price of the excess vehicle and annual maintenance\ncosts -- $21,055\nRecommendation Number 9: Potential unclaimed VAT -- $1,500\n\n\n\n\n11\n The agency was unable to provide the total cost per post as certain costs are centrally budgeted and managed by\nheadquarters offices including USDH salaries and benefits. The Office of Budget and Analysis provided the total\ncost of $8.689 million incurred by the Inter-America and Pacific region in direct support of its 21 overseas posts in\nFY 2011, with an average of $414,000 per post.\n\n 18 S e mi a n n u a l R ep or t to Co n g re s s\n\x0c P EACE CORPS OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\nPC/Zambia: Audit\nIG-13-06-A\n\nOIG issued its final audit of PC/Zambia in August 2013. The first group of Volunteers arrived in\n1993 and, since then, more than 1,435 Volunteers have served in Zambia. At the time of the\naudit, the post had two USDHs, two foreign service nationals, and 51 full-time personal services\ncontractors. The post\xe2\x80\x99s FY 2012 budget was $7.7 million to support 274 Volunteers working in\nthe following project areas: education, community development, environment, agriculture,\nhealth, and business. This amount includes significant funding from PEPFAR: $3.7 million with\nan additional $745,000 available from prior years. In December 2012, the post had\napproximately 121 Volunteers funded by PEPFAR. At Peace Corps headquarters, the Africa\nregion incurs an additional $401,000 per overseas post. 12\n\nOIG found that the post made an overpayment of almost $20,000 in living allowances to a\nVolunteer. The overpayment went undetected because of inadequate monitoring of Volunteer\nreimbursements by VPS. Further, VPS had not developed criteria or a systematic process for\nselecting and reviewing amounts paid/reimbursed to Volunteers.\n\nIn addition, the post did not fully utilize the point of sale exemption from VAT, lacked a process\nto allocate and track spending from PEPFAR and other funding sources, and allowed sub-\ncashiers in the provincial offices to maintain personal bank accounts for agency funds without\ncomplying with federal law and Peace Corps policy.\n\nManagement concurred with all 12 recommendations. At the end of the reporting period, 12\nrecommendations remain open.\n\nQuestioned Costs\nRecommendation Number 4: Overpayment of rent allowance -- $19,300\n\nFunds to be Put to Better Use\nRecommendation Number 1: Unclaimed VAT refunds -- $140,000\n\n\n\n\n12\n The agency was unable to provide the total cost per post as certain costs are centrally budgeted and managed by\nheadquarters offices including USDH salaries and benefits. The Peace Corps Office of Budget and Analysis\nprovided the total cost of $11.2 million incurred by the Africa region in direct support of its 28 overseas posts in FY\n2011, which is an average of $401,000 per post.\n\nA p r i l 1 to S ep t e mbe r 30 , 20 13 19\n\x0cPAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK\n\x0cEvaluations\n\n\n\n\nPeace Corps/Colombia staff Omar Munoz with Volunteers Mike Deloge and Victor\nKasper in Cartagena.\n\x0c Evaluations\n\nOvervie w\n\nThe Evaluation Unit provides the agency with independent evaluations of Peace Corps programs,\noperations, and management at overseas posts and domestic offices and programs. It promotes\ngreater efficiency and effectiveness by identifying best management practices and\nrecommending program improvements and means by which to comply with Peace Corps policies\nand federal regulations.\n\nEvaluations are conducted under the direction and guidance of the assistant inspector general for\nevaluations and in accordance with CIGIE\xe2\x80\x99s Quality Standards for Inspection and Evaluation.\nCountry program evaluations include interviews, reviews of relevant documents and data,\nphysical observations, and analyses by evaluators. OIG evaluators interview Volunteers,\nheadquarters and post staff, and key host country and U.S. government officials. In effecting\ntheir interviews, the evaluators select a representative sample of currently serving Volunteers\nbased on their length of service, site location, project focus, gender, age, marital status, and\nethnicity. Evaluators conduct most of the Volunteer interviews at the Volunteers\xe2\x80\x99 homes and\nworksites; they inspect housing and assess Volunteer safety and health care using post and\nagency-defined criteria. The period of review for a country program evaluation is one full\nVolunteer cycle (typically 27 months).\n\nFor country program evaluations, OIG uses the following researchable questions to guide its\nwork:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Has the post developed and implemented programs intended to increase the capacity\n of host country communities?\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Does training prepare Volunteers for Peace Corps service?\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Has the post provided adequate support and oversight to Volunteers, including health\n care and personal safety?\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Are post resources and agency support effectively aligned with the post\xe2\x80\x99s mission and\n agency priorities? For posts receiving PEPFAR funding: Is the post able to adequately\n administer the PEPFAR program, support Volunteers, and meet its PEPFAR\n objectives?\n\nDuring this reporting period, OIG continued to conduct and provide management with\ncomprehensive assessments of how effectively overseas country programs and headquarters\noperations are functioning. Along with the reports described on t he following pages, country\nprogram evaluations of Armenia, Ecuador, and Mexico were initiated. OIG also issued two\npreliminary reports required by the Kate Puzey Act, one of which evaluated the effectiveness and\nimplementation of the Peace Corps\xe2\x80\x99 sexual assault policy and the other evaluated the Peace\nCorps\xe2\x80\x99 sexual assault risk-reduction and response training required under the act.\n\n\n 22 S e mi a n n u a l R ep or t to Co n g re s s\n\x0c P EACE CORPS OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\nCountry Program Evaluations\n\nPC/Colombia: Country Program Evaluation\nIG-13-03-E\n\nOIG issued its final country program evaluation of PC/Colombia in April 2013. In 1961,\nColombia was one of the first countries to welcome Peace Corps Volunteers. More than 4,600\nVolunteers served in Colombia until the program closed in 1981 for security reasons. Since re-\nopening in 2010, more than 80 Volunteers have served in Colombia. Volunteers in Colombia\nwork in the Teaching English for Livelihoods (TEL) project. Peace Corps Response Volunteers\nare involved in youth development as well as disaster relief and recovery efforts. At the time of\nOIG\xe2\x80\x99s visit, 19 staff were supporting 24 Volunteers. The post\xe2\x80\x99s FY 2012 budget was $1.26\nmillion.\n\nThe Peace Corps carefully managed the re-opening of operations in Colombia. The agency\nclosely followed assessment team recommendations concerning programmatic opportunities,\ngeographic boundaries for operations, and safety and security precautions. Programming is\nanchored in the Colombian government\xe2\x80\x99s initiative to make public schools bilingual, and has\nbeen well received. The most significant challenge facing the post is the concentration of\nVolunteers in three major urban areas along the Caribbean coast. Due to security concerns, the\npost has been unable to place a sufficient number of Volunteers in smaller communities outside\nthese major urban areas. Volunteers in densely populated urban neighborhoods had difficulty\nintegrating, faced frequent sexual harassment, experienced high levels of stress, and were\nexposed to a greater risk of urban crime. Post leadership has made some progress in obtaining\nU.S. embassy approval to place a few Volunteers in smaller communities along the Caribbean\ncoast. The Peace Corps should collaborate with the U.S. embassy\xe2\x80\x99s security personnel to re-\nassess security conditions along Colombia\xe2\x80\x99s Caribbean coast and define the geographic boundary\nwithin which it can develop new Volunteer sites and safely operate outside of major urban areas.\n\nVolunteers also struggled to adjust to living with a host family, and managing host family\nchanges had become a source of frustration for both Volunteers and staff. Some Volunteers\nlacked the necessary Spanish and cross-cultural skills and attitudes that would make a host\nfamily stay viable. Also, the TEL program manager had not been providing Volunteers with\ntimely feedback on their quarterly reports, the post lacked sufficient office space, and its medical\nevacuation plan had incomplete components.\n\nManagement concurred with all 10 recommendations. At the end of the reporting period, one\nrecommendation remains open.\n\n\n\n\nA p r i l 1 to S ep t e mbe r 30 , 20 13 23\n\x0cPC/Moldova: Country Program Evaluation\nIG-13-04-E\n\nOIG issued its final country program evaluation of PC/Moldova in September 2013. More than\n1,100 Peace Corps Volunteers have served in Moldova since the program began in 1993. At the\ntime of OIG\xe2\x80\x99s visit, 37 staff were supporting 104 Volunteers serving in the following project\nareas: English education, health education, community and organizational development, and\nsmall enterprise development. The post\xe2\x80\x99s FY 2013 budget was $1.93 million.\n\nThe post was performing well in many areas as result of a qualified and dedicated staff. The staff\ndeveloped a strong programming and training foundation that effectively prepared trainees for\nservice. All Moldovan government ministry partners interviewed expressed appreciation for the\nVolunteers\xe2\x80\x99 work and looked forward to future collaborations. The post\xe2\x80\x99s comprehensive site\nselection process placed Volunteers with meaningful assignments, strong counterparts, and good\nhost families. However, Volunteers placed in urban sites faced challenges integrating into their\ncommunities. While training was tailored to the Volunteer\xe2\x80\x99s site placement and was effective at\nhelping trainees prepare for service, the post could improve its use of trainee assessment tools.\n\nVolunteers felt well-supported by staff and found them to be responsive to their concerns.\nHowever, the evaluation uncovered some areas for improvement related to Volunteer safety and\nemergency preparedness. Some Volunteers were unaware of their emergency consolidation\npoints, and many Volunteers\xe2\x80\x99 site locator forms were missing important information that might\nbe needed to locate them in an emergency. While the post adequately responded to recent\nsecurity incidents at Volunteer sites, staff had not properly documented the incidents in their site\nhistory files. The evaluation also uncovered some inconsistencies in the Volunteer housing\nreview and approval process.\n\nManagement concurred with all 11 recommendations. At the end of the reporting period, 11\nrecommendations remain open.\n\n\n\n\n 24 S e mi a n n u a l R ep or t to Co n g re s s\n\x0cInvestigations\n\n\n\n\nMountain pass, Kyrgyz Republic.\n\x0c Investigations\n\nOvervie w\n\nThe OIG Investigation Unit is authorized to conduct investigations of waste, fraud, abuse, and\nmismanagement in Peace Corps programs and operations both domestically and overseas. OIG\ninvestigators have full law enforcement authority, which provides OIG with additional law\nenforcement tools including the authority to, upon probable cause, seek and execute warrants for\narrest, search premises or seize evidence, make arrests without a warrant while engaged in\nofficial duties, and carry firearms. The unit investigates allegations of both criminal wrongdoing\nand administrative misconduct involving Peace Corps staff, contractors, Volunteers, and other\nindividuals conducting transactions with the Peace Corps. Allegations are forwarded to OIG\nthrough various means, including OIG audits, evaluations, and hotline complaints, and come\nfrom Peace Corps stakeholders, including Volunteers, trainees, staff, contractors, other federal\nentities, and the general public.\n\nDuring this SARC period, OIG continued to deepen its engagement in the investigations of two\nVolunteer homicide cases in Africa. In one case from 1998, a suspect is expected to be brought\nto trial this calendar year. In another case from 2009, OIG is continuing to work with an\ninteragency team investigating the matter. The resolution of such cases continues to be a top\ninvestigative priority for OIG.\n\nThe Peace Corps, in accordance with the Kate Puzey Act, implemented changes on September 1,\n2013, that will impact OIG investigations. First, the agency issued a restricted reporting policy\nwhereby Volunteers who are victims of sexual assault, including assaults by other Volunteers or\nstaff, may obtain services without the matter being reported to OIG. 13 Second, the Peace Corps\ncreated a mechanism for Volunteer allegations of Volunteer/trainee sexual misconduct to be\nadministratively adjudicated by an agency hearing panel. In an effort to assist the agency\xe2\x80\x99s\npolicy formulation process, OIG provided extensive briefings on investigative processes to the\nSexual Assault Advisory Council, sexual misconduct hearing panel members, and other agency\nstakeholders. OIG is making an effort to inform Volunteers of their prosecutorial options in the\nevent they are sexually assaulted by another Volunteer or a staff member and that they retain the\noption to report the matter directly to OIG.\n\nIn April 2013, the Investigation Unit underwent its first peer review, which focused on OIG\xe2\x80\x99s\npolicies, procedures, and implementation of the standards that accompanied its receipt of\nstatutory law enforcement authority. The review team from the U.S. Agency for International\n\n\n\n\n13\n OIG has serious concerns that implementation of agency policies and procedures related to standard and restricted\nreporting will hinder OIG\xe2\x80\x99s ability to perform its statutory mission and mandate. These concerns have been\ncommunicated to the acting Director and relevant congressional committees.\n\n 26 S e mi a n n u a l R ep or t to Co n g re s s\n\x0c P EACE CORPS OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\nDevelopment (USAID) OIG found the areas they examined to be compliant with CIGIE\nstandards 14 and the relevant Attorney General guidelines.\n\nIn FY 2013, the Investigation Unit handled 298 complaints and allegations, a 22 percent increase\nover the previous year. The agency made one debarment decision during this period based on a\nreferral from OIG. In terms of the Investigation Unit\xe2\x80\x99s work regarding the Federal Employees\xe2\x80\x99\nCompensation Act (FECA), the Office of Health Services advised OIG that as a result of OIG\xe2\x80\x99s\nwork performed during a previous SARC period, $50,567 in questionable FECA-related medical\nbills were denied by the Department of Labor.\n\n\nLegacy Cases\n\nHomicide Investigation at a Post in Central Africa\n\nOIG made substantial progress in the investigation of a 1998 Volunteer homicide. At the request\nof the host government, two investigators (a forensic expert and a former homicide detective)\ntraveled to the country to support and conduct further investigative activities. OIG, U.S.\nEmbassy officials, and an FBI representative worked with host nation law enforcement and\njudicial officials to collect new evidence and conduct interviews. The investigative team\nidentified a suspect, who is expected to be brought to trial in the host country later this calendar\nyear.\n\n\nCriminal and Misconduct Related Investigations\n\nHomicide Investigation at a Post in West Africa\n\nThe investigation of a 2009 Volunteer homicide remains ongoing. OIG continued to engage with\nlaw enforcement partners in the field and the U.S. embassy to press the host country to conduct\nfurther investigation.\n\n\nFraternization Allegation at a Post in West Africa\n\nOIG received several allegations that a CD was fraternizing with a host country national\nsubordinate. Although the CD denied the allegation, other records uncovered by the investigation\nsupported the allegations. The CD resigned from the Peace Corps.\n\n\n\n\n14\n The Quality Standards for Investigations guide the Inspector General investigative community in producing high-\nquality investigations. Section 11(c)(2) of the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008 provided that members of\nCIGIE \xe2\x80\x9cshall adhere to professional standards developed by the Council.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nA p r i l 1 to S ep t e mbe r 30 , 20 13 27\n\x0cFraternization Allegation at a Post in Central Asia\n\nOIG received allegations that a CD was fraternizing with, sexually harassing, and retaliating\nagainst host country national subordinates. The CD was recalled from his/her post during the\ninvestigation. The investigation disclosed that the CD had disobeyed explicit instructions\nconcerning communications with one of the staff with whom he/she was allegedly fraternizing.\nThe investigation also disclosed prior instances of insubordination by the CD. The CD resigned\nfrom the Peace Corps.\n\n\nEthics Violations Allegation at a Post in West Africa\n\nOIG received an allegation about a possible conflict of interest involving a CD serving as a\nmember of the board of directors at a nonprofit organization. The CD introduced the\norganization\xe2\x80\x99s chief executive officer (CEO) to a senior Peace Corps official. The CD used\nhis/her Peace Corps email account to communicate with the CEO, and the organization had\nposted material on its website clearly identifying the CD as a board member and a Peace Corps\nCD, both of which are in violation of ethics rules. The investigation uncovered that the CD failed\nto disclose his/her position as a board member on his/her confidential financial disclosure report\n(although the agency was aware of the position). The CD was also the treasurer of the same\nnonprofit, albeit without compensation, but failed to disclose the position to the designated\nagency ethics official and did not include it on his/her confidential financial disclosure report.\nThe CD claimed it was an oversight. The U.S. Department of Justice declined to prosecute the\nCD. The agency is reviewing the matter for consideration of administrative action.\n\n\nEmployee Arrested for Theft at Headquarte rs\n\nAfter repeated thefts of personal property at Peace Corps headquarters, OIG initiated an\ninvestigative operation and intercepted a headquarters employee who was absconding with two\nitems. On June 18, 2013, the employee was placed on administrative leave. OIG executed a\nsearch warrant for the employee\xe2\x80\x99s workspace and recovered additional articles matching the\ndescriptions of items stolen from other Peace Corps employees. The employee was arrested for\none count of second degree theft under the District of Columbia Official Code, and subsequently\npleaded guilty. The employee entered into a deferred sentencing agreement and performed 35\nhours of community service. The agency is reviewing the matter for consideration of\nadministrative action.\n\n\nEmbe zzleme nt Allegation at a Post in Eastern Europe\n\nOIG received an allegation that the driver at the post responsible for the maintenance of\ngovernment-owned vehicles had used the vehicles for personal use, retained used automotive\nparts for resale, and accepted kickbacks from auto maintenance facilities. OIG also obtained\nevidence that the driver embezzled funds from the post. Records indicated that the driver\nreceived a cash advance for tire services 26 t imes from October 2010 through April 2013, and\nthat the manager of an auto facility routinely provided the driver with inflated invoices for\n 28 S e mi a n n u a l R ep or t to Co n g re s s\n\x0c P EACE CORPS OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\nservices that overstated costs by approximately 20 percent. This practice allowed the driver to\nclose out each cash advance by submitting the inflated invoices and retaining the amount of each\nunwritten discount. The Department of Justice declined to prosecute in lieu of administrative\nremedies, and the agency terminated the driver.\n\n\nAbuse of Position Allegation at a Post in West Africa\n\nOIG received an allegation that a Peace Corps driver repeatedly sent flirtatious and inappropriate\nmessages to numerous Volunteers by cellphone and text message. One Volunteer reported that\nhe/she denied the driver\xe2\x80\x99s request for his/her telephone number, and thought the driver had\nabused his/her position as a Peace Corps official by obtaining it through official records. Despite\nseveral demands by the same Volunteer that the driver stop contacting him/her, the driver\npersisted, and, in February 2013, entered the Volunteer\xe2\x80\x99s residence without authorization or an\nofficial need to do so. At the time of the investigation, the driver\xe2\x80\x99s temporary contract for\nservices had expired. The post informed OIG that it did not intend to renew the driver\xe2\x80\x99s\nemployment contract.\n\n\nAbuse of Position Allegation at a Post in Eastern Europe\n\nOIG received an allegation that a general services officer had received several personal loans\nduring an 18-month period from the owner and lessor of the Peace Corps office building in\ncountry. The personal loans totaled approximately $3,400. Upon questioning, the employee\nacknowledged having solicited six loans from Peace Corps vendors and three loans from\nsubordinate employees. The employee also acknowledged that he/she received two loans from\nstaff that he/she did not supervise. The employee\xe2\x80\x99s conduct violated federal ethics regulations\nand Peace Corps policy and the Peace Corps terminated his/her employment.\n\n\n\n\nA p r i l 1 to S ep t e mbe r 30 , 20 13 29\n\x0cPAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK\n\x0cTables\n\n\n\n\nPeace Corps headquarters staff Angela Glenn with friends during her Volunteer\nservice in Peace Corps/Zambia.\n\x0c Tables\n\n1: List of Reports: Audits and Evaluations\n\n Agency-wide\n Capstone Report: 2012 Medical Inventory Issues\n MAR: Certification of Volunteer Payments\n\n\n Post Audits\n PC/Jamaica: Audit (IG-13-05-A)\n PC/Zambia: Audit (IG-13-06-A)\n\n\n Country Program Evaluations\n PC/Columbia: Country Program Evaluation (IG-13-03-E)\n PC/Moldova: Country Program Evaluation (IG-13-04-E)\n\n\n\n\n 32 S e mi a n n u a l R ep or t to Co n g re s s\n\x0c P EACE CORPS OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\n\n 2: Reports with Questioned Costs, Unsupported Costs, and Funds Put to Better Use\n\n Questioned Unsupported Funds Put to\n Report\n Costs 15 Costs 16 Better Use17\nMAR: Certification of Volunteer Payments\nNon-recurring Volunteer payments made by the Peace Corps\n $2,800,000\nwithout proper certification\n\nPC/Zambia: Audit (IG-13-06-A)\nUnclaimed value-added tax refunds $140,000\nOverpayment of rent allowance $19,300\n\nPC/Jamaica: Audit (IG-13-05-A)\nEstimated sale price of an excess vehicle and its annual maintenance cost $21,055\nPotential unclaimed value-added tax $1,500\nPayment made without valid obligating documents $373,000\n\n Subtotal\n $19,300 $3,173,000 $162,555\n\n Total $3,354,855\n\n\n\n\n 15\n Questioned Costs \xe2\x80\x93 a cost that is an alleged violation of government or Peace Corps regulations. For example:\n prohibited purchases and expenditure of funds for purposes that do not relate to the Peace Corps mission.\n 16\n Unsupported Costs \xe2\x80\x93 a cost that is not supported by adequate documentation.\n 17\n Funds Put to Better Use \xe2\x80\x93 a cost that could be used more efficiently, such as costs for unnecessary goods or\n services.\n\n A p r i l 1 to S ep t e mbe r 30 , 20 13 33\n\x0c 3: Status of Reports Issued by OIG with Questioned and Uns upported Costs\n\n Number of Questioned Unsupported\n Reports Costs Costs\nA. Reports issued prior to this period\n For which no management decision has been made on any issue - - -\n For which some decisions had been made on some issues - - -\n\nB. Reports issued during this period 3 1 2\n\nTotals of Categories A and B 3 1 2\n\nC. For which final management decisions were made during this period\n Dollar value of disallowed costs 1 $19,300 -\n Dollar value of costs not disallowed 2 - $3,173,000\n\nD. For which no management decisions were made during this period - - -\n\nE. For which management decisions were made on some issues during\n - - -\nthis period\n\nTotals of Categories C, D, and E 3 $19,300 $3,173,000\nTotal questioned costs and unsupported costs 3 $3,192,300\n\n\n\n\n 34 S e mi a n n u a l R ep or t to Co n g re s s\n\x0c P EACE CORPS OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\n\n 4: Status of Reports Issued by OIG with Funds to be Put to Better Use\n\n Number of Funds Put to\n Reports Better Use\nA. Reports issued prior to this period\n For which no management decision has been made on any issue - -\n For which some decisions had been made on some issues - -\n\nB. Reports issued during this period 2 $162,555\n\nTotals of Categories A and B 2 $162,555\n\nC. For which final management decisions were made during this period\n Dollar value of recommendations agreed to by management 2 $162,555\n Dollar value of recommendations not agreed to by management - -\n\nD. For which no management decisions were made during this period - -\n\nE. For which management decisions were made on some issues during this period - -\n\nTotals of Categories C, D, and E 2 $162,555\n\n\n\n\n A p r i l 1 to S ep t e mbe r 30 , 20 13 35\n\x0c5: Recomme ndations on which Corrective Action has not been Completed\nAu d its a nd Evaluations\n Open Recommendations 60 to 119 Days\n Agency\n Concurrence 18\n\n\n\n\n Concur\n\n\n\n Partial\n Date Total Open\n\n\n\n\n Non\n Report\n Issued Recommendations\n\n PC/Jamaica: Audit (IG-13-05-A) 7/3/2013 4 4 - -\n Total 4 4 - -\n .\n\n\n Open Recommendations 120 to 179 Days\n Date Total Open\n Report\n Issued Recommendations\n PC/Colombia: Evaluation (IG-13-03-E) 4/29/2013 1 1 - -\n Total 1 1 - -\n .\n\n\n Open Recommendations More than 180 Days\n Date Total Open\n Report\n Issued Recommendations\n PC/HQ Medical Clearance System: Evaluation\n 3/31/2008 1 1 - -\n (IG-08-08-E)\n PC/HQ Office of Chief Information Officer Budget\n 1/11/2010 1 1 - -\n Formulation and Management: Audit (IG-10-05-A)\n PC/HQ Volunteer Delivery System: Evaluation\n 11/6/2010 9 9 - -\n (IG-11-01-E)\n PC/Ukraine: Audit (IG-11-06-A) 3/31/2011 1 - 1 -\n PC/Liberia: Country Program Evaluation (IG-11-07-E) 9/8/2011 1 1 - -\n PC/Fiji: Country Program Evaluation (IG-12-01-E) 11/30/2011 1 1 - -\n PC/HQ The Process for Formulating and Executing\n 2/14/2012 1 - 1\n Peace Corps\xe2\x80\x99 Budget: Audit (IG-12-02-A)\n PC/HQ The Impact of the FYR on Operations of the\n 6/20/2012 5 5 - -\n Peace Corps: Evaluation (IG-12-05-E)\n PC/Uganda: Evaluation (IG-12-06-E) 7/6/2012 5 5 - -\n PC/Indonesia: Evaluation (IG-12-07-E) 9/19/2012 2 2 - -\n PC/Jordan: Audit (IG-12-07-A) 9/25/2012 4 4 - -\n PC/HQ The Peace Corps\xe2\x80\x99 Implementation of\n Guidelines and Protocols Related to Volunteer Victims 9/27/2012 10 10 - -\n of Sexual Assault: Review (IG-12-08-E)\n PC/HQ The Peace Corps\xe2\x80\x99 50th Anniversary Program:\n 10/25/2012 3 3 - -\n Audit (IG-13-01-A)\n PC/Malawi: Audit (IG-13-02-A) 2/27/2013 6 6 - -\n PC/Namibia: Evaluation (IG-13-01-E) 3/15/2013 7 7 - -\n PC/South Africa: Audit (IG-13-03-A) 3/18/2013 3 3 - -\n PC/Malawi: Evaluation (IG-13-02-E) 3/22/2013 14 14 - -\n PC/HQ Peace Corps\xe2\x80\x99 Grant Programs: Review\n 3/28/2013 8 8 - -\n (IG-13-04-A)\n Total 82 80 2 -\n\n\n18\n The sum of open recommendations in the Agency Concurrence columns equals the number in the Total Open Recommendations column.\n\n 36 S e mi a n n u a l R ep or t to Co n g re s s\n\x0c P EACE CORPS OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\n\n Financial Statement and FISM A Recommendations 19\n Agency\n Concurrence\n\n\n\n\n Concur\n\n\n\n Partial\n Non\n Open\n Fiscal Year Issued\n Recommendations\n\n PC/HQ FY 2012 Financial Statement Audit (IG-12-00-A)\n FY 2012 3 3 - -\n FY 2011 1 1 - -\n FY 2010 1 1 - -\n FY 2009 2 2 - -\n FY 2004 1 1 - -\n Total 8 8 - -\n\n PC/HQ FY 2012 Information Security Program Audit (IG-12-99-A)\n FY 2012 1 1 - -\n FY 2010 1 1 - -\n FY 2009 2 2 - -\n FY 2008 3 3 - -\n FY 2007 3 3 - -\n Total 10 10 - -\n\n\n\n\n19\n All recommendations issued in conjunction with these two reports are part of a normal 12-month audit cycle. As a\nresult, recommendations made during a given FY will remain in an open status during the entire subsequent FY. At\nthe beginning of each new FY, the auditors will notify management whether sufficient corrective actions have been\ntaken regarding the prior-year recommendations and issue current notifications of findings and recommendations.\nPrior-year findings and recommendations may be reissued if management has not taken sufficient corrective actions.\n\nA p r i l 1 to S ep t e mbe r 30 , 20 13 37\n\x0c6: Summary of Investigative Activities and Outcomes 20\n\n Investigative Activities\n Preliminary Cases\n Inquiries21\n Opened as of 4/1/2013 43 14\n Opened during 4/1/2013\xe2\x80\x939/30/2013 97 13\n Closed during 4/1/2013\xe2\x80\x939/30/2013 84 11\n Total Open as of 10/1/2013 66 16\n\n Referrals\n Referrals to Department of Justice 7\n Referrals to Agency for Administrative Action 8\n Other Referrals to Agency Management 40\n Referrals to Other Agencies 2\n\n Court Actions\n Trial(s) Pending 2\n Ongoing Prosecution 22 -\n Convictions 1\n Judgments -\n Fines/Restitution -\n\n Administrative Action s\n Employees (Resignations and Terminations)23 5\n Other Employee Actions 4\n Suspension/Debarment Referrals -\n\n Monetary Results\n Annual Savings $50,567\n Recoveries/Restitution -\n Cost Avoidance -\n\n\n\n\n20\n Volunteers/trainees are included as Peace Corps staff for the purpose of reporting investigative activity.\n21\n Preliminary inquiries are initiated for complaints which either (1) are received from a Peace Corps source (e.g.,\nstaff, Volunteer, contractor) or (2) relate to a matter within the jurisdiction of OIG. A preliminary inquiry is limited\nin scope to the verification of information in a complaint or allegation and to confirm that it falls within the\njurisdiction of OIG.\n22\n Includes arrests, indictments, information, and overseas criminal proceedings.\n23\n Includes all Peace Corps staff.\n\n 38 S e mi a n n u a l R ep or t to Co n g re s s\n\x0c P EACE CORPS OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\n\n7: Summary of Hotline and Other Complaints\n\n Hotline Complaints Received 93\n Non-Hotline Complaints received 24 32\n Total Complaints from all Sources 25 125\n Resulted in Investigations 7\n Resulted in Preliminary Inquiries 80\n Resulted in Audits or Evaluations -\n Referred to Agency Management 25\n Referred to Other Agency 3\n No Action Needed 19\n\n\n\n\n24\n These complaints are largely a result of outreach by OIG staff and were received by email, phone calls, and\nconversations.\n25\n In some instances, OIG received multiple complaints for the same issue, which resulted in fewer actions\n(investigations, preliminary inquiries, audits, evaluations, referrals, or no action) than complaints received.\n\nA p r i l 1 to S ep t e mbe r 30 , 20 13 39\n\x0c8: References to Reporting Require ments of the Inspector Gene ral Act\n\n Act Reference Reporting Requirements Page\n 10\xe2\x80\x9313;\n Section 4(a)(2) Review of legislation and regulations\n 43\xe2\x80\x9344\n Section 5(a)(1) Significant problems, abuses, and deficiencies 26\xe2\x80\x9329\n Section 5(a)(2) Significant recommendations for corrective actions 8\xe2\x80\x9324\n Prior significant recommendations on which corrective action has not been\n Section 5(a)(3) 36\xe2\x80\x9337\n completed\n 26\xe2\x80\x9329;\n Section 5(a)(4) Matters referred to prosecuting authorities\n 38\xe2\x80\x9339\n Section 5(a)(5) Summary of instances where information was refused 13\n Section 5(a)(6) List of audit reports, including evaluations, inspections, and reviews 32\n Section 5(a)(7) Summary of significant reports 16\xe2\x80\x9324\n Section 5(a)(8) Statistical table - questioned and unsupported costs 33\n Section 5(a)(9) Statistical table - funds to be put to better use 35\n Section 5(a)(10) Summary of previous audit reports without management decisions n/a\n Section 5(a)(11) Significant revised management decisions n/a\n Section 5(a)(12) Significant management decisions with which the Inspector General disagrees n/a\n Section 5(a)(13) Information under Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 n/a\n\n\n\n\n 40 S e mi a n n u a l R ep or t to Co n g re s s\n\x0cAppendices\n\n\n\n\nOIG Luggage tag distributed to new Volunteers during their pre-departure staging\nevent.\n\x0c Appendices\n\nA: Reporting of Peer Reviews\nPursuant to Section 989C of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act\n(Public Law No. 111-203), 26 OIG reports the following peer review information:\n\nDuring the reporting period, a peer review of the Peace Corps OIG Investigation Unit was\nconducted. The Audit and Investigation units are required to conduct peer reviews and be subject\nof a peer review every three years.\n\n\nAudit Unit\n\nIn June 2011, the U.S. Government Printing Office OIG conducted a peer review of the Audit\nUnit of the Peace Corps OIG in effect for the period ending September 30, 2010. In its comment\nletter, the U.S. Government Printing Office OIG issued findings that were not considered to be of\nsufficient significance to affect the opinion expressed in that report. The Peace Corps OIG\ninitiated action to update its audit policies and procedures, enhance working paper\ndocumentation, and formalize the process for overseeing independent public auditors.\n\nIn February 2013, the Peace Corps OIG conducted a peer review of the audit organization of the\nNational Credit Union Administration OIG in effect for the period ending September 30, 2012.\nThere were no recommendations made.\n\n\nInvestigation Unit\n\nIn April 2013, the USAID OIG conducted a peer review of the Investigation Unit of the Peace\nCorps OIG in effect for the period ending April 8, 2013. In its Quality Assessment Review,\nUSAID OIG gave an opinion that the system of internal safeguards and management procedures\nof the Peace Corps OIG\xe2\x80\x99s investigative function were in compliance with the quality standards\nestablished by t he CIGIE, and the applicable Attorney General guidelines.\n\n\nB: Contract Audit Reports\nPursuant to Section 845A of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal\nYear 2008 (Public Law No. 110-181), the Peace Corps OIG reports final contract audit reports\nwith significant audit findings. During this reporting period, OIG did not issue any audit reports\nmeeting the \xe2\x80\x9csignificant audit findings\xe2\x80\x9d criteria established in P.L. 110-181.\n\n\n26\n Section 989C of the Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act amends Section 5(a) of the Inspector\nGeneral Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.).\n\n 42 S e mi a n n u a l R ep or t to Co n g re s s\n\x0c P EACE CORPS OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\nC: Review of Legislation and Regulations\nImple mentation Highlights of the Kate Puzey Volunteer Protection Act 27\n\nOn August 30, 2013, the agency issued the following policies or policy revisions, including\ncorresponding procedures key to implementing the SARRR program and associated training: 28\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 IPS 3-13 \xe2\x80\x9cResponding to Sexual Assault\xe2\x80\x9d\n \xe2\x80\xa2 IPS 1-13 \xe2\x80\x9cStalking\xe2\x80\x9d\n \xe2\x80\xa2 IPS 2-13 \xe2\x80\x9cSexual Assault Response Liaisons\xe2\x80\x9d\n \xe2\x80\xa2 MS 270 \xe2\x80\x9cVolunteer/Trainee Safety and Security\xe2\x80\x9d\n \xe2\x80\xa2 MS 774 \xe2\x80\x9cRetention of Counsel and Payment of Expenses\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nThe agency also issued additional policy revisions related to implementation of the Kate Puzey\nAct during this reporting period. 29 Also on August 30, OIG issued two preliminary evaluation\nreports for agency comment relating to the agency\xe2\x80\x99s Volunteer sexual assault policy and SARRR\ntraining; a third report, an audit of overseas staffing, remains ongoing. The three OIG reports are\nmandated by the Kate Puzey Act and must be submitted to Congress by November 21. In FY\n2014, OIG intends to follow up on its audit and evaluation on the agency\xe2\x80\x99s Volunteer safety and\nsecurity program. 30 The follow-up audit will include how the agency has implemented the\nmemorandum of understanding between the Peace Corps and the Department of State, Bureau of\nDiplomatic Security, mandated by the Kate Puzey Act and executed in May 2012.\n\nIn addition, the agency has reported to OIG the following progress in implementing the Kate\nPuzey Act. OIG has not independently verified or assessed all the information below.\n\nIn August 2013, the agency concluded a six-month pilot of the 24-hour sexual assault hotline\nprogram for Volunteers in seven countries. The agency will use survey results from the pilot\nprogram to design and phase-in the hotline for all Volunteers.\n\nSARLs were selected for all Peace Corps posts, trained in their new role for supporting\nVolunteers who are victims of sexual assault, and certified according to a new internal\n\n27\n As part of the Kate Puzey Act, OIG is required to report to Congress on (1) the effectiveness and implementation\nof the agency\xe2\x80\x99s sexual assault risk-reduction and response training and policy, including a case review; (2) how the\nagency hires/terminates its CDs, including an assessment of the implementation of country director performance\nplans as well as how CDs hire post staff; and (3) allegations received from Volunteers relating to misconduct,\nmismanagement, or policy violations or Peace Corps staff, any breaches of the confidentiality of Volunteers, and\nany actions taken to assure the safety of Volunteers who provide such reports.\n28\n The policies were issued on the August 30, 2013 but did not go into effect until September 1, 2013.\n29\n Other policy revisions issued during this SARC reporting period related to implementation of the Kate Puzey Act\ninclude: MS 281 \xe2\x80\x9cCompletion of Service Date Advancement and Extension of Service\xe2\x80\x9d (issued Aug. 2, 2013); MS\n202 \xe2\x80\x9cVolunteer Leaders\xe2\x80\x9d (issued July 24, 2013); MS 271 \xe2\x80\x9cConfidentiality Protection\xe2\x80\x9d (issued July 22, 2013); IPS 1-\n12 \xe2\x80\x9cAnonymous Sexual Assault Hotline\xe2\x80\x9d (issued July 1, 2013); MS 221 \xe2\x80\x9cVolunteer Allowances\xe2\x80\x9d (issued May 30,\n2013); MS 222 \xe2\x80\x9cTrainee Allowances\xe2\x80\x9d (issued May 30, 2013); MS 223 \xe2\x80\x9cVolunteer/Trainee Readjustment\nAllowances\xe2\x80\x9d (issued May 30, 2013); and MS 284 \xe2\x80\x9cEarly Termination of Service\xe2\x80\x9d (issued May 3, 2013).\n30\n See FY 2010 Audit of Peace Corps\xe2\x80\x99 Volunteer Safety and Security Program and FY 2008 Evaluation of Volunteer\nSafety and Security.\n\nA p r i l 1 to S ep t e mbe r 30 , 20 13 43\n\x0ccompetency test. The agency is currently training overseas and relevant headquarters staff on the\nagency\xe2\x80\x99s updated policies and procedures, including new reporting options and the role of\nSARLs. The agency also revised and implemented pre-service training for Volunteer trainees\nand online training for current Volunteers to include information on sexual assault reporting\noptions, the role of SARLs, and policies and procedures related to reporting sexual assault.\n\nThe agency hired new personnel to implement the Kate Puzey Act. The Office of Victim\nAdvocacy hired an associate victim advocate to support the work of the current victim advocate.\nThe Counseling and Outreach Unit hired two mental health-care professionals to provide support\nto Volunteers who are victims of sexual assault. The agency hired a crime survey specialist to\ndesign the agency\xe2\x80\x99s first anonymous crime victimization survey.\n\nThe Office of General Counsel established an on-call duty lawyer program to assure\nuninterrupted availability for Volunteers who request to speak to local counsel regarding legal\nand prosecutorial options. Additionally, the Office of General Counsel gathered and screened\nhost country lawyers to include on a pre-selected list. The host country lawyers would advise\nVolunteer victims who have questions regarding legal and prosecutorial options in the\nVolunteer\xe2\x80\x99s host country.\n\nThe agency modified its Consolidated Incident Reporting System, which is used to track and\nrecord incidents against Volunteers, to accommodate restricted sexual assault reports and the\nrevised sexual assault classifications. Stalking was also added as a new category in the modified\nsystem.\n\n\n\n\n 44 S e mi a n n u a l R ep or t to Co n g re s s\n\x0c Help Promote the Integrity, Efficiency, and\n Effectiveness of the Peace Corps\n Anyone knowing of wasteful practices, abuse, mismanagement,\n fraud, or unlawful activity involving Peace Corps programs or\npersonnel should contact the Office of Inspector General. Reports or\n complaints can also be made anonymously.\n\n\n\n\n Contact OIG\n\n Reporting Hotline:\n U.S./International: 202.692.2915\n Toll-free (U.S. only): 800.233.5874\n\n Email: OIG@peacecorps.gov\n Web Form: peacecorps.gov/OIG/ContactOIG\n\n Mail: Peace Corps Office of Inspector General\n P.O. Box 57129\n Washington, DC 20037-7129\n\n\n\n For General Information:\n Main Office: 202.692.2900\n Website: peacecorps.gov/OIG\n Twitter: twitter.com/PCOIG\n\x0c\x0c"


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 27.4.2021
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 L 143/6
 REGULAMENTUL DE PUNERE ÎN APLICARE (UE) 2021/685 AL COMISIEI
 din 22 aprilie 2021
 de rectificare a versiunii în limba polonă a Regulamentului (UE) nr. 1321/2014 privind menținerea navigabilității aeronavelor și a produselor, reperelor și dispozitivelor aeronautice și autorizarea întreprinderilor și a personalului cu atribuții în domeniu
 (Text cu relevanță pentru SEE)
 COMISIA EUROPEANĂ,
 având în vedere Tratatul privind funcționarea Uniunii Europene,
 având în vedere Regulamentul (UE) 2018/1139 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului din 4 iulie 2018 privind normele comune în domeniul aviației civile și de înființare a Agenției Uniunii Europene pentru Siguranța Aviației, de modificare a Regulamentelor (CE) nr. 2111/2005, (CE) nr. 1008/2008, (UE) nr. 996/2010, (UE) nr. 376/2014 și a Directivelor 2014/30/UE și 2014/53/UE ale Parlamentului European și ale Consiliului, precum și de abrogare a Regulamentelor (CE) nr. 552/2004 și (CE) nr. 216/2008 ale Parlamentului European și ale Consiliului și a Regulamentului (CEE) nr. 3922/91 al Consiliului (1), în special articolul 17 alineatul (1),
 întrucât:
 (1)
 Versiunea în limba polonă a Regulamentului (UE) nr. 1321/2014 al Comisiei (2) cuprinde o eroare la punctul M.A.201 litera (a) punctul 1 din anexa I și la punctul ML.A.201 litera (a) punctul 1 din anexa Vb în ceea ce privește sfera de aplicabilitate a cerințelor care trebuie îndeplinite înainte ca un zbor să poată avea loc; o eroare la punctul M.A.201 litera (a) punctul 3 din anexa I, în teza introductivă de la punctul M.A.901 din anexa I, la punctul ML.A.201 litera (a) punctul 3 din anexa Vb și în teza introductivă de la punctul ML.A.901 din anexa Vb în ceea ce privește certificatul de navigabilitate; o eroare la punctul M.A.302 litera (e) din anexa I în ceea ce privește intervalele extinse care pot fi propuse de proprietar sau de întreprinderea care se ocupă de managementul menținerii navigabilității aeronavei; o eroare la punctul M.A.402 litera (e) din anexa I și la punctul ML.A.402 litera (b) punctul 5 din anexa Vb în ceea ce privește limitările în cadrul cărora se efectuează întreținerea; o eroare la punctul M.A.901 litera (f) din anexa I în ceea ce privește sfera de aplicabilitate a posibilității de a prelungi valabilitatea unui certificat de examinare a navigabilității; erori în formularele 15a, 15b și 15c ale AESA din apendicele III la anexa I și din apendicele IV la anexa Vb în ceea ce privește data în raport cu care se face certificarea; precum și o eroare la punctul 145.A.55 litera (c) a doua teză din anexa II în ceea ce privește sfera de aplicabilitate a obligației întreprinderii cu atribuții de întreținere de a păstra o copie a înregistrărilor.
 (2)
 În plus, versiunea în limba polonă a Regulamentului (UE) nr. 1321/2014 cuprinde erori la punctul M.A.201 litera (b) din anexa I, la punctul 3 a doua liniuță din apendicele I la anexa I, la punctul ML.1 litera (c) punctul 3 subpunctul (ii) din anexa Vb, la punctul ML.A.201 litera (b) din anexa Vb, la litera (c) punctul 2 din apendicele I la anexa Vb și la punctul CAO.1 punctul 2 subpunctul (ii) din anexa Vd în ceea ce privește trimiterile la închirierea aeronavelor și la locatarul aeronavelor.
 (3)
 Prin urmare, versiunea în limba polonă a Regulamentului (UE) nr. 1321/2014 ar trebui rectificată în consecință. Celelalte versiuni lingvistice nu sunt afectate.
 (4)
 Măsurile prevăzute în prezentul regulament sunt conforme cu avizul comitetului menționat la articolul 127 alineatul (1) din Regulamentul (UE) 2018/1139,
 ADOPTĂ PREZENTUL REGULAMENT:
 Articolul 1
 (nu privește versiunea în limba română)
 Articolul 2
 Prezentul regulament intră în vigoare în a douăzecea zi de la data publicării în Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene.
 Prezentul regulament este obligatoriu în toate elementele sale și se aplică direct în toate statele membre.
 Adoptat la Bruxelles, 22 aprilie 2021.
 Pentru Comisie
 Președintele
 Ursula VON DER LEYEN
 (1) JO L 212, 22.8.2018, p. 1.
 (2) Regulamentul (UE) nr. 1321/2014 al Comisiei din 26 noiembrie 2014 privind menținerea navigabilității aeronavelor și a produselor, reperelor și dispozitivelor aeronautice și autorizarea întreprinderilor și a personalului cu atribuții în domeniu (JO L 362, 17.12.2014, p. 1).