type: wikipedia

text:
Ballus Pál (Modor, 1783. december 18. – Pozsony, 1848. április 30.) pozsonyi tanácsos, gyümölcsnemesítő, Kisfaludy Károly barátja és támogatója.
 Élete
 Teológiát tanult Pozsonyban, majd külföldi egyetemeket látogatott. Visszatérve hazájába, Pozsonyban telepedett le, ahol eleinte több éven át nevelősködött. Később házasság útján jelentékeny vagyonhoz jutott, amelyet okos szőlőművelés és kiterjedt borkereskedés által bővíteni tudott. Eközben folytonosan tudományos munkával is foglalkozott. Pozsony városa tanácsosának választotta meg.
 Több cikke megjelent a Pressburger Zeitungban, ennek Pannonia című mellékletében (1839. 21. sz.) és a Századunkban (1839. 19. sz.).
 Művei
 Beschreibung der königl. Freistadt Pressburg und ihrer Umgebungen. Pressburg. 1822. (Névtelenül.)
 Beschreibung der, den Obstbäumen in hiesiger Gegend schädlichsten Raupenarten. (Ugyanott, 1830.)
 Pressburg und seine Umgebungen. (Ugyanott, 1832.)
 Geschichte der Entstehung und Gründung des Waisenhauses in Pressburg. (Ugyanott, 1833.)
 Források
 Magyar életrajzi lexikon I-II. Főszerk. Kenyeres Ágnes. Bp., Akadémiai Kiadó, 1967-1969.
 Jegyzetek
 További információk
 Biografický Lexikón Slovenska. Red. Pavol Parenička. Martin, Slovenská Národná Knižnica Národný Biografický Ústav, 2002-.
 Malý Slovenský Biografický Slovník. Hlavný redaktor Vladimír Mináč. Martin, Matica slovenská, 1982.
 A Pallas nagy lexikona, az összes ismeretek enciklopédiája. 1-16 k. (17-18. pótk. Szerk. Bokor József). Bp., Pallas-Révai, 1893-1904.
 ponori Thewrewk József: Magyarok születésnapjai. Pozsony, Schmidt Antal, 1846.
 Magyar kereskedők, bankárok, iparosok
 Pozsonyiak
 1783-ban született személyek
 1848-ban elhunyt személyek


type: legislation

jurisdiction: US

text:
 113 HR 3764 IH: Personal Financial Information Protection Act
 U.S. House of Representatives
 2013-12-12
 text/xml
 EN
 Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.
 I113th CONGRESS1st SessionH. R. 3764IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESDecember 12, 2013Mr. Posey introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concernedA BILLTo impose penalties for the unauthorized disclosure of personal financial information by Federal employees.1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the Personal Financial Information Protection Act.2.Unauthorized disclosure of personally identifiable covered information(a)Liability for Certain Acts(1)In generalIt shall be unlawful for any officer or employee of the United States—(A)willfully to make an unauthorized disclosure of personally identifiable covered information; or(B)to conspire to commit a violation of subparagraph (A).(2)Penalty(A)In generalAny violation of paragraph (1) shall be subject to a penalty of not more than the greatest of—(i)the penalty specified in the law setting forth the offense which covers a violation of paragraph (1), or(ii)the penalty set forth in subparagraph (B).(B)Uniform penaltyThe penalty set forth in this subparagraph is a felony punishable upon conviction by—(i)a fine in any amount not exceeding $100,000 for each such violation and imprisonment of not more than 7 years,(ii)the costs of prosecution, and(iii)dismissal from office or discharge from employment.(C)Forfeiture of annuities and retired payA violation of paragraph (1) shall be treated as an offense to which sections 8312 and 8432(g)(5) of title 5, United States Code, apply.(b)DefinitionsFor purposes of this section—(1)Officer of the United StatesThe term officer of the United States means an officer appointed pursuant to section 2104(a)(1)(C) of title 5, United States Code.(2)Employee of the United StatesThe term employee of the United States means an employee, as defined by section 2105 of title 5, United States Code.(3)Personally identifiable covered informationThe term personally identifiable covered information means any information contained in a financial record (as defined in section 1101 of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3401), if such information contains the name, social security number, street address, telephone number, electronic mail address, or any other personally identifiable information concerning the consumer to which such financial record relates.3.Private right of action(a)In generalAny person who violates section 2 of this Act or who willfully aids, abets, counsels, induces, or procures the commission of a violation of section 2 of this Act shall be liable to the person whose personally identifiable covered information was disclosed in violation of section 2 of this Act—(1)in the amount of $100,000 for each such violation, and(2)for costs of prosecution and attorney fees.(b)Jurisdiction; statute of limitations; venue; processThe United States district courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction of actions brought under this section. Any such action shall be brought not later than two years after the date the cause of action arises. Any action brought under subsection (a) of this section may be brought in any judicial district wherein the defendant is found, resides, or transacts business, or in the judicial district wherein any act or transaction constituting the violation occurs. Process in such action may be served in any judicial district of which the defendant is an inhabitant or wherever the defendant may be found.


type: other

text: b" Office of Inspector General\n Corporation for National and\n Community Service\n\n\n\n\n Semiannual Report\n to Congress\nApril 1, 2006 - September 30, 2006\n Fiscal Year 2006 Semiannual Report No. 2\n\n\n\n\n 1201 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 830\n Washington, DC 20525\n Telephone (202) 606-9390\n Facsimile (202) 606-9397\n Hotline (800) 452-8210\n Website: www.cncsig.gov\n\x0c &\n COMMUNITY\n SERVICE=\n\n\n\nOctober 3 1,2006\n\n\n\nI am pleased to present our Semiannual Report to Congress and share with you the results of\nthe Office of Inspector General's (OIG) audits, investigations and proactive initiatives for the\nperiod April 1,2006, to September 30,2006.\n\nDuring this reporting period the OIG Audit Section issued 22 reports on a wide variety of\ntopics, including audits of State commissions, and National Direct and Senior Corps\ngrantees. We also examined a number of Corporation operations, including procurement,\ninternet use and management controls and hurricane relief mission assignments from the\nFederal Emergency Management Agency.\n\nOur Investigations Section closed 30 cases, opened 37 new actions and recovered more than\n$268,000 in taxpayer funding while identifying an additional $1.76 million in potential\nrecoveries that can be reinvested in National Service. Major investigations by OIG agents\nincluded a Georgia case in which we teamed with Corporation officials to win an important\nconviction and a Michigan case that led to the strengthening of that State's criminal\nbackground check program.\n\nWe continued our proactive efforts to improve the OIG's efficiency and effectiveness. Major\nefforts included the establishment of a Forensic Investigation Lab that has already proven\nitself an effective tool against computer related crime and a major upgrade of our information\ntechnology systems. We also fully implemented a new performance-based employee\nappraisal system.\n\nWe are proud of the varied and innovative efforts undertaken by the OIG during this period\nto detect and prevent waste, fraud and abuse. All of our work directly supports the\nCorporation's mission of expanding opportunities for service and maximizing the impact of\nevery Federal tax dollar invested in its programs.\n\nSincerely,\n\n\n\nRobert Shadowens\nDeputy Inspector General\n\n\n\n\n *\n 1201 New York Avenue, NW Suite 830, Washington, DC 20525\n U SAgE\n *\n 202-606-9390 + Hotline: 800-452-8210 www.cncsig.gov\n Freedom Corns\n Senior Corps *: AmeriCorps * Learn and Serve America\n\x0c Table Of Contents\n\n\nExecutive Summary................................................................................................. 1\n Proactive Initiatives ..................................................................................................................... 1\n Audit Section ................................................................................................................................ 1\n Investigations Section................................................................................................................. 2\n About The Office Of Inspector General ..................................................................................... 2\n\nProactive Initiatives ................................................................................................. 5\n OIG Management Initiatives........................................................................................................ 7\n Coordination With Corporation Management ........................................................................... 8\n Outreach and Education ............................................................................................................. 8\n\nAudit Section.......................................................................................................... 11\n Summary of Audits .................................................................................................................... 13\n Financial Management and Corporation Operations ............................................................. 13\n Grant Management and Oversight ........................................................................................... 14\n State Commission Audits ......................................................................................................... 14\n AmeriCorps National Direct Grant Audits ............................................................................... 15\n Senior Corps Grant Audits........................................................................................................ 16\n OMB Circular A-133 Quality Control Review........................................................................... 16\n Audit Resolution ........................................................................................................................ 17\n Management Decisions ............................................................................................................. 17\n Notices of Final Action .............................................................................................................. 18\n\nInvestigations Section........................................................................................... 21\n Summary of Cases..................................................................................................................... 23\n\nReview of Legislation and Regulations ............................................................... 31\n Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act.......................................................................................... 33\n E-Mail And Other Records Retention Policies ........................................................................ 33\n\nStatistical and Summary Tables ........................................................................... 35\n I. Inspector General Act Reporting Requirements........................................................... 37\n II. Reports With Questioned Costs ..................................................................................... 38\n III. Reports With Recommendations That Funds Be Put To Better Use .......................... 39\n IV. Summary of Audits With Overdue Management Decisions......................................... 40\n V. Reports Described in Prior Semiannual Reports Without Final Action...................... 41\n\nFiscal Year 2006 Performance Information ......................................................... 43\n\x0c Executive Summary\n\n\n Executive Summary\nProactive Initiatives\n The OIG continued to take a proactive stance by undertaking numerous initiatives to improve its\n effectiveness and efficiency and to provide the Corporation with timely advisories and information on\n key issues involving its programs and operations. During this reporting period, the OIG launched its\n new Forensic Investigation Lab, giving our investigators an important new tool against computer-\n related crime. We also fully implemented an Employee Performance Management appraisal program\n that directly links compensation to performance and OIG strategic goals. Our Investigations Section\n continued to implement our Statutory Law Enforcement Authority, which includes the ability to\n execute search and arrest warrants and to carry firearms, with extensive agent training and\n equipment upgrades. Significant improvements were also made to our information technology\n systems, allowing OIG investigators and auditors to work more effectively and efficiently in their\n efforts to detect and prevent waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars.\n\n\nAudit Section\n During this reporting period, the OIG Audit Section conducted audit and other work to improve the\n operations of the Corporation and issued 22 reports. A summary for each report issued is included in\n this semiannual report.\n\n Work ongoing during this reporting period includes:\n\n Senior Corps Audits\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Council on Aging of Volusia County, FL\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Kansas Big Brothers/Big Sisters\n\n AmeriCorps Audits\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Florida Commission\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Maryland Commission\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Utah Commission\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Mississippi Commission\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Texas Commission\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Public Allies, Inc.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 United States Veterans Initiative\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Teach for America (member compliance review)\n\n Corporation Operations\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Audit of the FY 2006 Financial Statements and Trust\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Follow-up Review of AmeriCorps Enrollment Procedures\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Study of Federal Assistance Monitoring Tools\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Fiscal Year 2006 Federal Information System Management Act Independent Evaluation\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Review of Seven Corners Health Benefits Administration Claims Processing Contract\n\n\n\n\n April 1, 2006 \xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2006 1\n\x0cExecutive Summary\n\n OMB Circular A-133 Audit Quality Control Reviews\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Quality Control Review of the Catholic Network of Volunteer Services OMB A-133 Audit\n Report performed by Cocchiaro & Associates\n\n\nInvestigations Section\n The OIG Investigations Section continues to investigate allegations of fraud, waste, and abuse of\n taxpayer dollars in Corporation programs and operations. During this reporting period, the\n Investigations Section received and processed 115 Hotline contacts, opened 37 investigative actions,\n and closed 30 actions. Seven matters were referred to the U.S. Department of Justice for\n prosecution. Seventy-five other matters were referred to Corporation management and State\n commissions for action. Investigators were responsible for recovering $268,839.10 in Corporation\n funds and $74,586.35 in cost avoidance. Based on information presented to the Corporation,\n management debarred nine individuals from participating in Federal grant and procurement\n programs. In addition, ongoing OIG investigations have identified $1.76 million in potential\n recoveries.\n\n\nAbout The Office Of Inspector General\n In 1993, Congress created the Corporation for National and Community Service (Corporation), along\n with this Office of Inspector General (OIG), in the National and Community Service Trust Act (42\n U.S.C. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 12501-681 (2004)). Our office is independent of the agency it oversees. Led by a\n presidential appointee, we conduct audits and investigations of Corporation programs, including\n AmeriCorps, Volunteers In Service to America (VISTA), the National Civilian Community Corps,\n Learn and Serve America, and Senior Corps.\n\n The OIG also examines Corporation operations, State community service programs that receive and\n distribute the majority of Corporation grant funds, and local recipients of subgrants.\n\n Based on the results of our audits, investigations and reviews, the OIG recommends Corporation\n policies to promote economy and efficiency. We also strive to prevent and detect waste, fraud and\n abuse of taxpayer dollars that have been invested in National Service.\n\n This semiannual report, as required by the Inspector General Act of 1978, details our work for the last\n six months of Fiscal Year 2006. It is being transmitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the\n Corporation, the Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s Board of Directors, and Members of Congress. It will also be made\n available to the public.\n\n All of our work is conducted in strict adherence to the Privacy Act and the Freedom of Information\n Act. Our efforts are often aided by information supplied via the OIG Hotline (800-452-8210). The\n Hotline allows Corporation employees, grantees, program beneficiaries, and others to report\n concerns and suspected fraud.\n\n For more information on the OIG and its work, please visit our Internet website: www.cncsig.gov, or\n telephone us at (202) 606-9390.\n\n\n\n\n 2 April 1, 2006 \xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2006\n\x0c CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND\n COMMUNITY SERVICE\n\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n Hotline\n\n We Want You to\n Report Fraud, Waste\n and Abuse!\n\n\n\n\n \xe2\x99\xa6 All information is confidential.\n\n \xe2\x99\xa6 You may remain anonymous.\n\n\n 1-800-452-8210\nContact us by e-mail: Visit our web page:\nhotline@cncsoig.gov www.cncsig.gov\n\n Or write:\n\n OIG HOTLINE\n Corporation for National and Community Service\n 1201 New York Avenue NW, Suite 830\n Washington, DC 20525\n\x0c Proactive Initiatives\n In its ongoing effort to prevent and detect fraud, waste\n and abuse in a timely manner, the Office of Inspector\n General has taken a proactive stance to alert and inform\n Corporation management and its national service\n partners of issues and current and potential problems.\n Our initiatives include analyses and reports by our Audit\n and Investigations Sections, management advisories\n and other communications, and outreach to all\n Corporation stakeholders through our information and\n education programs. OIG management has also\n developed a number of initiatives during this reporting\n period to improve performance and efficiency and to\n enhance employee job skills.\n\n\n\n\nApril 1, 2006 \xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2006 5\n\x0c Proactive Initiatives\n\nOIG Management Initiatives\n Areas for Improvement: During this reporting period Corporation management requested that we\n identify for them the areas where we thought they could improve. We reviewed all previous audits,\n reviews, and investigations and identified five areas for management improvement. The areas\n include corrective actions, training and institutional knowledge, monitoring and grantee accountability,\n information technology and human capital. In a meeting with senior management, we discussed\n some of these areas. Our audit plan and special investigative initiatives have been aligned with our\n findings.\n\n Forensic Investigations: The OIG Investigation Section created and began employing its new\n Forensic Investigation Lab as a tool against computer-related crime. OIG agents, who have\n undergone specialized training, utilize Forensic Tool Kit software and a Logicube Imager device to\n capture mirror images of the information contained on computer hard drives. The data is then mined\n to reveal financial data, e-mails, images and other documents which may be linked to instances of\n fraud, waste and abuse. Capturing a mirror image is crucial to maintaining the integrity and\n admissibility of evidence. The new lab and investigative tools were successfully used in several\n investigations during this reporting period, including a case that revealed violations of the\n Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s computer access and use policies.\n\n Senior Corps Audits: The Audit Section completed a series of five Senior Corps audits that raised a\n number of recurring compliance issues for grantees using Corporation funds to operate Foster\n Grandparent and Retired Senior Volunteer Programs. Of the grantees\xe2\x80\x99 claimed costs of more than\n $3.6 million, the auditors questioned more than $417,000, or 11.5 percent of the total. The audits\n found a lack of administrative oversight and record-keeping, including problems with documentation\n verifying the eligibility of volunteers and the children they served. We communicated these systemic\n deficiencies to Corporation officials, who have established work groups to address the issues raised\n by the reports.\n\n Statutory Law Enforcement Authority: The OIG Investigations Section continued to work on full\n implementation of the expanded law enforcement authority approved on January 10, 2006, by\n Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales. This authority allows OIG Agents to make arrests, seek and\n execute arrest and search warrants, and carry firearms in the course of their official duties. The OIG\n sought the authority to lessen its reliance on local police and other officials for backup when its\n agents are in the field probing allegations of fraud, waste and abuse of Federal funds. During this\n period, OIG agents underwent extensive physical fitness evaluations and firearms training. Facilities\n were also upgraded to enhance safety and security.\n\n Employee Performance Management Program: OIG senior managers fully implemented a new\n employee appraisal program that directly links compensation to performance and positive results.\n The new Performance Management Program is a yearlong, continuous, and collaborative process.\n The \xe2\x80\x9cwhole\xe2\x80\x9d employee is evaluated on his or her contribution to achieving the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s mission and\n organizational goals. The performance management cycle, which has replaced the old \xe2\x80\x9cpass-fail\xe2\x80\x9d\n method of evaluating employees, runs from January 1 through December 31. It includes\n performance planning, monitoring employee performance, developing employees\xe2\x80\x99 knowledge and\n skills through training, and rating and rewarding performance.\n\n Technology Upgrades and Enhancements: Under the leadership of the Chief Technology Officer,\n the OIG continued to implement a network improvement plan. It will transform the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s computer\n network into a real-time information management system capable of seamlessly collecting,\n processing and providing data. Phase 1, an upgrade of hardware and software to a level consistent\n with a modern business environment, was completed during this reporting period. Work on Phase 2\n began with the establishment of a Management Information System Team consisting of OIG auditors,\n investigators and support personnel. It is reviewing and re-thinking all aspects of how the OIG\n conducts business. The team, which has also reviewed other Federal OIGs\xe2\x80\x99 audit and investigative\n\n\n April 1, 2006 \xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2006 7\n\x0cProactive Initiatives\n\n programs, will make recommendations to streamline our workflow, reduce duplication and improve\n our document control process.\n\n Staff Training: The OIG continued to conduct an ambitious and wide-ranging staff training program,\n with the goal of having each employee complete a minimum of 40 hours of professional development\n each calendar year. During this reporting period, OIG management and staff completed more than\n 2,174 hours of instruction at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Inspector General Auditor\n Training Institute, Inspector General Criminal Investigator Academy and numerous other vendors.\n Topics ranged from criminal investigator and firearms training to professional development courses\n on government standards and other audit procedures. In addition, OIG staff conducted classes for\n their peers on legal issues, investigative and audit procedures and report writing. By capitalizing on\n in-house skills, the OIG can offer training that is cost-effective and can be tailored to meet immediate\n and changing needs.\n\n\nCoordination With Corporation Management\n Cooperative Prosecution Effort: The Assistant Inspector General for Investigations (AIGI) joined\n with Corporation officials in achieving the conviction of a former Georgia Senior Corps program\n director who had embezzled more than $100,000 in taxpayer funds. The AIGI prepared evidence and\n presentation materials and advised the Federal prosecutor throughout the trial. He also arranged for\n the expert testimony of several Corporation officials. The former program director was sentenced to\n 33 months in prison, to be followed by three years of probation, and was ordered to make full\n restitution to the Corporation.\n\n Criminal Background Checks: The OIG continued to work with Corporation management and other\n stakeholders on strengthening criminal background check requirements for members who serve with\n children and other vulnerable persons. An OIG investigation led to the conviction of a former school-\n based AmeriCorps member and program director in Michigan who had legally changed his name in\n an effort to conceal a record of prior sex offenses. Moreover, this case resulted in a strengthening of\n Michigan\xe2\x80\x99s criminal background check program.\n\n In the last reporting period the Corporation requested public comment for a Corporation regulation to\n codify set standards for criminal background checks for participants in the Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s grant\n programs. The Corporation used the public input to draft a proposed rule, and is still waiting for final\n approval from the Office of Management and Budget to issue it for public comment.\n\n\nOutreach and Education\n Fraud Awareness Briefings: The OIG continues to provide Corporation, grantee and subgrantee\n employees, and volunteers with information on how to identify, prevent and report waste fraud and\n abuse of taxpayer-funded resources. Investigators and OIG senior managers regularly provide these\n multimedia briefings as part of their field assignments and also provide them to meetings and training\n sessions conducted by Corporation grantees and other national service stakeholders. Topics include\n the role and mission of the OIG, common types of program fraud, and how to detect and report\n suspected abuses. During this reporting period, we conducted Fraud Awareness Briefings involving\n several hundred members, Corporation employees and program staff. This effort included\n presentations at the National Conference on Volunteering and Service in Seattle, WA.\n\n \xe2\x80\x9cFor Your Inspection (FYI)\xe2\x80\x9d: During this reporting period, we published two editions of FYI, our\n quarterly newsletter that highlights the mission and work of the OIG and offers in-depth information on\n key issues facing the Corporation and its grantees. During this reporting period, FYI featured articles\n on our new forensic investigative capabilities and on the crucial importance of member file documents\n and proper record keeping in the audit process. FYI is widely distributed, in print and electronically, to\n Corporation employees, grantees, volunteers and other stakeholders.\n\n\n 8 April 1, 2006 \xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2006\n\x0c Proactive Initiatives\n\n\n\n\nApril 1, 2006 \xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2006 9\n\x0c Audit Section\n The Office of Inspector General Audit Section is\n responsible for reviewing the financial, administrative,\n and programmatic operations of the Corporation for\n National and Community Service. The Audit Section\xe2\x80\x99s\n responsibilities include auditing the Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s\n annual financial statements, assessing the\n Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s management controls, reviewing the\n Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s operations, and auditing individual grants,\n contracts, and cooperative agreements funded by the\n Corporation. All OIG audit reports are issued to\n Corporation management for its action or information.\n\n\n\n\nApril 1, 2006 \xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2006 11\n\x0c Audit Section\n\n\nSummary of Audits\n During this reporting period, the OIG Audit Section issued 22 reports on a wide range of topics. Our\n work included audits of State Commissions, Senior Corps, and National Direct grantees. We also\n examined a number of Corporation operations, including procurement and FEMA hurricane relief\n mission assignments.\n\n\n\n Audit Annual Performance Statistics\n Fiscal Year\n 2004 2005 2006\n\n Number of audit reports issued annually 23 21 40\n\n Questioned costs (dollars in thousands) $836 $1,292 $3,475\n\n Value of recommendations that funds be put to better use\n $0 $0 $3,185\n (dollars in thousands)\nFinancial Management and\nCorporation Operations\n Report 06-39 \xe2\x80\x93 Study of the Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s Internet Use and Management Controls\n\n The study revealed apparent inappropriate Internet use on networked and non-networked\n Corporation-owned computers. It concluded that the Corporation should include its Network Rules of\n Behavior as part of its Policy 375 on Internet use and update both documents. The study provided\n observations, opportunities for improvement, and suggestions for change.\n\n Audit Report 06-40 \xe2\x80\x93 Review of the Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Procurement Services\n\n Our audit found that Office of Procurement Services (OPS) employees did not consistently adhere to\n the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and the Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s procurement policies. In some\n cases, OPS records were inaccurate, inadequate, or incomplete and FAR compliance could not be\n assured. Also, we identified several policies and assigned responsibilities that were not current and\n known by all OPS personnel.\n\n Report 06-42 \xe2\x80\x93 Review of the Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s Purchase and Travel Card Programs\n\n Our review found that the Corporation generally has effective procedures and policies in place to\n identify and address delinquent employee travel and purchase card accounts. However, some\n policies and procedures need to be updated and improved. We also noted gaps in data and in the\n timeliness of reports that the Corporation is required to submit to the Office of Management and\n Budget (OMB).\n\n Data Collection Instrument \xe2\x80\x93 Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s Response to OMB Memorandum M-06-16\n\n\n\n\n April 1, 2006 \xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2006 13\n\x0cAudit Section\n\n On June 23, 2006 OMB issued memorandum M-06-16, which tasked executive agencies to ensure\n procedures are in place to protect Personally Identifiable Information removed or accessed or stored\n outside the agency location. The OIG was required to assess and report on OMB Memorandum M-\n 06-16 compliance. The reporting was in the form of a Data Collection Instrument developed by the\n President\xe2\x80\x99s Council on Integrity and Efficiency. We observed that the Corporation has developed a\n plan to integrate appropriate security controls over Personally Identifiable Information.\n\n Audit Report 06-43 \xe2\x80\x93 Agreed-Upon Procedures Review of the Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s Federal\n Emergency Management Agency Hurricane Relief Mission Assignments\n\n This effort reviewed the Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s policies, procedures, and standard guidance for processing\n billings and reimbursements for Hurricane Katrina mission assignments. We found that the\n Corporation did not return unused funds in a timely manner, did not obtain documentation to support\n requests for reimbursement in a timely manner and did not close out the mission assignments in a\n timely manner.\n\n\nGrant Management and Oversight\n The Corporation awards grants to State and local governments, State commissions, institutions of\n higher education, and other not-for-profit organizations. Grantees are required to expend funds only\n for allowable costs and to provide periodic reports to the Corporation to demonstrate programmatic\n and financial compliance with the terms of their grant agreements. The Corporation is responsible for\n ensuring that grantees comply with applicable laws and regulations related to the administration of\n grant awards.\n\n The Audit Section conducts audits of Corporation grantees to assess whether reported costs are\n allowable under Federal regulations and whether grantees are complying with the terms and\n conditions of their awards. Our reports on Corporation grants also include recommendations for\n correcting deficiencies. Typically, the recommendations call for grantees to reimburse questioned\n costs, establish and implement policies and procedures to prevent future instances of noncompliance,\n and improve internal controls. We also make recommendations for more effective Corporation\n oversight and improvements in grants management operations.\n\n During this reporting period, the OIG issued reports on seven State commissions, seven AmeriCorps\n National Direct Grantees and two Senior Corps grantees. The OIG also issued a Quality Control\n Review report on an OMB A-133 Audit.\n\n\nState Commission Audits\n Audit Report 06-14 \xe2\x80\x93 Grants Awarded to the New York State Office of National and Community\n Service\n\n The Commission claimed costs of $34,453,824, of which the auditors questioned $289,560 as\n unallowable grant costs and $307,125 of education awards. The majority of the questioned costs\n occurred at one subgrantee, the YMCA of Greater New York. The auditors also noted instances of\n noncompliance with provisions of Federal laws, regulations and grant award provisions.\n\n Audit Report 06-23 \xe2\x80\x93 Grants Awarded to the Massachusetts Service Alliance\n\n Funding authorized for these grants totaled about $21.5 million, with costs claimed totaling about\n $10.1 million from April 1, 2002, through March 31, 2005. The audit identified questioned grant costs\n totaling $35,993. Most of these costs were questioned because documentation was lacking to show\n that criminal background checks had been completed for members who had contact with children or\n because living allowance costs were not supported by payroll registers. The auditors also questioned\n\n\n 14 April 1, 2006 \xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2006\n\x0c Audit Section\n\n non-grant costs of $25,096 with regard to education awards. The report includes six findings with\n recommendations to improve compliance with grant requirements and to improve internal controls.\n\n Audit Report 06-30 \xe2\x80\x93 Grants Awarded to the Tennessee Commission on National and\n Community Service\n\n Funding authorized for these grants totaled $7.9 million, with costs claimed totaling about $4.5 million.\n The audit identified questioned costs totaling $22,661, most of which were attributed to Promise\n Fellows Grant costs claimed for living allowances of members who served less than the required 12\n months. The auditors also questioned non-grant costs of $9,310 for members who did not serve\n sufficient hours to earn education awards. The report includes five findings and six recommendations\n to improve compliance with grant requirements and to improve internal controls.\n\n Audit Report 06-26 \xe2\x80\x93 Grants Awarded to the New Mexico Commission for Community\n Volunteerism\n\n Federal costs claimed by the Commission during the audit period totaled $3,453,178. The auditors\n questioned $111,833 of grant costs and related education awards of $54,398. The auditors also\n identified four issues of noncompliance with Federal laws and grant provisions, and two internal\n control matters, one of which is considered a material weakness.\n\n Audit Report 06-36 \xe2\x80\x93 Grants Awarded to Serve Idaho, Governor\xe2\x80\x99s Commission on Service and\n Volunteerism\n\n The audit covered the latest two years of performance through December 31, 2005, for five grants\n initially awarded during the period January 1, 2002, to January 1, 2005. Funding authorized for these\n grants totaled $1.8 million, with costs claimed totaling about $1.5 million. The audit identified\n questioned costs totaling $17,910, most of which were attributed to unsupported living allowances\n and related fringe benefits, and costs claimed in the wrong grant period. The report also includes four\n findings and related recommendations to improve compliance with grant requirements and to improve\n internal controls.\n\n Audit Report 06-33 \xe2\x80\x93 Grants Awarded to the Oklahoma Community Service Commission\n\n Federal costs claimed during the audit period totaled $3,848,152. Of this amount, the auditors\n questioned $4,703 of grant costs and $372,686 in match costs. Some of the questioned match was\n claimed in excess of the minimum match required. The auditors also identified five issues of\n noncompliance with Federal laws and grant provisions and three internal control matters.\n\n Audit Report 06-37 \xe2\x80\x93 Grants Awarded to the Arizona Governor\xe2\x80\x99s Commission on Service and\n Volunteerism\n\n The audit identified questioned costs of $9,507 out of the $1,962,389 claimed, and related education\n awards of $4,795. Most of the questioned costs were related to unapproved budget category\n changes, unmet match for living allowances, and hours recorded on timesheets that did not support\n eligibility for an education award. The report also includes four findings and related recommendations\n to improve compliance with grant requirements and to improve internal controls.\n\n\nAmeriCorps National Direct Grant Audits\n Audit Report 06-12 \xe2\x80\x93 Grants Awarded to Education Works\n\n Education Works claimed costs of $5,266,112, of which the auditors questioned $100,600 as\n unallowable grant costs and a $2,195 education award. Costs questioned include $87,250 of costs\n for the New Jersey Substitute Teacher Corps, which provided substitute teachers to the Trenton\n\n\n April 1, 2006 \xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2006 15\n\x0cAudit Section\n\n School District and duplicated the District\xe2\x80\x99s own paid substitute teacher program. Other questioned\n costs include improper salary allocations. The auditors also noted instances of noncompliance with\n provisions of Federal laws, regulations and grant award provisions.\n Audit Report 06-17 through 06-22 \xe2\x80\x93 Grants Awarded to City Year through State Commissions\n\n 06-17 City Year Grants awarded by the Massachusetts Service Alliance\n 06-18 City Year Grants awarded by the Michigan Commission\n 06-19 City Year Grants awarded by the Illinois Commission\n 06-20 City Year Grants awarded by the District of Columbia Commission\n 06-21 City Year Grants awarded by PennSERVE the Governor\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Citizen Service\n 06-22 City Year Grants awarded by the Texas Commission on Volunteerism & Community Service\n\n The total costs questioned in these six audits totaled $212,351. Most of the questioned costs are\n related to a lack of criminal background checks for members prior to their serving with children.\n\n\nSenior Corps Grant Audits\n Audit Report 06-29 \xe2\x80\x93 Foster Grandparents and Retired and Senior Volunteer Program Grants\n Awarded to the Louisville Metro Community Action Partnership (Louisville)\n\n During the audit period, Louisville claimed $765,447 in grant costs for the Foster Grandparent\n Program, and $290,530 for the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program. Of these amounts, the\n auditors questioned costs of $16,171 and $5,441, respectively. The auditors also identified four\n internal control reportable conditions and four issues of noncompliance with Federal laws and grant\n provisions. None of these issues are considered material weaknesses.\n\n Audit Report 06-31 \xe2\x80\x93 Grants Awarded to the Kentucky Department for Mental Health and\n Mental Retardation Services\n\n Federal costs claimed by the Department during the audit period totaled $1,118,639. Of this amount,\n the auditors questioned $276,238 of Federal costs. The auditors also identified eight instances of\n noncompliance with Federal laws and grant provisions, all of which are considered material\n weaknesses.\n\n\nOMB Circular A-133 Quality Control Review\n Report 06-34 \xe2\x80\x93 Quality Control Review of the Raffa, P.C., Certified Public Accountants, OMB\n Circular A-133 audit of the Council of the Great City Schools for the Fiscal Year Ended June\n 30, 2005\n\n Raffa\xe2\x80\x99s audit documentation for testing did not meet generally accepted government auditing\n standards (GAGAS) or the requirements in the OMB Circular A-133 and its related supplements for\n five of the compliance areas. The CPA firm disagreed with the OIG, stating that copies of\n documentation are not required to be included in the audit work papers. We noted in the final report\n that we did not recommend that copies of documentation be kept in the files. The findings are due to\n the fact that work papers did not adequately document the work performed and were used as a basis\n for Raffa\xe2\x80\x99s conclusions.\n\n\n\n\n 16 April 1, 2006 \xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2006\n\x0c Audit Section\n\nAudit Resolution\n The Corporation's audit resolution process under Corporation Policy Number 101, Audit Resolution,\n consists of six steps that culminate in a Management Decision (MD) and completion of a Notice of\n Final Action on any corrective measures that management deems appropriate.\n\n Step 1: The OIG issues a draft report. The Corporation and auditee are given 30 days to comment.\n The OIG issues a final report after considering any comments received from the Corporation and the\n auditee.\n\n Step 2: The Corporation issues a Proposed Management Decision (PMD), which explains any\n corrective actions and provides a timetable for implementation.\n\n Step 3: Within 30 days of receiving the PMD, the OIG may provide written comments and may\n initiate additional discussions with Corporation management if the OIG does not concur with the\n PMD.\n\n Step 4: After reviewing any OIG comments, the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) issues a Management\n Decision (MD).\n\n Step 5: When all corrective actions in the MD have been completed, the Corporation issues a Notice\n of Final Action. A Notice of Final Action must be issued within 12 months of the date the audit report\n was issued.\n\n Step 6: Audits for which Final Action was not completed within 12 months of issuance are included in\n the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s semiannual report. The Corporation then provides comments on the status of these\n incomplete actions and forwards this information to Congress.\n\n\nManagement Decisions\n A management decision is the Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s response to an OIG audit\xe2\x80\x99s findings and\n recommendations, and outlines a plan for corrective action. During this reporting period, the\n Corporation notified the OIG of the following management decisions:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Audit Report 05-24, Grants Awarded to the (California) Governor's Office on Service and\n Volunteerism (GO SERV)\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Report 06-04, Agreed-Upon Procedures of Grant Awarded To Comprehensive Links For After\n School Enrichment\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Audit Report 06-08, Grants Awarded to the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Audit Report 06-10, Grants Awarded To YouthBuild USA, Inc.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Audit Report 06-11, Grants Awarded to Mid-Willamette Valley Foster Grandparents Program\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Audit Report 06-13, Cooperative Agreements Awarded To ETR Associates, Inc.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Report 06-15, Follow-Up Review of the Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s Alternative Personnel System\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Audit Report 06-27, Corporation Grants Awarded to the Virginia Governor's Commission for\n National and Community Service\n\n\n\n\n April 1, 2006 \xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2006 17\n\x0cAudit Section\n\nNotices of Final Action\n A Notice of Final Action is a Corporation management report indicating that it has completed corrective\n actions. During this reporting period, the OIG received the following Notices of Final Action:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Audit Report 05-10, Grants Awarded to the Nevada Commission for National and Community\n Service\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Audit Report 05-19, Grants Awarded to the Notre Dame Mission Volunteer Program Through\n the Maryland Governor's Office on Service and Volunteerism\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Audit Report 05-20, Grants Awarded to the Notre Dame Mission Volunteer Program\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Audit Report 05-21, Grants Awarded to the Iowa Volunteer Service Commission\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Report 05-22, Agreed-Upon Procedures of Grant Awarded to the Haddock AmeriCorps Cadet\n Program by the Georgia Commission for Service and Volunteerism\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Audit Report 05-24, Grants Awarded to the (California) Governor's Office on Service and\n Volunteerism (GO SERV)\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Audit Report 06-11, Grants Awarded to Mid-Willamette Valley Foster Grandparents Program\n\n\n\n\n 18 April 1, 2006 \xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2006\n\x0c Audit Section\n\n Audit Reports Issued\n April 1, 2006 \xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2006\n Report Dollars Dollars Funds Put To\n Report Name\n Number Questioned Unsupported Better Use\n (Dollars in thousands)\n 06-12 Grants Awarded to Education Works $101 $0 $2\n 06-14 Grants Awarded to the New York State Commission 290 247 307\n 06-17 Subgrants to City Year, Inc. Through the Massachusetts 9 2 5\n Service Alliance\n 06-18 Subgrants to City Year, Inc. Through the State of 79 3 43\n Michigan Department of Career Development\n 06-19 Subgrants to City Year, Inc. Through the Illinois 82 0 57\n Commission\n 06-20 Subgrants to City Year, Inc. Through The District Of 25 25 0\n Columbia Commission\n 06-21 Subgrants to City Year, Inc. Through PennSERVE, the 16 3 5\n Governor's Office of Citizen Service\n 06-22 Subgrants to City Year, Inc. Through the Texas 1 0 0\n Commission\n 06-23 Grants Awarded to the Massachusets Service Alliance 36 2 25\n\n 06-26 Grants Awarded to the New Mexico Commission 112 0 54\n 06-29 Grants Awarded to Louisville Metro Community Action 22 21 0\n Partnership Foster Grandparent Program Retired and\n Senior Volunteer Program\n 06-30 Grants Awarded to the Tennessee Commission 23 0 9\n 06-31 Grant Awarded to Kentucky Department for Mental 276 0 0\n Health and Mental Retardation Services\n 06-33 Grants Awarded to the Oklahoma Commission 5 0 0\n 06-34 Quality Control Review of Raffa, P.C., OMB Circular A- 0 0 0\n 133 Audit of the Council of the Great City Schools, Fiscal\n Year Ended June 30,2005\n 06-36 Grants Awarded to Serve Idaho, Governor's Commission 18 0 0\n\n 06-37 Grants Awarded to Arizona Governor's Commission 10 2 5\n 06-39 Study of Corporation's Internet Use & Management 0 0 0\n Controls\n 06-40 Audit of Corporation's Office of Procurement Services 0 0 0\n 06-42 Review of Corporation's Purchase & Travel Card 0 0 0\n Programs\n 06-43 Agreed-Upon Procedures Review of the Corporation's 0 0 2,490\n FEMA Hurricane Relief Mission Assignment Process\n\n --- Data Collection Instrument/Response to OMB M- 06-16, 0 0 0\n Protection of Sensitive Agency Information\n\n TOTAL $1,103 * $305 $3,001 *\n\n*The difference between the total of the columns is due to rounding.\n\n\n\nApril 1, 2006 \xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2006 19\n\x0c Investigations Section\n The Office of Inspector General Investigations Section\n is responsible for the detection and investigation of\n fraud, waste, and abuse in Corporation for National and\n Community Service programs and operations. The\n Investigations Section carries out these responsibilities\n by investigating allegations of criminal activities\n involving the Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s employees, contractors, and\n grant recipients. Criminal investigations are presented\n to the U.S. Attorney or, in some cases, the local\n prosecutor for criminal prosecution and monetary\n recovery. Some investigative reports are referred to\n Corporation management for its administrative action or\n information.\n\n\n\n\nApril 1, 2006 \xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2006 21\n\x0c Investigations Section\n\n\nSummary of Cases\n At the beginning of this reporting period, 28 investigative actions were pending in the OIG\n Investigations Section. During this reporting period, OIG investigators opened 37 investigative\n actions and closed 30 investigations. Thirty-five actions were pending at the end of the period.\n\n Summary Of Cases\n Opened and Closed\n Cases Open at Beginning of Reporting Period 28\n New Cases Opened 37\n Cases Closed this Period With Significant Findings 12\n Cases Closed this Period With No Significant Findings 18\n Total Cases Closed 30\n Cases Open at End of Reporting Period 35\n Referred\n Cases Referred for Prosecution 7\n Cases Accepted for Prosecution 6\n Cases Declined for Prosecution 2\n Cases Pending Prosecutorial Review 1\n Cases Pending Adjudication 18\n Recommendations to Management\n Investigative Recommendations Referred to Management 24\n Cases Closed This Period\n Investigative Recommendations Pending this Reporting Period 4\n False Statement (06-013)\n Investigative Recommendations Pending from Previous Reporting Periods 0\n Corporation management reported that a former\n AmeriCorps member submitted a fraudulent education award voucher to the Corporation. The\n investigation found the individual had forged the bank representative\xe2\x80\x99s signature on his award\n voucher in an attempt to have the funds deposited directly into his bank account for his personal use.\n The U.S. Department of Justice accepted this investigation for criminal prosecution. The individual\n accepted a plea agreement and received three months of probation and forfeited his education award\n in the amount of $2,362.50.\n\n Forgery / Theft (06-011)\n\n Corporation management reported that an unknown person intercepted, forged and cashed three\n education award checks mailed to an educational institution. The OIG identified a suspect and\n notified the U.S. Secret Service, which assumed responsibility as the lead investigative agency. The\n\n\n April 1, 2006 \xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2006 23\n\x0cInvestigations Section\n\n U.S. Secret Service located the individual, who admitted to stealing the checks totaling $4,043.75.\n This matter was declined for prosecution by the U.S. Department of Justice and the funds were\n administratively recouped.\n\n Misapplication of Program Funds (06-020)\n\n An allegation was reported to the OIG Hotline that a new Corporation grantee had misapplied Federal\n program funds. The caller alleged that grantee management had utilized program funds to pay for\n trips and related expenses for friends of grantee board members. The caller also alleged that the\n program had no accounting system or policies in place and that management was shifting funds\n between the Corporation program and other non-Federal program accounts. Based on information\n obtained by the OIG, Corporation management determined that the costs were allowable and that the\n grantee had appropriate checks and balances in place to safeguard grant funds.\n\n Misuse of a Government Travel Charge Card (05-008)\n\n Corporation management reported that a Corporation employee had misused her Government Travel\n Charge Card. The investigation disclosed evidence that the employee misused her card to obtain\n cash advances and services that she was not authorized to receive. The employee also violated\n Corporation policy by failing to make payments on her account, resulting in a delinquency. Based on\n the results of the OIG investigation, the employee resigned prior to administrative action by\n management. The U.S. Department of Justice accepted this investigation for criminal prosecution.\n The individual agreed to a pretrial diversion and was ordered to make restitution in the amount of\n $2,689.99.\n\n Fraudulent Receipt of Education Awards (04-039)\n\n A State commission reported allegations that a program coordinator, with the approval of the program\n director, fraudulently enrolled staff employees in the AmeriCorps program, falsified their service\n hours, and qualified them for education awards. The investigation confirmed the allegations and\n disclosed that several of the employees had received and used their education awards. Furthermore,\n the OIG discovered evidence that the program coordinator also inflated other AmeriCorps members\xe2\x80\x99\n service hours to allow them to earn education awards. Based on the OIG investigation, the\n Corporation recovered $51,982 from the grantee. This matter was referred to the U.S. Department of\n Justice for criminal prosecution. The program coordinator was indicted, but attempts to locate her\n have been unsuccessful. An arrest warrant has been issued. The Department of Justice declined to\n prosecute the program director.\n\n VISTA Stipend Checks Theft (03-016)\n\n Corporation management reported that an unknown person intercepted, forged, and cashed the\n AmeriCorps*VISTA stipend checks of a former VISTA member over a six-month period. A suspect\n was identified as the former program director. A joint investigation was conducted with the Federal\n Bureau of Investigation, which assumed responsibility as the lead investigative agency. The U.S.\n Department of Justice accepted this investigation for criminal prosecution. The individual plead guilty\n and was sentenced to five years\xe2\x80\x99 probation and ordered to make restitution to the Corporation in the\n amount of $5,943.72. Based on information developed by the OIG and presented to the Corporation,\n management debarred the individual from participating in Federal contracts and grants for a period of\n three years.\n\n Database Security / Vulnerability and Internal Controls (06-041)\n\n A follow-up review was conducted on the Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s security controls on employee access to a\n government information system. The review focused on the recommendations identified under OIG\n report number 05-057, issued in July 2005, and those corrective actions reported to the OIG at that\n time by management. The OIG found that several of the reported corrective actions had not been\n implemented by management. The OIG discovered that former employees continued to have active\n\n 24 April 1, 2006 \xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2006\n\x0c Investigations Section\n\naccess to the database. This condition could allow former employees\xe2\x80\x99 access to sensitive data,\nincluding personal identifying information on current and former members. Our 2005 report also\nfound users were not required to periodically change their passwords, as well as other potential\nsystem vulnerabilities. Management had reported that a new system addressing several of these\nissues was anticipated to be implemented in the fall of 2005. As of September 2006, it had not been\nimplemented.\n\nAs a result of this report, Corporation management admitted that it had failed to implement some of\nthe corrective actions it reported to the OIG in July 2005. Management also reported that it would be\nintegrating the database with another database early in fiscal year 2007, an action which would\naddress the password security issues.\n\nQuestionable Personnel Practices (06-026)\n\nThe OIG initiated an investigation to determine if Corporation management violated any personnel\nregulations or policies when it authorized an employee to relocate from Washington, DC, to another\nstate for personal convenience. Additionally, after the employee relocated, management divided the\nemployee\xe2\x80\x99s job description and hired another employee for the Washington, DC, location. The\ninvestigation found that the relocated employee informed management about another employment\noffer, but agreed to remain with the Corporation if she would be allowed to relocate at no cost to the\ngovernment. The OIG found no evidence that Corporation management violated any criminal laws or\npersonnel regulations or policies and also found that there was a valid requirement for the hiring\naction.\n\nMisuse of a Government Travel Charge Card (06-033)\n\nProactive efforts by the OIG disclosed that a Corporation employee misused his Government Travel\nCharge Card. The investigation disclosed evidence that the employee misused his Travel Charge\nCard to obtain $323.46 in cash advances that he was not authorized to receive. Based on the\ninformation developed and presented to the Corporation, management issued the employee a letter\nof reprimand.\n\nMisuse of a Government Travel Charge Card (06-035)\n\nProactive efforts by the OIG disclosed that a Corporation employee misused his Government Travel\nCharge Card. The investigation disclosed evidence that the employee misused his Travel Charge\nCard to obtain $1,514.06 in cash advances that he was not authorized to receive. The U.S.\nDepartment of Justice declined prosecution. Based on the information developed and presented to\nthe Corporation, management issued the employee a letter of reprimand.\n\nAllegation of Education Award Fraud (05-040)\n\nAn allegation was reported to the OIG Hotline that a grantee had committed timesheet fraud. The\ninvestigation found evidence that grantee officials had concurrently enrolled four of their employees in\nAmeriCorps program, thereby allowing them to receive a total of $18,900 in education awards to\nwhich they were not entitled. The information was supplied to Corporation management for action it\nmight deem appropriate.\n\nEnrollment of Ineligible Members (05-034)\n\nA State commission employee reported that an AmeriCorps grantee had had enrolled non-U.S.\ncitizens. The investigation found that the program could not provide proof of citizenship or legal\nresidency for one member, who had received $11,896.36 in unauthorized program funds. We also\nfound no evidence of required criminal background checks for two members, who had received a total\nof $9,897.16 in unauthorized program funds. The information was supplied to Corporation\nmanagement for its action.\n\n\n\nApril 1, 2006 \xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2006 25\n\x0cInvestigations Section\n\n\n Cases Open at End of Period\n Violation of Voluntary Service Prohibition (06-039)\n\n A former employee reported that, following his retirement from Federal service, he worked in the\n Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Human Capital (OHC) for several months as a contractor, but was never paid\n for his services. The investigation disclosed evidence that Corporation employees violated the\n voluntary services prohibition of the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits an officer or employee of the\n government from accepting the voluntary services of an individual, or employing unauthorized\n personnel services. The OIG discovered that an OHC employee failed to initiate a $20,000 purchase\n order for services to be provided by the former employee. This resulted in Corporation management\n having to ratify the transaction after services were rendered. Additionally, another Corporation\n employee failed to comply with Federal Acquisition Regulation, Part 5, when he failed to publicize a\n $15,000 purchase order modification to the existing $25,000 OHC purchase order.\n\n Theft of Program Funds (02-028)\n\n Corporation management reported that the executive director of a grantee was diverting Corporation\n program funds to cover personal expenditures and business expenses that were unrelated to\n program operations. The investigation found evidence that the executive director and her spouse, the\n program\xe2\x80\x99s chief executive officer, had diverted a significant amount of Corporation funds. The U.S.\n Department of Justice accepted this investigation on March 11, 2003, for criminal prosecution.\n\n On June 19, 2006, the former executive director was found guilty of wire fraud and theft of Federal\n program funds. Her spouse was acquitted. On September 18, 2006, the former executive director\n was sentenced to 33 months of confinement, was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of\n $100,536.88, assessed $600 in court fees, and ordered to serve three years of supervised probation\n upon her release from prison. The OIG forwarded a recommendation for debarment of the former\n executive director to Corporation management.\n\n Fraudulent Receipt of VISTA Stipend (03-040)\n\n A Corporation State Office employee reported that a VISTA member left the program but continued to\n receive her living allowance, allowing her to collect a significant amount of Corporation funds to which\n she was not entitled. The investigation found that the former member\xe2\x80\x99s program failed to verify\n member attendance and also failed to provide written documentation of member attendance in its\n biweekly reports. The U.S. Department of Justice accepted this investigation on November 25, 2003.\n\n On July 27, 2006, the former member entered a guilty plea to theft and was sentenced to 12 months\n of confinement (suspended), fined $2,500 (suspended all but $250), 24 months of probation, made to\n pay $25 in court costs and required to make restitution in the amount of $8,164.68. The OIG\n forwarded a recommendation for debarment to Corporation management.\n\n Misapplication of Program Funds (06-021)\n\n A State commission reported an allegation that an AmeriCorps site supervisor was withholding\n members\xe2\x80\x99 living allowances. The investigation found evidence that the site supervisor had enrolled\n day care center employees in the AmeriCorps program to supplement their salary with program\n funds. Our investigation indicates the loss to the Corporation may be in excess of $100,000. This\n matter was accepted by the Department of Justice on May 17, 2006, for criminal prosecution.\n\n Misapplication of Program Funds (06-029)\n\n Corporation management reported that a director of a Senior Corps program misapplied Corporation\n program funds. Investigation found evidence that the project director wrongfully paid volunteer\n\n\n 26 April 1, 2006 \xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2006\n\x0c Investigations Section\n\nstipend payments after he had placed the volunteers on administrative leave, claiming that he was\nunable to find them volunteer assignments. In addition, the director falsified his and wife\xe2\x80\x99s time\nsheets, allowing them to receive payments to which they were not entitled. Loss to the Corporation is\napproximately $250,000. This matter is being referred to the U.S. Department of Justice for civil\nrecovery. The investigation is ongoing.\n\nChild Care Fraud / Violation of Program Policy (06-030)\n\nCorporation management reported that a VISTA member had fraudulently received VISTA*Care child\ncare subsidies. Investigation disclosed evidence that a former VISTA member fraudulently enrolled in\nthe VISTA*Care program while receiving State child care subsidies during the same period. Further\ninvestigation also disclosed that the former member had a position of employment while enrolled in\nthe VISTA program a violation of VISTA policy. Loss to the Corporation is in excess of $20,000. This\nmatter was referred to the U.S. Department of Justice on August 8, 2006, for prosecution.\n\nChild Care Fraud (06-045)\n\nProactive efforts by the OIG disclosed evidence that a former AmeriCorps member fraudulently\nreceived AmeriCorps*Care child care subsidies. Investigation disclosed evidence that the former\nmember fraudulently received AmeriCorps*Care program while receiving State child care subsidies\nduring the same period. The U.S. Department of Justice declined prosecution. This matter was\naccepted for prosecution by the local States Attorney General\xe2\x80\x99s Office, for criminal prosecution.\n\nChild Care Fraud (06-046)\n\nProactive efforts by the OIG disclosed evidence that a former AmeriCorps member fraudulently\nreceived AmeriCorps*Care child care subsidies. Investigation disclosed evidence that the former\nmember fraudulently received AmeriCorps*Care program while receiving State child care subsidies\nduring the same period. The U.S. Department of Justice declined prosecution. This matter was\naccepted for prosecution by the local States Attorney General\xe2\x80\x99s Office, for criminal prosecution.\n\nChild Care Fraud (06-047)\n\nProactive efforts by the OIG disclosed evidence that a former AmeriCorps member fraudulently\nreceived AmeriCorps*Care child care subsidies. Investigation disclosed evidence that the former\nmember fraudulently received AmeriCorps*Care program while receiving State child care subsidies\nduring the same period. The U.S. Department of Justice declined prosecution. This matter was\naccepted for prosecution by the local States Attorney General\xe2\x80\x99s Office, for criminal prosecution.\n\nTheft of Program Funds (06-051)\n\nCorporation management informed the OIG that a VISTA member alleged that she was required to\nreimburse her site supervisor part of her living allowance. Investigation disclosed evidence that the\nsite supervisor fraudulently documented the member\xe2\x80\x99s enrollment when, in fact, the member was\nworking directly for the subgrantee and/or enrolled in drug rehabilitation while being paid her VISTA\nliving allowance. Loss to the Corporation is in excess of $65,000. This matter was accepted by the\nDepartment of Justice on August 29, 2006, for prosecution.\n\nTheft of Program Funds (06-014)\n\nAn allegation was reported to the OIG Hotline that a VISTA program executive director enrolled\nemployees in the VISTA program to supplement the employees\xe2\x80\x99 salaries and benefits. The\ninvestigation found that the executive director and program director conspired to supplement two full-\ntime and one part-time employees\xe2\x80\x99 salaries with VISTA program funds. Corporation management\nhas terminated the members\xe2\x80\x99 service. Loss to the Corporation is in excess of $50,000. The U.S.\nDepartment of Justice accepted this investigation on April 20, 2006, and is pursuing civil prosecution.\n\n\n\nApril 1, 2006 \xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2006 27\n\x0cInvestigations Section\n\n False Statements / Theft (05-048)\n\n The OIG investigated an allegation that a former AmeriCorps member, who later served as the\n program director, failed to disclose on his application that he had a criminal conviction. The\n investigation found evidence that the individual was allowed to serve in a school tutoring program\n after he omitted his previous name and falsified his personal information forms by claiming that he\n had never been convicted of a criminal offense. The investigation disclosed that the individual was a\n habitual sex offender and had legally changed his name after being released from prison. This\n deception, if known, would have disqualified him from serving with children as a member or program\n director. This deception also allowed the individual to fraudulently receive more than $106,000 in\n Federal program funds to which he was not entitled. The U.S. Department of Justice accepted this\n investigation for criminal prosecution. On April 4, 2006, the individual entered a guilty plea.\n Sentencing is pending.\n\n Theft of Program Funds (05-030)\n\n Corporation management reported that a former VISTA member was employed during his VISTA\n service. The investigation found evidence that the VISTA member intentionally deceived program\n officials by claiming that he was volunteering at a local school when, in fact, he was employed at the\n school as a teacher. This allowed the VISTA member to receive more than $20,000 in Federal\n program funds, including his VISTA stipend, to which he was not entitled. The U.S. Department of\n Justice accepted this investigation on July 19, 2005, for civil prosecution. On July 26, 2006, a civil\n agreement was reached with the individual, who agreed to repay $8,500 of the $20,395 he wrongfully\n received. The OIG forwarded a recommendation for debarment to the Corporation management.\n\n Theft of Program Funds (05-007)\n\n A State commission reported an allegation to Corporation management that an AmeriCorps grant\n recipient had misapplied Corporation program funds. The investigation found evidence that the\n AmeriCorps program\xe2\x80\x99s director conspired with her cousin to defraud the U.S. Government when they\n prepared and submitted a fraudulent rental agreement in order to divert Corporation funds to cover\n the grantee\xe2\x80\x99s share of program operating costs. The U.S. Department of Justice accepted this\n investigation for civil prosecution.\n\n Theft of VISTA Checks (04-017)\n\n Corporation management reported that an unknown person intercepted, forged and cashed two\n AmeriCorps*VISTA stipend checks from the U.S. Postal Service. The investigation disclosed that a\n postal employee cashed both checks. In February 2004, the OIG contacted the local U.S. Postal\n Inspection Service for assistance. Based on the information developed by the OIG, the U.S. Postal\n Inspection Service identified a postal employee as a suspect and also identified additional non-\n Corporation checks that had been similarly diverted. In March 2006, U.S. Postal Investigators\n obtained a confession from the employee and the individual was subsequently terminated. This\n matter was referred to the U.S. Department of Justice on June 20, 2006, for a prosecutorial decision.\n\n Theft of Government Services (Calling Card) (04-034)\n\n A Corporation employee reported an allegation that unknown persons were misusing a government-\n issued calling card. The investigation disclosed evidence that a former AmeriCorps member had\n obtained the calling card number during her term of service. After leaving the AmeriCorps program,\n the former member continued to utilize the calling card number to make personal telephone calls.\n Additionally, the member failed to safeguard the number, which was subsequently used by\n unauthorized personnel at various locations throughout the United States. The U.S. Department of\n Justice accepted this investigation for prosecution. On September 13, 2006, the individual accepted\n pretrial diversion, received 18 months of probation and agreed to make restitution in the amount of\n $1,420.48. The OIG forwarded a recommendation for debarment to Corporation management.\n\n\n\n 28 April 1, 2006 \xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2006\n\x0c Investigations Section\n\nTheft of Program Funds (01-005)\n\nThe OIG investigated an allegation that a Senior Corps grantee used Corporation funds for purposes\nother than support of the grant. The grantee acknowledged receiving more than $300,000 in\nCorporation program funds, which it used for purposes other than support of the grant. The U.S.\nDepartment of Justice initially accepted this case for criminal prosecution on November 26, 2001. On\nSeptember 4, 2002, the matter was transferred to its Civil Section for civil recovery under the False\nClaims Act. There were no new developments during this reporting period.\n\nTheft of Program Funds (02-007)\n\nA State commission reported an allegation that a program executive director and a chief financial\nofficer misapplied program funds for their personal use. The investigation found evidence supporting\nthis allegation. Initially, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was the lead investigative agency but,\ndue to other commitments, was unable to pursue this matter fully. The U.S. Department of Justice\nhas declined to prosecute this matter in favor of local prosecution. The local prosecutor accepted this\nmatter on December 19, 2003, for criminal prosecution.\n\nTheft of Program Funds (05-023)\n\nA State commission employee reported that a former AmeriCorps grant recipient had informed her\nthat, during a post-program audit, it was discovered that the grantee\xe2\x80\x99s former program director had\nembezzled AmeriCorps program funds. Loss to the Corporation is in excess of $150,000. A joint\ninvestigation was conducted with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which served as the lead\ninvestigative agency, and local law enforcement authorities. The U.S. Department of Justice\naccepted this investigation for prosecution. The individual entered a guilty plea on November 14,\n2005, and sentencing is pending.\n\nTheft of Program Funds (05-041)\n\nAn allegation was reported to the OIG Hotline that a VISTA project director enrolled her employees in\nthe VISTA program to supplement the employees\xe2\x80\x99 salaries and benefits. The investigation found\nevidence that the project director conspired with her husband to fraudulently enroll their private\nbusiness employees in the VISTA program to supplement their salaries and benefits with Federal\nprogram funds. The U.S. Department of Justice accepted this investigation on September 22, 2005,\nand is pursuing civil prosecution.\n\nAllegation of Education Award Fraud (05-049)\n\nAn OIG program review disclosed that an AmeriCorps grant recipient had falsified its members'\neducation award certifications. The investigation found evidence that the members\xe2\x80\x99 time sheets\ncontained unauthorized service hours and did not match the total hours certified by program officials\nto the Corporation to establish the members\xe2\x80\x99 education award eligibility. The U.S. Department of\nJustice accepted this investigation on February 27, 2006, and is pursuing prosecution.\n\nTheft of Program Funds (05-054)\n\nCorporation management reported an allegation that a grant recipient had misapplied Corporation\nprogram funds. The investigation found evidence that the grantee\xe2\x80\x99s executive director diverted\nCorporation funds to cover non-grant expenditures and operating costs. The U.S. Department of\nJustice accepted this investigation on September 27, 2005, and is pursuing civil prosecution.\n\n\n\n\nApril 1, 2006 \xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2006 29\n\x0c Review of Legislation and\n Regulations\n Section 4(a) of the Inspector General Act directs the\n Office of Inspector General to review and make\n recommendations about existing and proposed\n legislation and regulations relating to the Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s\n programs and operations. The Office of Inspector\n General reviews legislation and regulations to determine\n their impact on the economy and efficiency of the\n Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s administration of its programs and\n operations. It also reviews and makes\n recommendations on the impact that legislation and\n regulations may have on efforts to prevent and detect\n fraud and abuse in Corporation programs and\n operations. The Office of Inspector General draws on\n its experience in audits and investigations as the basis\n for its recommendations.\n\n\n\n\nApril 1, 2006 \xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2006 31\n\x0c Review Of Legislation And Regulations\n\n\nProgram Fraud Civil Remedies Act\n In a prior reporting period, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) recommended to the Corporation\n that it promulgate regulations to implement the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act (PFCRA). This\n Act, enacted in 1986, provides Federal agencies with an administrative means to recoup Federal\n funds of less than $150,000 that were unlawfully obtained by persons through false claims or false\n statements. During this reporting period the Corporation published for public comment a draft\n regulation to implement the PFCRA. The comment period expired in April, and the Corporation is\n currently waiting for approval from the Office of Management and Budget to issue the PFCRA rule in\n its final form. The OIG will continue to monitor the progress toward implementation of the final rule.\n\n\nE-Mail And Other Records Retention Policies\n As noted in the two previous semiannual reports, the Corporation has no established policy for record\n retention and management, such as an instruction to employees on what should constitute a \xe2\x80\x9crecord,\xe2\x80\x9d\n or how and where official records should be maintained, as required by 31 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 3101-02. Several\n investigations revealed that the Corporation lacked the ability to retain or retrieve e-mail\n communications that qualify as a government record, as required by 36 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 1234.26, Standards\n for Managing Electronic Mail Records. This regulation states that agencies\xe2\x80\x99 policies should account\n for e-mail records, either by creating an electronic record keeping system according to specified\n criteria, or, \xe2\x80\x9c[i]f the electronic mail system is not designed to be a recordkeeping system, agencies\n shall instruct staff on how to copy Federal records from the electronic mail system to a record keeping\n system.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n In April 2006, the Corporation solicited proposals from consultants with expertise in Federal records\n management for a contract to review the Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s current record systems, draft a model record\n retention policy for the Corporation, and to provide a report to the Corporation on possible commercial\n off-the-shelf solutions for the management and retention of electronic mail. In July, the Corporation\n indicated to OIG that it anticipated making a final award for a contract in August. In September, the\n Corporation indicated that proposals were still being evaluated, and that it would inform OIG when an\n award was made. The OIG will continue to monitor this issue.\n\n\n\n\n April 1, 2006 \xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2006 33\n\x0c Statistical and\n Summary Tables\n The statistical and summary tables in this section are\n submitted in compliance with the requirements\n enumerated in the Inspector General Act.\n\n\n\n\nApril 1, 2006 \xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2006 35\n\x0c Tables\n\n\nI. Inspector General Act Reporting Requirements\n This table cross-references the reporting requirements prescribed by the Inspector General Act of\n 1978, as amended, to the specific pages in the report where they are addressed.\n\n Section Requirement Page\n 4 (a)(2) Review of legislation and regulations 31\n\n 5 (a)(1) Significant problems, abuses, and deficiencies related to the Throughout\n administration of Corporation programs and operations\n\n 5 (a)(2) Recommendations with respect to significant problems, abuses Throughout\n and deficiencies found in the administration of Corporation\n programs and operations\n\n 5 (a)(3) Prior significant recommendations on which corrective action 41\n has not been completed\n\n 5 (a)(4) Matters referred to prosecutorial authorities 23\n\n 5 (a)(5) Summary of instances where information was refused None this\n period\n\n 5 (a)(6) List of audit reports by subject matter showing dollar value of 19\n questioned costs, unsupported costs and the dollar value of\n recommendations that funds be put to better use\n\n 5 (a)(7) Summary of significant reports Throughout\n\n 5 (a)(8) Statistical table showing number of reports and dollar value of 38\n questioned costs\n\n 5 (a)(9) Statistical table showing number of reports and dollar value of 39\n recommendations that funds be put to better use\n\n 5 (a)(10) Summary of each audit issued before this reporting period for 40\n which no management decision was made by end of reporting\n period\n\n 5 (a)(11) Significant revised management decisions None this\n period\n\n 5 (a)(12) Significant management decisions with which the Inspector None this\n General disagrees period\n\n\n\n\n April 1, 2006 \xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2006 37\n\x0cTables\n\n\nII. Reports With Questioned Costs\n\n\n Federal Costs\n\n Report Category Number Questioned Unsupported\n (Dollars in thousands)\n A. Reports for which no management decision 11 $4,025 $1,564\n had been made by the commencement of the\n reporting period\n\n B. Reports issued during the reporting period 16 1,103 305\n\n C. Total Reports (A + B) 27 5,128 1,869\n\n D. Reports for which a management decision 5 1,375 453\n was made during the reporting period\n\n I. Value of disallowed costs 474 82\n\n II. Value of costs not disallowed 901 371\n\n E. Reports for which no management decision 22 $3,753 $1,416\n had been made by the end of the reporting\n period (C minus D)\n\n F. Reports with questioned costs for which no 6 $2,650 $1,112\n management decision was made within six\n months of issuance\n\n\n\n\n 38 April 1, 2006 \xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2006\n\x0c Tables\n\n\nIII. Reports With Recommendations That Funds\n Be Put To Better Use\n\n Report Category Number* Dollar Value*\n (Dollars in thousands)\n A. Reports for which no management decision 0 $0\n had been made by the commencement of\n the reporting period\n\n B. Reports issued during the reporting period 11 $3,001\n\n C. Reports for which a management decision 0 0\n was made during the reporting period\n\n i. Value of recommendations agreed to by 0 $0\n management\n\n ii. Value of recommendations not agreed to 0 $0\n by management\n\n D. Reports for which no management decision 11 $3,001\n had been made by the end of the reporting\n period\n\n E. Reports for which no management decision 0 $0\n was made within six months of issuance\n\n\n\n\n April 1, 2006 \xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2006 39\n\x0cTables\n\n\nIV. Summary of Audits With Overdue Management Decisions\n\n\n Federal Mgmt. Status at End of\n Report Dollars Decision Reporting Period\n Number Title Questioned Due (09/30/06)\n Proposed Management\n 05-17 Audit of Louisiana Commission $426,611 01/07/06 Decision (PMD) was under\n review by OIG.\n\n\n The PMD was under review by\n 05-18 Agreed-Upon Procedures-Wyoming 216,868 03/02/06\n OIG.\n\n OIG was in discussion with\n Corporation Office of Grants\n 06-05 Audit of Puerto Rico Commission 155,067 08/13/06\n Management (OGM)\n concerning PMD.\n\n A PMD had not been provided\n 06-25 Audit of Illinois Commission 1,672,068 08/22/06\n to OIG.\n\n\n A PMD had not been provided\n 06-24 Audit of Kansas City FGP 14,004 09/20/06\n to OIG.\n\n\n OIG was in discussion with\n 06-16 Audit of City Year National Direct 165,229 09/24/06\n OGM concerning PMD.\n\n\n Total $2,649,847\n\n\n\n\n 40 April 1, 2006 \xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2006\n\x0c Tables\n\n\nV. Reports Described in Prior Semiannual Reports\n Without Final Action\n\n\n Report Date Final\n Number Title Issued Action Due\n\n 05-17 1 07/07/05 07/07/06\n Audit of Louisiana Serve Commission\n\n\n Agreed-Upon Procedures of the Wyoming\n 05-18 Commission for National and Community 09/02/05 09/02/06\n Service\n\n\n 1\n The Corporation extended the resolution period due to disruptions caused by the 2005 hurricanes.\n\n\n\n\n April 1, 2006 \xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2006 41\n\x0c Fiscal Year 2006\n Performance Information\n The section summarizes the Office of Inspector\n General\xe2\x80\x99s accomplishments and performance measures\n in support of OIG strategic goals.\n\n\n\n\nApril 1, 2006 \xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2006 43\n\x0c Performance Information\n\nStrategic Goals\nThe Office of Inspector General operates independently from the Corporation and seeks to achieve a\nseparate, but related, set of strategic goals. The OIG\xe2\x80\x99s strategic goals are designed to promote\neconomy, efficiency, and effectiveness, and to prevent and detect fraud, waste and abuse, and\nmismanagement in Corporation programs and operations. The general purpose of these goals is to\nimprove the Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s ability to meet its responsibilities and achieve its mission.\n\nGoal One: Ensure that OIG activities support the Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s mission by emphasizing\nexaminations of critical programs and operations.\n\nGoal Two: Communicate effectively with the Corporation Board of Directors, senior management\nand staff, grantees and sub-grantees, the public, Congress, and other parties as appropriate.\n\nGoal Three: Strengthen the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s ability and readiness to have maximum impact on the most\nsignificant issues facing the Corporation and its programs.\n\n\n\n\nApril 1, 2006 \xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2006 45\n\x0cPerformance Information\n\n\n Quantitative Audit Performance Measures\n FISCAL YEAR\n 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006\n Number of reports issued 28 19 23 21 40\n\n Number of reports issued linked to 6 5 6 3 12\n improving Corporation management (OIG\n Goal One)\n\n Number of recommendations linked to 33 56 45 40 139\n improving Corporation management (OIG\n Goal One)\n\n Number of reports issued linked to 28 19 22 18 30\n protecting the integrity of Corporation\n programs, operations, and financial\n management (OIG Goal One)\n\n Number of recommendations linked to 181 140 139 142 179\n protecting the integrity of Corporation\n programs, operations, and financial\n management (OIG Goal One)\n\n Total number of audit recommendations 181 140 139 169 316\n\n Percent of recommendations accepted by 93% 93% 99% 99% 100%\n the Corporation\n\n\n\n\n 46 April 1, 2006 \xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2006\n\x0c Performance Information\n\n\n Investigations Performance Information\n Fiscal Year FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006\n Investigative actions opened 40 42 42 57 58\n\n Investigative actions resolved 40 30 38 53 60\n and closed\n\n Average monthly caseload 24 26 28 37 38\n\n Investigative matters resolved 37 42 59 45 40\n without opening a separate\n investigative action\n\n Referrals for prosecution 10 9 8 20 12\n\n Investigative recoveries $1,206,057 $123,988 $36,952 $234,691 $268,839\n\n 1 $0 $158,038 $5,106 $2,363 $74,586\n Cost avoidance\n\n Administrative or management 25 23 8 24 20\n actions taken\n\n\n1\n Cost avoidance was not calculated until FY 2003. Cost avoidance includes those predictable costs\nthat were not incurred due to OIG investigative intervention.\n\n\n\n\nApril 1, 2006 \xe2\x80\x93 September 30, 2006 47\n\x0c Learn More About OIG\n Investigations And\n Audits With Our\n Downloadable Brochures\n\n\n\n\n Subscribe To Our Newsletter,\n \xe2\x80\x9cFor Your Inspection\xe2\x80\x9d (FYI)\n\n\n\n For More On The Role And Work\n Of The Inspectors General,\n Watch\n \xe2\x80\x9cThe Inspectors General Story\xe2\x80\x9d\n Featuring Senator John Glenn\n\n\nAll These Publications Can Be Found On Our Web Site\n WWW.CNCSIG.GOV\n\x0c"