Inspectors General: Additional Efforts Needed by the Department of Commerce OIG to Address Audit Coverage, Hotline Operations, and Employee Concerns
Published: 2015-06-10T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Congressional committees and Commerce leaders rely on the OIG to provide oversight of the agency's wide range of responsibilities. GAO was asked to review the effectiveness of the Commerce OIG's oversight. GAO's objectives were to provide information on the Commerce OIG's budgets, staffing, and accomplishments, and to review the OIG's effectiveness in providing audit coverage, addressing hotline complaints, and addressing employee concerns identified in OPM's annual FEVS.
For fiscal years 2011 through 2013, GAO identified the budget and staff resources of the Commerce OIG and other cabinet-level OIGs and their reported accomplishments for comparison; reviewed the Commerce OIG's audit coverage of bureaus and offices, management challenges, and high-risk areas; compared the OIG's hotline policies with hotline guidance provided through CIGIE; and tested a random sample of hotline complaints. GAO also reviewed the OIG's efforts to address employee concerns from the 2012 FEVS results.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: During fiscal years 2011 through 2013, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) Office of Inspector General (OIG) experienced reductions in total budgetary resources from about $47 million to about $41 million, or almost 13 percent, compared to the average reduction of about 6 percent for all other cabinet-level OIGs. The Commerce OIG had a decline of full-time equivalent staff from 171 to 137, or about 20 percent, which was a greater decline than the average decline of about 5 percent for the other OIGs. The Commerce OIG reported approximately $543 million in monetary accomplishments from audits, evaluations, and investigations for the period. Differences in missions and programs of the cabinet-level departments and agencies result in varied opportunities for OIGs to provide monetary accomplishments. While the Commerce OIG's return on each budget dollar was within the range of the lowest and highest returns for all other OIGs for fiscal years 2011 through 2013, its average return of $4.18 over the 3-year period was less than the average return of about $22.64 for the other cabinet-level OIGs.
During this period of constrained resources, the Commerce OIG conducted mandatory audits that covered all bureaus and offices and provided performance audit coverage of Commerce's largest bureaus and offices. It also audited areas identified by the OIG as management challenges. However, the OIG did not conduct performance audits of the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of programs specific to Commerce's smaller bureaus and offices, which had combined fiscal year 2013 total budgetary resources of approximately $2.4 billion, during the 3-year period. In addition, the OIG did not conduct audits over the 3-year period of two areas on GAO's high-risk list relevant to Commerce: (1) managing federal real property and (2) ensuring the effective protection of technologies critical to U.S. national security interests. The OIG's risk-based audit planning contributed to gaps in audit coverage as the office did not provide periodic performance audit coverage of Commerce's smaller programs on a rotational basis and did not fully consider all GAO high-risk areas.
The Commerce OIG's hotline policies and procedures were generally consistent with recommended hotline practices of other OIGs provided through the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE). However, through a review of a random sample of OIG hotline cases from fiscal years 2011 through 2013, GAO identified numerous instances where the OIG did not follow one or more of its own hotline policies and procedures regarding the processing, disposition, and timeliness of hotline cases. The OIG could not reasonably ensure that its hotline policies and procedures were consistently followed because of a lack of ongoing monitoring of its internal control activities.
The Commerce OIG's Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) results for 2013 and 2014 improved after OIG efforts to address the poor 2012 FEVS results, but responses to specific survey questions remain lower than the government-wide average. The OIG's efforts followed much of the guidance issued by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to address FEVS results, but they did not include an action plan with measures of success.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that the IG (1) augment the OIG's audit planning to consider a rotation of performance audit coverage among smaller Commerce programs, and applicable GAO high-risk areas; (2) include monitoring of internal controls for the OIG's hotline operations; and (3) develop an action plan with measures of success to address FEVS results.
In commenting on a draft of the report, the Commerce IG concurred with GAO's recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: This report responds to your request that we review the operations and  management of the Department of Commerce (Commerce) Office of  Inspector General (OIG). The Commerce OIG has a unique role under  the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended (IG Act), to identify areas  for improved economy, efficiency, and effectiveness through independent  and objective oversight; to prevent and detect fraud, waste, abuse, and  mismanagement; and to recommend corrective actions. In addition, the  Commerce OIG is expected to provide effective oversight through audits  and investigations of the department while maintaining a balanced and  independent working relationship with the Secretary of Commerce and  the Congress.
The Commerce OIG has identified major bureaus and offices for  oversight coverage and reports the results of this oversight in semiannual  reports to the Congress, as required by the IG Act. In addition, among  other responsibilities, the OIG maintains a hotline for receiving complaints  and allegations of fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement that are  addressed under the OIG’s hotline policies and procedures. In addition,  the OIG derives credibility to provide oversight by demonstrating its ability  to efficiently and effectively use and account for public funds.
As discussed with your offices, the objectives of our review were to   (1) provide information about the budget and staff resources available to  the Commerce OIG and to other cabinet-level OIGs and the monetary  accomplishments reported by these OIGs over fiscal years 2011 through  2013 for comparison purposes, and to review the Commerce OIG’s  effectiveness in (2) providing oversight coverage of Commerce during  fiscal years 2011 through 2013, (3) addressing hotline complaints and  allegations of wrongdoing in accordance with OIG policies and  procedures over the same 3-year period, and (4) addressing issues  identified based on the OIG employees’ responses to the Office of  Personnel Management’s (OPM) fiscal year 2012 Federal Employee  Viewpoint Survey (FEVS). We obtained information about budget and  staff resources for the Commerce OIG and the other cabinet-level OIGs  from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) database of budget  information for fiscal years 2011 through 2013. We obtained the monetary  accomplishments from audits, evaluations, and investigations as reported  by the Commerce OIG and these other OIGs in their semiannual reports  for the 3-year period. Based on this information, we calculated the  Commerce OIG’s return-on-investment and that of the other cabinet-level  OIGs by comparing their budgetary resources and reported monetary  accomplishments for the 3-year period. We also recognized the large  differences in the missions and programs of the cabinet-level  departments and agencies, which resulted in varied opportunities for each  OIG to provide monetary accomplishments.
To review the effectiveness of the Commerce OIG in providing audit  oversight coverage, we identified the subjects of the OIG’s reports  including audits, evaluations, and memorandums. We compared the  subjects of the OIG’s reports with (1) Commerce’s significant bureaus and  offices, as identified by the OIG in semiannual reports; (2) management  challenges as determined by the OIG; and (3) the high-risk areas  identified by GAO. documents to determine how specific bureaus and offices were selected  for audit.
GAO maintains a program to focus attention on government operations that it identifies  as high risk because of their greater vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and  mismanagement or the need for transformation to address economy, efficiency, or  effectiveness challenges. GAO reports the status of high-risk areas on a biennial basis  and includes any new high-risk areas needing congressional and executive branch  attention.
Efficiency (CIGIE).OIG’s hotline cases from fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013 and  compared how the complaints were addressed with the OIG’s own hotline  policies and procedures. We selected for review relevant OIG hotline  policies and procedures that we determined could have a bearing on the  effectiveness of the hotline operations and that could be verified.
We also selected random samples of the Commerce  To review the effectiveness of the Commerce OIG’s efforts to address  issues identified by its employees in the fiscal year 2012 FEVS, we  compared the OIG’s efforts with guidance provided by OPM on how to  address issues identified by the survey. In addition, for fiscal years 2012  through 2014, we obtained the FEVS responses of the OIG’s employees  and analyzed the responses to questions that addressed work  experience, work unit, agency, supervisor, leadership, and satisfaction.  We also looked across the 3 years of data to determine whether it was  possible to identify improvement in the employees’ perceptions of these  areas. For more information on the scope and methodology of our review,  see appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2013 through June 2015  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Commerce has responsibilities in the areas of trade, economic  development, technology, entrepreneurship and business development,  environmental stewardship, and statistical research and analysis. In  addition, Commerce provides management and monitoring of the nation’s  resources and assets to support both environmental and economic  health. Other essential operations conducted by Commerce include the  constitutionally mandated decennial census, economic research leading  to calculation of the gross domestic product and trade balances,  stimulation of small businesses, and promotion of international trade. The  Secretary of Commerce leads the department’s efforts, with fiscal year  2013 total budgetary resources of approximately $22.7 billion and over  40,000 employees worldwide.
The Commerce OIG was established by the IG Act with its IG appointed  by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The IG is under the  general supervision of, and reports to, the Secretary of Commerce. The  current IG was sworn into office on December 26, 2007, and leads a team  of auditors, evaluators, investigators, attorneys, and support staff  responsible for providing oversight of the department’s array of business,  scientific, economic, and environmental programs and operations.
The Commerce OIG helps to ensure that the department’s employees  and others managing federal resources comply with applicable laws and  regulations, and works to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in program  operations. The OIG monitors and tracks the use of taxpayer dollars in  federally funded programs to keep Commerce officials and the Congress  fully and currently informed about issues, problems, and deficiencies  related to the administration of programs and operations and the need for  corrective actions. Figure 1 illustrates the primary offices that make up the  Commerce OIG.
The Commerce OIG is primarily governed by the IG and the Office of  Counsel, with the IG providing overall leadership and policy direction and  the Office of Counsel providing legal guidance in support of the OIG’s  mission. The Office of Audit and Evaluation (OAE) conducts audits and  evaluations of Commerce programs and operations to help determine  whether they are cost-efficient and cost-effective. The Office of  Investigations (OI) helps to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse  by contractors and grantees, and addresses reported improprieties  involving department employees. OI maintains a hotline to collect reports  of allegations related to fraud, waste, and abuse in departmental  programs and operations. From fiscal years 2011 through 2013, OAE  issued 90 reports and OI closed 258 investigations. In addition, the OIG  testified 13 times before congressional committees.
section_title: Commerce OIG’s Budget and Staff Resources and Reported Monetary Accomplishments for Fiscal Years 2011 through 2013
subsections: section_title: Commerce OIG’s Budget and Staff Resources
paragraphs: The Commerce OIG had total budgetary resources of approximately   $41 million in fiscal year 2013. These resources represent a significant  decline when compared to fiscal year 2011 total budgetary resources of  approximately $47 million, a decrease of about 13 percent. When  compared to all other cabinet-level OIGs, the Commerce OIG had the  lowest level of total budgetary resources for each of the 3 fiscal years.  Also, while five of these other OIGs had a decline in total budgetary  resources equal to or greater than that of the Commerce OIG, the  Commerce OIG’s decline was greater than the 6 percent average decline  for all other cabinet-level OIGs during the 3-year period. (See table 1.)
The Commerce OIG had 137 authorized full-time equivalent staff (FTE) in  fiscal year 2013. When compared with other cabinet-level OIGs, the  Commerce OIG had the fewest authorized FTEs. In addition, the  Commerce OIG had the largest decrease of authorized FTEs when  compared to the other cabinet-level OIGs. Specifically, from fiscal years  2011 through 2013, the Commerce OIG’s authorized FTEs decreased  from 171 to 137, or approximately 20 percent, while the other OIGs’  decreases ranged from no decrease to an approximate 17 percent  decrease, for an average decrease of approximately 5 percent, as shown  in table 2.
section_title: Commerce OIG’s Reported Monetary Accomplishments
paragraphs: The Commerce OIG reported approximately $543 million in monetary  accomplishments from audits, evaluations, and investigations during  fiscal years 2011 through 2013. As shown in table 3, when the Commerce  OIG’s reported monetary accomplishments over the 3-year period are  compared to its budgetary resources, the resulting average return on  investment for each budget dollar was approximately $4.18 over the 3- year period.
The results of the Commerce OIG’s audits and evaluations contributed  approximately $401.8 million of the total monetary accomplishments  reported by the OIG through potential savings as defined by the IG Act.  Approximately $392.5 million, or about 98 percent, of this amount was  attributable to four audit reports issued during the 3-year period.
The OIG’s investigations provided about $141.5 million of reported total  monetary accomplishments during the 3-year period as a result of fines  and restitutions related to successful prosecutions and other court  proceedings.
The Commerce OIG and all other cabinet-level OIGs showed increases in  their average return on each budget dollar. While the Commerce OIG’s  return was within the range of the lowest and highest returns for all other  OIGs for each fiscal year, its average return on each budget dollar of  $4.18 over the 3-year period was less than the average of $22.64 for the  other OIGs. In addition, the Commerce OIG’s return for each fiscal year  was less than the average each year for the other cabinet-level OIGs, as  shown in table 4.
section_title: The OIG’s Oversight Resulted in Gaps of Audit Coverage
paragraphs: IGs have a unique role within their agencies to identify areas for improved  economy, efficiency, and effectiveness through various oversight  activities, including independent audits. During fiscal years 2011 through  2013, the Commerce OIG’s OAE provided audit coverage of Commerce’s  largest bureaus and offices and completed mandated audits of the  department’s (1) financial statements, as required by the Chief Financial  Officers Act of 1990 (CFO Act), and (2) information security, as required  by the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA).  In addition, the OIG provided audits of funds associated with the  American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). The  OIG also provided audits of the department’s management challenges  that are defined by the OIG and reported in Commerce’s annual  performance and accountability reports. However, the OIG’s oversight  lacked audit coverage of the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of  programs specific to the department’s bureaus and offices with relatively  small budgets, and not all applicable high-risk areas identified by GAO’s  high-risk reports were subject to audit.
subsections: section_title: Commerce OIG Focused on Large Programs but Lacked Audit Coverage of Important Smaller Programs
paragraphs: During the 3-year period we reviewed, OAE issued 90 reports including  mandatory audits, performance audits, evaluations, and memorandums,  intended to provide oversight of Commerce’s 13 major bureaus and  offices identified in the OIG’s semiannual reports.reports issued, or 93 percent, were directed to four bureaus and offices,  and to department-wide issues managed by the Office of the Secretary.  The four bureaus and offices had total budgetary resources in fiscal year  2013 of approximately $19.9 billion, or almost 88 percent of the   Eighty-four of the  department’s total budgetary resources of approximately $22.7 billion.  (See app. II.) For the remaining eight bureaus and offices, OAE provided  mandatory FISMA audits, Recovery Act audits, and one evaluation, but  no performance audit coverage of the economy, efficiency, and  effectiveness of their specific programs during the 3-year period we  reviewed and for extended periods prior to our review. (See table 5.)
OAE provided audits of department-wide activities mandated by specific  statutes. Specifically, the CFO Act requires entities, such as Commerce,  to have annual financial statements that are audited. These audits  provide (1) an opinion on whether the financial information is fairly  presented and in accordance with generally accepted accounting  principles, (2) a report on internal control over financial reporting and (3) a  report on compliance with provisions of applicable laws and regulations,  contracts, and grant agreements. FISMA audits report on the controls  over information security throughout the department. Also, OAE audits  funds the department receives through the Recovery Act because of a  higher risk for waste, fraud, and abuse related to these funds. Although  these audits address certain internal controls and broad department-wide  operations, without audits of the programs specific to each bureau and  office, their economy, efficiency, and effectiveness are not fully addressed  by the OIG.
The Commerce OIG has addressed the effectiveness of relatively large  programs through performance audits and evaluations. For the 3-year  period we reviewed, the Commerce OIG completed a total of 18  performance audits and 17 evaluations that addressed the programs  specific to the department’s four bureaus and offices that have relatively  large budgets, and department-wide activities managed by the Office of  the Secretary. However, the eight bureaus and offices with relatively  smaller budgets received no performance audits to address the economy,  efficiency, and effectiveness of their specific programs during the 3-year  period.
While these eight bureaus and offices are small relative to the  department’s largest bureaus and offices, they represented approximately  $2.4 billion or about 11 percent of the department’s total budgetary  resources for fiscal year 2013 and are included in the OIG’s listing of the  major programs that are to receive oversight. In addition, they make  important contributions to maintaining a strong national economy by  providing businesses and other organizations with reliable information,  helping the United States compete in international trade, and assisting  U.S. businesses.
For example, the National Technical Information Service, with fiscal year  2013 total budgetary resources of about $85 million, has program  responsibilities for collecting and preserving scientific, technical,  engineering, and other business-related information from federal and  international sources and for disseminating this information to the U.S.  business and industrial research communities. Also, the Minority  Business Development Administration, with total budgetary resources in  fiscal year 2013 of about $28 million, is responsible for promoting the  growth of minority business enterprises and their participation in the  global economy through a range of activities. These activities include  funding a network of centers that provides a variety of business  assistance services.
The eight bureaus and offices for which the Commerce OIG did not  provide performance audit coverage of their specific programs’ economy,  efficiency, and effectiveness also did not receive these audits during the  years prior to the 3-year period we reviewed, as shown in table 6. To  illustrate, the programs specific to the Bureau of Economic Analysis had  received no performance audit coverage over an 8-year period from fiscal  years 2005 through 2013. The remaining seven small bureaus and offices  had gaps ranging from 3 to 13 years in the performance audit coverage of  their specific programs.
The Commerce OIG’s plans for providing audit coverage of the  department’s bureaus and offices are based on an assessment of risk.The OIG develops risk ratings for each bureau or office based on an  assessment of a series of questions that determine the presence of risk.  These questions address budget size, types of programs and operations,  compliance with laws and regulations, fraud risks, and management  challenges. For purposes of the risk assessment the OIG ranks the  bureaus as (1) high, or those with higher relative risk characteristics;   (2) medium, or those with midrange relative risk characteristics; and   (3) low, or those with lower relative risk characteristics. Using this  categorization, the OIG then develops audits and evaluations for  oversight. This approach has provided audits and evaluations of  programs in the four largest bureaus and offices and audits required by  specific mandates. However, the length of time between performance  audit coverage of the department’s programs is not part of the OIG’s risk  assessment when considering oversight of the economy, efficiency, and  effectiveness of the smaller bureaus and offices. Also, smaller programs  may not rank high when other risk factors are considered, and there is no  rotation policy to ensure that these programs are reviewed periodically.
In the years prior to the 3-year period we reviewed, the Commerce OIG  provided periodic evaluations of the department’s bureaus and offices  with relatively small total budgetary resources to help assess the  performance of their programs. However, while similar in purpose to  performance audits, evaluations are not specifically required by the IG Act  and are not a substitute for audit coverage. In addition, there are  fundamental differences in the standards of each that affect the breadth  and depth of the reviews. Specifically, the IG Act requires that OIGs,  including the Commerce OIG, follow the Comptroller General’s  Government Auditing Standards when performing audits, and to the  extent permitted by law and not inconsistent with Government Auditing  Standards, professional standards developed by CIGIE for evaluations.
A fundamental difference between the standards for audits and those for  evaluations is the level of detail and requirements for sufficient,  appropriate evidence to support findings and conclusions. Performance  audits completed under Government Auditing Standards by design  require more depth in their levels of evidence and documentation  supporting the findings than is required for evaluations performed under  CIGIE standards, which can lead to differences in the reliability and  accuracy of the results. In addition, auditing standards require external  quality reviews of audit practices, or peer reviews, on a 3-year cycle by  reviewers independent of the OIG. However, neither the CIGIE standards  for evaluations nor the Commerce OIG’s policies and procedures require  such external reviews for evaluations. Without the information provided by  periodic audits of the eight smaller bureaus and offices’ use of  approximately $2.4 billion in fiscal year 2013 total budgetary resources,  any weaknesses in their economy, efficiency, and effectiveness may not  be fully known, increasing the risk of fraud, waste, abuse, or  mismanagement.
section_title: Commerce OIG Did Not Audit Some GAO High- Risk Areas
paragraphs: Since 1990, GAO has reported on government operations designated as  high risk because of their greater vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse,  and mismanagement. Although Commerce was not identified as having a  specific high-risk area, GAO’s February 2011 report identified the  following five high-risk areas that were applicable government-wide:   (1) protecting information systems and cyber critical infrastructures,   (2) strategic human capital management, (3) managing federal real  property, (4) management of interagency contracting, and (5) ensuring  the effective protection of technologies critical to U.S. national security  interests. GAO’s February 2013 high-risk update report continued to  identify all these areas as high-risk except for management of interagency  contracting, which was removed from the list because of significant  progress made by the federal government in reducing the interagency  contracting risk that led to GAO’s high-risk designation. In addition, GAO  added two new high-risk areas that are relevant to Commerce programs:  (1) mitigating gaps in weather satellite data and (2) limiting the federal  government’s fiscal exposure by better managing climate change.However, not all of the applicable high-risk areas were considered in the  Commerce OIG’s risk-based planning process and not all of these areas  were included in the audit coverage provided during the 3-year period we  reviewed, as shown in table 7.
During fiscal years 2011 through 2013, the Commerce OIG conducted  mandated FISMA audits that addressed the security of information  systems, and a performance audit of Commerce’s human capital  management. For the high-risk areas added in 2013, the OIG completed  audits that addressed satellite data and started an audit in the area of  managing climate change during fiscal year 2014. However, the OIG did  not conduct audits in the high-risk areas of managing federal real property  and ensuring the effective protection of technologies critical to U.S.  national security interests during the 3-year period. After this period, the  OIG completed an audit related to protecting technologies critical to U.S.  national security in fiscal year 2014.
Managing federal real property was not included in the Commerce OIG’s  audits even though it remains a government-wide high-risk area because  of long-standing problems such as overreliance on leasing, excess and  underutilized property, and issues in protecting federal facilities. In  addition, Commerce’s fiscal year 2013 financial statement audit  identified the area as having a significant deficiency in internal control and  concluded that while the National Oceanic and Atmospheric  Administration has recognized the difficulties in accounting for its property  and has implemented corrective actions, more improvements and  additional oversight and training are needed to strengthen its controls  over the significant property investment.
Another high-risk area involves U.S. government programs to identify and  protect technologies critical to U.S. interests including export control  systems for defense articles and services and dual-use items, the Foreign  Military Sales program, anti-tamper policies, and reviews of transactions  that could result in control of a U.S. business by a foreign person. These  programs are administered by multiple federal agencies, including  Commerce, with various interests. GAO reported that each program has  had its own set of challenges that are largely attributed to poor  coordination within complex interagency processes, inefficiencies in  program operations, and a lack of systemic evaluations of program  effectiveness. The Commerce OIG did not provide audit coverage of  this high-risk area during the 3-year period we reviewed, but as a result of  a congressional request, the OIG completed an audit of the Bureau of  Industry and Security’s licensing of exports related to these programs in  September 2014.
section_title: The Commerce OIG’s Hotline Policies and Procedures Were Generally Consistent with Recommended Practices but Were Not Always Followed
paragraphs: The Commerce OIG’s hotline policies and procedures were generally  consistent with recommended hotline practices provided through CIGIE.  However, our testing of a random sample of OIG hotline cases from fiscal  years 2011, 2012, and 2013 identified numerous instances in which OIG  staff did not follow the OIG’s formal hotline policies and procedures that  we selected for review. Specifically, the OIG did not always follow its  own hotline procedures with respect to (1) proper handling of complaints,  (2) assignment of disposition codes, and (3) time frames for processing  complaints.
subsections: section_title: Commerce OIG Hotline Process
paragraphs: The OIG’s OI is responsible for all investigations, referrals, and other  actions resulting from complaints alleging criminal, civil, or administrative  misconduct related to Commerce’s programs, funds, and operations. The  OIG’s Office of Compliance and Ethics is part of OI and is headed by a  director who has a hotline staff responsible for the intake, processing,  review, and preliminary research of all hotline complaints. In addition, the  OIG has a complaint disposition board of OIG management officials and  key special agents and investigators that is headed by the IG and  determines the disposition of complaints.hotline process.
section_title: Commerce OIG’s Hotline Policies and Procedures Are Generally Consistent with Recommended Practices
paragraphs: The recommended hotline practices provided through CIGIE contain 10  areas that cover a broad scope of activities. Specifically, the guidance  recommends (1) adequate hotline training for staff, (2) consistent  handling of complaints, (3) use of technology for processing complaints,  (4) analysis of complaints to identify any trends or systemic weaknesses,  (5) regular meetings of hotline staff with OIG management, (6) use of a  website to receive complaints, (7) educational information about whistle- blower protections on the OIG’s website, (8) outreach efforts to raise the  profile of the hotline with federal employees, (9) participation in forums of  hotline operators with other OIGs, and (10) management of the  expectations of complainants.
Consistent with the recommended hotline practices, the Commerce OIG  developed formal hotline policies and procedures that address the intake,  processing, and disposition of hotline complaints; has taken actions to  provide investigative training for hotline staff; and makes use of  technology to both process complaints and analyze them for emerging  trends. The hotline staff shares this information during weekly meetings  with OIG senior management to determine the disposition of pending  complaints. The OIG has also established a website to receive complaints  and provide educational information regarding the hotline, and it conducts  outreach efforts throughout Commerce on the use of the hotline and how  to report complaints. In addition, the OIG participates in several working  groups and activities sponsored by CIGIE.
Regarding management of the expectations of complainants, during our  review the OIG developed a revised hotline policy in August 2013 that  included a requirement to notify the complainant of the disposition of the  complaint. However, the policy did not specifically require the OIG to  inform the complainant whether status updates could be expected. Upon  our further discussion with hotline staff, the OIG drafted a set of letters to  communicate to complainants whether status updates should be  expected to better manage the complainants’ expectations.
section_title: Commerce OIG’s Hotline Staff Did Not Always Follow Formal Policies and Procedures
paragraphs: We reviewed a random sample of 58 hotline cases drawn from each of 3  fiscal years and found that hotline staff often did not adhere to the OIG’s  formal hotline policies and procedures that we selected for review.  Specifically, we estimate that (1) about 76 percent of hotline complaints in  fiscal year 2011 had at least one exception to the OIG’s hotline policies  and procedures, (2) about 84 percent of hotline complaints in fiscal year  2012 had at least one exception, and (3) about 62 percent of hotline  complaints in fiscal year 2013 had at least one exception. When  projected over all 1,294 complaints received by the OIG in fiscal year  2013, we estimate that about 802 of those hotline complaint cases had  one or more inconsistencies with the OIG’s hotline policies and  procedures that we tested.
The exceptions we identified included the following: (1) unique, sequential  case numbers were not assigned to each complaint; (2) disposition codes  were not assigned in accordance with written policies; and (3) time  frames for processing complaints were not followed by staff receiving  complaints. Table 9 shows the estimated percentage of exceptions we  found in each of these areas for fiscal years 2011 through 2013.
In testing our 2011 sample, we found exceptions to the Commerce OIG’s  policy to assign unique, sequential case numbers to hotline complaints.  This number is the official means of identifying a case and its  corresponding complaint documentation. During 2011, the OIG received a  large number of complaints related to sweepstakes scams. Rather than  log and dispose of each complaint individually, as called for in the policy,  management instructed staff to compile complaints and enter them into  the electronic case management system under one overall case number.  Based upon our testing, we estimate that 9 percent of the cases from  fiscal years 2011 through 2013 were not assigned a unique, sequential  case number, contrary to policy.have been the same, they were from different complainants with  allegations directed at different persons and required unique case  numbers. Compiling similar but unique complaints into a single case   While the nature of the allegations may  number inhibits the OIG from efficiently and effectively tracking  complaints received by the office and increases the risk that complaints  will be handled inconsistently.
Based on our sample selected from the 3 years of hotline complaints, we  estimate that about 37 percent of disposition codes were not assigned to  complaints in accordance with the definitions in the OIG’s hotline policies  and procedures in effect at the time. Most, but not all, of the complaints  that we identified as having the wrong code assigned were ultimately  treated in accordance with the disposition procedures called for in the  hotline policies. However, when complaints are not assigned the correct  code, the risk that a hotline complaint may not be appropriately referred  increases, and the potential exists that wrongdoing associated with  complaints may not be fully addressed. To illustrate, one complaint was  received from a private citizen who reported the suspected falsification of  federal student loan documents. The OIG’s hotline review resulted in a  decision to assign a disposition code of “U” because the matter was  unrelated to Commerce and thus no further action was taken. However,  even though the complaint was unrelated to Commerce, enough  information was provided for the complaint to have been assigned a code  of “O” and forwarded to an external entity or federal agency that manages  student loans for possible action, consistent with the OIG’s hotline  policies. OIG staff stated that during fiscal year 2012 the Assistant IG for  Investigations changed the disposition codes and consolidated several  codes. This change was abandoned in fiscal year 2013 and was never  reflected in written policies because it was determined to have negatively  affected the OIG’s ability to report hotline complaint information. This  change of practice caused many of the exceptions we found related to  improper disposition codes in our testing of the 2012 sample. The hotline  staff agreed that the disposition codes we identified as exceptions were  not assigned in accordance with written policy.
The OIG’s hotline policies and procedures in effect at the time of our  testing required hotline staff to process complaints within specified time  frames to ensure that the complaints were handled timely. After receiving  the complaints, hotline staff were to enter them into the electronic case  management system within 24 hours and to assign a disposition code to  each case within 5 business days of receipt. Cases to be disposed of as  a referral required staff to refer each case within 5 business days after  determination of its disposition. Over the 3-year period, (1) an estimated 7  percent of cases were not entered within 24 hours, (2) an estimated 42  percent of the complaints were not assigned a disposition code within the  required time frames, and (3) an estimated 4 percent of the cases  assigned for referral to another Commerce component were not sent  within 5 days.sample was 23 days. If complaints are not handled in a timely manner,  the hotline operation’s effectiveness and efficiency may be diminished.
The longest period for assigning a disposition code in our  CIGIE’s Quality Standards for Federal Offices of Inspector General  requires OIGs to establish and implement internal control activities to  ensure that their directives are carried out. However, while the  Commerce OIG has hotline policies and procedures, it has not developed  certain internal control activities to help provide reasonable assurance  that its own policies and procedures are consistently implemented.  Specifically, the OIG does not provide ongoing monitoring of its hotline  policies and procedures in the course of normal operations, which is to be  performed continually and ingrained in the OIG’s operations, to help  reasonably assure that those policies and procedures are being followed.  The CIGIE standards for monitoring internal controls include self- assessment evaluations, periodic reviews of control design, and direct  testing of internal controls.
Because OIGs evaluate how well agency programs and operations are  functioning, they have a special responsibility to reasonably assure that  their own operations are as effective as possible. Hotline complainants,  including whistle-blowers, play an important role in safeguarding the  federal government against fraud, waste, and abuse, and their willingness  to come forward can contribute to improvements in government  operations. Without effective internal control activities for its hotline  operations, the Commerce OIG is vulnerable to increased risk that  complaints of fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement received through  its hotline may not be handled effectively.
section_title: Commerce OIG’s FEVS Results Have Improved, but Employee Concerns Remain
paragraphs: OPM’s FEVS asks questions of federal employees related to specific  topic areas, the responses to which determine how well the federal  government is managing its human resources and give senior managers  employee perspectives on agency management. The surveys for fiscal  years 2012 through 2014 included the same 71 questions each year that  provide information on employees’ views regarding (1) their work  experience, (2) their work unit, (3) their agency, (4) their supervisor,   (5) leadership, and (6) overall satisfaction. In the 2012 FEVS results, the  Commerce OIG employee responses to 43 of 71 survey questions had a  higher percentage of negative responses than the government-wide  average. (See app. III.) The responses for the remaining 28 questions  were either at the government-wide average or had lower percentages of  negative responses compared to the government-wide average. The  Commerce OIG’s 2012 FEVS results were used by the Partnership for  Public Service to rank the Commerce OIG at 291 out of 292 other  subcomponent offices in the federal government.
Through the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, the  Congress established a requirement for agencies to annually survey their  employees to assess employee satisfaction and employees’ views of  leadership and management practices. The FEVS measures employees’ perceptions of whether, and to what extent, conditions that  characterize successful organizations are present in their agencies. The  survey (1) provides general indicators of how well the federal government  is running its human resources management systems, (2) serves as a  tool for OPM to assess individual agencies and their progress on strategic  management of human capital and (3) gives senior managers critical  information to assist them in determining what they can do to improve  their agency’s effectiveness. The FEVS is administered to full-time and  part-time, permanent, non-seasonal employees of departments and large  agencies, small/independent agencies, and subcomponents of larger  agencies, such as the Commerce OIG, that choose to participate in the  survey.
As part of the annual requirement to survey their employees, federal  agencies are to assess (1) leadership and management practices that  contribute to agency performance and (2) employee satisfaction with  leadership policies and practices, work environment, rewards and  recognition for professional accomplishment and personal contributions to  achieving organizational mission, opportunity for professional  development and growth, and opportunity to contribute to achieving  organizational mission. OPM regulations for implementing the mandatory  employee survey prescribe survey questions that must appear on each  agency’s employee survey. The FEVS is completed annually and  includes the same questions each year, but OPM may include agency- specific questions at the request of the agency.
The Commerce OIG made efforts to address the issues identified in the  2012 FEVS results and the FEVS results for it in subsequent years have  improved, as did the ranking of the Commerce OIG by the Partnership for  Public Service for fiscal years 2013 and 2014. The OIG’s 2013 FEVS  results had 9 out of 71 survey questions with a higher percentage of  negative responses than the government-wide average and the 2014  results had 11 such questions. However, even with these improved FEVS  responses, the Partnership for Public Service ranked the Commerce OIG  at 281 out of 300 subcomponent agencies in fiscal year 2013 and at 262  out of 315 subcomponent agencies in fiscal year 2014, indicating that  OIG employee responses remain significantly more negative than the  government-wide average for specific questions.
OPM provides guidance to agencies on how to address the FEVS  responses that indicate the need for corrective actions. The guidance  includes steps to address areas where weaknesses are indicated and  develop an action plan with measures of success. These steps direct the  agency to (1) identify the issues, (2) set goals, (3) identify staff resources  to assist, (4) develop the action plan, (5) implement the action plan, and  (6) monitor and evaluate the implementation. The Commerce OIG  followed much of the OPM guidance to address the 2012 FEVS results  but lacked an action plan with measures of success. Specifically, the OIG  evaluated the survey questions to identify issues; set goals that  addressed leadership, morale, training, and communication; identified  staff to participate in the efforts to address the FEVS responses; and  developed 86 recommendations to meet the identified goals. In addition,  the OIG took actions to address and monitor the completion of most of  the recommendations developed by its staff. However, the OIG did not  develop an action plan with measurements to determine whether the  employees’ concerns were successfully addressed. GAO’s prior work has  identified attributes relevant to these action plans, including a measurable  target—to determine whether performance measures have quantifiable,  numerical targets or other measurable values, where appropriate. Action  plans with attributes of successful metrics could allow the OIG to better  determine whether its goals were successfully met.
Some of the FEVS questions with a higher percentage of negative  responses than the government-wide average have particular significance  when they occur in an OIG. OIGs have a responsibility to report on  current performance and accountability and to foster sound program  management to help ensure effective government operations. When an  OIG’s own operations are not as effective as possible, recommendations  to other offices may not be viewed as credible. To illustrate, the  responses to the following FEVS questions had a higher percentage of  negative responses than the government-wide average for all 3 years we  reviewed:  “My talents are used well in the workplace.”  “I know what to do to be rated higher.”  “I recommend my organization as a good place to work.”  “Considering everything how satisfied are you with your  organization?”
Also, in the 2014 FEVS results the OIG employees had a higher  percentage of negative responses to the following question: “Prohibited  personnel practices are not tolerated.”
Allegations of prohibited personnel practices by the OIG’s senior  leadership during fiscal year 2011 were investigated by the Office of  Special Counsel (OSC). In its September 2013 report, the OSC  concluded there was strong evidence of retaliation against OIG employee  whistle-blowers by two senior OIG leaders. These investigative results  are even more significant given the Commerce OIG’s role in receiving  and processing allegations of prohibited personnel practices and other  whistle-blower complaints for the department. The Commerce IG stated  that in his opinion, the timing of the investigation and related issues had a  significant effect on the FEVS results.
Although there has been improvement, a significant percentage of  negative responses to FEVS questions addressing important aspects of  good management remain. Without an action plan as recommended by  OPM, with measurements of success, the OIG may continue to have  responses to FEVS questions that are significantly more negative than  the government-wide average. These results could indicate lost  productivity and a diminished ability of the office to effectively carry out its  statutory duties.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The OIG’s audit oversight resulted in an emphasis on the four Commerce  bureaus and programs that have the largest budgets and the Office of the  Secretary for department-wide audits, with no performance audit  coverage of the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of the programs  specific to the eight smaller bureaus and offices. Because of the  significance of the programs in the smaller bureaus and offices, the lack  of performance audit coverage specific to these programs places them at  an increased risk of not addressing potential issues of economy,  efficiency, and effectiveness in handling the taxpayer dollars they receive.  The OIG’s planning for audit coverage is based on risk and considers a  number of factors to determine the extent of its audits and evaluations.  However, the OIG does not consider the length of time that has passed  since the programs specific to the bureaus and offices last received  performance audits addressing their economy, efficiency, and  effectiveness. In addition, the OIG’s audit plans did not fully consider all  GAO high-risk areas applicable to Commerce, which resulted in areas  that were not subject to audit.
The OIG lacks certain effective internal control activities for its hotline  operation, which made the hotline vulnerable to inconsistent and  ineffective management. Because OIGs evaluate how well agency  programs and operations are functioning, they have a special  responsibility to provide reasonable assurance that their own operations  are as effective as possible. However, without effective monitoring of  internal controls for its hotline operations, the OIG has limited assurance  that its hotline policies and procedures will be consistently followed and  that the complaints received by the hotline will be handled effectively.
The OIG’s FEVS results improved during fiscal years 2013 and 2014, but  the remaining FEVS questions with a higher percentage of negative  responses than the government-wide average indicate that employee  concerns continue and indicate the potential for limited OIG effectiveness.  The OIG has taken steps to address the FEVS responses of its  employees in past years that are mostly consistent with OPM guidance.  However, the OIG did not develop an action plan with measures of  success to reasonably assure that employee concerns are effectively  addressed.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To provide increased performance audit coverage of Commerce’s  bureaus and offices, the Commerce IG should augment the OIG’s risk- based audit planning process to consider (1) a rotation of performance  audit coverage among the smaller bureaus and offices to help ensure that  the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of their programs are  periodically reviewed and (2) all applicable high-risk areas identified by  GAO.
To provide reasonable assurance that written hotline policies and  procedures are consistently followed and complaints are handled  effectively, the Commerce IG should enhance the existing internal control  activities for the OIG’s hotline operations through monitoring, including  self-assessment evaluations conducted by the hotline unit of itself,  periodic reviews of control design, and direct testing of internal controls.
To reasonably assure that the concerns of OIG employees expressed in  their FEVS responses are effectively addressed, the Commerce IG  should develop an action plan that includes measures of success.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Commerce IG for comment. In his  written comments, reproduced in appendix IV, the Commerce IG  concurred with our recommendations and discussed actions the OIG has  planned or started to address them. In addition, the OIG provided  technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. The IG stated  that the OIG’s fiscal year 2016 risk assessment is under way and the OIG  is considering performance audit coverage issues with respect to  Commerce’s smaller bureaus and operating units. The IG also stated that  the OIG is developing a quality assurance program that will address self- assessments, reviews of the controls of the hotline operations, and  periodic tests of those controls. In addition, the IG stated that after the  results of the next FEVS are released, the OIG will develop an updated  action plan that includes metrics designed to measure success.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate  congressional committees; Inspector General of the Department of  Commerce; Secretary of Commerce; Deputy Director for Management,  Office of Management and Budget; and other interested parties. In  addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-2623 or davisbh@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff members who made key contributions to  this report are listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To provide information on the budget, staff resources, and  accomplishments of the Department of Commerce (Commerce) Office of  Inspector General (OIG) and the other cabinet-level OIGs, we obtained  access to the Office of Management and Budget database of budget  information for fiscal years 2011 through 2013 for comparison among  these OIGs. We also obtained information on the monetary results from  audits, evaluations, and investigations as reported by the Commerce OIG  and the other cabinet-level OIGs in semiannual reports to the Congress  for the 3-year period. We calculated a rate of return on the Commerce  OIG’s budgets by dividing the reported monetary accomplishments into  the OIG’s total budgetary resources for each of the 3 years. We also  calculated the average overall rate of return of the other cabinet-level  OIGs and compared their average results to those of the Commerce OIG  for the same 3-year period.
We reviewed the OIG’s effectiveness in providing audit oversight  coverage of Commerce from fiscal years 2011 through 2013 by  identifying the audits, evaluations, and other activities reported by the  OIG in its semiannual reports for the 3-year period. We compared the  OIG’s audit reports to the (1) management challenges at Commerce  identified by the Commerce OIG and reported in the department’s annual  performance and accountability reports, (2) bureaus and offices identified  by the OIG’s semiannual reports that administer Commerce’s major  programs and activities, and (3) Commerce-related high-risk areas  identified by GAO and reported in updates to our high-risk series. We also  reviewed the Commerce OIG’s planning documents to determine how the  OIG selects the areas to review in providing OIG oversight of  Commerce’s programs and activities. Specifically, we reviewed audit and  evaluation plans for fiscal years 2011 through 2013, OIG risk  assessments of Commerce’s programs and offices, and the OIG’s  strategic (action) plans. We relied on information reported in the OIG’s  semiannual reports to determine the oversight coverage and  accomplishments. To verify the reliability of these data, we obtained all 90  Office of Audit and Evaluation’s reports for the 3-year period and  compared the reported results with the information in the semiannual  reports. We also identified the statement of quality used by the OIG in  each report, which attests to the accuracy of the information. In addition,  we obtained an understanding of the OIG’s internal process to help  ensure that the semiannual report information is accurate. Based on our  procedures, we concluded that these data were reliable enough for the  purposes of this report.
To review the effectiveness of the Commerce OIG in addressing  complaints and allegations of wrongdoing received by its hotline during  fiscal years 2011 through 2013, we compared the OIG’s policies and  procedures with recommended hotline practices provided through the  Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. We also  interviewed hotline staff to determine the OIG’s internal control process  for ensuring that its hotline policies and procedures were followed. In  addition, we selected a random sample of closed hotline complaints  received by the OIG for each fiscal year of the 3-year period and  determined the extent to which the OIG followed its own policies and  procedures. We selected for review relevant OIG hotline policies and  procedures that we determined could have a bearing on the effectiveness  of the hotline operations and could be verified. For example, we tested  controls involved in the receipt, disposition, and processing of complaints,  such as assigning unique numeric identifiers, sufficiency of supporting  case file documentation, and timeliness of the disposition of complaints.
To test the implementation of procedures that differed in each year, we  selected samples from fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013. Specifically, we  selected a simple random sample of 58 individual hotline complaints in  each of the 3 fiscal years. Each sample was designed so that if we found  0 exceptions in our review, the estimated exception rate for that fiscal  year would be below a tolerable error of 5 percent at the 95 percent level  of confidence. For example, if we did not identify any exceptions in our  testing for a particular procedure, in a given year, then our conclusion  would be that the OIG’s implementation was effective for that procedure.  Because we followed a probability procedure based on random  selections, each sample is only one of a large number of samples that we  might have drawn. Since each sample could have provided different  estimates, we express our confidence in the precision of our particular  sample’s results as a 95 percent confidence interval (e.g., plus or minus 7  percentage points). This is the interval that would contain the actual  population value for 95 percent of the samples we could have drawn.
To review the Commerce OIG’s effectiveness in addressing issues  identified by the OIG and based on its employees’ responses to the Office  of Personnel Management’s (OPM) annual Federal Employee Viewpoint  Survey (FEVS), we obtained the Commerce OIG survey responses to the  71 questions from OPM for fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 that  addressed the employees’ work experience, work unit, agency,  supervisors, leadership, and satisfaction. Additional survey questions that  addressed work/life programs, including telework, and demographics  were not included in our review because we focused on the effectiveness  of the OIG’s operations related to audits, evaluations, and other oversight  efforts. The FEVS results include response percentages for each survey  question. The definitions for the positive, neutral, and negative response  percentages vary in the following ways across the three primary response  scales used in the survey:  Strongly Agree and Agree/Very Satisfied and  Satisfied/Very Good and Good;  Neither Agree nor Disagree/Neither Satisfied nor  Dissatisfied/Fair;  Disagree and Strongly Disagree/Dissatisfied and Very  Dissatisfied/Poor and Very Poor.
We estimated the 95 percent confidence intervals around the percentage  of negative responses to each question in the Commerce OIG FEVS  data. We then analyzed the data by comparing the Commerce OIG  survey response estimates with the government-wide average  percentage of negative responses for all 71 survey questions in each  year. If the upper bound for the confidence interval around the estimate  for the Commerce OIG was below the government-wide average  percentage of negative responses, we counted the difference as  statistically significant. We summarized the areas of reported weakness  as indicated by OIG employees’ estimated percentage of negative  responses that were statistically higher than the government-wide  averages. To review the actions taken by the OIG to address the fiscal  year 2012 FEVS results, we obtained internal communications and  interviewed OIG management officials. In addition, we obtained and  analyzed the products of OIG working groups established to identify and  correct the weaknesses indicated by the fiscal year 2012 survey and  compared the OIG’s actions with OPM guidance.
section_title: Appendix II: Department of Commerce Bureaus and Offices, Functions, and Fiscal Year 2013 Total Budgetary Resources
subsections: section_title: Total budgetary resources
paragraphs: $9,157    Develops domestic and international telecommunications and information  policy for the executive branch; ensures the efficient and effective  management and use of the federal radio spectrum; and performs  telecommunications research, engineering, and planning.  5,926    Promotes environmental stewardship through (1) the National Ocean Service;  (2) the National Marine Fisheries Service; (3) the Office of Oceanic and  Atmospheric Research; (4) the National Weather Service; (5) the National  Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service; and (6) Program  Support.   2,931    Provides examinations of patent and trademark applications and guides  domestic and international intellectual property policy and encourages  innovation and scientific and technical advancement of U.S. industry through  the preservation, classification, and dissemination of patent and trademark  information.  1,905    Provides benchmark measures of the U.S. population, economy, and  governments and provides current measures of the U.S. population, economy,  and governments. The bureau’s cyclical programs include the Economic  Census and the Census of Governments, conducted every 5 years, and the  Decennial Census program, conducted every 10 years.  $1,112    Promotes U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing  measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that improve  economic security and quality of life. Develops and disseminates measurement  techniques, reference data, test methods, standards, and other technologies  and services needed by U.S. industry to compete in the 21st century.  495    Creates prosperity by promoting trade and investment, ensuring fair trade and  compliance with trade laws and agreements, and strengthening the  competitiveness of U.S. industry.  456    Supports the department’s goal to maximize U.S. competitiveness and enable  economic growth for U.S. industries, workers, and consumers with the  objective to foster domestic economic development as well as export  opportunities.  107    Advances U.S. national security, foreign policy, and economic objectives by  ensuring an effective export control and treaty compliance system and by  promoting continued U.S. strategic technology leadership.  101    Comprising the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis,  provides decision makers with timely, relevant, and accurate economic and  statistical information related to the U.S. economy and population.  85    Collects and preserves scientific, technical, engineering, and other business- related information from federal and international sources, and disseminates it  to the U.S. business and industrial research communities.
section_title: Total budgetary resources
paragraphs: 28    Promotes the ability of minority business enterprises to grow and to participate  in the global economy through a range of activities that include funding a  network of centers that provide these businesses a variety of business  assistance services.
section_title: Subtotal of the 8 smallest bureaus and offices Department Management Office of the Secretary
paragraphs: $320    Develops and implements policy affecting U.S. and international activities as  well as internal goals and operations of the department.  41    Provides independent oversight of the department’s bureaus, offices, and  programs.
section_title: Subtotal of other offices Total
section_title: Appendix III: FEVS Questions and OIG Employee Responses That Were Significantly More Negative Than the Government-Wide Average, Fiscal Years 2012 through 2014
paragraphs: FEVS questions with significantly negative  OIG employee responses indicated by “X”
X  FEVS questions with significantly negative  OIG employee responses indicated by “X”
X  FEVS questions with significantly negative  OIG employee responses indicated by “X”
Satisfied with your organization  Total  Legend: FEVS = Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey; OIG = Office of Inspector General.
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Jackson Hufnagle (Assistant  Director), Carl Barden, Lisa Boren, Nadine Ferreira, Jacquelyn Hamilton,  Althea Sprosta, Taya Tasse, and Clarence Whitt made key contributions  to this report.