A PUBLICATION OF THE INSPECTORS GENERAL OF … · government’s three trial attorneys in the case of the United States v ... Ms. Brown has been the IG of the Navy’s Pacific Fleet

A PUBLICATION OF THE INSPECTORS GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES

SUMMER 1995

Editorial BoardRaymond J. DeCarli, Department of Transportation,

Office of Inspector General (OIG)Stuart C. Gilman, Office of Government EthicsMaryann Grodin, Council of Counsels to the Inspectors GeneralDonald Mancuso, Department of Defense OIGThomas D. Roslewicz, Department of Health and Human Services OIGRobert S. Terjesen, Department of State OIGWendy Zenker, Office of Management and BudgetDavid C. Williams, Nuclear Regulatory Commission OIG, Editor

Staff

Editorial ServicesKaren M. Shaffer, General Services Administration OIG

PrintingNicholas T. Lutsch and Jeff Rosen, Department of Defense OIG

Public AffairsRobert S. Terjesen, Department of State OIG

DistributionMartie Lopez-Nagle, Nuclear Regulatory Commission OIG

Invitation to Contribute ArticlesThe Journal of Public Inquiry is a publication of the Inspectors General of the United States.We are soliciting articles from participating professionals and scholars on topics importantto the the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency and the Executive Council onIntegrity and Efficiency. Articles should be approximately 6 to 12 pages, doublespaced andshould be submitted to Ms. Martie Lopez-Nagle, Assistant to the Editor, Office ofInspector General, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555.

Please note that the journal reserves the right to edit submissions. The journal is a publication ofthe United States Government. As such, The Journal of Public Inquiry is not copyrightedand may be reprinted without permission.

iii

The Journal of Public Inquiry

Profiles of the New Inspectors GeneralAuthor: Marian C. Bennett .......................................................................................................................................................................1

Adventures in Cyberspace: An Inspector General’s Guide to the InternetAuthor: Jerry Lawson ...............................................................................................................................................................................7

Fully and Currently Informed: How Assistant Inspectors General Keep Their Bosses AwareWithout Drowning Them in the Age of Information

Authors: AIGA viewpoint - James Ebbitt and Pete McClintock ..........................................................................................................15AIGI viewpoint - Donald Mancuso and Patrick Neri ...........................................................................................................15

Dogs That Hunt: The Auditors and InvestigatorsAuthor: Stephen A. Trodden ....................................................................................................................................................................21

Fear of Flying: Acceptable Levels of Risk are Necessary to a SuccessfulOIG Investigative Program

Author: Phillip A. Rodokanakis ..............................................................................................................................................................25

Partners Against Crime: Using a Culture of Collaboration to Winin the Fight Against Health Care Fraud

Author: June Gibbs Brown .....................................................................................................................................................................29

Case Notes: Recent Court Decisions on OIG Powers and AuthorityAuthors: Alexandra B. Keith and Maryann L. Grodin ...........................................................................................................................33

Things Your Mother Never Taught You: The OIGs’ Auditor Training Instituteand Criminal Investigator Academy

Authors: Andrew J. Pasden, Jr. and Kenneth R. Loudermilk ..................................................................................................................37

Practical Evaluation for Public Managers: Getting the Information You NeedAuthors: Michael Mangano, Penny Thompson, Jack Molnar, and Brenda Stup ....................................................................................41

PCIE/ECIE Calendar ....................................................................................................................................................................... 46

Table of Contents

A PUBLICATION OF THE INSPECTORS GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES

iv


1


Michael R. Bromwich - Department of Justice (June 1994)

Mr. Bromwich brings extensive legal experience to his position. As a partner inthe law firm of Mayer, Brown & Platt, he specialized in white collar criminaldefense work. He established a pro bono program in his firm to enable younglawyers to handle criminal cases in D.C. Superior Court. Mr. Bromwichserved as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.Earlier, as the Associate Counsel in the Office of Independent Counsel: Iran-Contra, he coordinated the grand jury investigation and was one of thegovernment’s three trial attorneys in the case of the United States v. Oliver L.North. Mr. Bromwich received his bachelor’s degree summa cum laude, hismaster’s degree in public policy, and his law degree from Harvard. He and hiswife, who is also an attorney by profession, have three children.

Profiles of the New Inspectors Generalby Marian C. Bennett, Inspector General, United States Information Agency

The following profiles introduce the new Inspectors General (IGs) appointed by President Bill Clinton. Appointment dates arein parentheses after each name.

Marian C. Bennett - United States Information Agency (November 1993)

A New York City native who grew up in Minneapolis, Ms. Bennett graduatedwith honors in American history from Harvard and received her law degreefrom the University of Pennsylvania. Her Federal career spans 20 years, andincludes experience at the Department of Energy Office of Inspector General(OIG) as a senior attorney, at the National Labor Relations Board as an attorney,and at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as anexecutive assistant to the General Manager of the New Community Develop-ment Corporation. Ms. Bennett has two children, enjoys photography andswimming, and is active in several social organizations.

Marian C. Bennett

Jacquelyn L. Williams-Bridgers - Department of State (April 1995)

Ms. Williams-Bridgers brings more than 16 years of experience in Federalauditing and evaluation to her position. In 1994, she was one of only 10 Federalemployees to receive the distinguished Arthur S. Flemming Award. Otherhonors include the General Accounting Office’s (GAO’s) Meritorious ServiceAward. She began her Federal career with GAO, where she rose to the positionof Associate Director for Housing and Community Development Issues. Duringa 1-year break in her GAO service, she joined the HUD OIG’s Fraud ControlDivision. A native Washingtonian, she received her undergraduate degree fromSyracuse University and a year later earned her master’s degree in publicadministration from Syracuse’s Maxwell School of Public Affairs and Citizen-ship. She and her husband have a son and a daughter.

Jacquelyn L.Williams-Bridgers

Michael R. Bromwich

(continued on page 2)

2


June Gibbs Brown - Department of Health and Human Services (November 1993)

Ms. Brown has been the IG of the Navy’s Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii,the Department of Defense (DOD), the National Aeronautics and Space Adminis-tration, and the Department of the Interior, in addition to holding a variety ofpositions in private industry. She has received numerous honors and awards,including DOD’s Distinguished Service Medal, the Joint Financial ManagementImprovement Program’s Financial Management Improvement Award, and theAssociation of Government Accountants’ (AGA) Robert W. King Award. Afellow of the National Academy of Public Administration, Ms. Brown has alsoserved as national president of AGA, served on the Boards of Directors of theFederal Law Enforcement Training Center, the Interagency Auditor TrainingProgram at the Department of Agriculture (USDA) Graduate School, the Na-tional Contract Management Association, and the Hawaii Society of CertifiedPublic Accountants (CPAs). She was also the national chairperson of theInteragency Committee on Information Resources Management. Ms. Brownreceived her bachelor’s and master’s of business administration degrees fromCleveland State University and her law degree from the University of Denver.

Susan Gaffney - Department of Housing and Urban Development (August 1993)

Ms. Gaffney joined the IG community in 1979 as Director of Policy, Plans, andPrograms for the Agency for International Development. She moved to theGeneral Services Administration (GSA) as the Assistant Inspector General forPolicy, Plans, and Management, and was promoted to Deputy IG. From GSA,she moved to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as Acting AssistantDirector of the Financial Policy and Systems, Management Integrity, and theCash and Credit Branches. She developed OMB’s financial managementstrategy, and developed policy for implementation of the Chief Financial OfficersAct. In 1991, Ms. Gaffney was appointed Chief, Management Integrity Branch,where she developed governmentwide policy relating to the Federal Manager’sFinancial Integrity Act, OMB’s High Risk List, and the IG Act. Ms. Gaffneyreceived a master’s degree from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced Interna-tional Studies. She is a recipient of the Presidential Rank Award for MeritoriousExecutive and the Joint Financial Management Program Improvement Award forDistinguished Leadership.

Martin J. Dickman - Railroad Retirement Board (October 1994)

A Chicago native, Mr. Dickman was a prosecutor for the Cook County, IllinoisState Attorney’s Financial and Governmental Crimes Task Force before hisappointment as IG. Prior to that, he spent nearly 20 years as a member of theBoard of Trade of the City of Chicago, where he served as presiding judicialofficer at Exchange judicial hearings, and as a director and member of theExecutive Committee. In this role, he established policy, long range strategicplans, and international development for the multimillion dollar Board.Mr. Dickman practiced law with a private firm, presided over tax-relateddisputes as a hearings referee for the Illinois Department of Revenue, interpretedand drafted legislation as Legislative Counsel in the Illinois House of Represen-tatives, and served as an Assistant Corporation Counsel for the City of Chicago.Mr. Dickman received his bachelor’s degree from the University of Illinois andhis law degree from DePaul University.

Profiles of the New Inspectors General (continued)

June Gibbs Brown

Susan Gaffney

Martin J. Dickman

3


Eleanor Hill - Department of Defense (February 1995)

Prior to her appointment as IG, Ms. Hill spent 15 years with the United StatesSenate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, where she managed a widevariety of complex domestic and international investigations. As a result of thoseinvestigations, she was directly involved in the legislative process in a number ofareas, including substantial work on comprehensive anti-crime and anti-druglegislation, student loan reform proposals, and drug enforcement related amend-ments. Prior to her Senate employment, Ms. Hill was an Assistant United StatesAttorney, and a special attorney with the Department of Justice’s OrganizedCrime Strike Force in Tampa, Florida. Ms. Hill received her bachelor’s degreemagna cum laude and her law degree with high honors from Florida StateUniversity. She and her husband, who is also an attorney, have one son.

Eleanor Hill

Luise S. Jordan - Corporation for National and Community Service(October 1994)

Ms. Jordan brings more than 17 years of financial management experience toher position. She was a senior manager with Price Waterhouse LLP’s Office ofGovernment Services, where she directed the audits and other projects forFederal agencies, government corporations, and government-sponsored enter-prises. She also served as a technical expert on Federal auditing and accountingissues. At the GAO, she directed the first consolidated audits of the USDA andDepartment of Veterans Affairs (VA) life insurance and compensation, pensionand education programs. As a project manager in GAO’s accounting group, sheprovided technical assistance and guidance to resolve complex financialreporting, budget and cost, and pension accounting issues. Prior to joiningGAO, she was the general accountant for CSX Chessie Systems. Ms. Jordan isa graduate of the University of Maryland and a CPA. She and her husband, anenvironmental engineer, have four children and two grandchildren.

Luise S. Jordan

Valerie Lau - Department of the Treasury (October 1994)

Ms. Lau’s background includes 13 years of Federal service and 4 years as a careerconsultant specializing in audit training with an international career managementfirm. She also served as an adjunct faculty member of the USDA GraduateSchool. An Oakland, California, native, Ms. Lau joined the Department of theTreasury as a taxpayer service representative for the Internal Revenue Service.She served as executive director of the Western Intergovernmental Audit Forum,which honored her with its 1990 Leadership Award, and worked as a seniorevaluator for GAO and as an auditor with the Defense Contract Audit Agency.Prior to her appointment as IG, Ms. Lau was Director of Policy for the Office ofPersonnel Management and liaison with the National Performance Review. Shereceived her bachelor’s degree from the University of California at Berkeley and amaster’s degree in career development from John F. Kennedy University inOrinda, California. She is the author of a training manual for the Institute ofInternal Auditors and an article for the GAO Review.

Valerie Lau


4


Wilma A. Lewis Wilma A. Lewis - Department of the Interior (April 1995)

Ms. Lewis, a native of St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, brings an extensive legalbackground to her position. She most recently served as the Associate Solicitor,Division of General Law, Department of the Interior. Ms. Lewis began her legalcareer as a lawyer with the firm of Steptoe and Johnson in Washington, DC. Shethen joined the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, DC,as an Assistant United States Attorney. Ms. Lewis has served on the Civil JusticeReform Act Advisory Group for the U.S. District Court for the District ofColumbia, and is currently a member of the Advisory Committee on Local Rulesfor the District Court. She has served as a lecturer and instructor on issues ofemployment discrimination law, and as a Professorial Lecturer in law in trialadvocacy at The George Washington University National Law Center. Ms.Lewis received her bachelor’s degree with distinction from Swarthmore College,where she was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. An active alumna of Swarthmore, sheserves on the Board of Managers and as an admissions representative. She wasalso a member of the Washington Area Tennis Patrons Foundation, Inc. Ms.Lewis received her law degree from Harvard.

Charles C. Masten - Department of Labor (December 1993)

Mr. Masten began his law enforcement career with the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation (FBI) as a special agent in Memphis in 1973. Four years later, hewas transferred to the Little Rock office where he served as supervisory specialagent for several program areas. In 1985, he came to Washington, DC, where hehandled special inquiries relating to Presidential appointees. Two years later, hewas promoted to program manager of three of the six FBI security programs. Healso served as an Inspector’s Aide in Place where he conducted inspections ofFBI field offices throughout the United States. Prior to becoming IG he was theDepartment of Labor’s Deputy IG. Prior to his tenure at the FBI, Mr. Mastenserved as a U.S. Navy officer in Vietnam. He also served as an assistant nationalbank examiner and as a chief operations officer for a Georgia bank. Mr. Mastenreceived his bachelor’s degree from Albany State College and his MBA from theUniversity of Arkansas.

Charles C. Masten

George J. Opfer - Federal Emergency Management Agency (November 1994)

A 25-year veteran of the U.S. Secret Service (USSS), Mr. Opfer was the Assis-tant Director of the Office of Investigations before his appointment as IG. In thatcapacity, he was responsible for the overall planning and direction of criminalinvestigations and detection for the USSS. Prior to that position, he served asAssistant Director for the Office of Inspection. As a special agent, he conductedcounterfeit investigations and coordinated emergency preparedness for thePresidential Protection Division. Mr. Opfer is a past recipient of the PresidentialRank Award for Meritorious Executive. Mr. Opfer received a bachelor’s degreein management from St. John’s University. He and his wife have three children.

George J. Opfer

Profiles of the New Inspectors General (continued)

5


Jeffrey Rush, Jr. - Agency for International Development (September 1994)

Mr. Rush has been a member of the OIG community for 24 years. He began hiscareer as a criminal investigator with the USDA OIG, rising through the ranks tothe position of Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Investigations. Duringthe year prior to his appointment as IG, he served as acting IG for the PeaceCorps. Prior to joining the OIG community Mr. Rush served in the United StatesArmy, where he was trained as a counterintelligence agent. Mr. Rush, a graduateof Baker University in Baldwin City, Kansas, received his law degree fromGeorge Mason University. He has been admitted to the Virginia and Districtof Columbia Bars, and is a member of the American Bar Association. As avolunteer, Mr. Rush has been active in his community in a pro bono housing lawproject and as an attorney for a homeless shelter. He and his wife have a son anda daughter.

Jeffrey Rush, Jr.

Roger C. Viadero - Department of Agriculture (October 1994)

A New York City native, Mr. Viadero brings more than 25 years of law enforce-ment experience to his position. During his 15 years with the FBI, he served aschief internal auditor for the New York Division, management consultant oninternal audit and audit control procedures for police departments across thecountry, professor at the FBI National Academy at Quantico, Virginia, and mostrecently as chief of the audit unit in Washington, DC. Before joining the FBI heserved with the New York City Police Department as an officer and homicideinvestigator. Mr. Viadero received his bachelor’s degree in public accountingand his master’s degree in business administration from Pace University inPleasantville, New York. He is the author of numerous articles on law enforce-ment and management. ❏

Roger C. Viadero

6


7


Adventures in Cyberspace:An Inspector General’s Guide to the Internet

Jerry Lawson, Counsel to theInspector General, NationalArchives and RecordsAdministration

What is the Internet,and why should Iuse it?

The Internet is a global linkage of large computers,mostly owned by businesses, universities, and governments.Most of these larger machines have smaller computersattached. The key connections are special high capacityleased telephone lines capable of carrying large amounts ofdata. The fascination of the entertainment and news mediacommunities with the sensational and trivialaspects of computer telecommunicationshas created some widespread mis-perceptions. The truth is that themost significant part of theonline world, theInternet, was origi-nally designed bythe Department ofDefense as ameans of enhanc-ing the productiv-ity of governmentofficials (origi-nally mostlymilitary, with asprinkling of usersfrom the academiccommunity and high tech businesses).

The Internet is no longer managed by the FederalGovernment, and literally millions of other people havefound that it can be used for other purposes, rangingfrom political organizing to disseminating rock videos.The same power that makes the Internet well suited toaccomplish these diverse tasks makes it also eminently wellsuited to accomplish its original purpose: helping govern-ment employees communicate and perform their workmore efficiently.

Exactly how would it benefit meif I could go online with Internet?

By learning at least the bare minimum necessary to letyou use electronic mail (e-mail), and/or the Internet, youcan work more productively. For most Federal employees,e-mail is by far the most valuable online function. For littleor no charge, you easily can send and receive messagesalmost instantly from people across town—or on anothercontinent. If your organization has widely dispersedgeographical components or your employees travelfrequently, obtaining Internet accounts from a serviceprovider with many local access telephone numbers canresult in major savings on telephone, fax and postage bills.Aside from often being cheaper than the alternatives, e-mailis qualitatively superior in some ways, and more and more

people are deciding that theyprefer e-mail to paper ortelephone communicationsfor most purposes. Nopostal delays. No illegible

faxes. No voice mail. Notelephone tag.

Recently the NationalArchives and Records Adminis-tration (NARA) InspectorGeneral (IG) decided that heshould coordinate with theOffice of Management andBudget (OMB) beforeimplementing a particu-larly innovative approachin his agency. Usinge-mail, the IG in

question had his idea completely reviewed and approved bysenior OMB management in 12 hours. As we all know, inthe Federal Government, paper does not flow at that speed.E-mail can.

There are several reasons to prefer e-mail rather thantelephone communications in most situations. E-mail isless intrusive for the recipient. I know my message won’tinterrupt the recipient at an inconvenient time, as a tele-phone call might. People read their e-mail only when theywant. Another advantage of e-mail is that being brusk and


by Jerry Lawson

8


Adventures in Cyberspace (continued)

Most valuable Internet feature for most businessusers. Can send and receive e-mail to and fromother networks (CompuServe, etc.).

An Inspector General’s Thumbnail Guide to Key Internet Features

Feature Purpose Drawbacks Comments

E-mail

Mailing Lists

Newsgroups

FTP (FileTransferProtocol)

Gopher

WWW(World WideWeb)

Telnet

Easily send andreceive electronicmessages.

System under whiche-mail sent to acentral location is“echoed” to“subscribers.”

Not everyone has ane-mail address (yet).

Can be difficult tolearn about relevantones.Some have low “signalto noise” ratio (i.e.,there’s a lot of chaff).

Extremely useful for keeping in touch with otherswho are interested in the same topics.May be public or private, moderated orunmoderated.“IGNet” runs many lists dedicated solely toIG topics.

Collections of e-mailmessages on specialtopics (over 12,000at last count).

Most have low “signalto noise” ratio.So many interestingtopics, it’s easy to getdistracted.

Excellent way to get free technical support,do research or get in contact with experts onspecialized subjects.

Transfer files to andfrom distantcomputers.

Can be difficult to useunless you have goodinterface software.Often hard to learnabout good files.

Can download wide variety of free files, including:software updates and bug fixes, copies of SupremeCourt decisions on day of issue, etc. Relatedsearch tool known as Archie will rapidly search fora particular file world wide.

Finding aid that addsuser-friendly menusto help find Internetresources.

Can only use data thatsomeone has linked toa gopher site.

Fast operation. Related search tool known asVeronica will search gopher menus world wideeasily.

A “turbo-chargedgopher” system: veryeasy to use “pointand click.”“Hypertext” addsgraphics, sound andeven video to thegopher text interface.

Operates slowly ifgraphics feature isused.Difficult to findWWW sites withmuch useful legalinformation.

Sometimes called the “Swiss Army Knife of theInternet” because it can be used to access ftp,Telnet, mail, etc. Easiest to use, most spectacularand fastest growing Internet feature. You can speedup operations by turning off the graphics feature.Can be used to inexpensively present informationto the public through “posting” of a WWW page.

Can log into aremote computer andoperate it as if youwere at a terminaldirectly connected tothat computer.

Most of the destinationcomputers that allowtelnet access requirethe use of the difficultUNIX operatingsystem.

Can be difficult to navigate after logged into theremote computer.

9


to the point is not considered rude. When calling someoneon the telephone, most people feel at least some slight senseof social obligation to chitchat for at least a while beforegetting down to business, and socialize a little more afterconducting business. With e-mail, by contrast, if someoneasks you a question, all you have to do is hit the “Reply”button to quote the question, and enter “Yes” or “No,” asappropriate. You can be more expansive if you wish, but inthis environment no idle chitchat is necessary. People won’tthink you are rude, just efficient. Finally, I like to makenotes of what was said in important communications. Withtelephone conversations, this means hasty, illegible scrib-bling and hoping I can remember all the key points. With e-mail, all I do is select the “Print” command. It’s even moreefficient if you have a good e-mail program that lets youorganize and store old messages on disk with a “drag anddrop” filing system. Instead of rummaging through a filecabinet, you can use powerful automated sorting andsearching tools to find the data you need.

Another benefit from having an e-mail connection isthe ability to subscribe to free Internet mailing lists thatrelate directly to your work. An Internet mailing listallows a message sent to a central address to be automati-cally forwarded to all subscribers. There are literallythousands of such Internet mailing lists for various specialinterest groups.

IGNet, an interagency working group, operates 12mailing lists, some general and others for specialized groupswithin the Office of Inspector General (OIG) community.There is a list for investigators, one for auditors, one forExecutive Council on Integrity and Efficiency discussions,one for President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiencydiscussions, and so on. These lists provide an easy way ofkeeping up with new developments in your field, sharingwith others innovative approaches that you have discovered,and obtaining ready guidance from subject matter experts.

Newcomers to the online world are most likely to finde-mail the online feature that immediately becomes indis-pensable for them, but depending on the nature of yourwork, you may eventually find even more useful one ormore of the Internet’s other features, such as:

• Usenet Newsgroups, collections of e-mail messageson over 12,000 different topics,

• File Transfer Protocol (ftp), which allows easytransfer of large amounts of data,

• Telnet, which provides the ability to log in as auser of a remote computer,

• Gophers, programs that use a text-based menustructure to make it easy to find information onremote computers,

• Internet Relay Chat (IRC), real time onlineconversations, which can be used as an easier,cheaper alternative to face-to-face meetings orconference calls, and

• The World Wide Web (WWW), which enablesyou to navigate through distant computers and finddata by using hypertext and easy to use “point andclick” software.

Due to its ease of use and power, the World Wide Webis by far the fastest growing part of the Internet, and this iswhere American businesses are beginning to set up shopin great numbers. World Wide Web access programs(browsers), like Mosaic and Netscape have been called the“Swiss Army knives” of the Internet because they canperform most of the other Internet functions, using onecommon user interface. Training time can be reduced evenfurther through the use of customized “home pages,” whichcan contain hotlinks for instant access to Internet features ofinterest to people working in a particular field, such asauditing, investigations, or law.

If we get an Internet connection,won’t people in my office wastetime “surfing the Net” insteadof working?

This year we discovered that an employee of ouragency had made nearly $2,000 worth of calls to several900 number voice sex lines. No one would seriouslysuggest that, because telephones could be abused, ouragency should try to operate without telephones.

Poor employees will find a way to waste time whetheror not you are on the Internet. The solution is good supervi-sion, not depriving your organization of a tool of greatpotential power. At NARA, we have found that one key toavoiding problems is a written policy that spells out clearlywhat, if any, forms of personal use are appropriate.

This sounds good, but it doesn’tapply to me, because no one in myoffice knows much about computersand I can’t get any help from myagency’s computer support staff.

Five years ago, even a year ago, you might not havehad any satisfactory options for taking your office online.The major commercial online services offered only limitedInternet access, if any. Setting up a full service Internetaccount was primarily the realm of technical gurus. Thingshave changed.

The recent development of new, easy to use softwareand an improved communications infrastructure (includingthe growth of commercial services like America Online,Prodigy, etc.) have radically changed the situation. It isnow possible for even people who know next-to-nothingabout computers to quickly and easily join their colleaguesonline, including the Internet, at minimal cost. Millions aredoing so.


10


Adventures in Cyberspace (continued)W

ays

to g

o O

nlin

e C

ompa

red

Type

of S

yste

mE

xam

ples

Str

uctu

reO

wne

r/M

anag

erF

ees

Adv

anta

ges

Dis

adva

ntag

es

Indi

vidu

als

typi

cally

get

Inte

rnet

acc

ess

by g

oing

thro

ugh

a “s

ervi

ce p

rovi

der.”

The

se a

re m

ostly

loca

l bus

ines

ses

you

can

reac

h w

ith a

loca

l tel

epho

ne c

all w

ho a

lread

y ha

ve a

larg

e co

mpu

ter

and

high

capa

city

tele

phon

e lin

e. T

hey

will

let y

ou p

iggy

back

on

thei

r co

nnec

tion,

usu

ally

for

a fe

e.

BB

S(B

ulle

tin B

oard

Sys

tem

)

Com

mer

cial

OnL

ine

Ser

vice

Inte

rnet

The

re is

no

“exa

mpl

e,”

beca

use

ther

e is

only

one

Inte

rnet

.

Com

puS

erve

,A

mer

ica

Onl

ine,

Pro

digy

, GE

nie,

Del

phi.

OP

M M

ains

tree

t.

Wor

ld D

ata

Net

wor

k in

Res

ton.

Typi

cally

a P

Cw

ith o

ne o

r m

ore

atta

ched

mod

ems

and

tele

phon

e lin

esal

low

ing

outs

ider

sto

cal

l in.

“Net

wor

k of

netw

orks

.” K

eym

achi

nes

are

larg

eco

mpu

ters

ow

ned

by u

nive

rsiti

esan

d la

rge

busi

ness

es th

at a

relin

ked

by le

ased

high

-cap

acity

tele

phon

e lin

es.

The

indi

vidu

alco

mpu

ters

on

the

Inte

rnet

all

have

owne

rs, b

ut th

ere

is n

o re

al o

wne

r or

man

ager

of t

heIn

tern

et a

s a

who

le.

Cor

pora

tions

.F

or e

xam

ple,

GE

nie

by G

ener

alE

lect

ric, P

rodi

gyby

Sea

rs &

IBM

,C

ompu

Ser

ve b

yH

&R

Blo

ck.

Mos

tlyin

divi

dual

s,in

clud

ing

man

yho

bbyi

sts.

Cal

led

“Sys

ops”

(S

yste

mO

pera

tors

).

Som

e ch

arge

fees

,us

ually

low

, but

mos

t are

free

.

Low

cos

t.E

asy

to c

onta

ct.

Som

e ha

vega

tew

ays

for

Inte

rnet

e-m

ail.

Typi

cally

not

as

man

y re

sour

ces

oras

wel

l org

aniz

edas

the

maj

orco

mm

erci

al o

n-lin

e se

rvic

es.

Eas

y to

log

on.

Man

agem

ent

usua

lly p

rovi

des

easy

to u

seso

ftwar

e an

d us

ersu

ppor

t. M

ost

now

offe

r a

few

Inte

rnet

feat

ures

.

Mon

thly

fee

in $

8to

$15

ran

ge th

at in

clud

es s

ome

“fre

e” h

ours

. F

eefo

r ex

tra

hour

san

d “p

rem

ium

”fe

atur

es.

Hig

h co

st.

Few

er a

vaila

ble

reso

urce

s th

an o

nth

e In

tern

et.

Non

e of

fers

full

Inte

rnet

acc

ess.

The

re is

no

fee

for

Inte

rnet

use

itse

lf.If

you

have

to g

etac

cess

thro

ugh

aco

mm

erci

alse

rvic

e pr

ovid

er,

you

pay

a fe

e of

$15—

$35

mon

th.

for

assi

stan

ce in

getti

ng c

onne

cted

.

Low

er c

ost t

han

the

com

mer

cial

serv

ices

.E

xtra

ordi

naril

yric

h in

res

ourc

es.

Som

e ac

coun

tsin

clud

e pr

ivile

geof

pos

ting

mat

eria

l on

Wor

ldW

ide

Web

.

Sys

tem

app

ears

chao

tic to

new

user

s (n

o ow

ner/

man

ager

).Li

mite

d us

ersu

ppor

t.S

omet

imes

diffi

cult

toco

nnec

t to

popu

lar

site

s.

One

or

mor

e la

rge

com

pute

rs li

nked

to te

leph

one

netw

ork

with

man

yP

OP

S (

loca

l “P

oint

sof

Pre

senc

e”)

sous

ers

avoi

d lo

ngdi

stan

ce c

harg

es.

11


Within a couple of years, maybe less, not having ane-mail address will cause people to react the same way theydo today if you tell them you don’t have a fax number.

I can already send and get e-mailfrom Prodigy (or America Online, orCompuServe, etc.). Why do I need toworry about the Internet?

You may not. Nearly all government officials canbenefit by having an e-mail account, but that does not meanthey need to be “on the Internet.” Just as an MCI telephonecustomer can call someone on the Sprint system, or AT&T,today all the major commercial online services can sendand receive e-mail to and from the Internet, and vice versa.If your message needs to go over the Internet to reach itsdestination, your system should route it for you automati-cally, without any further involvement on your part, asidefrom possibly addressing it a little differently.

If you find that Prodigy or one of its competitors meetsall your needs, and you are comfortable with it, there isprobably no compelling reason for you to switch. On theother hand, many people find that they like the extraflexibility and power that they get from accessing theInternet more directly, instead of going through a commer-cial online service. For example, you are more likely to findsophisticated e-mail handling features like threading, “killfiles” and “bozo filters” in software designed specificallyfor Internet usage. These features can save you time byautomatically grouping your message by topic or sender,and screening out messages on topics that don’t interest youor from senders who don’t interest you.

Above and beyond better e-mail handling, the Internetoffers other powerful features and a depth of resources thatno commercial online service can match. Finally, for allexcept extremely low volume users, an Internet account willprobably be cheaper than going through one of the commer-cial online services.

What kind of equipment is needed?No state-of-the-art, expensive hardware is necessary to

set up individual Internet accounts through an Internetservice provider. All you need is a computer, an ordinarytelephone line and a modem. Essentially all moderngovernment offices already have personal computers andtelephone lines. A modem is a device that lets yourpersonal computer send and receive data over a telephoneline. Modem prices range from $80 to $120 for a 14,400bps model, today’s most common for business use (bps =bits per second, a measure of data transmission speed), to$150 and up for a high speed 28,800 bps type. (These pricesare for ordinary voice grade telephone line modems. If youhave only one of the newer digital telephone systems, youwill need a more elaborate interface.) Your modem can sharea voice line, and callers to the number will get a busy signal

only when you are actually using it, normally only a shorttime each a day.

If your organization is large enough, you may want toestablish a direct connection to the Internet, and route itthrough your office Local Area Network (LAN). Thisapproach could be cheaper in the long run, depending on thesize of your organization, but it introduces some securityrisk, and requires technical knowledge and an initialinvestment in routers, firewalls, etc.

How can I use the Internet if I don’tknow Unix and I don’t have 4 yearsto spend learning about it?

Most of the large computers on the Internet use theoperating system known as Unix. While it’s quite difficultto become a Unix expert, it’s fairly simple to learn theminimum number of Unix commands needed to operate aUnix shell Internet account. Furthermore, if you don’t wantto face this simple challenge, there are even easier alterna-tives. With the right interface software, the average govern-ment employee computer user can accomplish anything he orshe might need or want to accomplish without ever lookingat a Unix command line. Unix is still there, underneath thesimple menus, but modern software shields users from itsapparent difficulty. You can now navigate the Internet usingsimple menus and point and click software.

How much would the service cost?You can get an individual Internet account for from $15

to $30 per month in the Washington area, which has a highlevel of competition among service providers. This pricewould typically include anywhere from 2 to 6 hours ofservice a day, far more than most government employeesare likely to need. Commercial online services like Prodigy,etc., tend to be more expensive overall, because they chargehourly fees, plus have the disadvantage of offering onlylimited Internet access.

Who is the best service providerand what is the best software?

There is no single best service provider or softwarepackage for everybody. The optimum solution in a particularsituation will depend on a variety of factors, includinggeographic location, the hardware and operating systemavailable, expertise of the prospective users, cost, and mostimportant, what the users need or want to get from theconnection.

One fact makes the process of selecting a serviceprovider a little easier: with Internet e-mail, all roads lead toRome. After e-mail gets onto the Internet, it all travels thesame way, and is substantively the same on receipt, thoughit may look slightly different to recipients using differenttypes of software.

12


Adventures in Cyberspace (continued)

An

Insp

ecto

r G

ener

al’s

Thu

mbn

ail G

uide

to T

ypes

of I

nter

net A

ccou

nts

Acc

ount

Typ

eE

xam

ples

How

Doe

s It

Wor

k?A

dvan

tage

sD

isad

vant

ages

Ext

rem

ely

easy

to u

se.

Pric

e is

com

petit

ive.

Lim

ited

choi

ce o

fin

terf

ace

softw

are.

Ofte

n m

ust u

se d

iffic

ult

UN

IX c

omm

ands

.U

sual

ly, n

o gr

aphi

cal

acce

ss t

o W

WW

fea

ture

.

Con

nect

ion

som

etim

esch

eape

r an

d ea

sier

than

othe

r al

tern

ativ

es,

depe

ndin

g on

usa

gepa

ttern

.

Use

r di

als

into

an

Inte

rnet

-co

nnec

ted

com

pute

r th

attr

eats

use

r as

if h

e or

she

had

ate

rmin

al o

n th

at c

ompu

ter.

Use

r no

t dire

ctly

conn

ecte

d to

the

Inte

rnet

.

Som

e lo

cal B

BS

’s.

Del

phi (

mor

e ex

tens

ive

shel

l acc

ess

than

any

of

the

othe

r m

ajor

ser

vice

s).

Net

com

she

ll ac

coun

t.

“Dia

l Up”

She

ll A

ccou

nt.

Cou

ld b

e on

a B

BS

, aco

mm

erci

al s

ervi

ce, o

rw

ith a

com

mer

cial

Inte

rnet

ser

vice

prov

ider

.

Spe

cial

ized

Mai

l-Onl

yA

ccou

ntW

inN

et.

Som

e lo

cal B

BS

’s,

incl

udin

g O

PM

Mai

nstr

eet.

Use

rs s

end

and

pick

up

mai

l by

calli

ng a

com

pute

rth

at is

con

nect

ed to

the

Inte

rnet

.

Can

be

chea

pest

,de

pend

ing

on u

sage

patte

rn.

Can

use

mai

l to

acce

ss ft

p, s

ome

othe

rIn

tern

et r

esou

rces

.

Lim

ited

acce

ss to

som

e of

the

Inte

rnet

’s o

ther

use

ful

tool

s.

Spe

cial

ized

“D

ial I

n”S

LIP

/PP

P ty

pe a

ccou

nt(S

eria

l Lin

e In

tern

etP

roto

col/P

oint

to P

oint

Pro

toco

l) on

com

mer

cial

Inte

rnet

ser

vice

pro

vide

r

Net

com

’s “

Net

crui

ser”

acco

unt.

The

Pip

elin

e.

A s

ervi

ce p

rovi

der

give

sus

ers

free

inte

rfac

eso

ftwar

e th

at is

pre

-co

nfig

ured

for

easy

set

-up

and

use.

Mus

t use

pro

vide

r’sso

ftwar

e, w

hich

has

som

elim

itatio

ns.

Use

r go

es th

roug

h se

rvic

epr

ovid

er’s

equ

ipm

ent,

and

once

on

Inte

rnet

, is

trea

ted

as a

n In

tern

et “

host

”m

achi

ne.

Ful

l Int

erne

t ser

vice

.W

ide

choi

ce o

f ava

ilabl

eso

ftwar

e, m

uch

of it

free

.

Dep

endi

ng o

n th

eso

ftwar

e an

d se

rvic

epr

ovid

er s

elec

ted,

can

be

diffi

cult

to s

et u

p. O

ften

mor

e ex

pens

ive

than

she

llac

coun

t.

Net

com

reg

ular

PP

Pac

coun

t.R

egul

ar “

Dia

l In”

SLI

P/P

PP

acc

ount

on

com

mer

cial

Inte

rnet

serv

ice

prov

ider

Ded

icat

ed h

igh

capa

city

SLI

P/P

PP

acc

ount

Larg

e bu

sine

sses

,un

iver

sitie

s, a

ndgo

vern

men

t age

ncie

s.

An

orga

niza

tion

that

has

linke

d its

inte

rnal

net

wor

kto

the

Inte

rnet

thro

ugh

ala

rge

high

cap

acity

leas

edte

leph

one

line.

All

the

adva

ntag

es o

f adi

al u

p S

LIP

/PP

P a

ccou

nt,

plus

ext

rem

ely

fast

dat

atr

ansm

issi

on.

Onl

y a

few

org

aniz

atio

nsha

ve s

uch

conn

ectio

ns.

13


As Federal Government officials, we have someoptions not available to private business. The Office ofPersonnel Management (OPM) operates “OPM Mainstreet,”a Bulletin Board Service (BBS) for use by Federal employ-ees conducting official business. It is a large computer thatallows “dial up” accounts by modem and has a gateway tosend and receive Internet e-mail. You may not find it asflexible or as easy to use as some other alternatives, but it isa tool that many in the government have found invaluable.

If your organization has very little computer expertise,another option is a commercial online service like America

Online, Prodigy, CompuServe, Delphi, GEnie, etc., whichare usually relatively easy to set up and use. For morepower and flexibility it is best to go to a commercialInternet service provider.

The pros and cons of these approaches are discussed inmore detail in a set of white papers prepared by the NARAOIG specifically for IGs. Your office can get a copy bysending an e-mail message to [email protected] the phrase Get Internet Docs as the only text in themessage block. If you don’t have access to e-mail yet, call(301) 713-6666 and we will send you a copy by postal mail.❏

14


15


Fully and Currently Informed: How AssistantInspectors General Keep Their Bosses AwareWithout Drowning Them in the Age of Information

Keeping the boss informed is a priority with all Assistant Inspectors General (AIGs). Nobody wants to be on the receiving endof the question: “Why wasn’t I told?” But the fact is you can’t tell the boss everything. There are limits to what anyone canabsorb. Selecting what the boss really needs to know and gauging when he or she needs to know it becomes the fine art ofmanaging. Both audit and investigative senior managers face the challenge of keeping their bosses informed. Each professionhas unique characteristics that pose special balancing questions, yet both face many of the same concerns. This articleexamines the art of juggling information from both perspectives.

AIGI (continued on page 17)AIGA (continued on page 16)

by James Ebbitt and Pete McClintock; Donald Mancuso and Patrick Neri

The Assistant Inspectors Generalfor Audits’ (AIGA) Viewpoint

James Ebbitt, AIGA,Department of Agriculture Donald Mancuso, AIGI,

Department of Defense

The Assistant Inspectors Generalfor Investigations’ (AIGI) Viewpoint

Headlines: “Senior OfficialsUnder Investigation;” “IG

Agents Raid Contractor Facilities;”“Federal Agents Arrest LocalBusinessmen”.

Major investigations arefrequently headline-grabbing events. How much attentionthese investigations should command at the top level of anOIG is, however, dependent upon several factors. Relatedly,inasmuch as OIG investigators are generally located in the“field” as opposed to being concentrated within the“Beltway,” there are administrative and managementchallenges inherent in this structure that sometimes differfrom the challenges faced in other OIG components.In this article, we will examine these factors and challenges

We compared the audit pro-cesses at our two agencies,

the OIGs at the Department ofAgriculture (USDA) and the SmallBusiness Administration (SBA).USDA’s OIG is one of the largestin the Federal Government, and SBA’s is one of the smaller.It may seem that AIGs of small OIGs have an advantageover their large-agency counterparts: the amount ofinformation small agencies have to select from should beeasier to handle. Yet our experience shows this isn’t true.Small agencies are faced with the same needs as large, andthey create similar methods of coping with the same ob-stacles. We found that the similarities between our channelsof information outweighed any differences in our size.

Pete McClintock, AIGA,Small Business Administration

Patrick Neri, AIGI, Department ofHousing and Urban Development

16


AIGA (continued)

made more difficult by the changes brought on by reinven-tion plans. Under the Secretary of Agriculture’s 1994Executive Order, USDA is reorganizing from a Departmentwith 43 agencies to one with 29. This shift is something ofa culture shock for this long-established family of USDAemployees. It’s also tough on OIG staff, who now have tolearn a new set of agency names and acronyms. The old,familiar Farmers Home Administration isn’t there anymore.Now we must master the distinctions between such organi-zations as the Consolidated Farm Service Agency and theRural Business and Cooperative Development Service.

But communicating with the IG is, after all, our job.Information must be available when we need it, and it mustbe easily understandable when we deliver it. This requiresattention and focus. It also requires involving the IG in thethree critical stages of our audit process: audit planning,audit execution, and audit reporting.

During the audit planning stage, we develop profilesand strategies to understand each of the Department’s 300programs and to assess the internal control risks associatedwith them. A profile details everything about the program itdescribes: how it is delivered and what managementcontrols are in place to ensure its integrity. Strategies, bothshort-term and long-term, are then developed to address realor perceived control risks. This planning process includesall of the OIG staff as well as the pertinent USDA programofficials and managers. We meet with program officials todiscuss our risk assessments and to find out where theythink we need to perform audits.

Interestingly, USDA’s OIG was created after a massiveagricultural fraud scheme showed that better communicationwas needed between audit and investigative organizations.Communication has thus been a concern for us at USDAsince our beginning. With over 300 diverse programs tokeep up with and a large Department of approximately110,000 employees to monitor, we are often challenged byour goal to keep managers informed of the financial andoperational problems we find. We are no less challenged byour need to keep our IG informed.

USDA’s mission is a broad one. It serves the Nation’sfarming community by stabilizing commodity prices,conserving farmland, opening foreign markets, and aidingagricultural research. It serves the Nation’s consumers byguaranteeing wholesome foods in the marketplace andproviding a nutritious diet for those in need. It protects theNation’s forests, and it stimulates the economies of small-town areas. Its FY 1995 budget is about $65 billion.

Within this busy environment, the OIG identifies pro-gram problems across the board and recommends solutions.The OIG employs about 350 auditors, 225 criminal investi-gators, and 200 statisticians, computer specialists, lawyers,analysts, and administrative and support staff. It operatesout of 43 offices across the country with a FY 1995 budgetof $63 million.

Keeping up with such a broad network of USDAfunctions and OIG offices requires a healthy flow ofinformation and more than a little mental agility. Programscan easily be confused, and agency acronyms can start tosound like alphabet soup. Keeping up has in fact been AIGA (continued on page 18)

17


AIGI (continued)

and provide perspectives from two differently sized OIGinvestigative offices. One has a staff of nearly 500personnel while the other employs about 130. Whiledifferent in size, the Departments of Defense (DOD) andHousing and Urban Development (HUD) OIGs have similarmissions and authorities with respect to the criminalinvestigations each conducts.

Inspectors General (IGs) are Presidential appointeeswho play a critical role in their Departments. They mustdetermine the scope and level of detail needed to fulfill theirresponsibilities as senior executives. Regardless of the sizeof the OIG, certain events demand senior level attention.Defining which events will command immediate attentionand the manner by which they should be identified andcommunicated is one of the more important challengesfacing an IG and his or her AIGI.

The sheer volume of available information frequentlydictates that reporting priorities must be agreed to and aneffective level of trust be established early in the relation-ship between the AIGI and his or her IG. This “partnershipof trust” is perhaps the single most important aspect in theIG/AIGI relationship and must be based on a commonunderstanding of exactly what is expected and how thoseexpectations will be realized. Indeed, the importance of thisaspect of the relationship is not unique to the investigativeAIG but is a critical ingredient with all other AIGs as well.It is in this area that good managers excel and less success-ful ones fail.

As chief executives of large agencies, IGs cannot affordto be perceived as being ill-informed regarding matters ofimportance involving their organization. They rightfullyrely on their AIGs to keep them current. Here again, trustand clear communication are imperative. Whether throughdaily contact, personal briefings, e-mail, or more formalizedwritten communications, an IG must feel confident that heor she can depend on the AIGI for prompt and accurateinformation.

As with all levels of communication, this is a two-waystreet and requires both flexibility and a willingness to statewith clarity exactly what needs to be said. Especially at thestart of a relationship, the IG must clearly communicate hisor her expectations and sensitivities. Some IGs may want tobe called at home at midnight on matters of importancewhile others may settle for discussion as the first order ofbusiness the next morning. The AIGI also should determinewhat the IG “needs” in level of detail. This is usuallyaffected by the background and experience each IG bringsto the job. A former prosecutor, for example, requires farless detail than someone who may not have had the benefitof that background in evaluating the need for a broad basedsearch warrant. Once an understanding is reached as towhat is needed, the AIGI must then determine what is“wanted.” Often this requires a level of diplomacy as wellas a period of trial and error. Finally, the AIGI must takethe time to explain the strong and weak points inherent inthe organization’s information systems, seek clarificationwhere needed and, finally, communicate the IG’s require-ments to subordinate staff to ensure that all players in theprocess understand what will be required of them. Once

begun, the process of communication must be allowed toevolve in a positive fashion.

Only after this process of communication reaches alevel that is understood and accepted by both parties can atrue partnership of trust be established. This partnership isthen based not only on open communication but also upon arecognition of, and sensitivity to, each partner’s uniquemanagement styles and concerns.

The primary discriminating factor in a large organiza-tion frequently becomes one of quantity rather than justpriorities. As many of us can attest, information overloadcan be as much a problem as insufficient information. TheAIGI must therefore develop an information system thatincorporates the Department’s unique requirements, keepsthe IG apprised of critical data yet, at the same time,insulates the IG from extraneous, less important facts andinformation.

In considering the large volume of available data, wemust assume that there is a dependable automated informa-tion retrieval system in place. Computers have proveninvaluable in the investigative community as a method oftracking case information and providing a system of quickand accurate retrieval. Matters of possible interest such asarrests, search warrants, subpoenas, consensualmonitorings, undercover operations, and various otherinvestigative techniques need to be carefully tracked alongwith the administrative and statistical data typical of othercase data systems. Regardless of what type of system is putin place, it must be flexible enough to produce the kind ofinformation needed in a timely manner. While it is virtuallyimpossible for an AIGI to have a working knowledge of allongoing cases, it is possible to build into the case datasystem appropriate “flags” so that certain cases or eventstrigger special consideration and review. In both HUD andDOD, flags are used for such matters as Hotline cases andCongressional inquiries. In DOD, other flags include areasof special interest such as the issuance of safety alerts incases where product quality may affect the health and safetyof military forces. Whatever system of checks and balancesis used however, it should never be so rigid as to precludeadjustment for unusual events that may be of broaderinterest to the IG or other OIG or Department manager.

While arrests and search warrants are tracked both atHUD and DOD, only those of particular significance are“briefed up” to the respective IG. The search of a majorcontractor in which a large number of agents—or agencies—participate would, for example precipitate IG notification,whereas a search or arrest that is effected without incidentand is not expected to draw widespread attention would notnormally be briefed. Similarly, in a large OIG, it is unreason-able to expect an IG to be kept abreast of every consensualmonitoring use or Hotline allegation when those may wellnumber in the hundreds or even thousands each year.

Regardless the size of the OIG, the level of detail thatcould be communicated to the IG far exceeds the timeavailable by the IG to consider all of that information.For this reason, it is critical that an AIGI recognize that

AIGI (continued on page 19)

18


AIGA (continued)

The IG is very much a part of this process. He sits inwith us during the audit planning sessions, and he joins usin our meetings with program officials. He also gets helpfulreminders from us throughout the program year as werevisit the strategic audit plan to ensure we are commitingour resources in the most efficient way. Most importantly,he talks to our Congressional oversight committees to gettheir views on where we need to spend our resources.

During the audit execution stage, the flow of informa-tion is apt to become rapid and inundating. At any giventime during the year, we have approximately 200 auditsunderway. Our regional offices are in charge of managingthese audits and of keeping OIG management informed oftheir progress. Our headquarters audit divisions act asliaisons between the field staff and agency programmanagers in Washington DC. The divisions stay informedof the various audits underway in each region in theirrespective areas, and they keep abreast of major issues thatare developing in the field. Division staff are sometimessent to the field to observe program and audit operationsfirst-hand; otherwise they may be seen huddled around thefax machine in headquarters or hurriedly taking notes overthe telephone.

Our management information system charts theprogress of each audit on a monthly basis. Information isinput into the system in our field offices and we access thedata in Washington, DC monthly. We then have a confer-ence call with each region to discuss the progress on eachaudit and any major trends that are developing. We send theIG summary data from our management informationsystem, and we inform him immediately of significantissues needing urgent attention by agency managers.

Communication during the audit execution phaserequires the most focus. The wealth of information must bedistilled to crystalize the critical issues. We inform the IGof our progress through twice-a-week staff meetings,frequent one-on-one dialogues to discuss issues as theyarise, and monthly audit briefings that serve as a generalroundup of progress on our strategic audit plans. We alsomeet biweekly with the Deputy Secretary to inform him ofsignificant audit and investigative concerns. These meet-ings serve as another forum to keep the IG keyed to the“hot” issues.

Our audit reporting process is a standard one forreporting audit results: our reports explain what problemswe found, and an executive summary section allows us toprovide a “brief” of the significant results and a synopsis ofthe key recommendations. When written well, thesesections are fast to read and easy to understand.

What has been very effective for us, however, has beenour Management Alert system. We have created a docu-ment, called a Management Alert, which we use during anaudit to quickly notify agency managers that we identifiedan issue that requires their immediate attention. Brevity andtimeliness are the ingredients of the Management Alert, andthey have worked well in getting management’s attention.Because Alerts often deal with sensitive issues and aredistributed to the highest levels of management in the

Department, we involve the IG as soon as we are ready toissue one. The IG also participates in our discussion withagency officials responding to an Alert. We use Alertsjudiciously because we don’t want them to become justanother type of report that does not have an urgent message.

The size of our agency and the number of programs weaudit at USDA make a difference in what information wefocus on at any given time, but not in how we view ourwork. We firmly believe, and we tell our staff at USDA,that every audit we conduct is of critical importance to theDepartment. Some will generate considerably morecontroversy or require more immediate corrective actionthan others, and we make sure the IG and Departmentmanagers are fully aware of these. But we believe all ouraudit work, controversial or not, is important to improvingthe operations of USDA.

Communicating with the IG at a small agency iscertainly a less complex process than at a large agencybecause there are fewer auditors and a lighter workloadabout which to keep the IG informed. Nevertheless, theprocess we have in place at SBA’s OIG mirrors much of theprocess at USDA.

SBA’s mission is to aid, counsel, assist, and protect theinterests of small businesses to preserve free competitiveenterprise and to maintain and strengthen the overalleconomy of our Nation. SBA has about 3,700 employeeslocated in almost 100 cities throughout the country. SBA’smajor programs include business loans, disaster loans,venture capital financing, surety bond guarantees, govern-ment contracting, minority enterprise development, andbusiness counseling. As of March 31, 1995, SBA hadover $30 billion in loans, guarantees and liquidationassets outstanding.

In FY 1995, the SBA OIG has an appropriation of$8.5 million which funds 104 positions. In FY 1994, theOIG also received $3 million in supplemental disasterfunds to be used until expended for disaster-related work,including the employment of 14 temporary auditors andinvestigators.

The Auditing Division is comprised of 35 full-timepermanent employees and 7 temporary employees. In thelast year, the Auditing Division issued 18 audit reports andhad about 20 audits in various stages of process at any givenpoint in time. Obviously, this is not a large workload interms of keeping the IG apprised of the status, problems andkey findings. Yet, communication can be a problem if it ishaphazard and unclear.

To preclude haphazard communication, SBA OIG hasseveral structures to facilitate routine communication, asystem that tracks planned versus actual performance, andscheduled meetings with specific communication purposes.Our planning system begins each summer when the AIGsprovide plans for anticipated work over the next 3 years.The AIG for Management and Legal Counsel combinesthese plans with the priorities of the IG into the OIG“Planning Guidance.” This document becomes the basis for

AIGA (continued on page 20)

19


investigations are but a part of the overall mission of anOIG and that the IG properly depends upon each AIG tooptimize available time. It is here that the AIGI must weighfactors such as the potential for adverse publicity, thesurfacing of the foibles of their Department and its keypeople, and the impact that exposure of criminal conductmay have on critical business dealings or even on nationalsecurity. This is by no means to imply that the OIG can beanything but aggressive in addressing these issues. Still, inthe course of pursuing sensitive matters, the AIGI mustdecide when and to what level of detail the IG needs to beapprised of certain investigations.

In considering management and administrative issues,just as with operational ones, the AIGI must have anunderstanding as to what the IG requires in the way ofinformation. In a small OIG, an IG may want to be a partyin such decisions as the hiring and promotion of all employ-ees or in decisions relating to travel, training, purchase ofinvestigative equipment, etc., whereas in a large OIG thosedecisions are delegated to the AIGI. As with operationalmatters, it is imperative that the AIGI recognize the IG’spersonal desires and design a management system that issensitive and responsive to those needs.

Once an understanding is reached as to what and howmuch information is to be communicated, an AIGI mustdetermine the means through which this will occur. Noth-ing will ever replace face-to-face meetings and discussionsbut this is not always feasible in a large organization. Incases where a meeting is impractical or otherwise unneces-sary, telephone contacts as well as the use of electronic mail(e-mail) and other written communications can serve toprovide needed information with a minimum of disruption.In DOD, the AIGI uses several forms of correspondenceto keep the IG currently informed. Quarterly Executive

AIGI (continued)

Summaries detail a sampling of current cases whileBi-Weekly Activity Reports provide an overview of all sortsof operational and administrative activities such as the filingof indictments, sentencings, civil recoveries, significantcontacts with parties both within and outside the Departmentas well as matters impacting training, budget, and “localnews” from the OIG’s more than 40 field locations. TheHUD OIG utilizes a Weekly Report to the Secretary whichreports on significant prosecutive actions as well as onactivities involving high profile initiatives such as Opera-tion Home Safe, an initiative targeted at violent crime andfraud in public housing and multi-family equity skimming.

The use of e-mail is perhaps one of the most usefulinnovations available within virtually every OIG. Prudentuse of e-mail can greatly facilitate communication betweenan AIGI and an IG. E-mail provides a system that reducesthe need for scheduled meetings, allows for quick reviewand comment, and is easily transportable when one or bothexecutives are traveling. In this way an AIGI can frequentlyerr on the side of more information rather than less indeciding what is, or might be, of interest to his or her boss.E-mail allows an AIGI to easily adjust the flow of informa-tion in line with current priorities and in a manner that isleast intrusive to the IG’s schedule. Of course, e-mail isnever a substitute for the personal contact that is necessaryin dealing with high priority matters.

In summary, effective communication is an art andrecognizing what topics need to be shared with yoursupervisor is at best a continuing process. In many ways itcan be compared to learning the writing style preferred bya supervisor which frequently requires some trial and error.It should be noted, however, that in the field of investiga-tions, errors can be both costly and embarrassing and arebest not repeated. ❏

20


AIGA (continued)

developing our annual activity plans where specific auditsand projects are identified and serves as a communicationtool with the Agency’s policy makers and program managers.

The Auditing Division maintains an automated,monthly management information system which describeseach project’s planned and actual milestones, tracks theamount of time expended and provides a short descriptionof the status of the audit. The monthly project status reportis provided to the Deputy IG. On a quarterly basis, wedevelop a report for the IG which reflects the progress ofprojects contained in the original activity plan. For eachproject, we include a brief description of the objective,background and justification for the project, the proposedwork plan, the anticipated product or results, and the statusfor the quarter. Once completed, the findings or accom-plishments are briefly summarized for the IG for his usewith the AIGA in formal quarterly reviews of the division’sperformance against the IG approved plan. This documentis a ready reference for the IG on the history, status, andresults of the Auditing Division’s work.

Additional communication structure is added throughroutine meetings. Weekly, the OIG executive team meets todiscuss items of general importance; this meeting lastsabout an hour and each participant usually has the floor forno more than 10 minutes. Biweekly, each AIG meetsindividually with the IG to discuss activities within his orher area of responsibility and to obtain policy guidancefrom the IG. These meetings can last up to 2 hours andtherefore are much more detailed. Most of the time, keystaff attend so that the IG can be provided a first-handaccount of the issue rather than receiving second-handinformation. Monthly, the OIG executive team briefs theSBA Administrator on OIG activities. If more than a briefsummary of a particularly significant audit is necessary, theIG and the AIGA will brief the Administrator on auditresults separately. Of course, the AIGA has access to the IG

on any matter at any time. Moreover, the IG meets with theAdministrator every other week on matters of concern toeach operating division.

The trick in keeping someone informed is to avoidinundating him or her with a plethora of information. Thisis true for either a large or small organization. We have, onoccasion, provided our IG at SBA with too much detail, ontoo many matters, for too long a time. Therefore, we cullout the insignificant and concentrate on matters of substance.

Clarity and brevity must be the foremost considerationfor successful communication. Because auditors tend to bedetail-oriented, this can be difficult for many of us. In mostinstances, both the written and verbal communicationstructures we use at SBA to keep the IG and others informedabout our work require us to boil an audit report into threeor four paragraphs or a 3 or 4 minutes oral summary.

The audit finding reporting structure is very useful insummarizing most messages. Several sentences, conveyingthe condition, criteria, cause and effect, provide a useful andcomplete synopsis of any finding. Add a few illustrations ofactual problems, and chances are the message will beremembered. If more detail is required, it can be given. Ifthat formula does not fit a situation, then the journalist’sformula of who, what, when, where, and why may be ofuse. Years ago, a former IG used that format for summariz-ing items of significance for top agency management andinsisted the rest of the staff do likewise. It was very success-ful.

In summary, the methods of keeping the boss informeddon’t seem to change significantly with the body of infor-mation in the pipeline. Careful selection and timeliness arethe keys. Routine communications and concise messagesease the process. These principles should help communica-tion between the busy AIG and the busy IG, regardless ofthe size of the organization.❏

21


Dogs That Hunt:The Auditors and Investigators

By the mid-1970’s, the conceptof an Office of Inspector

General (OIG) was an idea whosetime had come. With passage ofthe Inspector General (IG) Act of1978, the process of establishing

and activating IG offices was firmly in place. The missionof these new and unique organizations was to improve theeconomy, efficiency, and effectiveness of governmentprograms and to detect and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse.To fulfill this mission, audit and investigative functionswere unified under one roof. That Congress chose to includethese two disciplines within the framework of the OIGdemonstrates a similarity in the overall purpose of these twodisciplines. However, Congress also chose to recognizetheir differences by providing for two statutory positionsbeyond that of IG: an Assistant IG for Auditing (AIGA)and an Assistant IG for Investigations (AIGI). Now, afteralmost 17 years, there remains the question in some mindsconcerning whether this unification represents a stablemarriage or a relationship that wasdoomed from the start, separated byirreconcilable differences, yet forced to livetogether in the same house.

Since the establishment of the OIGs,there has been much discussion about,and some attempt at, combining thesedisciplines. They have, however, proventoo diverse to do so. While it may bepossible in the short term to train anindividual in the worlds of auditing andinvestigating, that individual, as do the majorityof human beings, will exhibit an affinity with one profes-sion over the other. This is not a bad thing; few sportsfigures easily adapt to multiple roles. While there areexceptions, the Deion Sanders are few and far between. Putanother way, for those looking for the ideal fraud-stoppinganimal, it is not the “audigator.” Nor is it the mating of abloodhound with a basset hound; for if you try, all you’ll getis a dog that won’t hunt.

Stephen A. Trodden,Inspector General,Department of Veterans Affairs

Any attempt to articulate the difference between thesetwo disciplines is difficult because the educated reader willundoubtedly conjure a myriad of exceptions to any generaltraits or rules that are stated or portrayed by examples.Nevertheless, some generalizations can be hazarded.

The most obvious difference is the remedy contem-plated as a result of conducting each activity. An auditmakes recommendations to Departmental officials forprogram changes to promote efficiency and effectiveness.The auditors are trying to create a positive. An investigationgathers facts for presentation to an official (generally ajudge) empowered to adjudicate and punish malfeasance.The investigators are attempting to eliminate a negative.

Investigations generally are reactive, whereas auditsfrequently are proactive. Audits are overt and conclude byseeking input (and, if possible, concurrence) from themanagers being audited; investigations are often covert andresult in the subject’s answering charges before a court.Investigators routinely encounter a higher degree ofhostility when their actions threaten a subject’s reputation orliberty; auditors generally do not operate in as unfriendly anenvironment. The value of auditors’ work is impaired if itfails to comply with standards established by their peers

(e.g., the General Accounting Officeor professional associations).

Investigators’ work must complywith a diverse set of require-

ments imposed by the Constitution,Congress, many courts, and various agencies.Moreover, an investigator’s failure to meet theserequirements can itself give rise to tort claims,civil rights suits, criminal contempt citations,exclusion of evidence, and dismissal of the

charges—not just a loss of confidence inthe findings.

Another major difference is the amount ofcontrol each discipline can exercise over its activities. Theauditors generally try to control events. The investigatorsare often controlled by events. Once actual audit workcommences, the audit staff usually maintains control overthe pace and direction of the various audit steps. Once aninvestigation is referred for prosecution, or when a prosecu-tor is consulted and, as is often the case, grand jury proceed-ings are initiated, the Department of Justice plays a major


by Stephen A. Trodden

22


role. The OIG cannot dictate the scheduling of grand juries,nor can it dictate the order in which cases are handled by anAssistant United States Attorney.

Despite their dissimilarities, these two disciplines can,and do, join forces to produce significant results. The areaof defective pricing is one where millions of dollars havebeen collected from contractors due to the joint efforts ofauditors and investigators. Through the application ofcoordination of remedies, several approaches to the projectcan take place simultaneously in the pursuit of criminal,civil, and/or administrative sanctions.

Each discipline operates most effectively when itmaintains its unique manner of operating while pursuing ajoint strategy to achieve a common objective. When thetwo disciplines are working in tandem, the auditors’expertise in gathering and following the facts, developingaudit trails, and analyzing of large volumes of data, used inconcert with the investigators’ interviewing techniques andknowledge of human behavior, create a team that is seldomdefeated. The big questions are, when do you bring the twodisciplines together to form a team, how do you determinetheir relative involvement, and who decides what needs tobe done and when.

If investigators are pursuing a criminal case and therecomes a time when audit assistance would be extremelyhelpful, then the investigators are in the best position tocoordinate their respective efforts, at least initially. Con-versely, if the auditors, during a planned audit, determinethat answers provided to them by contractor personnel maynot be completely truthful, and that a series of interviews ofcurrent and former employees, away from the audit site,would be helpful, they may ask for investigative assistancein conducting these interviews. Clearly, in this instance, theauditors are in charge. Care must be taken by auditors, whoare assisting in a criminal investigation, to represent theirefforts correctly so as not to open themselves and theirorganization to charges that they denied the subjects of aninvestigation due process. Both auditors and investigatorsshould have access to counsel to ensure that the issues areidentified and pursued in such a manner that the efforts ofboth disciplines will provide the evidence needed to supportthe charges. In some cases, OIG counsel may be theappropriate discipline to coordinate the work of the auditorsand investigators.

Problems are more likely when the nature of theoffense and probable outcome are unclear (fraud or admin-istrative issues) and both disciplines must be involved insorting out the details. For example, the issuance of anaudit report may impede the investigation and the auditorsmay be requested to delay the report publication. Legiti-mate concerns are often raised, particularly when thesubject of the audit is an entity within a department oragency. The obligation to bring to management’s attentionsome serious problems, particularly when the status quocould cause, for example, additional dollar loss or liability,needs to be weighed against a future successful criminalprosecution. The same difficulties can apply in situationsexternal to the agency. When confronted with costmischarging or defective products, there may be divergent

views as to the best approach for resolution. The auditorsmay wish to settle with the contractor administratively. Theinvestigators may push for criminal and/or civil prosecu-tion. The latter, obviously, will take longer. The contractoris anxious to put the current problem behind and move onto other things. This is especially true when contractors facepossible suspension or debarment. Notwithstanding thedirection the case takes, without the concerted efforts ofboth groups, the result may not be maximized.

Working and playing well together is easier said thandone. While disputes between audits and investigations canbe turf-related, the issue often in dispute is credit for work.It is easy to say that there should be enough credit to goaround on a successful project. However, auditors knowthey do not get full credit until the final report is issued.In joint projects, this means in many cases holding up therelease of the audit report for months or years while the casegoes through the slow legal system. Alternatively, theimpact of hundreds of hours of investigative work may beless visible when joint effort results in an administrativesettlement rather than in an indictment, conviction, or ajudgment or settlement of a civil fraud case.

The impact of this credit issue should not be underesti-mated because people perceive that their next promotion,award, or training assignment, etc., rides on credit fortheir work.

While the interaction of auditors and investigatorspresents some challenges, meeting these challenges hasresulted in some notable success stories. The Departmentof Defense (DOD) has the largest OIG in the community,the largest group of criminal investigators, and the largestgroup of auditors. The latter is concerned with majorprogram audits, such as large dollar weapons systems.Contract audits are generally conducted by the DefenseContract Audit Agency (DCAA). Departments and agen-cies, other than DOD, also may utilize the services ofDCAA to conduct contract audits. Most of the fraudreferrals to the DOD criminal investigators are made byDCAA rather than in-house OIG audit staff.

One thing the DOD OIG has done, in the area ofinvestigative support, is to assign an audit “advisor” to theAIGI. This advisor, a senior level auditor, reviews sus-pected contract irregularity reports furnished by DCAA tothe criminal investigators and “quality controls” the referral,i.e., the advisor raises certain questions and issues that shouldbe addressed from the outset so that the evaluation of thereferral conducted by the investigators is most productive.

Once a referral is accepted for investigation, theinvestigators have the ability to request audit support fromthe DCAA Regional Manager. This manager may havecognizance over as many as 30 audit branch offices.Requests for audit assistance are routinely made androutinely granted. The auditors selected to assist theinvestigators most likely have specific audit expertise in thetype of contract to be audited/investigated or, more rou-tinely, the selectees are the auditors who detected thesuspected irregularity. The auditors selected are assignedto the investigative office which requested the assistance.The DOD OIG has found this collaboration useful and

Dogs That Hunt (continued)

23


productive. Hundreds of millions of dollars have beenrecovered as a result of these efforts.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) OIG is notonly much smaller than its DOD counterpart but it also doesmuch of its contract audit work in-house. We have hadsuccess in the area of defective pricing by establishing acontract referral panel consisting of senior representativesfrom audits and investigations, in coordination with ourcounselor’s office. The panel provides a forum to work outdifferences between audits and investigations on thesensitive issues relating to direction, timing, and division ofresponsibilities in the area of defective pricing cases.Since establishment of this panel, there has been a substan-tial increase in recoveries from contractors who do businesswith VA.

While I have drawn on examples of success from thetwo OIGs with which I am most familiar, there are undoubt-edly others. The important elements of successful collabo-ration are clearly defined objectives for the role of each ofthe OIG’s components on a particular initiative, meaningfulwork assigned, respect for the contributions of eachdiscipline, and shared credit for results achieved.

Auditors and investigators have worked together, andwill continue to do so when the opportunity arises, witheach contributing a unique set of talents. The currentsystem of operation is not broken; let’s not try to fix it.Rather, let us, as agents of change, look for ways to increasethe instances where these two dynamic professions can beused to accomplish the OIG mission: to promote economyand efficiency in government.❏

24


25


Fear of Flying: Acceptable Levelsof Risk are Necessary to a SuccessfulOIG Investigative Program

Phillip A. Rodokanakis,Special Agent-in-Charge,Singapore Field Office,Office of Inspector General,Agency for InternationalDevelopment

In the aftermath of the Watergatescandal, the rapid increase in

Federal spending, exposure offraud and other abuses in a variety

of Federally funded programs, the Congress saw the needfor a drastically different oversight function. Prior to theestablishment of independent Offices of Inspector General(OIGs), audit functions had long been part of the operatingcomponent of each agency. Investigative units were oftenhighly independent offices that reported directly to topagency management. The OIGs were based on theconcept that the two professions wouldreinforce each other and that they wouldderive benefits from pooled resourcesand organizational independence.

Over the past 17 years,Congress has established OIGs inmore than 60 Federal agencies, ofwhich nearly 30 presently requirePresidential nomination and Senateconfirmation. The vast majority of theseoffices were established by the InspectorGeneral (IG) Act of 1978 and the IGAmendments of 1988. OIGs are required toreport regularly both to their respective agency headsand to Congress. The IG Act intended that this dual reportingrelationship ensure public disclosure of OIG findings andOIG independence from agency pressures.

What are investigative risks?All investigations are subject to risk of failure. An

investigation might fail by not uncovering the culprits afterexpending significant investigative resources or by notdeveloping a strong enough case to result in appropriatecharges against the culprits. There is risk in declining toinvestigate a matter, either because the initial complaint wasnot succinctly defined or because operational prioritiesdictated that the matter should not be investigated. Investi-gations that achieve some prosecutive or administrative (continued on page 26)

results may fail to fully expose the scheme or the underlyingcauses which allowed the situation to take form in the firstplace. As a result, the risk exists that the criminal activitywill continue long after the investigative file is closed.

What are unique risks faced by OIGinvestigators?

One risk stems from the fact that the overall objectivesof the OIG investigative mission are mixed and not clearlydefined. In traditional law enforcement organizations, theinvestigative mission is clear and usually centers alongviolations of criminal statutes, and investigative results arereferred to prosecutors for resolution through the criminaljustice system. OIGs, however, are subject to varyingdirectives and operational priorities. The dual reportingprovision of the IG Act can create conflict for the investiga-tive program. External elements sometimes want scandalsbrought to light by OIG investigations fully exposed. Onthe other hand, most agency executives would much rather

have investigations carried out discreetly with nooutside fanfare. Some would even argue thatagency management may wish to have adversefindings forgotten rather than risk the negative

publicity resulting from prolonged investiga-tions and trials. An investigation may

uncover a scandal that may ad-versely reflect on the agency

and result in a serious riftbetween the OIG and

agency management. Any effort by OIGmanagement to try to prevent negative investigativefindings from surfacing could lead to failed investigationsand allegations of loss of OIG independence.

Another area of possible risk for OIGs is the factthat OIG senior managers may come from disparatedisciplines and may not have strong investigative back-grounds. In traditional law enforcement organizations,senior managers usually have risen through the ranks andhave a clear understanding of the objectives and risksassociated with investigative operations. This may not bethe case in an OIG, and this lack of familiarity with investi-gations may be the source of difficulties in communication.

by Phillip A. Rodokanakis

26


Another fact to consider is that OIG investigationsoften involve more than suspected violations of criminallaw. OIGs investigate civil or administrative matters andrespond to political considerations or agency priorities. Inaddition, OIG investigators might conduct internal affairsinvestigations focusing on agency employees. Investigatorsmay also be called upon to review agency programs andoperations. This lack of a clear and consistent role defini-tion in OIG investigative programs adds considerably to therisks associated with managing investigations.

Finally, the role of the OIGs has been complicatedfurther by recent National Performance Review (NPR)initiatives. The 1993 report issued by Vice President AlGore recommended that the OIGs change their method ofoperation to be more collaborative and less adversarial.Although this recommendation can be readily applied bychanging audit approaches, when it comes to investigations,no change in methodology can alter the adversarial natureof an investigation–it’s hard to take a collaborative ap-proach when your ultimate goal is to put someone in jail!

How can an OIG minimizeinvestigative risks?

While risk is inherent in any investigative effort,minimizing that risk is an important element of successfulmanagement. The OIG organizational structure createsunique challenges for investigative offices.

Utilize Management by Objectives(MBO) approach

Adopting the MBO philosophy can greatly assist OIGsin managing investigative risks. Simply stated, MBO is amanagement approach that focuses on goals rather thantasks. What is accomplished is more important than how itis accomplished, with the obvious proviso that the ends areachieved through appropriate means. MBO emphasizesteamwork and team results, which are essential to anysuccessful investigation. Effective managers must direct thevision and efforts of all in the organization toward acommon goal. Objectives on all levels and in all areasshould also be keyed to both short-range and long-rangeconsiderations. Each member of the team contributessomething different, but they must all be pulling in the samedirection. Individual performance therefore requires thateach investigation be directed toward the objectives of thewhole organization.

Initiate and agree on a strategicmanagement process

These principles are particularly important to OIGinvestigations because of the nature of white collar crimeinvestigations. Due to their complexity, fraud investigationsoften succeed in spite of the criminal justice system or theprocedures employed by the parent agency. Investigativework can be frustrating and tedious. Cases take a long time

to develop. New difficulties arise as culprits invent newschemes. There must be painstaking attention to detail. Inshort, cases take persistence and imagination. Suchimaginative persistence is difficult to sustain if an investiga-tor is simply told to be imaginative and persistent. Thesequalities are so difficult to define concretely in any specificcase that a supervisor simply cannot order a person to givethat extra measure of imagination that can make the case.Successful investigators must display considerable initiativeand self-motivation. OIGs need to provide individualinvestigators with strong motivation to attain the organiza-tional goals.

Effective managers empower employees because theybelieve in the innate potential of people to innovate and addvalue. On the other hand, the fundamental problem facingOIG managers is how to exercise adequate control andsimultaneously provide for flexibility, innovation, andcreativity. Applying MBO principles along with riskcontainment steps will not only reduce the risks associatedwith OIG investigative programs, but also go a long waytoward establishing more productive and cohesive investi-gative units.

To establish a successful OIG investigative program,key internal agency officials and external elements such asoversight committees must agree about the overall OIGplanning effort and the investigative process. Involvingagency officials is usually crucial to the success of OIGprograms, since OIG actions involve and/or affect multipleparties and operational divisions within the agency. Aneffective investigative program requires clear support fromtop management, personal links with the rest of the agency,and the time to explain the usefulness of investigations toagency managers, who may pay lip service to the need foran effective investigative element, but would secretly preferthat it would simply go away. If these elements are lacking,the investigative program will run into internal problems.

The OIG must come to grips with how much informa-tion can be shared with agency officials without compro-mising the investigation. The agency managers mustunderstand that the investigative objectives will usuallydiffer from those of the agency and that the need to protectthe confidentiality of the investigative process may requirethe OIG to proceed without sharing any investigativefindings with the agency management, even though theymay have a crucial effect on agency operations. On theother hand, the OIG must attempt to share as much informa-tion as possible with the agency managers. This delicatebalancing act will require developing a new mind set asinvestigators are usually taught to only share investigativedetails with those having a clear need to know.

Clarify organizational mandatesThe formal and informal mandates placed on the OIG

must be clearly understood. It is surprising how feworganizations know precisely what they are mandated to doand not to do. How many OIG employees have completelyread the relevant internal policy directives or manuals that

Fear of Flying (continued)

27


outline the office’s formal mandates? It may not be surpris-ing, then, that many employees make one or both of twofundamental mistakes—either they believe they are moretightly constrained in their actions than they are or theyassume that if they are not explicitly told to do something,they are not allowed to do it.

In addition to understanding the strategic and opera-tional mandates of the OIG, the investigators must alsounderstand the agency’s vision, mandates, and processes.To develop a successful investigative program, the OIGinvestigators must become thoroughly familiar with theprograms, systems, and procedures that are unique ineach agency.

Define an investigative strategyOIGs must develop an overall strategy concerning the

investigative program. The goals and objectives of theinvestigative office must be clearly articulated and under-stood by management and staff alike. This is an area thatshould call for very little individual interpretation. Allinvestigators should clearly understand the type of allega-tions that they will readily investigate versus those that theywould routinely decline. Although this is a basic operationalrequirement, it is amazing how different individuals perceiveor fail to see the need for initiating an investigation.

Once the goals and objectives of the OIG investigativeprogram are outlined, they must be communicated to theagency. This is essential to ensure that employees under-stand the function of the OIG investigators and are readilywilling to participate and assist in ongoing investigations.In the Federal Government’s “doing more with less”environment, it is particularly important for investigators togain the cooperation of agency employees who are dealingwith their own priorities.

Furthermore, the OIG must continue to express thegoals and objectives of its investigative program to maintainthe cooperation of agency employees, long before or afterthe conclusion of a particular investigation. As agencyemployees are the first line of defense in detecting andpreventing fraud, waste, and abuse, their willingness toreport their suspicions to the OIG is vital. Maintaining openchannels of communication with all agency employees isimperative. Employees should not view OIG investigatorsas internal police who only spell problems for anyone withwhom they come into contact.

A working risk model must also balance line and staffmanagement. Most organizations allow either the linemanagers or the headquarters staff to dominate the investi-gative process. Striking a balance between the extremes isdifficult, but OIG managers can begin by considering howthey will use the results derived from successfully com-pleted investigations. Will the results be used to set preven-tive controls or to weed out other similar abuses that did notresult in criminal behavior? By asking these questions, thetendency to control investigations from headquarters toreduce potential damage can be balanced against thetendency of line elements to run with the investigation witha complete disregard for the consequences.

Assess the risks of a particular investigationRisk assessment for investigations is difficult. No two

investigations and no two investigative teams are everexactly the same. Usually, the crucial consideration is thecomplexity of the underlying case.

If the target of the investigation is the head of anagency, the risk of a major schism between the OIG and therest of the agency is significant. The OIG needs to preserveits independence and refer the investigative findings asearly as possible to the Department of Justice. Fortunately,for most of the cases initiated by the OIGs, this example isnot the rule. In routine cases however, it is hard to assess theassociated risks since the extent of the potential damageresulting from the criminal activity under investigation isnot known in the early stages of the inquiry.

In evaluating risk, questions should be asked as thecase is developing and the facts become known. Forexample, what is the damage caused by the criminalactivity? What is the potential outcome of the investiga-tion? What is the likelihood of agency action to prevent asimilar scheme from occurring in the future? In terms ofdamage to the reputation of the agency, what is the agency’sexposure? Would the criminal activity have had the chanceto occur if the program officials had been alert and doingtheir jobs? Had systemic weaknesses been identified in thepast and had the program management failed to take correc-tive action?

Match risks with in-house capabilitiesSuccessful OIG investigators must develop skills

unique to their agency. In addition to the basic skillsrequired of investigators who specialize in white collarcrimes, they must become proficient in specific agencyprograms, processes and procedures.

Also, management must assess the particular skills andstrengths of each investigator before determining the idealteam to undertake a particular investigation. For example, itwould make no sense to assign an investigator with nounderstanding of computers to a computer fraud case—doingso would in all likelihood lead to a failed investigation.

However, matching investigative skills to the caseunder investigation is difficult. Cases are usually developedby the special agent first assigned the investigation. If at alater time it becomes apparent that the investigator lackscertain necessary skills, there is reluctance to reassign thecase either because of the limited available investigativeresources or a general resistance to reassign a case once theinvestigator has devoted much time and has become the defacto case expert.

Complex cases call for diverse investigative talents, astrong investigative team, and a tough leader to coordinateeveryone’s efforts. Under no circumstances should coordi-nation of a team effort be delegated casually. Complexwhite collar crime investigations follow Murphy’s Law;if something can go wrong, it usually will. In addition to


28


developing the case, the team leader should be sensitive toand readily recognize potential areas of risk. Once the teamidentifies potential risks, it should immediately report themto the OIG management so that it can assess them andact accordingly.

Choose the right investigative methodsJust as matching the skills of the investigators with the

underlying case is crucial, it is just as important to ensurethat the proper investigative methods are employed through-out the life of the investigation. For example, it makes nosense to fingerprint a potential subject if there are no latentfingerprints developed in the first place or if fingerprintshave nothing to do with the commission of the crime.

A poorly executed investigation can result in negativepublicity and/or civil claims against the OIG and the assignedinvestigators. In this age of the lawsuit, this considerationseems even more applicable. On the other hand, the fear of apotential lawsuit should not be allowed to paralyze theinvestigation or the OIG investigative program.

Monitor the investigationDespite the need to empower investigators to do their

jobs properly, OIG managers should monitor the progress ofinvestigations, particularly those having a high-profile orthe potential for adverse publicity. Nevertheless, monitor-ing is not synonymous to micro-managing! Good operating

procedures should be in place so that at key points the caseagents will automatically report events to managementwithout the need for the headquarters’ staff to take over theinvestigation.

Operating directives should spell out concise examplesof when line investigators must report findings to highermanagement. For example, the directives may list timelimits within which the field elements must notify headquar-ters when sensitive cases are initiated. The same shouldhold true during the course of the investigation.

Everyone in the OIG management structure likes tobecome involved in a flashy or high profile case. This typeof investigation usually involves tedious and prolongedroutine, and senior managers can become disinterested oroverwhelmed by other priorities. It is, therefore, particularlyimportant to have in place the appropriate directives thatwould alert OIG managers when investigative activities maybe going awry or reaching a threshold that may result in anadverse impact for the OIG organization and/or the agency.

ConclusionRisk can never be eliminated entirely. OIG managers,

however, can take steps to minimize risks by establishinga clear investigative strategy, by selecting the right investi-gators and techniques, and by properly monitoring thesituation. The end result will be an effective OIG investiga-tive program.❏

Fear of Flying (continued)

29


Partners Against Crime: Using a Cultureof Collaboration to Win in the Fight AgainstHealth Care Fraud

June Gibbs Brown, InspectorGeneral, Department of Healthand Human Services

which is ripe for scam artists. The coverage and reim-bursement of medical services are governed by a complexand often inconsistent set of rules, which provide countless“loopholes” to be abused. The ambiguous nature ofmedical treatment, combined with patients who are oftenweak and vulnerable, make it possible to bill unnecessarytests and useless equipment to the programs. Additionally,defrauders will exploit the relationship of trust betweenphysician and patient by rewarding the doctor for referringpatients inappropriately. Whether a cash bribe or an

inflated return on the doctor’s investment in thescheme’s joint venture, the objective is to

override the physician’s ethical andfiduciary duties, at the expense of thepatient and the health care programs.

While these characteristics of thehealth care industry have always made itvulnerable to fraudulent schemes andabuses, recent years have seen a surge in

complex schemes which often span severalstates and implicate millions of health care dollars.

Considering the phenomenal amount of money inhealth care, perhaps it is not surprising that a better

organized and more ambitious breed of scam artists istargeting the Medicare program. After all, the notoriousWillie Sutton once observed that he robbed banks becausethat was where the money was! To respond to this in-creased sophistication in health care fraud schemes, Ibelieve we must shift our organizational culture away fromintra- and interagency competition and toward an emphasison interdisciplinary collaboration and teamwork.

Fostering collaborationwithin the HHS OIG

The following are several examples of how we arefostering this culture of collaboration in my office.Traditionally, the Office of Audit Services had played onlya supporting role in the conduct of health care criminalinvestigations. Now that office is training its staff ofauditors to work more closely with the Office of Investiga-tions when audit findings suggest criminal fraud. We havebeen sending groups of auditors for intensive training incriminal investigative techniques at the Federal Law

The escalating cost of thisNation’s health care should be

of concern to all of us. In 1967,the United States expended$51 billion on health care; thisyear those costs will reach

$1 trillion. The government’s budget figures forMedicare and Medicaid, the two Federally-funded health care programs overseen bythe Department of Health and HumanServices (HHS), are similarly daunting.Medicare expenditures for FY 1995 areestimated at $177 billion, a 9 percentincrease over the previous year; Medicaidexpenditures are expected to reach $88 billionin FY 1995, a 7.8 percent increase over FY 1994.At the current rates, Medicare’s board of trusteesreports the Medicare Part A program may be bankruptby 2002.

As the Administration and the Congress consider waysto reduce or control these expenditures, one issue that mustbe confronted is the percentage of health care dollars lostto fraud and abuse. The General Accounting Office esti-mates the Federal health care programs lose as much as10 percent of their funding to the inappropriate, and attimes criminal, practices of health care providers. Theselost dollars not only deprive program beneficiaries ofneeded medical services, but the waste fuels public cyni-cism about the effectiveness of these programs and thegovernment in general.

The challenge of investigatinghealth care fraud

Oversight of the Medicare and Medicaid programs isprovided by the HHS OIG. As the IG, I have challengedmy staff to join me in developing innovative and result-oriented approaches to fighting health care fraud in theMedicare and Medicaid programs. The task has not been aneasy one. The health care industry provides an environment

by June Gibbs Brown


30


Enforcement Training Center. These “audigators” areproving to be invaluable in unraveling the most elaboratehealth care fraud schemes.

The OIG’s Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI)also is being better integrated into the fight against healthcare fraud. OEI uses its evaluations and analyses based onpayment data and survey work to identify system vulner-abilities in the Medicare and other Departmental programs.In addition to guidance for policymakers, the resultinganalyses now give our auditors and criminal investigatorstargets for further development, as well as case specific datafor existing investigations. For example, when OEIinterviewed beneficiaries during an evaluation ofMedicare’s durable medical equipment (DME) benefit, ituncovered a significant number of people who said they hadnever received the equipment billed to Medicare. Theresulting nationwide investigation of DME suppliersproduced numerous criminal convictions, substantialrestitution to the health care system, as well as much neededchanges to Medicare’s coverage and reimbursement rules.

To ensure that this philosophy of interdisciplinaryteamwork is recognized and flourishes, we have made otherchanges in the HHS/OIG culture. The OIG work planningprocess is now a collaborative effort in which the differentcomponent managers share their work planning documentswith each other before they are finalized. This ensures thatthese strategic documents reflect the contributions of eachcomponent and its expertise. To emphasize the importanceof this change in thinking to each individual on my staff, wealso have rewritten personnel performance plans to recog-nize and reward cross-component efforts. In addition, Ihave established an annual award to be given to the OIGgroup and outside agencies that best epitomizes thiscollaborative spirit.

Interagency teamwork: the NationalMedical Enterprises investigation

The benefits of greater collaboration and sharing ofresources also have been realized in our relationship withother Federal and State law enforcement and regulatoryagencies. On behalf of HHS, I now meet on a monthlybasis with high level officials of the Department of Justice(DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and theHealth Care Financing Administration (HCFA) to coordi-nate our strategy against health care fraud. The FBI and myoffice also have placed our special agents in each others’headquarters in order to improve our health care databasesand case targeting. We disseminate to other Federal andState agencies our list of individuals and companies thathave been sanctioned because of abuses against the Medi-care program in order that the sanction may be given a morewidespread effect.

The collaborative approach also means avoidingneedless “turf battles” with our allies in this fight. OIGauditors have been successfully working significantMedicaid audits with their State audit agency counterparts;the decision concerning which office will be designated to

Partners Against Crime (continued)

lead the audit is reached collaboratively and based upon theexpertise required by the task. Further, I have authorizedthe Medicaid Fraud Control Units to work Medicare caseswhere a Unit’s investigation of a Medicaid scheme impli-cates the Medicare program, thus expanding these groupsability to fight health care fraud at all levels.

These and other agencies’ efforts to fight health carefraud using a team approach are producing favorableresults. The recently concluded case against NationalMedical Enterprises (NME) is instructive. NME’s Psychiat-ric Hospitals subsidiary managed more than 60 psychiatrichospitals and substance abuse centers nationwide. Throughan elaborately structured scheme affecting more than 30states, NME kept patients hospitalized longer than neces-sary in order to use up the available insurance coverage, andbilled insurance programs multiple times for the sameservice and when no services were actually provided. Whatis more, NME paid kickbacks to doctors and referralservices so that they would refer patients to NME’s hospi-tals, and then billed Medicare for these illegal payments.

The 3-year investigation of this fraud required extraor-dinary coordination of Federal and State law enforcementagencies, including the Criminal and Civil Divisions ofDOJ; the FBI; the Defense Criminal Investigative Service,the investigative arm of the Department of Defense OIG;the United States Postal Inspection Service; the InternalRevenue Service; the Office of Personnel ManagementOIG; the Securities and Exchange Commission; theMedicaid Fraud Control Units; and the U.S. Attorneys in 23Federal districts. One example of the coordination requiredof this massive health care investigation was the August1993 operation in which more than 20 search warrants wereexecuted simultaneously at NME hospitals, corporateoffices and other sites across the country. This enormouseffort produced over 100,000 boxes of documents, whichwere inventoried, analyzed, and incorporated into thegovernment’s case.

The teamwork and extraordinary coordination paid offfor the government. On June 29, 1994, NME PsychiatricHospitals agreed to plead guilty to six counts of makingkickbacks to doctors to refer Medicare and Medicaidpatients, and one count of conspiracy to defraud the UnitedStates. In addition, NME paid $379 million in criminalfines, civil damages, and penalties, the largest amount everobtained in a health care case. Criminal pleas also havebeen obtained from a significant number of the NMEmanagers and physicians implicated in the kickback schemeand more are expected as the investigation continues.

Operation Restore Trust: takingteamwork the next step

As evidenced by the successful conclusion of the NMEcase, integration of the varied expertise and perspectives ofthe different Federal and State law enforcement agencies isessential to the successful conclusion of these complexinvestigations. However, I believe we can expand theinterdisciplinary team concept even further. Working

31


and board and care homes. These core Departmental teamswill work in concert with other project team members,including DOJ, United States Attorneys, State AttorneysGeneral and the Medicaid Fraud Control Units. Theseteam members will actively participate in the targeting ofinvestigations and prosecution of cases.

In considering the challenge of integrating such adiverse group of organizations and professionals towardcommon objectives, the Department concluded that theproject initially should focus its resources in five states:New York, Florida, Illinois, Texas and California. Thesestates were chosen because over one third of the Medicareand Medicaid beneficiaries reside in these five states.In addition, approximately 40 percent of all the money paidby these two health care programs to HHAs and nursingfacilities went to companies in the same five states.

Operation Restore Trust: reachingout to the health care providers

Perhaps the most innovative aspect of OperationRestore Trust is that we are not restricting the teamworkconcept to governmental entities. We also are enlisting thesupport and participation of the very industries that will bethe target of the initiative. I believe that the majority ofhealth care providers are concerned about the well-beingof our beneficiaries and want to work within the legalconfines of the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Whenbilling irregularities occur, whether as a result of misunder-standings of the law or a lack of adequate oversight by thecompany’s management, these providers want to do theright thing by working with the government to resolvethe problem.

To assist these health care providers, the OIG willcontinue the practice of issuing “Special Fraud Alerts”as a vehicle to identify fraudulent and abusive health carepractices. Members of the health care industry haveindicated that these fraud alerts have a powerful andpositive impact on industry behavior. Accordingly, myoffice will be issuing a series of fraud alerts addressingabusive practices of home health agencies and nursinghome facilities. Honest providers can and should use thesefraud alerts as a tool to scrutinize their practices and makesure they are acting within the law.

When that process of self-examination uncovers apotential problem of program fraud, the home health andnursing home providers in the five states also will be givenan opportunity to self-disclose the matter to the OIG underfavorable terms. Voluntary disclosure offers self-disclosingcompanies the opportunity to minimize the potential costand disruption of a full scale audit and investigation, tonegotiate monetary settlements with the government basedupon the matter disclosed, and to reduce or avoid an OIGpermissive exclusion. The disclosure program also benefitsthe government by expediting the investigation and resolu-tion of program abuses, as well as giving insight intoschemes that might otherwise go undetected.

jointly with HCFA, our offices have recently unveiled ademonstration project—Operation Restore Trust—which isusing this innovative team approach to prevent and detectfraud and abuse in two rapidly growing sectors of thehealth care industry: home health agencies (HHAs) andnursing facilities (NFs) and related supplies and services.The Secretary of HHS has included this demonstrationproject as part of the Department’s Reinvention of Govern-ment Initiative.

Operation Restore Trust was initiated in early 1994after a review of the findings contained in reports andinvestigations conducted by the components of OIG andHCFA identified HHAs and NFs as particularly susceptibleto fraud and abuse. In the home health industry, forexample, the OIG observed the prevalence of several typesof fraud including cost report fraud, use of untrained staff,falsified plans of care and kickbacks. Between 1990 and1994, OIG investigations led to 25 successful criminalprosecutions of HHAs or their employees. In 1993 and1994 alone, 39 HHAs or their employees were excludedfrom participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Nursing homes also have become a increasing sourceof Medicare and Medicaid abuse. The vulnerability is aresult, in part, of the Medicare reimbursement system whichpays for nursing home services under two very differentparts of the program. This dual payment system hasresulted in inappropriate cost shifting and double paymentschemes which result in both program loss and financialburdens on beneficiaries. Suppliers of medical equipmentand supplies are often implicated in these schemes. Forexample, between 1990 and 1994, our investigationsresulted in over 130 successful criminal prosecutions ofmedical equipment suppliers or their employees.

Based upon the results of our initial work, we con-cluded that a more concentrated effort was needed toaddress the burgeoning fraud in these two sectors of thehealth care industry. To that end, we have assembledproject teams from three Departmental agencies: OIG,HCFA and the Administration on Aging (AoA). These threecomponents bring very different perspectives and expertiseto the problem at hand. The OIG will provide the teamswith the range of professional skills of its auditors, criminalinvestigators and program evaluators.

HCFA, through its Benefits Integrity Office and itscontractors, will develop data on targeted subjects concern-ing billing and payment patterns. It also will integrate intothe project its surveyors who, in addition to their traditionalrole of reviewing quality of care, will be trained to look forsigns for fraud and abuse. HCFA policy staff also willcontribute by reviewing project findings that implicateHCFA reimbursement policies so that loopholes can beclosed and abuses stopped on the front end.

The State Long-Term Care Ombudsman, through AoA,will coordinate with HCFA in identifying medical supplierswhich provide unnecessary services and excessive supplies.The Ombudsmen are uniquely qualified for this task, sincetheir role is to advocate to protect the health, safety, andwelfare of the institutionalized elderly in nursing facilities


32


Under procedures developed in conjunction with DOJ,a company (the pilot program is not available to individu-als) may be admitted into the program provided that it is notunder scrutiny by the government for the matter disclosedand agrees to fully cooperate with the verification of thedisclosure. While the program cannot offer amnesty wherethe disclosure implicates the company criminally, successfulcompletion of the disclosure process is given favorableconsideration under DOJ’s prosecutive guidelines.

ConclusionIn order for the Federal Government to continue the

process of reinventing itself, we must examine the assump-tions that underlie policies and practices of the organiza-tions we serve. Actively promoting a culture ofcollaboration within agencies and among governmentaldepartments is essential if we are to succeed in an era ofdiminishing resources and increasing challenges. I believeour experience at HHS shows that with teamwork, even themost formidable problems can be solved.❏

Partners Against Crime (continued)

33


Case Notes: Recent Court Decisionson OIG Powers and Authorityby Alexandra B. Keith and Maryann L. Grodin

The independence of the Office of Inspector General (OIG) investigative community was reaffirmed in two recent appellatecourt decisions. These decisions can be found at U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Federal Labor Relations Authority,25 F. 3rd 229 (4th Cir. 1994) and Department of Justice (INS) v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 39 F. 3rd 361 (D.C. Circuit1994). The Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), in administrative proceedings, issued two decisions that attempted tosubject OIG investigations to union labor negotiations and agreements. The Fourth and District of Columbia Circuit Courts ofAppeals recognized the independence of the OIGs and overturned the FLRA decisions. The Fourth Circuit held that theNuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) could not be compelled to negotiate with its union about procedures governing OIGinterviews. Shortly thereafter, the D.C. Circuit held that the Department of Justice (DOJ) OIG could prohibit an Immigrationand Naturalization Service (INS) agent from consulting privately with his union representative during an OIG interview andcould question the employee about his conversations with the union representative.

Alexandra B. Keith, Counsel to theInspector General and AssistantInspector General for Investigations,National Credit Union Administration


Maryann L. Grodin, Counselto the Inspector General,Nuclear Regulatory Commission

O IGs historically have been recognized as independentand separate from the Federal labor relations process,

both in the context of their own functions and authority andin their relationship to agency employees. The FederalService Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS), 5U.S.C. Section 7112 (b)(7), provides that a bargaining unitincluding, “any employee primarily engaged in investiga-tion or audit functions relating to the work of individualsemployed by an agency whose duties directly affect theinternal security of the agency, but only if the functions areundertaken to ensure that the duties are discharged honestlyand with integrity,” would not be an appropriate unit. Thus,OIG investigators and auditors have not been permitted toorganize or join Federal sector employee unions.

As importantly, the OIG as an entity has enjoyed aunique status in labor relations case law. The landmark

decision on the issue of OIG exemption from the rulesapplicable to other agency components is National Federa-tion of Federal Employees, Local 1300 and GeneralServices Administration, 18 FLRA 789 (1985), (hereinafter“GSA”). In that case, the FLRA held that the agency hadno duty to bargain over union proposals purporting toinfluence the conduct of OIG investigations. Here theFLRA stated:

“[I]nsofar as the proposal would seek to have theAgency head utilize his general supervisory authority overthe IG [Inspector General] to influence the manner in whichthat official conducts investigations it impermissiblyinfringes upon the independence of the IG to undertake suchinvestigations. The intent of Congress ... is that agencyofficials respect the freedom of the IG to determine what,when, and how to investigate agency operations and that theIG not be subjected to pressure by any part of the agency.Thus, the independence of the IG under law precludesnegotiation on proposals purporting to influence the conductof the IG investigations.” 18 FLRA at 794-795.

A significant incursion against this well-establishedindependence occurred in l988 with Defense CriminalInvestigative Service (DCIS) v. FLRA, 855 F.2d 93 (3rdCir. 1988), (hereinafter “DCIS”). In that case, OIGs hadargued that they need not provide interviewees with unionrepresentation because OIGs were so independent that theycould not be considered “representative(s) of the agency”for purposes of the statute. In DCIS, the judge sided withthe FLRA, stating that DCIS investigators, Departmentof Defense (DOD) OIG agents, were employees of theDOD and thus were “representatives of the agency” forpurposes of the FSLMRS. This was because the OIG

34


Case Notes (continued)

agents’ purpose when conducting interviews was to solicitinformation concerning misconduct that could be used todiscipline employees.

Accordingly, since 1988 OIG investigators providewarnings known as “Weingarten rights,” when theyinterview bargaining unit employees as suspects of criminalor other misconduct. The Weingarten case law, codified atSection 7114(a)(2)(B), provides an exclusive representativeof an appropriate unit in an agency the opportunity to berepresented at “any examination of an employee in the unitby a representative of the agency in connection with aninvestigation if— (i) the employee reasonably believes thatthe examination may result in disciplinary action againstthe employee.”

NRC union tries to bargainabout OIG investigations

With those somewhat contradictory cases as predicates,the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), theauthorized bargaining representative for certain NRCemployees, advanced four proposals to the NRC regardingprocedures to be followed during investigative interviews ofagency employees by the NRC OIG. While the proposalsthemselves are not relevant to the court’s decision, butrather the requirement to bargain, we will briefly discussthem to give you a flavor of what was at stake for OIGs.

Proposal 1 would have given union representatives theright, during investigative interviews, to clarify questionsposed to employees and answers given by them, to suggestnames of other employees with knowledge of the issue, andgenerally to advise the employee. Proposal 2 would haverequired the investigator to apprise employees subject todisciplinary action of the general nature of the inter-view and the employee’s right to have a unionrepresentative present. Proposal 3would have required an investigatorto provide Miranda warnings toemployees being interviewed forpossible criminal conduct.Proposal 4 would have requiredsimilar warnings whencriminal prosecution hadbeen declined but employ-ees were subject todismissal for failure toanswer questions, i.e.,“Kalkines” warningsprovided in writing.

The agency refused to negotiateon these proposals, contending that to do sowould infringe on OIG independence mandated bythe Inspector General Act of 1978. Therefore, accordingto the NRC, the proposals were not negotiable because5 U.S.C. Section 7117(a)(1) establishes NRC’s duty tobargain only to the extent that proposals are not inconsistentwith any Federal law. Because the proposals contravenedthe IG Act, they were inconsistent with a Federal law and

thus the NRC refused to bargain. The Union filed a petitionwith the FLRA, which ordered the agency back to thebargaining table.

FLRA changes its mindabout OIG independence

The FLRA surprised many in the OIG community withthis decision. Not only did it overextend the DCIS decision,but it overturned its own precedent established in the GSAcase. What made the FLRA change its mind 10 years later?The FLRA said that it was convinced by the DCIS casementioned above.

The FLRA stated:

“[W]e find that because IG representatives are employ-ees of the agency and, thus are subject to the agency’sobligations, under the [Federal Labor Management Rela-tions] Statute, an agency cannot declare proposals concern-ing IG investigations non-negotiable solely on the groundthat, under section 3(a) of the IG Act, all proposals concern-ing IG investigations are outside the duty to bargain.” 47FLRA No. 29, at 9.

The OIG community ralliesfor independence

Because the NRC OIG was not a party to either thebargaining negotiations or the initial FLRA litigation, theOIG community was largely unaware of the case. Had theUnion convinced NRC management to negotiate, the OIGmay never have had the opportunity to protest until anagreement had been signed, and the Union attempted tohave its terms enforced. After rejecting the FLRA decision,NRC management initiated contact with the OIG to takeconsolidated action. The NRC OIG, understanding theimpact the FLRA order could have on any OIG in anagency dealing with employee unions, quickly alerted theOIG community, and encouraged NRC to ask DOJ toappeal the decision.

More than 50 Presidentially appointed andDesignated Federal Entity IGs responded to the NRCOIG’s call to action. At this time, OIG independence

clearly became themajor focus of what hadbeen one agency’s labor

dispute. Other OIGs foundthemselves facing a majordilemma. If the FLRA order

stood, their agencies couldnegotiate away the OIG’s ability

to conduct independent audits andinvestigations. On the other hand,

if IGs insisted on negotiating for themselves, they wouldbecome “management” and would face the inherentconflicts of interest in such a position. In addition, IGsnoted that the diversity and complexity of employee unionscould effectively stymie their investigative functions. When

35


asked to comment on the practical difficulties of the FLRAorder, one IG responded that his agency negotiated with 80bargaining units. If he had to negotiate a separate agree-ment with each one, much less administer 80 separateprocedures for conducting OIG interviews, he might haveno time left to accomplish his statutory mission! If OIGswere to be the subjects of agency/union negotiation aboutinvestigations, then why not everything else? IGs re-sponded that the holding could have been precedent forunions to demand negotiation on a multitude of issues notrequired by law, an outcome contemplated neither by theDCIS case or the Congress when it enacted the IG Act.

The information obtained from the OIG community,along with strong support from the agency solicitor, aidedgreatly in acceptance of the appeal by the DOJ.

Fourth Circuit overrules FLRAIn their able representation, the DOJ appellate staff

referenced the data obtained from the OIG community. Asa result of their efforts and the convincing statistics from theOIGs, the FLRA decision was overruled. In overruling theFLRA decision, the Fourth Circuit concluded that it hadimproperly expanded the limited holding in DCIS. In fact,the DCIS case did not address bargaining over any termsand conditions of employment. Its sole purpose was toensure that employees were provided their “Weingartenrights,” even in OIG interviews. In order to do this, theDCIS court had to view OIG agents as “representatives ofthe agency” for that narrow purpose. The DCIS court wascareful to note that the term “representative of the agency”as used in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7114(a)(2) may be defined differ-ently depending on the specific rights and duties at issue.Thus, it could call OIG agents “representatives of theagency” for the purpose of Weingarten rights only, and forno other purpose.

The Court found that the FLRA misunderstood thisholding to mean that, if OIG investigators were “representa-tives of the agency,” they were subject to all of an agency’sobligations under the FSLMRS. If this were so, the FLRAconcluded, the agency head could negotiate and compro-mise an OIG’s investigative rights so long as the result wasnot inconsistent with Federal law. This interpretation wouldhave expanded the union’s rights and would have directlyinterfered with the ability of OIGs to conduct investigations.

More support for OIGindependence in INS case

The most interesting aspect of the United StatesDepartment of Justice (INS) v. FLRA, supra, is that itsruling directly contradicts the Third Circuit’s holding in theDCIS case, which, as mentioned above, found that a DCISinvestigator was an agency representative for purposes ofthe FSLMRS.

The DOJ INS case addressed a narrower question thanNRC’s in its battle with FLRA in the case just discussed.

The case arose when the DOJ OIG opened an investigationof a Border Patrol agent suspected of, inter alia, sellinggovernment ammunition, and falsifying his time andattendance records. The suspect’s union representative wasallowed to be present during the interview with the OIGagent (really an INS employee serving as the OIG’srepresentative for this purpose). However, during theinterview, the suspect asked to stop the proceeding twice sohe could meet privately with his union representative. TheOIG agent denied the request.

The OIG agent also interviewed the union representa-tive to ask about information he had received from thesuspect. The union representative refused at first, statingthat the conversations with the employee were “privileged.”After the OIG agent told him there was no such privilegeand that he was required to testify about what he knew ofthe employee’s misconduct, the representative answered allquestions about the employee’s misconduct that he hadlearned from their talks.

The union then brought unfair labor practice chargesagainst the OIG, asserting that the refusal to permit theemployee to talk privately with his representative during theexamination, questioning the representative and the em-ployee about their “privileged” conversations, and generallyrestricting the representative’s conduct during the interview,violated the FSLMRS. The Administrative Law Judge andthe FLRA upheld the unfair labor practice charges.

FLRA overruled againOn appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals of the District

of Columbia Circuit, the Court overturned the FLRA’sruling. The fact that the OIG investigator and the suspectwere employed by the same “parent agency,” the DOJ, didnot convince the court that the OIG agent was acting as a“representative of the agency” under Section 5 U.S.C.7114(a)(2)(B), permitting union representation. It would bejust as incongruous, said the court, for an employee to bepermitted a union representative when he is called before agrand jury or an FBI interview, because United StatesAttorneys and FBI agents are also Justice employees.

The Court also cited the NRC case with approval,and used strong language to support the OIG’s statutoryindependent authority to decide “when and how” toinvestigate. That authority would be impaired if anotherFederal agency, i.e., the FLRA, could influence the OIG’sperformance by finding unfair labor practices against OIGs.“The IG does not stand in the shoes of management,” saidthe Court. To perform his duties independently and objec-tively, the IG cannot side with management or the union.

The Court did state in a footnote that any personwould be prudent to secure legal representation if they areto be questioned under oath. It cited the AdministrativeProcedure Act provision, 5 U.S.C. Section 555(b), whichprovides that anyone, “compelled to appear before anagency or representative thereof is entitled to be accompa-nied, represented, and advised by counsel.” In our view,


36


Case Notes (continued)

this statement breaks no new ground of concern to OIGs.OIG agents have no testimonial subpoena authority and thuscannot “compel” an appearance. Accordingly, agencyemployees who are required by regulation or instruction tocooperate with an OIG investigation, do not have the rightto bring their attorneys along to the interview, althoughmany OIGs will allow it. In sum, the OIG performed nounfair labor practices in refusing to permit the suspectBorder Patrol employee from conversing privately with hisunion representative or in talking with the union representa-tive about the suspect’s misconduct.

With respect to the argument that the conversationsbetween the employee and his union representative were“privileged,” the Court said that the privilege derives fromthe employee’s right to union representation. Thus, it isgood as used in cases against management; however, theOIG, an independent entity, is not management in this laborrelations context.

Conclusion: OIGs strongerand more independent

These two cases should hearten the OIG communitybecause they clearly evidence Federal courts’ recognition ofthe OIGs as independent, criminal investigators, in additionto being civil and administrative fact-finders. In order tocarry out their criminal investigative mission, OIGs needthe tools that the other traditional law enforcement agenciesuse, even if they use them infrequently or in different ways.One of these tools, the freedom from imposition of Federalemployee labor laws, is intended to protect Federal workersin the labor-management, but not the criminal, context. TheOIG community can also be proud that it rallied quickly anddecisively to assert its statutory authority.❏

37


Things Your Mother Never Taught You:The OIGs’ Auditor Training Institute andCriminal Investigator AcademyBy Andrew J. Pasden, Jr. and Kenneth R. Loudermilk

A significant achievement of the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE) is its success in establishing organiza-tions to train auditors and investigators from every Federal OIG. For years, the PCIE has sought to provide consistent,professional and affordable training for auditors and investigators that emphasized the special and unique needs of the OIGcommunity. In 1991, the PCIE launched its Auditor Training Institute at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The Criminal InvestigatorAcademy at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in Glynco, Georgia opened its doors 2 years later. In arelatively short period of time, these organizations have become focal points for the continued professional development of OIGemployees. In addition, students from outside the OIG community are welcome to attend sessions on a space available basis.The Directors and staff of both training facilities work closely together to coordinate and supplement course offerings for eachdiscipline. They facilitate an exchange of speakers and instructors between the two sites to take advantage of the professionalexpertise available from each organization. The operations of the Auditor Training Institute and the Criminal InvestigatorAcademy mirror the essence of the Inspector General concept of two distinct professions working together to achieve a commongoal.

By Andrew J. Pasden, Jr.,Director, Inspectors GeneralAuditor Training Institute

Kenneth R. Loudermilk, Director,Inspector General CriminalInvestigator Academy

IGATI is located at Fort Belvoir,Virginia, about 20 miles south of

Washington, DC on the PotomacRiver. It operates as a joint PCIEeffort, with the Department of theTreasury OIG serving as the lead

agency. The PCIE’s Audit Committee members serve onIGATI’s Board of Directors.

Affordable, quality training for auditors to meet“Yellow Book” standards had long been a concern of theOIG community and had been the subject of two PCIEstudies. The IGs were not satisfied with the trainingavailable to their auditors because the courses availablefrom the private sector, as well as colleges and universities,addressed broader topics and served a much larger audienceof auditors than just those employed by Federal OIGs. Sinceit was almost impossible to obtain needed training fromoutside sources, OIGs often resorted to in-house training asan alternative. The problem, of course, was that besidesbeing very costly to design, maintain, and deliver, in-housetraining took the most experienced auditors away from theirnormal audit activities and put them in the roles of course

The same training problems thatplagued the audit side of

the house were also experienced bythe OIG investigative communityprior to the establishment ofIGCIA. The unique needs of OIG

criminal investigators could not be adequately addressedby outside sources, and in-house training proved expensiveand difficult to schedule and deliver. In August 1993, thePCIE sought to remedy these difficulties by establishingthe IGCIA at FLETC in Glynco, Georgia, midway betweenSavannah and Jacksonville, Florida. The PCIE’s Investiga-tions Committee members serve on the IGCIA’s Boardof Directors.

The IGCIA provides a cadre of experienced profes-sional OIG instructors who are dedicated to improvingcourse content and instruction and to developing andpresenting additional advanced training specific to the needsof the OIG criminal investigator. The location was selectedto take advantage of the FLETC’s unique training facilitiesand excellent instructor staff. A few of the FLETC re-sources used by the Academy include firearms ranges, raid

IGCIA (continued on page 39)IGATI (continued on page 38)

The Inspectors General AuditorTraining Institute (IGATI)

The Inspector General CriminalInvestigator Academy (IGCIA)

38


designers and classroom instructors. Also, in-housedelivery of nearly identical basic auditing courses at severalOIGs resulted in considerable duplication of effort and costthroughout the community.

As a solution to this dilemma, in December 1990 thePCIE members voted to establish IGATI. It is the onlytraining organization that addresses the unique auditresponsibilities of the Federal OIGs. The appointment ofthe Audit Committee members to the Board of Directorsensures that IGATI’s courses are focused on current trainingneeds within the community. All training programs must beapproved by the Board before they can become a part ofIGATI’s curriculum. Senior OIG audit officials are activeplayers in the selection and development of specific topicsthat are taught in the programs.

Currently the curriculum includes 13 programs thatrange in length from 2 days to 3 weeks. Three programs aredesigned to teach basic skills and abilities auditors need asthey progress into positions of higher responsibility withinthe OIG audit organizations. The first is intended for entrylevel auditors, and focuses on the skills and abilities neededto perform tasks expected of them during their first 2 to 3years in the profession. The second program is aimed atthose auditors who have advanced to a level where they areexpected to function with a greater degree of independence,usually after they have gained 2 or 3 years of experience.The third is designed for first line supervisors who haveprimary responsibility for planning, conducting, andreporting on the results of an audit.

Another group of three programs concentrates on theskills and abilities needed to conduct financial statementaudits in the Federal environment. In these programs,special emphasis is given to teaching how to satisfy therequirements of the Chief Financial Officers Act. A thirdset of programs zeros in on the auditor’s requirements todesign andconduct stepsintended to lookfor fraud. One ofthe programscovers theauditor’s basicresponsibilitiesas set forth in theGovernmentAuditingStandards anddiscusses brieflymany of thedifferent types offraud that can be perpetrated against thegovernment. The other programs delve moredeeply into specific types of fraud and themethods auditors can use to discover them.

The final group of programs forauditors deals with technical skills that arenecessary to be successful in many different

IGATI (continued)

types of audit settings. For instance, one teaches how tomake effective audit-related presentations, such asentrance or exit conferences, briefings, or oral auditreports. Another program shows how to use the tools andtechniques developed by Dr. Edward Deming to isolateabnormal variations in an ongoing process, and therebydirect audit efforts toward identifying the causes of thosesituations. IGATI also offers a program for OIG criminalinvestigators designed to provide a working understandingof the audit process and an appreciation of how the workof auditors can be very beneficial to the successfulcompletion of an investigation.

IGATI’s Deputy Director is responsible for the develop-ment and delivery of the training programs. This personsupervises a small cadre of professional auditors who formthe nucleus of the instructor corps. Currently, there are fourinstructors on board, three of whom are on detail fromvarious OIGs. The salaries and related costs are paid byIGATI. This staff performs the majority of the programdevelopment work as well as serves as the thread ofconsistency in the curriculum.

The total instructor corps is much larger, however,totaling nearly 200 itinerant volunteers from throughout theOIG community who teach sessions ranging in length from1 to 8 hours. There is a wealth of talent in the various OIGsthat the IGATI constantly taps in an effort to ensure that ourauditors are given the very best opportunity to learn theirprofession. Active participation by frontline auditors bringsmany benefits to the training and education of OIG employ-ees. To ensure quality instruction, IGATI maintains aprogram to train and accredit instructors.

In FY 1993, the Congress provided a special “no year”appropriation to cover IGATI’s start-up costs. This interimfinancing was provided with the understanding that within5 years, IGATI would become financially self-sufficient bycharging tuition for its programs. The Board of Directorshas taken this mandate very seriously, and anticipates thatIGATI will reach the financial “break-even” point inFY 1997, 1 full year ahead of the schedule Congressoutlined when it provided the start-up funds.

The Board of Directors has been very careful not to letthe Institute grow at too fast a pace, although growth hasbeen substantial. Quality training will continue to beIGATI’s primary goal. The first training program began inJuly 1991, and the second was not added until April 1992.By September 30, 1994, the curriculum had grown to sevenprograms. Currently, 13 programs are up and running.

Graduation statistics reflect the steady growth pattern.In FY 1991, 97 students attended IGATI programs. Thetotals grew to about 400 in FY 1992, 675 in FY 1993, and850 in FY 1994. In FY 1995, IGATI expects to graduatemore than 1,300 students.

For more information about IGATI, please write orcall: Inspectors General Auditor Training Institute, P.O.Box 518, Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060-0518, (703) 805-4501,fax (703) 805-4503. ❏

100

80

60

40

20

0

39


IGCIA (continued on page 40)

IGCIA (continued)

houses, interviewing complexes, role player services, and a3-acre athletic complex. To date, the IGCIA has graduatedover 200 students from its basic and advanced trainingprograms.

Generally, the IGCIA adheres to the curriculumdevelopment and revision processes employed by theFLETC. Both involve direct input by the IGCIA’s custom-ers at curriculum development and revision conferences,which are held periodically at the FLETC. Students attend-ing IGCIA training programs are requested to critique eachcourse and the overall program. This feedback system alsocontributes to revision of the curriculum.

IGCIA currently offers the following training programs:

Inspector General Basic Training Program (IGBTP)—This program, developed in 1991, is managed by theFLETC’s Financial Fraud Institute. In response to customerinput, the IGCIA revised this program by changing theemphasis to written and oral communications and advancedlaw enforcement skills. The length of the program was alsoreduced to 2 weeks. Two courses in advanced interviewingand three advanced firearms courses have been added to theprogram along with a basic writing skills course andpractical exercise. A “continuing thread” investigation takesthe student from the initial complaint through case planning,conducting interviews, and writing memoranda of interviewto a presentation before an Assistant U.S. Attorney.

Contract Fraud Agent Training Program (CFATP)—Asa recognized expert in procurement fraud, the Departmentof Defense (DOD) OIG shared its contract fraud trainingprogram with IGCIA. Through additional course develop-ment, this intensive 5-day advanced program is appropriatefor all agencies conducting procurement fraud investigationsand includes the latest changes to the Federal AcquisitionRegulation. This program is taught by DOD OIG employees.

Accounting Overview for Special Agents (AOSA)—DOD OIG also provided its 3-day Accounting Overviewadvanced program for special agents. Students are trainedto understand general accounting terms, the auditingprocess, and how to work more effectively with the govern-ment auditor.

Employee Conduct Investigations Training Program-For Criminal Investigators (ECITP-CI)—The USDA OIGhelped to adapt its Employee Conduct Investigationsprogram. This advanced program is for the criminalinvestigator who will be working criminal and non-criminalmisconduct investigations against agency officials. Thisprogram stresses communication skills, investigative skills,and legal considerations. USDA and IGCIA employees andother subject matter experts are utilized in this training.A “continuing thread” investigation has been developed forthis program to enhance the learning experience. Studentsprepare a plan of investigation, conduct a subject interview,and prepare a written sworn statement.

Employee Conduct Investigations Training Program-For Non-Criminal Investigators (ECITP-NC)—This USDAprogram is targeted at persons who conduct non-criminalemployee misconduct investigations. This program isdesigned for organizations that use non-GS 1811 personnel

in conducting employee investigations. It is similar to theECITP-CI except it provides additional training in inter-viewing techniques.

Transitional Training Program (TTP)—This shortenedversion of the IG Basic Training Program was developed bythe IGCIA staff for criminal investigators with 3 or moreyears of experience in a traditional law enforcementorganization who have recently transferred to an OIG.These agents know how to interview and write reports, butthey need to learn about the Inspector General Act, safe-guarding employee complainants, and serving IG subpoe-nas. Emphasis in this program is on subjects relatingdirectly to OIG special agent duties and responsibilities.

Hotline Operators In-Service Training (HOIST)—Thistraining previously was provided by the PCIE in Washing-ton, DC. IGCIA strongly believed that the unique trainingfacilities at the FLETC, primarily the interview complexesand role players, could greatly enhance this training. Thisprogram was developed by IGCIA in consultation with theOIGs and will change each year as needed to provide basicand advanced training to hotline operators.

Bloodborne Pathogens Training Program (BPTP)—IGCIA developed this program to assist OIGs in meetingOccupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)and Presidential directives. This export program meets therequirements of the OSHA regulation and Presidential orderconcerning workplace training on bloodborne pathogens.The cost is minimal because the trainer travels to theOIG’s location.

Undercover Agent Training Program (UATP)—IGCIAused the more traditional curriculum development confer-ence process to develop this program. Several OIGs sentpersonnel experienced in conducting or managing under-cover operations to participate in this conference. U.S.Customs Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco andFirearms, Internal Revenue Service-Internal Security, andFLETC also provided experienced personnel to helpdevelop this program.

While IGCIA’s primary mission is to provide directtraining to its customers, it also performs several otherfunctions to assist OIGs with their training. IGCIA assistsin locating sources of specialized training from bothcontract and government sources. In the past year, IGCIAassisted four OIGs in developing in-service training inconjunction with FLETC. IGCIA also co-hosts the annualAssociation of Directors of Investigation conference held atFLETC and has assisted several OIGs in developing theirbloodborne pathogens exposure control plan and assisted anoverseas OIG field office in developing an agency-widephysical fitness program.

Recently, FLETC asked the IGCIA to assist the UnitedNations in developing a training program for its newlyformed investigations unit. This investigations unit,patterned after an OIG, would have worldwide jurisdictionand oversee multi-million dollar programs. IGCIA,working with FLETC, developed and conducted a 2-weektraining program specific to their needs.

40


IGCIA represents the PCIE at the FLETC. TheDirector of the Academy is on the FLETC Intra-AgencyCouncil and the Participating Organizations’ Partners inTraining group. A member of the staff participates in allrelevant conferences for revising or developing trainingprograms at the FLETC.

The IGCIA’s staff consists of a director, a trainingtechnician, and four course developer/instructor positions,one of which remains vacant. The bulk of the courses aretaught by IGCIA and FLETC instructors. IGCIA also reliesupon itinerant volunteers from various OIGs and otheragencies to instruct in courses requiring specific technicalexpertise in some of the advanced training programs.

Four OIGs fund the director and each of the instructorpositions and three OIGs jointly fund the training technicianposition. In FY 1996, OIGs will contribute pro rata sharesof the costs for IGCIA staffing and operations. Currently,OIGs contribute only toward IGCIA operating costs.Additionally, a modest tuition is charged to cover programcosts, such as textbooks, role players, and room and board.

IGCIA will continue to assess the training needs of itscustomers and respond with programs designed to meetthe unique needs of the OIG investigative community.For additional information, please contact the IGCIA,Building 69, FLETC, Glynco, GA 31524, (912) 261-3768,fax (912) 267-3473.❏

IGCIA (continued)

41


If you are a program manageror analyst, you are probablyinundated with data and statistics.You may not even recognize aninformation deficit. Yet you mayoften find you don’t have data-based answers to policy and operational questions when youneed them, despite the huge investment being made in datacollection and reporting in public programs.

This article is about getting the information you needin a timely manner and at a relatively modest cost. By“information,” we mean something more than the datatypically produced by management information systems.Rather, we use information to mean a collection of facts andlogical conclusions about them which answers the typesof questions we posed above. By learning and using avariety of strategies for obtaining information, you canbetter address specific problems, gain insight into what’shappening in your program, and determine what directionsyou should be taking. These strategies can help you reducecomplexity and uncertainty in your day-to-day decision-making and see beyond the many immediate problemsyou face.

Penny Thompson, Chief,Health Care Branch, Office ofEvaluation and Inspections,HHS OIG

Practical Evaluation For Public Managers:Getting the Information You Need

The following article is adapted from the publication, Practical Evaluation for Public Managers. The book describes theauthors’ evaluation system and their experiences, makes a strong case for program managers themselves to go beyond routinedata collection to analyze and evaluate their programs, and presents low-cost, accessible strategies for accomplishing this.

by Michael Mangano, Penny Thompson, Jack Molnar, and Brenda Stup

Michael Mangano,Principal Deputy Inspector General,Department of Health and HumanServices (HHS) OIG


Jack Molnar, Senior Analyst,Social Security Administration OIG(former HHS OIG employee)

Brenda Stup, Senior Analyst,Social Security Administration OIG(former HHS OIG employee)

How many times have youdiscovered you were missing

a critical piece of information and...

Couldn’t figure out whyservice-delivery was inefficient?

Couldn’t understand why clients seemed dissatisfied?

Couldn’t answer an inquiry about your program’saccomplishments or weak spots?

Couldn’t make a strong case for additional budgetdollars?

Couldn’t assess the extent of program fraud or abuse?

Couldn’t be sure you made the right decision aboutwhich action would make the most significant programimprovement?

You may have missed an opportunity because youlacked timely and reliable information. Armed with theright information, you could have made more informeddecisions, eliminated a bottleneck, understood your clients’problems, documented your program’s strengths andweaknesses, effectively argued for resources, protected theprogram from profiteers, or known which changes wouldproduce the biggest payoff.

42


Sharing techniquesand approaches

This article describes the methods used by a group ofprofessional analysts dedicated to putting practical programinformation in the hands of the people who need it in timeto make a difference. The strategies we present are drawnfrom our experience as analysts in the HHS OIG.

Our organization, the Office of Evaluation and Inspec-tions, comprises about 100 analysts who come from avariety of educational and occupational backgrounds.Stationed across the country, we work in teams to conductshort turnaround evaluations of HHS programs.

We tend to be very pragmatic in our outlook andapproach. We search out the methods and data sources thatwill produce the best information in time to be useful.In fact, we measure our success in terms of program improve-ments and dollars saved or put to better use. We strive toanticipate critical issues. We define our studies using arelatively sharp focus. Our techniques allow us to reachlogical conclusions rather than definitive answers. Webelieve timing is the key to our success and that, no matterhow accurate, information provided too late is of little value.

We are interested in making our commonsenseapproach to evaluation—providing outcome-oriented,practical information for immediate use—available toprogram managers and others who may not considerthemselves evaluators.

Why evaluate?The American public is demanding better government.

As the private sector devotes more attention to meetingcustomers’ needs, people want and expect the same respon-siveness from government. We look to the Federal Govern-ment to provide for a common defense, to collect taxes, toassist the needy, to regulate health care, to monitor airquality, to operate parks, to keep defective products off themarket...the list goes on and on. However, the staffinglevels and budgets that previously sustained these programsand services are shrinking.

Is it really possible to “do more with less,” and “worksmarter, not harder?” The evidence from the private sectorseems to say it is. Over the last decade or more, innovativemanagers in a number of industries have shown us a virtualquality explosion coupled with significant cost reductions.They did it by investing in employee training and modernequipment, reducing the ranks of middle management andempowering all staff, redesigning products to stress qualityand “delight” customers, rethinking basic processes, andfocusing on the long term. This is how the U. S. automotiveindustry, particularly Ford and Chrysler, turned itself aroundand became competitive again.

People have begun to realize that if such dramaticimprovement can be achieved in the private sector, it can beaccomplished in the public sector as well. We are seeingthe results of this awareness in several initiatives to improveaccountability in the management of Federal programs.

Reporting out the resultsIn November 1990, the Congress passed and the

President signed the Chief Financial Officers Act. One ofthe objectives of the Act is to “provide for the production ofcomplete, reliable, timely and consistent financial informa-tion for use by the executive branch of the government andthe Congress in the financing, management and evaluationof Federal programs.” The Act also requires agencies tocollect information needed for “the systematic measurementof performance” and to report the information in theirfinancial statements. Managers of Federal agencies coveredby the Act are required to establish indicators for assessingtheir programs and to report the results of their assessmentsto Congress. The measurements can include inputs,outputs, outcomes, and impacts. Managers will now beheld publicly accountable for program accomplishments.

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993further strengthens Federal government accountability bymandating quantifiable program results. In passing this law,Congress set out to “improve the confidence of the Ameri-can people in the capability of the Federal government, bysystematically holding Federal agencies accountable forachieving program results.” The law requires each agencyto “establish performance indicators to be used in measur-ing or assessing the relevant outputs, service levels, andoutcomes of each program activity.”

Managing for qualityThese new requirements for accountability to Congress,

and, more importantly, to the taxpayer, demand newinformation-gathering strategies for managing Federalprograms. As we noted in the introduction, current manage-ment information systems often provide a profusion of datawithout answering basic questions about program effective-ness. A change in philosophy within government highlightsthis “information deficit” perhaps more than any newstatute. Learning the lessons of the private sector, manypublic managers have adopted Total Quality Management(TQM) as a guide to improving performance. While thereare differences among approaches to TQM, all have incommon some basic tenets: continuous improvement,client focus, employee empowerment, investment intraining, strategic planning, and quality measurement.

TQM requires good information. To continuouslyimprove your program, you have to know which processesand systems need improving and where the biggest impacton your operations can be gained by new strategies andways of doing business. You will need to evaluate theeffects of the changes you make, to determine when newproblems crop up, and to deal with unforeseen obstaclesthat prevent you from achieving the good results you intend.You will need to set performance standards appropriate tothe fundamental purpose of your organization. By showingprogress toward those standards, you can convince others ofthe value of your improvements. Documented progress willhelp garner support from your staff and, eventually, thepublic. It will enable you to build on your successful

Practical Evaluation (continued)

43


initiatives. Further, it will assist the executive and legisla-tive branches in resource allocation, to your benefit.

However, good measurement systems need “care andfeeding”—ongoing analysis and refinement. This requiressome investment in establishing and maintaining thosesystems. TQM teaches us to consult regularly with ourcustomers, in our case, the public, Congress, and otherorganizations impacted by our products, in institutingperformance standards and measurement systems.

Reinventing governmentThese new philosophies about government’s role

and about how government should respond to changingexpectations are described in Osborne and Gaebler’s bookReinventing Government. By challenging many of thetraditional roles and methods of government, Osborne andGaebler demand that public managers reassess what they do.One of the most notable responses to this challenge has beenVice President Gore’s 1993 National Performance Review(NPR). Modeled after the Texas Performance Review, theNPR entailed a major assessment of all Federal programs.On a smaller scale, such efforts now are taking place at alllevels of government, and not as one-time reviews. We areentering a period where programs need to “reinvent”themselves as times and challenges change. You as aprogram manager will need to evaluate your agency’sperformance and to assess the external environment on anongoing basis to ensure your success.

The direction is clear. To be successful, governmentmanagers will have to develop the skills and tools toevaluate program performance. Your ability to respond topublic pressure for effective and efficient service deliverywill depend on your ability to get the information you needwhen you need it. You can plan an active evaluationprogram to meet your own information needs and set yourown performance standards...or you can wait for others totell you what to do.

Evaluation strategiesEvaluation, as we defined it earlier, means obtaining

information for use in decision-making. So the first step indeciding what kinds of evaluations you should undertake isto decide what your questions are. Some examples of keyquestions that may not be easily answered from data younow collect are: What are the unintended harmful effects ofyour program or bottlenecks impeding efficient service?How do beneficiaries, interest groups, or your own workersview the program? How vulnerable is your program tocriminal abuse?

A number of specific types of evaluation techniques canhelp answer your key questions.

Client satisfaction surveys use public opinion surveytechniques to determine the nature and extent of clients’experiences with a program and to assess their satisfactionwith the services they received. These surveys can deter-mine the extent to which the entire population of clients is


satisfied with service, the satisfaction levels of certaingroups of clients, and what kinds of experiences or servicesare related to high or low rates of satisfaction.

Traditionally, government managers have relied ontheir own expertise and operating reports to make decisionson how to run their programs. Program assessments havecentered around inputs and outputs, based on criteriainternal to the organization’s operations. If you are amanager, more than likely you could tell us at the drop of ahat your processing time and accuracy for a particularworkload, whether this is acceptable performance based onthe size of your staff, and whether this meets regulatorystandards. What you may not know is how important oracceptable this performance is to your clients. TQMquickly teaches us to look to the client to define quality. Inthis new operating environment, program quality is oftenmeasured in terms of success in meeting clients’ needs andexpectations.

TQM also broadens our concept of “client.” In theconventional view, the clients of a program are the end-users of its products or services, such as Social Security orMedicare beneficiaries. However, when we define clientsas the people or organizations who affect or are affected bythe program, as prescribed under TQM, we begin to identifymany other kinds of clients. These may include:

• program staff,

• service providers,

• other government agencies, or

• private sector groups that are subject to programregulation or that rely on program data.

As you and other government managers go about“reinventing” your programs to meet clients’ needs andexpectations, you will have to develop client-based perfor-mance goals and indicators to assess your progress. Thebasic way to do this is to get input directly from your clients.

Performance indicator studies identify and test possiblegauges of inputs, outputs, and outcomes that indicate howeffective and efficient a program is at achieving its intendedpurpose. While performance measurement terminology isstill somewhat variable, indicators can be described asrepresenting “what,” or a quantity of inputs, outputs, orresults. Measures, on the other hand, express “how well” asa ratio of input to output, of output to results, or of output orresults over time. Thus, the relationships between andamong indicators can give you useful information about thesuccess of your program. Since indicators form the basisfor performance measurement, they will be our focus in thischapter. (Although for simplicity we discuss the “program”as a whole, performance indicator studies also can be usedin managing individual components of a program, such ascustomer service or quality assurance.)

As we discussed earlier, performance measurement isbecoming very important to public managers, who are beingheld increasingly accountable for the success of governmentprograms. Both the Chief Financial Officers Act and the

44


Government Performance and Results Act require Federalmanagers to measure performance. The management conceptsthat form the basis of TQM and reinventing government alsodepend on the use of performance measurement.

We’re all familiar with performance measures. Teach-ers grading students are measuring performance. Supervi-sors rating employees also are measuring performance.Other measures are far less systematic or formal, such as thenumber of requests for a recipe or the number of complaintsabout a barking dog. While the process is generally imper-fect and often criticized, performance measurement, in oneform or another, is a routine part of our lives.

Yet the science, or perhaps art, of developing and usingperformance indicators and measures is still somewhat in itsinfancy in government. In the past, public programs havecaptured a great deal of data on inputs (budgets, staff) andoutputs (numbers of clients served, number of claimsprocessed). For the most part, these things are easilymeasured. However, the public sector hasn’t collectedmuch information on outcomes or impact, the ways inwhich a program fulfills its fundamental purpose. Outputmeasures provide feedback on your program’s achievementsbut may show you very little about whether those achieve-ments led to meaningful results. Outcome measures giveyou feedback on whether the results you were looking foractually occurred but less information about whether yourprogram was responsible for them. In such an imperfectworld, program managers need to develop and test a varietyof measures and obtain advice from a wide range ofstakeholders.

Compliance reviews involve assessing an activity oroutput and comparing it to a standard. As covered in thelast chapter, performance measures assess how well theprogram is meeting its basic purpose. This purpose may ormay not be stated explicitly in statute or other legallybinding form. On the other hand, compliance reviews aredesigned to determine if specific activities are occurring inaccordance with legal, regulatory, and administrativerequirements.

As a public sector manager, more than likely nearlyeverything you do is governed by law and regulations.Your program—its purpose and authority, its funding, andpossibly even your job—is established by law. Detailsabout the processes you use to administer your programmay be legislated. If your organization funds other publicagencies or service providers, the nature of their involve-ment in your program may be mandated also. These laws,and the regulations that implement them, serve as standardsagainst which your program’s performance can be mea-sured.

You probably already produce or receive informationabout program compliance—audits and legislatively-mandated reports. However, at any point in time, your chiefexecutive may want to know if you, your contractors, orgrantees are meeting legal standards that aren’t routinelymonitored. Legislative oversight bodies may, too.

Shouldn’t you be the first to ask and answer these ques-tions? Using evaluation techniques to investigate compli-ance issues can prepare you for such challenges as well asgive you a deeper understanding of what’s happening inyour field operations.

Effective practice reviews are a way to learn from thesuccesses of others—to discover methods, processes,projects, or practices that have the potential to work well forsimilar programs. Often, program managers rely on theirown personal experience and judgment to assess and decideamong alternatives. Those wanting definitive answers caninvest in evaluations that assess impact over long timeperiods. While personal experience is often too limiting,such impact evaluations are often too costly and time-consuming. Effective practice reviews provide a middle-ground approach. They look for lessons learned by anumber of professionals or at a number of service-delivery sites. They sacrifice some of the precision offull-scale impact evaluations in exchange for faster (andless costly) information.

Effective practice reviews draw on a number ofanalytical techniques including:

• reviewing prior studies to see if certain innovationshave already been proven effective,

• collecting opinions from the people most familiarwith the program or issue about whether or not apractice works well or holds promise,

• analyzing available data to determine if the imple-mentation of a practice has resulted in improvedprogram outcomes over time, and

• making on-site visits to directly observe the effec-tiveness of program activities.

The findings from effective practice reviews provideprogram managers with a basis for saying, “This idea mightwork for us.”

Early implementation reviews are studies that assessthe vulnerabilities, problems, and successes of a newinitiative or program during the start-up period.

New mandates and requirements provide one of yourbest opportunities to test the usefulness of developing anevaluation capacity for your program. Any venture intouncharted territory comes with risks. Your role in imple-menting new responsibilities may involve taking on newand different functions, providing service to new clientswith unfamiliar needs or characteristics, interacting withnew provider groups or industries, or creating new policies,procedures, or data systems. Regardless of how wellyou’ve planned the implementation of these new require-ments, some unanticipated problems will almost certainlyarise, and they can have serious consequences.

Emerging issue reviews are evaluations that help youscan the environment to identify new trends that representpotential problems, challenges, or opportunities for yourprogram. Think about how you would use evaluation if you

Practical Evaluation (continued)

45


worked in the private sector. In addition to assessing yourclients’ satisfaction with your product or service, you wouldtest the marketplace to see how you could make your clientseven happier. You would explore ways to expand yourclient base, your services, or your product line. You wouldcontinuously monitor the environment and its effects onyour clients’ willingness to use your products or services.

A strong analogy can be drawn between market researchin the private sector and environmental scanning in publicprograms. Program managers can pursue policy and issuedevelopment purposely and reflectively, in the same way asmanagers in private enterprise. While the bottom-linemotivation for the private sector is beating out the competi-tion, the objectives of environmental scanning for bothprivate and public managers are surprisingly similar. Forexample, you might “test the marketplace” to determine:

• if your customers’ needs are changing. You may beable to offer a new product or service to increaseyour clients’ support for your program.

• if your customer profile is changing, e.g., if yourcustomers are older or younger, or more urban,suburban, or rural than they used to be. You coulduse this information to determine the effect ondemand for your product or service and to anticipatefuture changes.

• if your customers, despite liking your product orservice, are having concerns about its effect on theirhealth or the environment. You might use thisinformation to change your product or service toaddress customers’ concerns.

• if your advertisements communicate your messageclearly to potential new customers. You should usethis information to know if you are targeting yourinformation to the right groups and communicatingeffectively with those audiences.

ConclusionBy now, we hope we’ve convinced you of the benefits

of developing or improving the evaluation capacity of yourprogram. We’d like to remind you of the forces leading youin this direction: the Chief Financial Officers Act, theGovernment Performance and Results Act, the NPR, andTQM, all of which are designed to make governmentprograms more accountable to the public they serve. Wealso hope that our discussion of different evaluationstrategies has given you some practical ideas (and enthusi-asm!) for putting evaluation to good use in your program.

Once you’ve made program evaluation an integral partof your management system, we believe you’ll quickly seesignificant uses for the results, whether you are testifyingbefore a legislative committee, meeting with your ChiefFinancial Officer, vying for program resources, striving tomeet clients’ needs and expectations, or planning for thefuture. At times, the payoff from your evaluation activitiesmay seem small and you’ll be tempted to put your money orstaff elsewhere. Yet the benefits of evaluation are more thanthe findings of a single study. Since program evaluation isbasically a process of asking and answering the rightquestions and using the results to achieve improvements, itbuilds on itself. It can energize your approach to theproblems and opportunities you encounter. Programevaluation ultimately can change the entire culture of yourorganization as it frees people from rigid, short-sightedpatterns of thinking and as it focuses everyone’s attentionon the real purpose for the program’s existence.

For more informationCopies of the full publication, Practical Evaluation for

Public Managers, are available by request by writing theU.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office ofInspector General, 330 Independence Avenue, S.W., Room5660, Washington, DC, 20201.❏

46


Calendar of Professional Meetings & Events for 1995

Date Time Event Contact

Sept. 12 2-4 pm President’s Council on Integrity and Jenny Banner WheelerEfficiency (PCIE) Meeting (202) 619-3081

Sept. 13 2-4 pm Executive Council on Integrity and Hubert SparksEfficiency (ECIE) Meeting (202) 884-7675

Sept. 14 2-4 pm Joint Financial Management Improvement Donna TebeauProgram (JFMIP) Steering Committee Meeting (202) 512-9201

Sept. 18 2-4 pm Inspector General/ Chief Financial Martie Lopez-NagleOfficer (IG/CFO) Conference (301) 415-5898

Sept. 20 10 am Counsel of Counsels to the Inspectors Harry JorgensonGeneral (CCIG) Meeting (202) 973-5019

Sept. 26 9 am - Fresh Page: Re-engineering the Office of Martie Lopez-Nagle12 noon Inspector General Model Forum (301) 415-5898

Sept. 28-29 American Institute of Certified Public Mary FoelsterAccountants (AICPA) Update Conference (202) 434-9259

Oct. 10 2-4 pm PCIE Meeting Jenny Banner Wheeler(202) 619-3081

Oct. 11 2-4 pm ECIE Meeting Hubert Sparks(202) 884-7675

Oct. 12 2-4 pm JFMIP Steering Committee Meeting Donna Tebeau(202) 512-9201

Oct. 18 10 am CCIG Meeting Harry Jorgenson(202) 973-5019

Oct 95 The Wages of Sin: Emerging Issues in Martie Lopez-NagleLaw Enforcement Forum (301) 415-5898

Oct. 24-25 PCIE/ECIE Retreat Jenny Banner Wheeleror Martie Lopez-Nagle

Oct. 30 - AICPA National Governmental Mary FoelsterNov. 1 Training Conference (202) 434-9259

Nov. 9 2-4 pm JFMIP Steering Committee Donna TebeauMeeting (202) 512-9201

Nov. 14 2-4 pm PCIE Meeting Jenny Banner Wheeler(202) 619-3081

Nov. 15 2-4 pm ECIE Meeting Hubert Sparks(202) 884-7675

Nov. 15 10 am CCIG Meeting Harry Jorgenson(202) 973-5019

Nov. 95 Congress Watch Martie Lopez-NagleForum (301) 415-5898

Dec. 12 2-4 pm PCIE Meeting Jenny Banner Wheeler(202) 619-3081

Dec. 13 2-4 pm ECIE Meeting Hubert Sparks(202) 884-7675

Dec. 20 10 am CCIG Meeting Harry Jorgenson(202) 973-5019

Dec. 21 2-4 pm JFMIP Steering Donna TebeauCommittee Meeting (202) 512-9201

47


Documents

A PUBLICATION OF THE INSPECTORS GENERAL OF … · government’s three trial attorneys in the case of the United States v ... Ms. Brown has been the IG of the Navy’s Pacific Fleet