oversight

Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013: Financial Status, Observations, and Concerns

Published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General on 2016-09-12.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

      Disaster Relief Appropriations Act,
                      2013
           Financial Status, Observations, and Concerns




Office of Audit                  On behalf of the Council of the Inspectors
September 12, 2016               General on Integrity and Efficiency
                                          Report Number: 2016-FW-1007
To:            Michael E. Horowitz, Chair
               Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency

               //signed//
From:          David A. Montoya, Inspector General
               U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Subject:       Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013: Financial Status, Observations, and
               Concerns


Attached is the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector
General’s (OIG) results of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency
cross-cutting initiative concerning eight agencies funded by the Disaster Relief Appropriations
Act, 2013.
I want to take this opportunity to commend each of the participating Offices of Inspector General
and their agencies for the collaborative and cooperative joint effort of this cross-cutting initiative.
The results of this review will no doubt contribute to a broader view and effort in our overall
effort to properly oversee disaster funding.
The Inspector General Act, Title 5 United States Code, section 8M, requires that OIG post its
publicly available reports on the OIG Web site. Accordingly, this report will be posted at
http://www.hudoig.gov.
If you have any questions or comments about this report, please call Theresa A. Carroll,
Assistant Regional Inspector General for Audit, at (817) 978-9309.
                     Report Number: 2016-FW-1007
                     Date: September 12, 2016

                     Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013: Financial Status, Observations,
                     and Concerns




Highlights

What We Reviewed and Why
As part of a Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) cross-cutting
initiative involving eight Offices of Inspector General (OIG), we reviewed the Disaster Relief
Appropriations Act, 2013, and eight agencies that received $46.5 billion for expenses related to
the consequences of Hurricane Sandy and other disasters. Our review objective was to compile
and report on the eight Federal agencies’ total funding, expenditures, and monitoring. The
review’s objective was also to identify common concerns and make suggestions to improve
oversight, enhance collaboration, and report best practices.

What We Found
The eight agencies had made progress in budgeting, obligating, and expending their allocated
funds. However, the agencies’ progress varied as they had expended only $15 billion of the
$46.5 billion allocated. In addition, seven of the eight agencies requested and received
significant waivers from the Office of Management and Budget, which extended their
expenditure deadlines. The eight OIGs and agencies monitored their disaster relief funds and
activities, but the extent and type of monitoring varied. The review also identified observations
and common concerns regarding contracting issues, the significant risk of duplicate assistance,
and OIG oversight funding. Further, the review made suggestions for and noted best practices
concerning the need to increase coordination, data-matching, and the use of analytical tools.

What We Recommend
We recommend that CIGIE and the OIGs work with Congress and the agencies to ensure that the
remaining funds are budgeted, obligated, and expended in a timely manner. We also recommend
that CIGIE work with the agencies and Congress to ensure the agencies, grantees, and
contractors comply with Federal contracting requirements. Further, we recommend the various
OIGs continue to collaborate to identify and address areas of potential duplication. In addition,
we recommend that CIGIE and the OIGs work with Congress to (1) amend the Inspector General
Act of 1978 to exempt the OIGs from data-matching requirements, (2) ensure each OIG receives
oversight funding separate from its agency for future disaster relief allocations, and (3) ensure
that the OIGs’ oversight funding does not expire before the agencies and their grantees expend
all of their funds.
Table of Contents
Background and Objectives ....................................................................................3

Results of Review .....................................................................................................5
         The Agencies Had Made Progress in Expending Their Funds ..................................... 5

         The OIGs’ and Agencies’ Monitoring Varied ................................................................ 9

         Our Noted Observations and Concerns ........................................................................ 11

Scope and Methodology .........................................................................................15

Appendixes ..............................................................................................................17
         A. Amounts Congress Allocated ................................................................................... 17

         B. Reports Issued by the Eight OIGs ........................................................................... 18




                                                             2
Background and Objectives
The Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013, allocated $50.5 billion to 19 Federal agencies to
aid in the recovery from Hurricane Sandy and other disasters. 1 Generally, the Act allowed the
agencies to use the funds for necessary expenses related to Hurricane Sandy and other disasters.
Of the 19 agencies, 8 agencies and their Offices of Inspector General (OIG) participated in the
Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) cross-cutting disaster
relief review. Congress allocated the eight agencies below $46.5 billion as detailed in figure 1. 2

     •   U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),
     •   U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT),
     •   U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) - Federal Emergency Management
         Agency (FEMA),
     •   U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) - United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE),
     •   U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI),
     •   Small Business Administration (SBA),
     •   U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and
     •   Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 3

Figure 1: Amount Congress allocated to the eight agencies (in millions)
                               SBA           HHS            EPA
                                    $764         $759
                    DOI $787                                  $577

     USACE
                                                                                    HUD
              $5,081
                                                                                         $15,200




     FEMA
            $10,913


                                                                      DOT
                                                                       $12,417



1
    Appendix A lists the 19 agencies and their allocated funds before sequestration reductions.
2
    Amounts reported are after the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act sequestration reductions.
3
    See the Scope and Methodology section for our agency selection criteria.



                                                        3
The Act specified what activities the eight agencies could fund. It set obligation deadlines for
some but not all agencies as shown in table 1. It also required the agencies’ grantees to expend
the funds within 24 months following an agency’s obligation of the funds in a grant.

Table 1: The Act’s disaster activities listed by agency and agency obligation deadlines
                                                                              Agency and
                                    Hurricane                               OIG obligation
              Agency                   Sandy         Additional disaster        deadline
                                                   Eligible events in 2011,
 HUD                                      X            2012, and 2013          9/30/2017
 DOT - Federal Highway
        Administration -                             A natural disaster or
        Emergency Relief Program          X          catastrophic failure        None
 DOT - All other agencies and
        funding                           X                  None                None
 FEMA                                     X              Any disaster            None
 USACE                                    X                  None                None
 DOI - National Park Service -
        Historic Preservation Fund        X                  None              9/30/2015
 DOI - All other agencies and
        funding                           X                  None                None
 SBA                                      X                  None                None
 HHS                                      X                  None              9/30/2015
 EPA                                      X                  None                None

Review Objectives
Our review objective was to compile and report on the eight participating Federal agencies’ total
funding, expenditures, and monitoring. The review’s objective was also to identify common
concerns and make suggestions to improve oversight, enhance collaboration, and report best
practices.




                                                 4
Results of Review

The Agencies Had Made Progress in Expending Their Funds
The eight agencies had made progress in budgeting, obligating, and expending their allocated
funds. However, the agencies’ progress varied. As of September 30, 2015, the agencies had
expended 32 percent, or $15 billion, of the $46.5 billion allocated. In addition, some agencies
requested and received significant waivers from the Office of Management and Budget, which
extended their expenditure deadlines.

The Eight Agencies Reported Overall Financial Progress
The eight agencies reported overall financial progress for their disaster relief funds, including
amounts allocated, obligated, budgeted, and expended, as shown in figure 2.

Figure 2: Eight agencies reported progress as of September 30, 2015, in billions

                      $46.5
   $50.0
                                            $41.6
   $45.0
   $40.0
                                            89%
   $35.0                                                         $28.2
   $30.0
   $25.0                                                        61%
                                                                                      $15.0
   $20.0
   $15.0                                                                            32%
   $10.0
    $5.0
    $0.0
                 Allocated*          Budgeted*            Obligated*          Expended*
* Allocated - The amount an agency was authorized to carry out the purposes of the disaster relief appropriation.
  Budgeted - Amounts the agencies set aside for disaster relief financial obligations and expenditures.
  Obligated - Disaster relief amounts for which the agencies entered into a binding agreement or definite
              commitment that will result in an outlay, immediately or in the future.
  Expended - Amounts agencies disbursed on disaster relief financial obligations.

Individual Agency Progress Varied
Although Congress passed the Act on January 29, 2013, three agencies had not fully budgeted
their funds, six agencies had not fully obligated their funds, and six agencies had disbursed less
than 50 percent of their funds as shown in figure 3. However, the Act did not set an obligation or




                                                         5
expenditure deadline for six agencies (DOT, FEMA, USACE, DOI, 4 SBA, and EPA). One
agency, EPA, had not spent a significant portion of its disaster relief funds because it had project
matching requirements and required grantees to spend matching funds first. As of September 30,
2015, the eight agencies had yet to obligate $18.3 billion (39 percent) and expend $31.5 billion
(68 percent).

Figure 3: Agencies’ total funds allocated, budgeted, obligated, and expended (in millions)
    $16,000


    $14,000
                                                                                        Allocated
    $12,000
                                                                                        Budgeted

    $10,000                                                                             Obligated
                                                                                        Expended
     $8,000


     $6,000


     $4,000


     $2,000


        $0
                 HUD        DOT       FEMA USACE               DOI          SBA   HHS       EPA


Agencies Reported Their Status on Meeting Obligation Deadlines
The Act set obligation deadlines for three agencies (HUD, HHS, and DOI - National Park
Service) as shown in table 2.

Table 2: Reported obligation status of agencies with an obligation deadline
                                              Allocated          Obligated
 Agency                                    (in thousands)     (in thousands)                   Deadline
 HUD                                           $15,200,000        $7,161,870                  9/30/2017
     HHS                                                         759,121          735,270     9/30/2015
     DOI - National Park Service - Historic
              Preservation Fund                                    47,489          47,399     9/30/2015



4
      Most of DOI’s funding did not have an obligation deadline. See table 1



                                                           6
HUD stated that it expected to meet its obligation deadline but would continue to obligate grants
up to its deadline of September 30, 2017. HHS had not obligated all of its funds. According to
HHS, it plans to transfer its unobligated balance of $23.85 million to its “Nonrecurring expenses
fund” as the 2008 Appropriations Act 5 allowed “unobligated balances of expired discretionary
funds appropriated for this or any succeeding fiscal year from the General Fund of the Treasury
to Department of Health and Human Services by this or other Act may be transferred…into the
Fund: Provided Further, That amounts deposited in the Fund Shall be available until
expended....” DOI met the obligation deadline for most of its funds but had not obligated
$90,046 by the deadline.

Agencies Requested Significant Waivers 6
Seven of the eight agencies requested and received expenditure waivers totaling $27.4 billion as
shown in figure 4. 7 The agencies requested the waivers because the Act required the agencies’
grantees to expend their funds within 24 months and the agencies indicated that their grantees
could not meet this requirement. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) granted the
waivers in July and October of 2013 and August 2015.

Figure 4: OMB granted seven agencies waivers (in millions)

    $16,000
                                                                                      Allocated
    $14,000
                                    99.7%*                                            Obligated
    $12,000
                                                                                      Expended
    $10,000
                   49.3%*                                                             Waiver obtained
     $8,000
                                                59.6%*
     $6,000

     $4,000

     $2,000                                                 47.9%*       1.0%*       8.4%*        99.4%*
        $0
                HUD          DOT         FEMA          DOI         SBA         HHS           EPA
* The percentage amount reported was calculated based on the waiver obtained amount divided by the allocated
  amount.




5
    Public Law 110-161, Division G, Title II, Section 223
6
    “Waiver” means the authority granted by OMB to expend funds beyond the 24-month statutory period.
7
    According to OMB, these agencies’ programs were determined to be long-term by design and impractical to
    expend funds within the 24-month period.



                                                        7
Two agencies, DOT and FEMA, requested and obtained waivers for significant amounts of their
funding as shown in figure 4. While these agencies initially anticipated the need for such
waivers, they were able to obligate a significant amount and expend a portion of their funds as of
September 30, 2015.
Conclusion
Although the eight agencies had made progress, some agencies had not fully budgeted, obligated,
and expended their disaster relief funds. We recommend that CIGIE and the OIGs work with
Congress and the agencies to ensure that the remaining funds are budgeted, obligated, and
expended in a timely manner. In addition, seven of the eight agencies requested and received
waivers totaling more than $27 billion. Based on the agencies’ current rate of obligations and
expenditures, we recommend that CIGIE provide this report to OMB for it to consider when it
grants future disaster relief fund waivers.




                                                 8
The OIGs’ and Agencies’ Monitoring Varied
Both the OIGs and agencies monitored their disaster relief funds and activities, but the extent and
type of monitoring varied.

The Eight OIGs Issued 60 Reports
As of December 2015, the eight OIGs issued 60 reports covering funds totaling more than $12.5
billion as shown in table 3. 8 The 60 OIG reports included findings that contained questioned
costs of more than $488 million and identified more than $887 million at risk.

Table 3: OIGs’ reports issued by agency as of December 2015
                                  Funds reviewed Questioned costs                 Funds at risk
 Agency      OIG       Reports     (in thousands)    (in thousands)              (in thousands)
 HUD         HUD            14            $923,710          $446,117                   $341,162
 DOT         DOT             3           3,827,118                  0                         0
 FEMA        DHS            23           7,626,941             31,078                   484,939
 USACE       DoD             1              81,450                  0                    34,160
 DOI          DOI            5              49,611             10,839                         0
 SBA         SBA             6              13,660                520                    27,563
 HHS         HHS             5              76,100                  0                         0
 EPA         EPA             3                 459                  0                         0
 Totals                     60         $12,599,049          $488,554                   $887,824

Agencies’ Monitoring Varied
The eight agencies’ monitoring varied, as shown in table 4, and consisted of one or more of the
following types:

    •    Formal monitoring - consisting of issued monitoring reports.
    •    Informal monitoring - consisting of visits, meetings, phone calls, and other technical
         assistance.
    •    Contractor monitoring - consisting of the agency’s contracting with an external entity to
         provide oversight and monitoring.




8
    See appendix B for a listing of the OIGs’ reports.



                                                         9
Table 4: Agency-reported monitoring types
 Agency           Formal       Informal      Contractor
 HUD                X             X
 DOT                X                            X
 FEMA               X             X
 USACE              X             X
 DOI                X             X
 SBA                X
 HHS                X             X
 EPA                X




                                            10
Our Noted Observations and Concerns
The review identified observations and common concerns regarding contracting, the significant
risk of duplicate assistance, and OIG oversight funding. In addition, the review made
suggestions for and noted best practices concerning the need to increase coordination, data
sharing and matching, and the use of geospatial and geographical information.

OIGs Reported Contracting Issues
Contracting problems existed at several agencies. Four OIGs reported on contracting issues and
issued 24 reports, which contained questioned costs and funds at risk as shown in table 5. The
number of contracting issues indicated that contracting was not only a continuing problem for
HUD, 9 but also a problem for three other agencies.

Table 5: OIGs’ reported contracting audits as of December 2015
                                    Contracting          Questioned costs         Funds at risk
    Agency             OIG            audits              (in thousands)         (in thousands)
    HUD               HUD                        6                  $202,926            $ 13,601
    FEMA              DHS                       13                    20,964             218,051
    USACE             DoD                        1                         0              34,160
    DOI               DOI                        4                    10,839                   0
    Totals                                      24                   234,729             265,812

The 24 reports noted the problems as shown in table 6.

Table 6: OIGs’ reported contracting issues identified by agency
                                                                                  Agency
                              Issues                                 HUD       FEMA    USACE         DOI
    Lacked independent cost or price analysis                         X         X                     X
    Billed outside the scope of work or did not ensure
      contractor performance                                          X         X          X
    Lacked competitive procedures or full and open
      competition                                                     X         X                     X
    Double billings, unsupported labor costs, and other issues        X         X                     X
    Lacked a written contract or required contract provisions         X         X
    Unsupported price increases, including amendments and
      change orders                                                   X         X
    Used prohibited cost-plus-a-percentage-of-cost contract                     X
    Did not follow small purchase procedures                          X
    Lacked verification of contractor eligibility, including
      debarment checks                                                X



9
    See HUD OIG audit report 2013-FW-0001, Generally, HUD’s Hurricane Disaster Recovery Program Assisted
    the Gulf Coast States’ Recovery; However, Some Program Improvements Are Needed, issued March 28, 2013.



                                                               11
According to the OIGs, the issues occurred because the agencies and grantees (1) did not
understand Federal contracting regulations and cost principles and (2) lacked internal controls
over procurement processes. As a result, the agencies and grantees did not know whether they
received the best value and greatest overall benefit from their various disaster relief procurement
contracts, amendments, and change orders.

Multiple Funding Sources Increased the Risk of Duplication of Benefits
In addition to the funding provided by the Act to multiple agencies to assist in the complex task
of disaster recovery, other funding sources existed, such as private insurance, nonprofits, and
local governments. The various entities’ funding overlap increased the risk of recipients
receiving duplicate benefits from multiple sources for the same purpose. The eight agencies’
services generally overlapped as shown in table 7.

Table 7: General services funded by the eight agencies
                                                        Agency
       Services funded
                                 HUD      DOT     FEMA USACE DOI               SBA     HHS     EPA
  Debris removal and
   demolition
                                  X        X          X        X         X      X       X       X

  Public facilities and parks,
   infrastructure, and            X        X          X        X         X              X       X
   transportation systems
  Emergency response
   services for health care,      X                   X        X                        X
   shelter, food, and water
  Childcare providers and
   family health services
                                  X                   X                         X       X
  Restoration of services,
   electricity, communication,
   water, sewer, and public
                                  X        X          X                                         X
   transit
  Housing assistance and loans    X                   X                         X
  Hospitals and medical and
   research facilities
                                  X                   X                                 X
  Business assistance and
   economic development
                                  X                                             X

Even though CIGIE has a Disaster Assistance Working Group, additional coordination is needed
among the OIGs. For example, during this review, meetings between HUD OIG and HHS OIG
found that both agencies funded repairs to hospitals and paid hospital staff wages, two previously
unknown areas of program overlap. Both OIGs held additional meetings and began work to
determine whether a duplication of benefits had occurred.

In addition, OIG oversight would be improved if OIGs had access to and the ability to share
recipients’ data. For example, allowing OIGs to share data would improve the oversight process


                                                 12
and allow Federal agencies to avoid making improper payments to recipients. OIGs also need
access to data from non-Federal entities, such as insurance companies, nonprofits, and local
governments. Obtaining and analyzing these data uncovers unreported or undetected duplicate
assistance. For example, when FEMA matched its data to a nonprofit’s insurance data and a
corporate for-profit’s data, it found more than 29,000 potential duplicate recipients. However,
obtaining a data-matching agreement among OIGs, Federal agencies, and outside entities can be
a complex and time-consuming process due to the requirements of the Computer Matching and
Privacy Protection Act of 1988 and the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery
Improvement Act of 2012.

Additional Analytical Tools Are Available To Determine Eligibility
Geospatial and geographical information systems (GIS) are additional analytical tools that OIGs
can use to determine applicant or project eligibility based on location. 10 GIS can be used to map
areas and determine whether agencies provided assistance only to areas impacted by Hurricane
Sandy and other disasters. For example, HUD OIG reported that public housing agencies had a
few public housing buildings in a flood zone damaged by Hurricane Sandy and the buildings
lacked flood insurance. Using GIS analysis, HUD OIG showed that nationally more than 11,000
HUD-funded public housing buildings were located within a FEMA-designated flood zone. GIS
can also be used in disaster management and to reduce future disaster risk. 11

Funding for OIG Oversight Varied
The Act’s funding and obligation deadlines for the eight OIGs varied as shown in table 8. Three
OIGs (DoD, DOI, and EPA) received no additional oversight funds in the Act, but one of the
OIGs (DOI) received funding from its agency. 12

Table 8: The Act’s allocation of funding and obligation deadlines for the eight OIGs
                    Allocation            Expended
  OIG             (in thousands)       (in thousands)          Obligation deadline
  HUD                     $9,500                 $3,584             9/30/2017
  DOT                       5,700                    604               None
  DHS                       2,850                  2,850               None
  DoD                           0         Not applicable          Not applicable
  DOI                           0         Not applicable          Not applicable
  SBA                       4,750                  1,813               None
  HHS                       5,587                  4,616            9/30/2015
  EPA                           0         Not applicable          Not applicable



10
     Geospatial information is information about a specific location on earth. GIS is often described as a
     computerized system that facilitates data entry, storage, analysis, and presentation, especially for spatial
     (georeferenced) data.
11
     Use of Geospatial Information in Auditing Disaster Management and Disaster-Related Aid, issued by the
     International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions
12
     DOI allocated $2.43 million to its OIG to conduct oversight of its programs, and DOI OIG had expended $1.09
     million.



                                                          13
Two OIGs (HUD and HHS) and one agency (HUD) expressed concerns that their oversight
funds would expire before grantees fully expended their funds because the agencies had obtained
and would grant waivers to grantees. For example, HUD decided to award grants up to the
agency’s obligation deadline of September 30, 2017, and give grantee waivers as needed until
2022. Yet, neither HUD nor HUD OIG will have salary and oversight funds available after
September 30, 2017, due to agency obligation deadlines. Thus, HUD created a funding shortage
for itself and HUD OIG.

Conclusion
To address the observed contracting concerns, we recommend that CIGIE work with the
agencies and Congress to ensure agencies, grantees, and contractors comply with Federal
contracting requirements. We also recommend that the OIGs encourage the agencies to provide
technical assistance covering Federal contracting requirements. To address the significant risk of
duplication of benefits, we recommend that CIGIE encourage the various OIGs to continue to
meet at the working group level to identify and address areas of potential duplication. Data
matching and GIS are best practices to prevent duplicate applicant and project assistance.
However, obtaining data-matching agreements can be a complex and time-consuming process.
Thus, we recommend that CIGIE and the OIGs continue to work with Congress to amend the
Inspector General Act of 1978 to exempt the OIGs from these requirements. Oversight funding
for OIGs varied, and in a few cases, the funds had expired or would expire before agency’s
grantees expended all of the funds. As a result, we recommend that CIGIE and the various OIGs
work with Congress to ensure that (1) each OIG receives separate oversight and monitoring
funding for each agency’s disaster relief allocation and (2) the OIGs’ oversight funding does not
expire before the agencies and their grantees expend all of their funds.




                                                14
Scope and Methodology
This collaborative CIGIE cross-cutting initiative involved eight OIGs, including

      •   HUD OIG,
      •   DOT OIG,
      •   DHS OIG - Office of Emergency Management Oversight,
      •   DoD OIG,
      •   DOI OIG,
      •   SBA OIG,
      •   HHS OIG, and
      •   EPA OIG.

The Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013, allocated $50.5 billion to 19 Federal agencies 13 to
aid in recovery from Hurricane Sandy and other disasters. We reviewed eight agencies for which
Congress had allocated at least $500 million each in the Act. For DHS, we limited the agency’s
financial status to only FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund since all other DHS agencies received less
than $500 million. For DoD, we limited our review to USACE since all other DoD agencies
received less than $500 million. 14 These eight agencies received $46.5 billion, and their funding
totaled more than 90 percent of the total congressional funding after sequestration reductions.

Our review covered January 29, 2013, when Congress enacted the Disaster Relief Appropriations
Act, through September 30, 2015. We expanded the scope as necessary to complete the review.
We performed our review from October 2, 2015, through April 25, 2016. We and the other
OIGs performed our work in offices located in Washington, DC, New York, Virginia, and Texas.

To accomplish our objective, we reviewed applicable public laws, principles of Federal
appropriations law, Federal Register notices, and OMB waivers. We coordinated with the other
seven OIGs and provided these OIGs a review program, which required them to obtain agency
financial data, OIG and agency monitoring reports, and other agency information. For
monitoring, one agency provided only limited access to its monitoring reports, and another OIG
summarized its agency’s monitoring results. The OIGs interviewed their agencies’ management
for additional information as needed. We relied on the information reported to us by the
agencies and their OIGs. We performed limited verification of the data by comparing the data to
financial data we obtained from the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board. 15


13
     Appendix A lists the 19 agencies and their allocated funds.
14
     Although DoD OIG has oversight responsibility for USACE, other entities such as the U.S. Army Audit Agency,
     Defense Contract Audit Agency, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Office of Inspector General also have
     oversight responsibility.
15
     The Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board was mandated by Congress to use its resources to detect
     and remediate waste, fraud, and abuse in the obligation and expenditure of Hurricane Sandy funds.



                                                        15
Although this report contains data from eight participating agencies and their OIGs, HUD OIG
compiled the data and reached the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our conclusions based on
our review objectives. Further, we provided the draft report to each of the seven other OIGs for
review before report issuance.




                                                16
Appendixes

Appendix A
                              Amounts Congress Allocated
                                                           Public Law 113-2
                               Agency                        total amount
                                                             (in millions)
    U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development                 $16,000
    U.S. Department of Transportation                                 13,070
    U.S Department of Homeland Security                               12,072
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers                                       5,350
    U.S Department of the Interior                                      829
    Small Business Administration                                       804
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services                        800
    Environmental Protection Agency                                     608
    U.S. Department of Commerce                                         326
    U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs                                 237
    U.S. Department of Agriculture                                      228
    U.S. Department of Defense--Military                                113
    U.S. Department of Labor                                             25
    U.S. Department of Justice                                           21
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration                        15
    General Services Administration                                           7
    Smithsonian Institution                                                   2
    Social Security Administration                                            2
    Legal Services Corporation                                                1
    Total                                                             50,510




                                           17
Appendix B
                        Reports Issued by the Eight OIGs

         Agency     OIG        Report number               Issued
         HUD      HUD          2014-KC-1002                  1/29/2014
         HUD      HUD          2014-PH-1008                  8/29/2014
         HUD      HUD          2014-PH-1009                  9/05/2014
         HUD      HUD          2014-BO-1004                  9/29/2014
         HUD      HUD          2015-NY-1001                 11/24/2014
         HUD      HUD          2015-KC-1002                  3/13/2015
         HUD      HUD          2015-NY-1004                  4/23/2015
         HUD      HUD          2015-PH-1003                  6/04/2015
         HUD      HUD          2015-NY-1007                  6/12/2015
         HUD      HUD          2015-FW-1002                  6/26/2015
         HUD      HUD          2015-PH-1004                  7/20/2015
         HUD      HUD          2015-FW-1003                  8/07/2015
         HUD      HUD          2015-NY-1011                  9/17/2015
         HUD      HUD          2015-PH-1005                  9/25/2015
         DOT      DOT          MH-2014-008                  12/03/2013
         DOT      DOT          FI-2015-043                   5/15/2015
         DOT      DOT          ST-2015-046                   6/12/2015
         FEMA     DHS          OIG-13-85                     4/30/2013
         FEMA     DHS          OIG-13-117                    9/06/2013
         FEMA     DHS          OIG-13-124                    9/26/2013
         FEMA     DHS          OIG-14-45-D                   2/27/2014
         FEMA     DHS          OIG-14-54-D                   3/21/2014
         FEMA     DHS          OIG-14-57-D                   3/24/2014
         FEMA     DHS          OIG-14-58-D                   3/26/2014
         FEMA     DHS          OIG-14-72-D                   4/22/2014
         FEMA     DHS          OIG-14-115-D                  7/21/2014
         FEMA     DHS          OIG-14-0120-D                 7/31/2014
         FEMA     DHS          OIG-14-123-D                  8/07/2014
         FEMA     DHS          OIG-14-130-D                  9/02/2014
         FEMA     DHS          OIG-14-141-D                  9/12/2014
         FEMA     DHS          OIG-15-67-D                   4/14/2015
         FEMA     DHS          OIG-15-90-D                   5/07/2015
         FEMA     DHS          OIG-15-116-D                  7/21/2015
         FEMA     DHS          OIG-15-128-D                  8/20/2015
         FEMA     DHS          OIG-15-141-D                  9/09/2015
         FEMA     DHS          OIG-15-147-D                  9/15/2015
         FEMA     DHS          OIG-15-151-D                  9/30/2015
         FEMA     DHS          OIG-16-01-D                  10/06/2015
         FEMA     DHS          OIG-16-03-D                  10/27/2015
         FEMA     DHS          OIG-16-04-D                  11/02/2015
         USACE    DoD          DODOIG-2016-028              12/03/2015
         DOI      DOI          ZZ-CX-NPS-0004-2013          11/08/2013
         DOI      DOI          X-CX-NPS-0001-2014           10/21/2014
         DOI      DOI          2015-FIN-035                  5/14/2015
         DOI      DOI          2015-ER-020                   9/18/2015
         DOI      DOI          2015-WR-018                   9/29/2015



                                       18
Agency     OIG   Report number     Issued
SBA      SBA     14-14               6/06/2014
SBA      SBA     14-16               8/27/2014
SBA      SBA     15-05               2/24/2015
SBA      SBA     15-13               7/13/2015
SBA      SBA     15-14               7/31/2015
SBA      SBA     15-15               7/31/2015
HHS      HHS     A-02-13-02010          7/2014
HHS      HHS     OEI 06-13-00260        9/2014
HHS      HHS     OEI 04-13-00350        5/2015
HHS      HHS     OEI 04-14-00410       12/2015
HHS      HHS     A-02-14-02011         12/2015
EPA      EPA     13-P-0351           8/22/2013
EPA      EPA     15-P-0152           5/01/2015
EPA      EPA     15-P-0293           9/22/2015




                          19