It's habbenin…auditfag here…
DHS OIG has retracted THIRTEEN prior reports evaluating FEMA response in disasters between 2010 & 2017
Quick…help me find the 13 reports on the net. One of them is below.
What We Found
The thirteen reports DHS OIG retracted
and removed from its website were not
compliant with applicable standards.
The deficiencies in the retracted reports
were the result of: (a) several key
changes to DHS OIG’s approach to
early deployment oversight work that
were poorly communicated and
managed by senior leaders, (b) a flawed
report model, and (c) internal control
failures, '''including in the areas of audit
planning, supervision, and
independent referencing.''' This
combination of factors led DHS OIG to
publish thirteen reports concluding
that the Federal Emergency
Management Agency’s initial response
to certain declared disasters was
efficient and/or effective despite
lacking sufficient and appropriate
evidence to support that conclusion.
The 13 reports that were retracted:
FEMA’s Initial Response to Hurricane Isaac in Louisiana was Effective and Efficient
(OIG-13-84); FEMA’s Initial Response in New Jersey to Hurricane Sandy (OIG-13-117);
FEMA’s Initial Response in New York to Hurricane Sandy (OIG-13-124); FEMA’s Initial
Response to the Oklahoma Severe Storms and Tornadoes (OIG-14-50-D); FEMA’s Initial
Response to the Colorado Flood (OIG-14-111-D); FEMA Provided an Effective Response to
the Napa, California, Earthquake (OIG-15-92-D); FEMA’s Initial Response to the 2014
Mudslide near Oso, Washington (OIG-15-102-D); FEMA’s Initial Response to Severe
Storms and Flooding in Michigan (OIG-15-105-D); FEMA’s Initial Response to the Severe
Storms and Flooding in South Carolina (OIG-16-53-D); FEMA’s Initial Response to the
2015 Texas Spring Severe Storms and Flooding (OIG-16-85-D); FEMA was Generally
Effective in its Initial Response to the Severe Wildfires in California (OIG-16-106-D); and
FEMA’s Initial Response to the Severe Storms and Flooding in West Virginia DR-4273
(OIG-17-37-D).
Download now: OIG-17-80-D
https://permanent.access.gpo.gov/gpo82354/OIG-17-80-D-Jun17.pdf
sauce:
https://www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/oig-reports/OIG-19-41-May19.pdf
An internal review team (Review Team) consisting of investigative counsel
and analysts was established in March 2018 to investigate and report on
the root causes giving rise to the deficiencies identified in the reports.3
The Review Team also engaged the services of an auditing firm to get an
outside evaluation of the reports at issue and independent guidance on
industry standards and best practices related to auditing. The following
sections summarize the Review Team’s findings and recommendations
for corrective action.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The Review Team evaluated the entire series of EMOT reports published
by DHS OIG through 2017.4 That review revealed that DHS OIG had
historically done early deployment work on disaster response without the
concerns raised by the withdrawn EMOT reports. A leadership change in
EMO in late 2011, however, led to four notable changes in how EMOT
deployments were conducted. Those changes were poorly communicated
to staff and not well managed by EMO’s senior leaders, including Mr.
Kelly and several former DHS OIG employees, and resulted in a flawed
approach to this work that lacked necessary planning and criteria. As
that new EMOT model was cemented into place, EMO personnel began to
think of EMOT reports as “feel good” reports — i.e., generally positive
reports that typically concluded that FEMA’s initial response to a
disaster was effective. Deficiencies in EMO’s internal controls system and
quality assurance processes — including in the areas of audit planning,
supervision, and independent referencing — resulted in a failure to
identify and correct the issues with the EMOT product line, thus
necessitating retraction of the thirteen reports.
Q asked us, "WHO AUDITS"?
'feel good reports' = RUBBER STAMPED AUDITS