December 6, 2022

ACN Center

Area Control Network

Justice Department Secures Agreement with Ohio to Protect the Rights of Military and Overseas Voters in Ohio Primary Election

20 min read

The Justice Department today announced an agreement between the department and the state of Ohio through its Secretary of State to help ensure that military service members, their family members, and U.S. citizens living overseas have an opportunity to participate fully in the upcoming May 3, 2022, federal primary election. The agreement is necessary to provide a remedy for a potential violation of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA).

The agreement provides additional time for election officials in Ohio to receive and count absentee ballots from eligible UOCAVA voters, in order to ensure that such voters will have sufficient time to receive and submit their absentee ballots for the May 3, 2022, primary election. Under the agreement, UOCAVA ballots sent back will be accepted for an additional 10 days – until May 23 – so long as they are executed and sent by the close of the polls on May 3, and otherwise valid. The agreement also provides extended time for UOCAVA voters to vote, sign and transmit completed ballots through the close of polls on the election day for the May 3 election. The agreement also requires that election officials transmit ballots to UOCAVA voters by expedited means no later than April 5, 2022. The agreement provides that elections officials will send voters their ballots by email if requested by the voter, or by a form of express mail or other express delivery service if the voter requested that the ballot be sent by mail. The agreement also provides that the state will provide a means for voters to have expedited delivery for their voted ballots when returned to the county election boards, at the state’s expense. Under the terms of today’s agreement, Ohio will also provide notice of the remedial measures to the affected voters and reports to the department concerning the transmission and receipt of the UOCAVA ballots for the May 3 primary election.

“This agreement reflects the Justice Department’s deep commitment to protecting the right to vote for members of our armed forces deployed around the world, their families, and U.S. citizens overseas, and ensuring that these voters are afforded a meaningful opportunity to vote in all federal elections,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “I commend Ohio state officials, who worked with the department to achieve a resolution that will safeguard voting rights for the state’s military and overseas voters in the upcoming primary election.”

UOCAVA requires states to allow uniformed service voters, serving both overseas and within the United States, and their families, and U.S. citizens residing overseas to register to vote and to vote absentee for all elections for federal office. States are required to transmit absentee ballots to these voters, by mail or electronically at the voter’s option, no later than 45 days before each federal election.

The Supreme Court of Ohio required the post-decennial census districts for the Ohio General Assembly and Representative to Congress to be redrawn, and thus the districts for these offices were established much closer to the May 3, 2022, primary election than expected. In light of the delay in the ability to have ballots prepared due to the litigation, Ohio requested from the Department of Defense a hardship exemption, from UOCAVA’s 45-day advance transmission requirement for the May 3, 2022, primary election. On March 4, 2022, the application for a waiver was denied by the Department of Defense because Ohio’s original plan for sending UOCAVA ballots did not provide sufficient time for UOCAVA voters to receive, mark and return their ballots in time to have their votes counted.

Immediately following denial of the waiver by the Department of Defense, the Justice Department worked with Ohio officials to devise measures to remedy the anticipated UOCAVA violation. To implement the agreement on remedies reached with the department, Ohio enacted emergency legislation and the Secretary of State issued a directive to the county boards of elections.

More information about UOCAVA and other federal voting rights laws is available on the Department of Justice website at https://www.justice.gov/crt/uniformed-and-overseas-citizens-absentee-voting-act. Please report any complaints to the Civil Rights Division at 1-800-253-3931.

More from: March 18, 2022

  • U.S. Judicial Conference Urges Senate to Back Security Funding
    In U.S Courts
    Citing a growing danger to federal judges and courthouses, the Judicial Conference of the United States has asked the U.S. Senate to support a total of $182.5 million in supplemental funding to bolster security.

    [Read More…]

  • Justice Department Settles with Massachusetts Storage Company for Unlawfully Auctioning Off Deployed Servicemember’s Possessions
    In Crime News
    The Justice Department reached an agreement today with PRTaylor Enterprises LLC, doing business as Father & Son Moving & Storage (Father & Son), to resolve allegations that it violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by failing to obtain a court order before auctioning off the entire contents of a U.S. Air Force Technical Sergeant’s two storage units while he was deployed overseas.

    [Read More…]

  • New Caledonia Travel Advisory
    Exercise increased [Read More…]
  • U.S. Secret Service: Further Progress Made Implementing the Protective Mission Panel Recommendations
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found In December 2014, the U.S. Secret Service Protective Mission Panel—an independent panel of experts established to review White House security and other aspects of Secret Service operations—made 19 recommendations related to training and personnel, technology and operations, and leadership. The agency has made progress implementing the 19 Protective Mission Panel (Panel) recommendations. Specifically, the Secret Service has taken actions to address 13 of the 19 recommendations, including two since GAO’s last assessment in 2019. For example, the agency revised its budget processes to incorporate principles of mission-based budgeting in its budget formulation process. In February 2019, the Secret Service formally incorporated a new budgeting process and, in August 2021, issued its Fiscal Years 2021-2025 Human Capital Strategic Plan , which includes revised staffing models to be used in developing the budget. In addition, the agency developed and implemented its Leadership Development System framework across all occupational categories in the agency. The framework is intended to promote leadership within individuals, teams, and projects and result in a positive effect on performance and agency mission accomplishment. The Secret Service is in the process of implementing the remaining six recommendations. For example, the Panel found in its report that the security incident of September 19, 2014, when an intruder jumped the north fence and entered the White House, arose from a “catastrophic failure of training.” The Panel recommended that the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Protective Divisions train for 25 percent of their work time. In August 2021, the Secret Service, in consultation with the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Management and Budget, established a new training target—at least 12 percent of work hours by fiscal year 2025—that takes the availability of resources into account. (See fig.). Share of Regular Work Hours That Presidential and Vice-Presidential Protective Detail Agents Spent in Training, Fiscal Years 2014 through 2020 Why GAO Did This Study The Secret Service, a component of the Department of Homeland Security is responsible for providing physical protection for the President, the Vice President, their immediate families, and visiting foreign dignitaries, as well as for the White House complex. The Secret Service Overtime Pay Extension Act includes a provision for GAO to report on the extent of progress made by the Secret Service in implementing the Panel’s recommendations. This report addresses the progress that the Secret Service has made toward implementing the Panel’s recommendations. For this report, GAO reviewed relevant Secret Service planning and implementation documents, analyzed agency training data from fiscal years 2014 through 2020, and interviewed agency officials.

    [Read More…]

  • Human Capital: Administration and Implementation of the General Schedule Locality Pay Program
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found To help determine the locality-based pay adjustments for federal employees paid under the General Schedule (GS) pay system, the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 (FEPCA) created the President’s Pay Agent (Pay Agent) and Federal Salary Council (council) to annually recommend locality pay amounts to the President and modifications to locality pay areas (see figure below). Annual Process for the General Schedule Locality Pay Program aDesignated by the President, the Pay Agent is comprised of the Secretary of Labor and the Directors of the Office of Management and Budget and OPM. The council is comprised of three experts in labor relations and pay policy and six representatives of employee organizations representing large numbers of General Schedule employees. Since 1994, the council has recommended defining locality pay areas using the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) statistical area definitions, which provide nationally consistent delineations for a set of geographic areas. Based on the recommendations of the council, the Pay Agent has updated the locality areas, as needed, when OMB updates its statistical area definitions. Currently, the council uses definitions from OMB’s April 2018 update. OMB issued an update in March 2020. Some of the council members told GAO that the council plans to discuss these updates once the administration appoints new council members. Using the 2020 definitions could affect GS employees’ pay if locations within existing locality pay areas were moved to separate locality pay areas (higher or lower paying). In its 2019 memorandum, the council identified five alternatives to the survey methodology for setting locality pay, including verifying Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) survey data with other human capital data—such as attrition data—and establishing a commission to periodically review federal civilian compensation. According to council members, these alternatives represent the most recent discussion by the council of different methodologies. This is also consistent with the results of GAO’s literature search. Why GAO Did This Study FEPCA authorized annual locality-based pay adjustments for GS employees. The act’s goal was to reduce reported pay gaps between federal and nonfederal employees in specific areas of the U.S. to no more than 5 percent. While this goal has not been met since its authorization in 1994, some amount of locality pay increases has been provided for 22 of the 28 years since FEPCA took effect. House Report 116-442 accompanying the bill that would become the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 included a provision for GAO to review the administration of the locality pay program. This report describes (1) the process for administering the GS locality pay program, including establishing or modifying existing geographical boundaries for locality pay areas and the amount of time required for such changes; (2) the status of incorporating OMB’s statistical area definitions to determine the boundaries for locality pay areas; and (3) the council’s potential alternatives for administering and implementing the locality pay program. GAO reviewed legislation, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regulations, council memorandums and Pay Agent reports, and BLS, OMB, and OPM documents. GAO also interviewed OPM and BLS officials, OMB staff, and council members; and conducted a literature search. The Department of Labor and OPM provided technical comments on a draft of this report, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. OMB had no comments. For more information, contact Jeff Arkin at (202) 512-6806 or arkinj@gao.gov.

    [Read More…]

  • Soccer coach ordered to prison for producing child pornography
    In Justice News
    McALLEN, Texas – A [Read More…]
  • International Security: DOD and State Need to Improve Sustainment Planning and Monitoring and Evaluation for Section 1206 and 1207 Assistance Programs
    In U.S GAO News
    In 2006, the United States created two new programs, authorized in Sections 1206 and 1207 of the Fiscal Year 2006 National Defense Authorization Act, to respond to the threats of global terrorism and instability. These programs have provided over $1.3 billion in military and nonmilitary aid to 62 countries and are due to expire in 2011 and 2010, respectively. The Congress mandated that GAO assess the programs. This report addresses the extent to which the programs (1) are consistent with U.S. strategic priorities, (2) are distinct from other programs, (3) address sustainment needs, and (4) incorporate monitoring and evaluation. GAO analyzed data and program documents from the Departments of Defense (DOD) and State (State), and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and interviewed U.S. and host country officials.The Section 1206 and 1207 programs have generally been consistent with U.S. strategic priorities. The Section 1206 program was established to build the military capacity of foreign countries to conduct counterterrorism and stabilization operations. DOD and State have devoted 82 percent of this program’s funds to address specific terrorist threats, primarily in countries the U.S. intelligence community has identified as priorities for the counterterrorism effort. The Section 1207 program was established to transfer DOD funds to State for nonmilitary assistance related to stabilization, reconstruction, and security. DOD, State, and USAID have devoted 77 percent of this program’s funds to countries at significant risk of instability, mostly those the United States has identified as vulnerable to state failure. Based on agency guidelines, the Section 1206 program is generally distinct from other programs, while the Section 1207 program is not. In most cases, Section 1206 projects addressed urgent and emergent counterterrorism and stabilization priorities of combatant commanders and did so more quickly than other programs, sometimes in a year, whereas Foreign Military Financing (FMF) projects can take up to 3 years to plan. DOD and embassy officials GAO spoke to consistently explained why projects do not overlap those of FMF and other programs, although project proposals GAO reviewed did not always document these distinctions. Section 1207 projects are virtually indistinguishable from those of other foreign aid programs in their content and time frames. Furthermore, the Section 1207 program has entailed additional implementation costs and funding delays beyond those of traditional foreign assistance programs, while the 1206 program has not. The uncertain availability of resources to sustain Section 1206 projects poses risks to achieving long-term impact. Enabling nations to achieve sustainable counterterrorism capabilities is a key U.S. policy goal. The long-term viability of Section 1206 projects is threatened by (1) the limited ability or willingness of partner nations to support new capabilities, as 76 percent of Section 1206 projects are in low- or lower-middle-income countries, and (2) U.S. legal and policy restrictions on using FMF and additional Section 1206 resources for sustainment. In contrast, sustainment risks for Section 1207 projects appear minimal, because State, USAID, and DOD are not restricted from drawing on a variety of overlapping funding sources to continue them. DOD and State have incorporated little monitoring and evaluation into the Section 1206 and 1207 programs. For Section 1206 projects, the agencies have not consistently defined performance measures, and results reporting has generally been limited to anecdotal information. For Section 1207 projects, the agencies have defined performance measures and State requires quarterly reporting on project implementation. However, State has not fully analyzed this information or provided it to DOD to inform program management. As a result, agencies have made decisions to sustain and expand both Section 1206 and 1207 projects without documentation of progress or effectiveness.

    [Read More…]

  • Canadian Man Charged With Scheme to Commit Cyberattacks
    In Crime News
    A federal indictment unsealed today in Alaska charges a Canadian national with committing cyberattacks.

    [Read More…]

  • Maryland Tax Preparer Sentenced to Prison for Conspiring to Defraud the IRS
    In Crime News
    A Maryland tax return preparer was sentenced today to 30 months in prison for conspiracy to defraud the United States and aiding in the preparation of a false tax return.

    [Read More…]

  • Advancing the Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Persons Around the World
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Disaster Recovery: HUD Should Take Additional Action to Assess Community Development Block Grant Fraud Risks
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found GAO identified four categories of fraud risks facing the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) from 2007 to 2020, including risks from contractors, disaster recovery applicants, grantees, and others, as shown below. In total, we identified 78 cases from Department of Justice (DOJ) public announcements and 110 HUD Office of Inspector General (OIG) enforcement cases. For example, in 2012 following Hurricane Sandy, a New Jersey couple applied for disaster assistance and fraudulently received $79,000 in CDBG-DR funds, according to HUD OIG records. The couple was convicted of conspiracy, falsification, and theft and was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. The funding was for a seaside property they fraudulently claimed was their primary residence, but was later determined to be a summer vacation home that was ineligible for assistance. GAO also found that the CDBG-DR operates in a decentralized risk environment that may make it vulnerable to fraud since CDBG-DR funds flow through a number of entities before reaching their intended beneficiaries. In addition, the risk environment in which CDBG-DR operates may contribute to negative financial impacts, such as improper payments. Fraud can have nonfinancial impacts as well, such as fraudulent contractors obtaining a competitive advantage and preventing other businesses from obtaining contracts. Fraud Risks of Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) HUD has taken some steps to assess fraud risks agency-wide. For example, HUD conducts an agency-wide assessment of risks through a Front-End Risk Assessment, which also considers fraud risks. In 2020, HUD redesigned its agency-level approach to evaluate fraud risks through its Fraud Risk Management Maturity Model. While HUD has taken some steps to assess fraud risks agency-wide, GAO found that HUD has not conducted a comprehensive fraud risk assessment of CDBG-DR, as called for in GAO’s Fraud Risk Framework. Further, HUD’s current fraud risk approach does not involve relevant stakeholders such as grantees. Leading practices include tailoring the fraud risk assessment to the program and also involving relevant stakeholders responsible for the design and implementation of the program’s fraud controls in the assessment process. Ensuring that a fraud risk assessment is completed specifically for CDBG-DR may provide greater assurance that HUD addresses CDBG-DR fraud risks, including ones identified in this report. Why GAO Did This Study In response to a historic string of natural disasters, Congress appropriated approximately $39.5 billion in CDBG-DR grant funds in 2017 through 2019, with most of the funding designated for Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. However, accompanying this unprecedented amount of funding is an increased vulnerability to fraud given that CDBG-DR involves multiple factors. GAO was asked to review a range of disaster recovery issues following the 2017 disaster season. This report addresses: (1) the fraud risks and risk environment of CDBG-DR and their impacts; and (2) the steps HUD has taken to assess fraud risk agency-wide, and specifically for CDBG-DR, in alignment with leading practices. GAO reviewed DOJ public announcements and HUD OIG enforcement cases to identify CDBG-DR fraud risks. GAO assessed HUD’s procedures against leading practices in the Fraud Risk Framework. GAO interviewed HUD officials responsible for CDBG-DR and fraud risk assessment; and conducted site visits to Florida and Texas, selected partly for the amount of CDBG-DR funds they received, among other factors.

    [Read More…]

  • Texas company convicted for supplying potentially tainted rocket fuel to NASA
    In Justice News
    Anahuac Transport Inc. [Read More…]
  • Financial Audit: Federal Housing Finance Agency’s FY 2021 and FY 2020 Financial Statements
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found GAO found (1) the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s (FHFA) financial statements as of and for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2021, and 2020, are presented fairly, in all material respects, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles; (2) FHFA maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of September 30, 2021; and (3) no reportable noncompliance for fiscal year 2021 with provisions of applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements GAO tested. In its written comments on a draft of this report, FHFA stated that it was pleased to accept GAO’s audit opinions and that it will continue to work to enhance its internal control and ensure the reliability of its financial reporting, the soundness of its operations, and public confidence in its mission. Why GAO Did This Study The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 established FHFA as an independent agency empowered with supervisory and regulatory oversight of the housing-related government-sponsored enterprises: the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), the 11 Federal Home Loan Banks, and the Office of Finance. This act requires FHFA to prepare financial statements annually and requires GAO to audit the agency’s financial statements. In accordance with the act, GAO audited FHFA’s financial statements. For more information, contact Beryl Davis at (202) 512-2623 or davisbh@gao.gov.

    [Read More…]

  • Lebanon National Day
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Federal Judges Reinventing the Jury Trial During Pandemic
    In U.S Courts
    A group of federal judges around the country are reinventing the jury trial so that it is not only a fair forum for the administration of justice, but also a safe experience for everyone in the courtroom, including defendants and jurors.

    [Read More…]

  • Weapon System Sustainment: Aircraft Mission Capable Rates Generally Did Not Meet Goals and Cost of Sustaining Selected Weapon Systems Varied Widely
    In U.S GAO News
    Mission Capable Rates for Selected Department of Defense Aircraft GAO examined 46 types of aircraft and found that only three met their annual mission capable goals in a majority of the years for fiscal years 2011 through 2019 and 24 did not meet their annual mission capable goals in any fiscal year as shown below. The mission capable rate—the percentage of total time when the aircraft can fly and perform at least one mission—is used to assess the health and readiness of an aircraft fleet. Number of Times Selected Aircraft Met Their Annual Mission Capable Goal, Fiscal years 2011 through 2019 aThe military departments did not provide mission capable goals for all nine years for these aircraft. Aggregating the trends at the military service level, the average annual mission capable rate for the selected Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps aircraft decreased since fiscal year 2011, while the average annual mission capable rate for the selected Army aircraft slightly increased. While the average mission capable rate for the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter showed an increase from fiscal year 2012 to 2019, it trended downward from fiscal year 2015 through fiscal year 2018 before improving slightly in fiscal year 2019. For fiscal year 2019, GAO found only three of the 46 types of aircraft examined met the service-established mission capable goal. Furthermore, for fiscal year 2019: six aircraft were 5 percentage points or fewer below the goal; 18 were from 15 to 6 percentage points below the goal; and 19 were more than 15 percentage points below the goal, including 11 that were 25 or more percentage points below the goal. Program officials provided various reasons for the overall decline in mission capable rates, including aging aircraft, maintenance challenges, and supply support issues as shown below. Sustainment Challenges Affecting Some of the Selected Department of Defense Aircraft aA service life extension refers to a modification to extend the service life of an aircraft beyond what was planned. bDiminishing manufacturing sources refers to a loss or impending loss of manufacturers or suppliers of items. cObsolescence refers to a lack of availability of a part due to its lack of usefulness or its no longer being current or available for production. Operating and Support Costs for Selected Department of Defense Aircraft Operating and support (O&S) costs, such as the costs of maintenance and supply support, totaled over $49 billion in fiscal year 2018 for the aircraft GAO reviewed and ranged from a low of $118.03 million for the KC-130T Hercules (Navy) to a high of $4.24 billion for the KC-135 Stratotanker (Air Force). The trends in O&S costs varied by aircraft from fiscal year 2011 to 2018. For example, total O&S costs for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet (Navy) increased $1.13 billion due in part to extensive maintenance needs. In contrast, the F-15C/D Eagle (Air Force) costs decreased by $490 million due in part to a reduction in the size of the fleet. Maintenance-specific costs for the aircraft types we examined also varied widely. Why This Matters The Department of Defense (DOD) spends tens of billions of dollars annually to sustain its weapon systems in an effort to ensure that these systems are available to simultaneously support today’s military operations and maintain the capability to meet future defense requirements. This report provides observations on mission capable rates and costs to operate and sustain 46 fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft in the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. How GAO Did This Study GAO was asked to report on the condition and costs of sustaining DOD’s aircraft. GAO collected and analyzed data on mission capable rates and O&S costs from the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force for fiscal years 2011 through 2019. GAO reviewed documentation and interviewed program office officials to identify reasons for the trends in mission capability rates and O&S costs as well as any challenges in sustaining the aircraft. This is a public version of a sensitive report issued in August 2020. Information on mission capable and aircraft availability rates were deemed to be sensitive and has been omitted from this report. For more information, contact Director Diana Maurer at (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov.

    [Read More…]

  • Government Performance Management: Key Considerations for Implementing Cross-Agency Priority Goals and Progress Addressing GAO Recommendations
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found The enactment of the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) aimed to create an integrated, crosscutting federal performance planning and reporting framework. The act requires the establishment of 4-year outcome-oriented goals known as cross-agency priority (CAP) goals. CAP goals cover a limited number of mission and management areas, such as improving customer experiences with federal services. The next set of CAP goals is due no later than February 2022. GAO identified key considerations to facilitate CAP goal implementation, for example: Establish the goal: Establish a balanced set of outcome-oriented mission and management-focused goals that reflect the government’s highest policy priorities. Identify goal leaders and contributors: Identify co-leaders and sub-goal leaders to facilitate leadership, continuity, and agency buy-in. Identify resources to support implementation: Dedicate resources to goal implementation, including funding, staffing, and technology. Use performance information: Focus on improving the quality and use of data to routinely assess goal progress and a shared commitment to continuous improvement. Report results: Develop communications strategies to help share success stories and outcomes of the goals. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and agencies have made notable progress in implementing 82 of 106 GAO GPRAMA-related recommendations made since 2012 (see figure). Status of GAO Recommendations Related to Implementation of the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, from Fiscal Year 2012-2021 as of July 2021 For example, OMB issued guidance to agencies to expand the use of data-driven performance reviews, and agencies took steps to report on the quality of their performance information. However, OMB and agencies have not fully implemented 24 GAO recommendations in areas such as creating an inventory of federal programs and improving the transparency of publicly reported performance information. Implementing remaining recommendations would help OMB and agencies more effectively manage performance. Why GAO Did This Study The nation faces unprecedented challenges that require the federal government to perform better, be more responsive to the American people, and achieve greater results. GPRAMA provides important tools that can help decision makers address crosscutting challenges facing the federal government. GPRAMA includes a provision for GAO to periodically report on the act’s implementation. This report (1) identifies key considerations that can facilitate CAP goal implementation; and (2) assesses OMB’s and agencies’ progress in addressing GAO recommendations related to GPRAMA. To identify key considerations, GAO conducted focus groups with subject matter specialists with expertise in performance management and with White House Leadership Development fellows who had a role in implementing CAP goals. GAO also obtained views from OMB staff and reviewed information on OMB’s role in CAP goal implementation. GAO also reviewed prior work on GPRAMA implementation. To identify progress made to address GAO recommendations, GAO reviewed actions OMB and agencies took since 2012.

    [Read More…]

  • National Institute of Justice Funded Research Amasses Details of a Half Century of United States Mass Shootings
    In Crime News
    The Office of Justice Programs’ National Institute of Justice (NIJ) today published an article discussing the NIJ-supported and publicly available Violence Project Database that identifies common traits of persons who engaged in mass shootings between 1966 and 2019.

    [Read More…]

  • Bahrain Travel Advisory
    Reconsider travel to [Read More…]
  • Florida-Based Medicare Reimbursement Consultant Resolves Litigation for Allegedly Causing False Diabetic Supply Claims to Medicare
    In Crime News
    Medicare reimbursement consultant Ted Albin and his wholly-owned consulting and billing firm Grapevine Billing and Consulting Services Inc. (Grapevine), both based in Stuart, Florida, have agreed to pay $50,000 to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act. This settlement resolves allegations that Albin and Grapevine caused the submission of false claims to Medicare because of kickbacks to Medicare beneficiaries and because patients were ineligible to receive glucometers. This settlement is based on the United States’ analysis of financial disclosures made by Grapevine.

    [Read More…]

Source: Network News
Area Control Network

Copyright © 2022 ACN
All Rights Reserved © ACN 2020

ACN Privacy Policies
ACN TOS
Area Control Network (ACN)
Area Control Network
Area Control Network Center