Blueprint for Enhanced Program Integrity, Ch. 4 (April 2025)
- Issuer
- Inspector general and oversight reports
- Document type
- Report
- Date
- 2025-04-04
- Case
- Report Prac Blueprint Enhanced Program Integrity Chapter 4 2025 04 04
Summary
Chapter 4 of the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee's Blueprint for Enhanced Program Integrity, dated April 2025, examines the whole-of-government approach to overseeing the more than $5 trillion made available to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. Table 1 lists key stakeholders, including OMB, GAO, NASACT, AICPA and federal Offices of Inspectors General. Section 2 describes four activities: Gold Standard Meetings/Joint Review Meetings, collaboration with state and local partners, federal taskforces and working groups, and a state-auditor-in-residence program. The report states that Joint Review Meetings, led by OMB, were established in 2021. It states that in September 2022 the PRAC detailed two professionals from the Tennessee Comptroller's office under that program.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
PANDEMIC RESPONSE
ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE
Blueprint for Enhanced
Program Integrity
Chapter 4: Whole-of-Government
Approach
April 2025
Chapter 4: Whole-of-
Government Approach
Executive Summary
This chapter examines the whole-of-government approach
to overseeing the more than $5 trillion made available
to help Americans respond to and recover from the Whole-of-Government Approach
COVID-19 pandemic. We describe how federal, state, and A whole-of-government approach
local government officials worked together to promote focuses on the impact of policies and
efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity across pandemic programs on government at large,
relief programs, and we share best practices and strategies rather than individual agencies, and a
for mitigating increased challenges. A whole-of-government process that brings together multiple
approach emphasizes stakeholders’ shared responsibility for entities with a shared interest to help
make decisions.
ensuring that government programs work as intended for the
benefit of the American public. Essential in times of national
crisis, like a pandemic, a whole-of-government approach
can also benefit large-scale programs and funding in non-
emergencies.
To develop this chapter, we interviewed multiple stakeholders across federal, state, and local
governments as well as key oversight professionals outside government. These stakeholders
shared their insights into what worked well, the challenges they faced, and steps for continuing best
practices in the future, to include initial joint meetings. We discussed the full spectrum of oversight
activities—from communication to coordination to collaboration—and the importance of building and
maintaining relationships, leveraging all participants’ expertise in program design and execution,
sharing information and data both timely and widely, and embracing innovation and flexibility. We
also reviewed relevant guidance, reports, testimony, and other resources for additional context.
While our intended audience for this chapter is the oversight community, the Office of Management
and Budget, the White House, Congress, and agency heads, we discuss themes and lessons
learned over the past few years that apply to anyone engaged in program implementation,
administration, and oversight. Our many conversations with stakeholders show that it takes
tremendous effort to do big things and do them right, and that it’s critical to sustain the
mechanisms that facilitated a whole-of-government approach to oversight during the pandemic.
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee 1
Blueprint for Enhanced Program Integrity
Chapter 4: Whole-of-Government Approach
Section 1: The Whole-of-Government
Community
Traditionally, a whole-of-government approach has focused on the federal government as a unified entity. However, the pandemic
highlighted the need for stakeholder involvement at all levels of government; state and local agencies are key implementing partners
during a national crisis, representing the “boots on the ground” for response and oversight. The federal government mainly provides
emergency assistance through state and local agencies pursuant to congressional intent.
Depending on the program and type of funding, different stakeholders play important roles. Table 1 provides a list of important federal,
state, and local stakeholders.
Table 1: List of Key Federal, State, and Local Stakeholders in a Whole-of-Government Approach
Participated Led or co-led
PRAC GAO, COVID-19 Gold
State, Funding Single Audit Standard/
and Local Listening Accountability Update Joint Review
Group Purpose and Mission Subcommittee Posts Working Group Discussions Meetings
Pandemic Response Serves as a coordinating body for
Accountability Committee federal Inspectors General and
(PRAC) / Council of addresses integrity, economy, and
Inspectors General on effectiveness issues that go beyond
Integrity and Efficiency individual federal agencies.
(CIGIE)
U.S. Government Examines how taxpayer dollars are
Accountability Office spent and provides Congress and
(GAO) federal agencies with objective
analyses to help improve federal
government accountability.
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee 2
Blueprint for Enhanced Program Integrity
Chapter 4: Whole-of-Government Approach
PRAC GAO, COVID-19 Gold
State, Funding Single Audit Standard/
and Local Listening Accountability Update Joint Review
Group Purpose and Mission Subcommittee Posts Working Group Discussions Meetings
Office of Management Administers the federal budget,
and Budget (OMB) evaluates federal agencies’
effectiveness, and oversees and
coordinates procurement, financial
management, information, and
regulatory policies.
National Association Facilitates efforts to improve
of State Auditors, state government transparency,
Comptrollers, and accountability, and financial
Treasurers (NASACT) management and brings together
oversight professionals at the federal,
state, and local levels.
Association of Local Supports the local government
Government Auditors auditing community through advocacy,
(ALGA) education, communication, and
collaboration.
American Institute Supports accounting, finance, and
of Certified Public auditing professionals and represents
Accountants (AICPA) the perspectives of non-government
entities who conduct single audits and
financial statement audits for federal
funding recipients.
Administration Design and implement programs
Leadership, Agency as authorized by Congress and in
Officials, and Program accordance with Administration
Staff priorities, including establishing
controls and audit requirements to
assure program effectiveness and
payment integrity.
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee 3
Blueprint for Enhanced Program Integrity
Chapter 4: Whole-of-Government Approach
PRAC GAO, COVID-19 Gold
State, Funding Single Audit Standard/
and Local Listening Accountability Update Joint Review
Group Purpose and Mission Subcommittee Posts Working Group Discussions Meetings
Federal Offices of Conduct independent and objective
Inspectors General (OIGs) audits, investigations, inspections,
evaluations, and other activities to
promote efficiency, effectiveness, and
integrity—and to prevent and detect
fraud, waste, and abuse—in federal
agency programs and operations.
State and Local Oversight Conduct independent and objective
Entities (Auditors, audits, investigations, inspections, and
Comptrollers, Treasurers, other activities to promote efficiency,
Inspectors General) effectiveness, and integrity—and to
prevent and detect fraud, waste, and
abuse—at the state and local levels.
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee 4
Blueprint for Enhanced Program Integrity
Chapter 4: Whole-of-Government Approach
Section 2: How We Came
Together and What We Did
In Chapter 1 of our Blueprint for Enhanced Program Integrity, we noted that federal and state
agencies and their oversight communities need to collaborate to protect taxpayer funding.
Cooperation and engagement between agency program staff and the oversight community, during
program design and planning and early on in program implementation, ensures that previous
oversight work and experience informs critical programmatic decisions that should be made before
any dollars go out the door.
Throughout the pandemic, meetings and communication among federal stakeholders, such as
federal agency leadership or program staff, as well as staff from Offices of Inspectors General
(OIGs), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Government Accountability Office
(GAO), were crucial for effectively implementing pandemic programs and providing timely oversight.
Coordinating with representatives from state and local oversight communities enabled sharing of
information, guidance, data, and real-time information about use of federal funding.
Highlighted in this section are four different activities that we believe provide a model for current
and future whole-of-government coordination. These include Gold Standard Meetings/Joint Review
Meetings, Collaboration with State and Local Partners, Federal Taskforces and Working Groups, and
a State-Auditor-in-Residence program.
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee 5
Blueprint for Enhanced Program Integrity
Chapter 4: Whole-of-Government Approach
A. Gold Standard Meetings/Joint Review Meetings
“Gold Standard Meetings,” now known as “Joint
Review Meetings,” were established in 2021 during Promoting Accountability through
the implementation of pandemic relief programs. Cooperation Among Agencies and
These meetings, led by OMB and institutionalized in Inspectors General
OMB guidance, promoted proactive and transparent “Maintaining independence… does not
engagement among agency program officials, OIGs, the preclude agency leadership and their
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee (PRAC), [Inspectors General] from maintaining
and administration leadership. OMB identified the need productive and cooperative relationships
for Joint Review Meetings based on two criteria: while working towards the same
objectives.”
• The creation of a new government program, or
–OMB M-22-04
• A program undergoing significant design changes
due to increased funding.
OMB set the stage for the conversation by posing to the program officials questions that addressed
key topics such as program design, internal controls to support program integrity, financial controls
to mitigate improper payments and potential fraud, and reporting measures. Inspectors General
(IGs) and PRAC representatives then had an opportunity to highlight relevant bodies of prior
oversight work to inform agency thoughts and direction related to program design and the use of
controls.
The process and approach to these meetings, including a discussion driven by program officials’
responses to OMB, posed payment integrity questions and encouraged collective and collaborative
thinking about risk and how previous OIG observations and recommendations can inform early
mitigation efforts. By addressing potential risks on the front end of program design or change, and
incorporating lessons learned, agencies had the opportunity to significantly strengthen safeguards
to prevent improper payments and potential fraud as well as enhance program effectiveness and
accountability.
Per statute, IGs have the responsibility to “promote the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness”
and “prevent and detect fraud and abuse” in their agencies’ programs and operations. IGs make
recommendations to improve their agencies’ programs and operations, but they do not implement
them or otherwise make policy impacting agencies. Importantly, IGs are empowered with and
require guarantees of independence to allow them to pursue their work without interference by
agency officials. Joint Review Meetings allow IGs to maintain their independence while helping
agencies address challenges and prevent avoidable issues.
The Joint Review Meeting framework has been cited as a model for how to manage large-scale
emergency (or appropriated) spending initiatives and balance the need for robust independent
oversight with timely program implementation.
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee 6
Blueprint for Enhanced Program Integrity
Chapter 4: Whole-of-Government Approach
A January 2023 Inspector General Fireside Chat on Agile Oversight highlighted the importance and
enduring value of formalized engagement between management and oversight officials. The PRAC
coordinated this discussion, with the Chair of the PRAC noting that:
The ground rules at the outset were that we [agency IGs] weren’t giving the Good
Housekeeping stamp of approval to any of these programs. We were there to ask the hard
questions about what was being put forward. And that was a significant change in how
IGs, agencies, and OMB leadership need to think. Doing business in this way was critically
important and not inconsistent with the Yellow Book, not inconsistent with anyone’s
independence, but, rather, doing exactly what the public and the taxpayers would expect,
which was using the cumulative informed knowledge to ensure the programs were being
run right at the outset, not a year later or two years later.
Lesson Learned: Promote Ongoing Dialogue Between Management and Oversight Officials
The federal response to the pandemic demonstrated how important it is for management and
oversight officials to build and maintain effective working relationships and engage in candid and
constructive discussions. The Gold Standard Meetings/Joint Review Meetings provided a forum for
leveraging participants’ expertise in program design and implementation within their unique areas
of responsibility, and in a manner that respected their established roles.
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee 7
Blueprint for Enhanced Program Integrity
Chapter 4: Whole-of-Government Approach
B. Collaboration with State and Local Partners
Effective oversight requires strong collaboration between internal and external stakeholders
to ensure accountability and transparency. During the pandemic, federal, state, and local
agency officials worked together to strengthen existing partnerships and establish structures
for collaborative oversight. By leveraging the expertise of external partners such as the National
Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers, and Treasurers (NASACT) and the American Institute of
Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), we, collectively, developed new communication strategies and
opportunities for long-term collaboration.
PRAC GAO, State, and Local Subcommittee/Listening Post
The PRAC, in collaboration with the PRAC’s GAO, State, and Local Subcommittee, established
Listening Post meetings to enhance coordination and information sharing during the COVID
pandemic. The Listening Post served as a regular forum where federal, state, local, and Tribal
oversight professionals (such as auditors) could discuss lessons learned, best practices, and
challenges encountered in overseeing pandemic relief funds. Various state officials praised the
meetings as an excellent resource for the broader oversight community. The collaboration not only
improved transparency and accountability but also provided valuable insights into on-the-ground
impacts of federal programs, facilitating more
effective oversight across all levels of government.
Listening Post Successes
A key success of the Listening Post included efforts The Listening Post meetings were a major
by organizers to ensure vital stakeholders attended driver in promoting the timely development
meetings. This allowed for effective brainstorming and release of the Compliance Supplement, or
with experienced individuals. The Listening Post what participants often informally referred to
played an important role in facilitating productive as, “the nation’s audit program.” Auditors rely
intergovernmental communication due to the range on the Compliance Supplement to guide their
Single Audit work and, in previous years, had
of subject matter experts on the calls. The result
frequently voiced concerns regarding delayed
was strong communication on prominent issues issuances. The Listening Post also encouraged
impacting the oversight community. Providing flexibility around audit requirements for small,
solutions and discussing challenges allowed local government entities that may not have
individuals to plan the most effective next steps. been subject to Single Audits before. In such
Importantly, organizers stressed the importance cases, agreed-upon procedures audits were
of including OMB in the Listening Post meetings, permitted by federal agencies—providing
which guaranteed important information shared was needed oversight in a way that made sense.
provided to the stakeholders from an authoritative
source.
The Listening Post provides a valuable framework that can be expanded and institutionalized
for future emergency situations. Establishing a formalized network of federal, state, and local
oversight professionals fosters real-time collaboration, information sharing, and coordinated
responses to large-scale government spending programs. In future crises, whether they involve
public health emergencies, natural disasters, or economic downturns, a Listening Post could be
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee 8
Blueprint for Enhanced Program Integrity
Chapter 4: Whole-of-Government Approach
leveraged for information sharing that provides valuable insights from multiple levels of government
oversight. Oversight entities would have the ability to detect fraud schemes, identify implementation
challenges and inefficiencies early, reduce financial losses, and ensure funds reach their intended
recipients in an efficient manner.
The Listening Post meetings could be integrated into a permanent emergency infrastructure,
where auditors and investigators from across all levels of government meet regularly to refine
their best practices, share fraud detection tools, and strengthen intergovernmental accountability
mechanisms. By institutionalizing a permanent Listening Post, federal and state oversight
professionals could maintain a high level of preparedness, ensuring that when future emergencies
arise, oversight mechanisms are already in place to safeguard public funds effectively and maintain
public trust.
NASACT COVID-19 Funding Accountability Working Group
NASACT played a key role in fostering collaboration among oversight entities during the pandemic.
Through its COVID-19 Funding Accountability Working Group Meetings, NASACT facilitated ongoing
coordination to address real-time oversight challenges. NASACT organized monthly (and eventually
bimonthly) meetings with key federal oversight officials, including representatives from OMB and
GAO, who helped to bridge the gap between federal directives and implementation of guidance by
states.
These meetings brought in state and local officials who hadn’t previously engaged directly with
federal officials, allowing them to share vital information with the broader oversight community.
Rather than overwhelming their federal counterparts with duplicative questions, state and local
auditors and comptrollers consolidated their inquiries to improve communication. These meetings
also provided a platform for oversight professionals across all levels of government to share
updates on their work, lessons learned, and fraud detection strategies.
The AICPA also played a key role in ensuring financial integrity and compliance across government
programs during the pandemic. This included participating in the COVID-19 Funding Accountability
Working Group. The AICPA worked actively with federal, state, and local agencies to clarify
compliance requirements and support program administrators unfamiliar with grant compliance
standards and auditing processes.
Like NASACT, the AICPA acted as a bridge between their members and federal agencies, facilitating
discussions related to complex requirements and specialized audit guidance. Historically, the
AICPA’s involvement in oversight discussions at the federal level had been limited, but their
engagement significantly increased as the AICPA had to release more specialized guidance directly
to their stakeholders.
Despite their contributions, some agencies were initially hesitant to collaborate with the AICPA,
perceiving them as contractors rather than partners in oversight. Over time, after the necessity for
consistent guidance became evident, the AICPA’s position in important discussions was increasingly
valued.
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee 9
Blueprint for Enhanced Program Integrity
Chapter 4: Whole-of-Government Approach
Looking forward, both NASACT’s and the AICPA’s work highlights the need for a sustained
intergovernmental oversight framework that extends beyond emergency situations. One key
opportunity is institutionalizing regular coordination meetings between federal, state, and local
oversight entities to ensure communication lines remain open, even in times without an immediate
crisis. Regular engagement through established channels, such as the NASACT meetings, can
enhance information sharing and alignment on key oversight issues.
Additionally, smaller group meetings that focus on specific areas of oversight can provide a space
for agencies to collaborate with state and local (including non-governmental) auditors on emerging
challenges. Another possibility is to enhance training and preparedness exercises for auditors,
allowing them to refine their processes for tracking federal funds efficiently and responding to
emerging oversight challenges. Cross-training programs for oversight officials inside and outside
government could ensure that those responsible for implementing auditing guidance remain
aligned, fostering stronger coordination on financial auditing compliance.
For the broader oversight community, the pandemic response demonstrated the value of proactive
collaboration and early fraud detection efforts. Moving forward, agencies at all levels could
benefit from establishing permanent working groups, like those developed during the pandemic
in collaboration with NASACT. Working groups could address oversight challenges across various
funding streams in the future. Integrating technology-driven auditing tools, cross-agency fraud
detection systems, and data sharing initiatives could further enhance lessons learned from the
COVID-19 response—strengthening financial accountability, improving government efficiency, and
safeguarding public trust in the administration of federal funds.
Lesson Learned: Establish a Permanent Federal, State, and Local Coordinator
Various state officials advocated for a permanent coordinator or coordination mechanism that could
serve as a bridge between the federal, state, and local stakeholders. The PRAC’s focused whole-of-
government efforts enabled a high degree of trust among its stakeholders and resulted in strong
communication and collaboration that should be sustained moving forward. State officials further
expressed that the federal, state, and local government oversight community should not wait for a
national emergency to collaborate.
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee 10
Blueprint for Enhanced Program Integrity
Chapter 4: Whole-of-Government Approach
C. Federal Task Forces and Working Groups
Throughout the pandemic, collaborative task forces and working groups, including the PRAC Fraud
Task Force, the COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force, and the CIGIE (Council of the Inspectors
General on Integrity and Efficiency) Data Analytics Working Group, were developed or expanded to
leverage the skills and expertise from professionals across the federal government. Task forces and
working groups were able to share data, guidance, and resources. These efforts not only bolstered
the pandemic oversight response and results but demonstrated that the government can be more
effective when it works across agencies.
PRAC Fraud Task Force
The PRAC and our IG partners launched the Fraud Task Force in January 2021 to coordinate
investigations, exchange information about fraud schemes, and share resources that support
investigations across the federal government. Specifically, the PRAC Fraud Task Force served
as a deconfliction and coordination body assisting OIGs in their investigative efforts as well as
a coordinating body with Department of Justice (DOJ)
prosecutors, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and other Quarterly Investigative Briefings
federal law enforcement agencies. In addition, the Task for State and Local Auditors
Force relied on the PRAC’s data scientists and resources
from the PRAC’s data analytics center to uncover trends, The PRAC leveraged its network
through its Fraud Task Force to provide
irregularities, and red flags that point to potential fraud. At
quarterly investigative briefings to state
its peak, the PRAC Fraud Task Force included more than and local auditors that provided real
50 agents from over 16 OIGs. time insights into fraud schemes that
could inform their oversight efforts and
To make this work, the PRAC extended its investigative internal control testing.
authority over pandemic relief funds to agents across the
federal OIG community through inter-office memorandums
of understanding. This forged a path for OIGs to use available criminal investigators and analysts
from across the OIG community when handling pandemic fraud cases. For example, the Fraud Task
Force served as a force multiplier to investigate the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), Economic
Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL), and pandemic unemployment insurance (UI) fraud—achieving results
collectively that likely wouldn’t have otherwise been possible.
As of December 2024, the Fraud Task Force, assisted by the PRAC’s data analytics center,
supported 48 federal law enforcement and oversight entities on over 1,000 pandemic-related
investigations with over 23,000 subjects resulting in a recovery of $16 million in fraudulently
obtained taxpayer money. A similar model could be used in future emergency situations or
whenever the federal government distributes large amounts of funds.
DOJ COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force
DOJ established the COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force (CFETF) in May 2021. The mission
of this Task Force was to marshal the resources of DOJ in partnership with agencies across
government to enhance efforts to combat and prevent pandemic-related fraud. The Task Force
bolsters efforts to investigate and prosecute the most culpable domestic and international criminal
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee 11
Blueprint for Enhanced Program Integrity
Chapter 4: Whole-of-Government Approach
actors. The Task Force also assists agencies administering pandemic relief programs to prevent
fraud by, among other methods, augmenting and incorporating existing coordination, identifying
resources and techniques to uncover fraudulent actors and their schemes, and sharing and
harnessing information and insights gained from prior enforcement efforts. The CFETF included
nine DOJ components and 17 interagency investigative partners, including the PRAC and federal
OIGs. Between May 2021 and April 2024, the CFETF’s coordinated approach resulted in more than
3,500 defendants charged with federal crimes, more than $1.4 billion in seizures and forfeiture
orders to recover stolen pandemic funds, and more than 400 civil settlements and judgments.
According to its 2024 report, the CFETF noted that the collaborative effort has:
“disrupted transnational criminal networks and domestic violent offenders, making
communities safer here [in the United States] and abroad. Importantly the CFETF has
leveraged its interagency network to make strategic improvements in how the government
investigates fraud, using the wide arrays of skills from its members to devise more
effective fraud fighting tactics.”
CIGIE Data Analytics Working Group
Leaders from across the OIG analytics community leveraged and expanded the CIGIE Data Analytics
Working Group (DAWG) to share data and analytics strategies to bolster the oversight community’s
response to the pandemic. In November 2020, the DAWG surveyed the OIG community about the
data needed to conduct pandemic-related analytics work. Based on the survey results, the DAWG
requested the PRAC’s assistance facilitating PPP and EIDL data sharing and the Department of
Labor, Office of Inspector General’s (DOL OIG) assistance facilitating Unemployment Insurance (UI)
data sharing. As a result, the PRAC provided PPP and EIDL data to the OIG community in May 2021,
and DOL OIG collaborated bilaterally with numerous OIGs to support data-driven UI investigations.
From 2021 to 2022, OIGs held a regular “PPP/EIDL/UI” roundtable to share analytics strategies
for identifying potential PPP, EIDL, and UI fraud. Using information shared during the roundtable
and data by the PRAC and DOL OIG, OIGs conducted successful criminal and administrative
investigations into federal agency employees who had abused PPP, EIDL, and UI programs. In some
cases, IGs found that federal agency employees had their identities stolen and applications for
PPP, EIDL, and UI made in their names. In August 2022, the DAWG issued Best Practices for Data
Sharing as a capstone guide to support future OIG analytics efforts that require inter-OIG data
collaboration.
Lesson Learned: Strengthen Federal, State, and Local Level Access to Data
There is a significant need for improved access to and sharing of data among federal, state, and
local levels to enhance oversight and program management. Access restrictions for sensitive
information, such as tax data, hinders effective program assessments and other critical functions.
Efforts to expand access to data, such as through collaborative information sharing agreements,
have been instrumental in identifying fraud indicators and managing resources more effectively,
demonstrating the need for a sustained focus on data.
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee 12
Blueprint for Enhanced Program Integrity
Chapter 4: Whole-of-Government Approach
D. State Auditor-In-Residence Program
A key aspect of the PRAC’s mission included identifying major risks that cut across programs and
agencies. Using the authorities established under the Intergovernment Personnel Act, the PRAC
created the State-Auditor-In-Residence (STARS) program to enhance collaboration and coordination
across the federal OIG community and oversight partners, as well as state and local oversight
entities.
The STARS initiative was designed to enhance oversight and accountability of federal relief funds
by recruiting experienced state auditors to work within the PRAC. By embedding experienced state
auditors within the PRAC, collaboration with state audit offices strengthened cross-jurisdictional
oversight. State auditors aided in the facilitation of data sharing, joint investigations and audits,
and enhancements to state-federal coordination efforts. For future emergency situations, a similar
initiative could be implemented to leverage the expertise of state auditors.
In times of crisis, when rapid federal funding is deployed, the expertise of state auditors within
federal oversight bodies can help with real-time insights into local implementation challenges,
improving program integrity, and reducing waste. Additionally, this program can be expanded to
include proactive work conducting risk assessments, joint investigative task force collaborations,
and additional monitoring improvements. An integration of future initiatives ensures oversight of
emergency relief remains transparent and effective. Establishing future frameworks based on this
initiative provides scalable and adaptable oversight models that can be quickly activated during a
future crisis.
The PRAC Chair emphasized this point when testifying before the U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Ways and Means concerning “Fraud in Federal Unemployment Insurance Programs”
in February 2023:
We added state-level expertise to the PRAC team to further enhance our collaboration
with the state and local oversight community. In September 2022, we launched the
federal IG community’s first-ever state auditor-in-residence program and detailed two
professionals from the Tennessee Comptroller’s office to the PRAC to better inform
federal pandemic oversight with local insights. Additionally, we brought on Elaine
Howle as Special Advisor for State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Oversight. A nationally
recognized expert and the former California State Auditor, Ms. Howle brings nearly 40
years of professional auditing and leadership experience to the PRAC. Further, during her
tenure as California State Auditor, her office performed significant pandemic oversight
work that uncovered more than $10 billion in potential fraud in the new UI programs.
Lesson Learned: Encourage Federal-State Partnerships to Leverage Expertise
Partnerships such as the STARS program improved communication and fraud detection by
leveraging the expertise of state auditors. This program provides a framework for professional
growth and ongoing collaboration within the oversight community that could be implemented for
future emergency responses.
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee 13
Blueprint for Enhanced Program Integrity
Chapter 4: Whole-of-Government Approach
Chapter 4 Team
From Equal Employment Opportunity Commission OIG
Nina Murphy
From Department of Education OIG
Keith Cummins
From Department of Agriculture OIG
Jenny Rone
From Export-Import Bank OIG
Ami Schaefer
From the PRAC:
Alice Siempelkamp
Jennifer Contreras
Sharon Smith
Julio Rodriguez
Elaine Howle
Jarrett Fussell
Kirstyn Flood
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee 14
For more information:
Lisa Reijula
Associate Director of Outreach and Engagement, PRAC
Lisa.Reijula@cigie.gov
Visit us at:
PandemicOversight.gov
Follow us at:
Report Fraud, Waste, Abuse, or Misconduct:
To report allegations of fraud, waste, abuse, or misconduct regarding
pandemic relief funds or programs please go to the PRAC website at
PandemicOversight.gov.
A Committee of the
Council of the Inspectors General
on Integrity and Efficiency
File and source
- File
- REPORT_PRAC_Blueprint-Enhanced-Program-Integrity-Chapter-4_2025-04-04.pdf
- Size
- 405,129 bytes
- SHA-256
- f61744d3d755d12c4388dc47e2a70947c252f94a8ed136c8e4fcd5bfc0774b67
- Original
- www.pandemicoversight.gov