Federal Reports

This report offers DHS OIG’s initial observations on the PACR and HARP programs based on our March 2020 visit to the El Paso, Texas area and analysis of data and information provided by CBP and USCIS headquarters. We determined that CBP rapidly implemented the pilot programs and expanded them without a full evaluation of the pilots’ effectiveness. Additionally, we determined there are potential challenges with the PACR and HARP programs related to how aliens are held and provided access to counsel and representation, and how CBP and USCIS assign staff to program duties and track aliens in the various agency systems. We made six recommendations to improve PACR and HARP program implementation. DHS did not concur with five of the six recommendations, stating that lawsuits and the COVID-19 pandemic had, in effect, ended the programs. We reviewed evidence provided by CBP and concluded the lawsuits themselves did not terminate the PACR and HARP pilot programs. Therefore, the recommendations remain open and unresolved. If the programs resume, we plan to resume actual or virtual site visits and issue a report detailing DHS’ full implementation of the PACR and HARP pilot programs.

We have completed a review of the U.S. Department of the Interior’s (DOI’s) progress in implementing our past audit recommendations addressing internal controls over Government charge cards, and we have reported our results to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget as required.We reviewed the DOI’s implementation of 15 recommendations made in 3 audit reports in fiscal years (FYs) 2019 and 2020. Of these recommendations, 14 have been resolved and implemented. One recommendation from 2020 remains unresolved.

The OIG investigated allegations that a GS-12 employee with the Office of the Secretary misused his Government purchase card to buy computers without authorization, made other improper purchases with his Government purchase card, and filed false time and attendance certifications.We did not find evidence that the employee made improper purchases or converted Government equipment to personal use, but we did find that he failed to properly record his time and attendance. We questioned 74 hours that the employee claimed as regular time when it appears he should have taken annual or sick leave.