Federal Reports

This Semiannual Report to Congress reflects how the EPA OIG is achieving its mission of preventing and detecting fraud, waste, abuse, mismanagement, and misconduct related to the programs and operations of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board during the reporting period, October 1, 2022, through March 31, 2023.

Semiannual Report to Congress, Volume 89 (October 1, 2022 - March 31, 2023)

The objective for this unannounced inspection was to determine whether U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) complies with National Standards on Transport, Escort, Detention, and Search (TEDS) and other relevant policies and procedures related to length of detention and conditions of detention at seven CBP short-term holding facilities. In May 2022, we conducted unannounced inspections of three Border Patrol stations in the Swanton sector, one port of entry in the Office of Field Operations (OFO) Boston Field Office area of responsibility, and three ports of entry in the OFO Buffalo Field Office area of responsibility; however, CBP had no migrants in custody.

The objective was to determine whether the Department of Homeland Security complied with the Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019 (PIIA) in fiscal year 2022. We determined that although DHS made improvements to reduce improper payments (IP) and unknown payments (UP), it did not comply with the PIIA.

We conducted an unannounced inspection of Northwest ICE Processing Center (Northwest) to assess ICE field offices’ management of these facilities and compliance with applicable standards. We also conducted a limited review of the facility’s COVID-19 requirements. We found that the facility complied with standards for intake and classification; facility conditions, including housing and hygiene; detainee access to law library and legal services; recreation; segregation; use of force; and providing timely responses to detainee requests. Northwest also complied with COVID-19 protocols and requirements set forth by a Federal court order. However, Northwest did not always provide timely responses to detainee grievances and did not always respond to detainee requests and grievances in a language understood by the detainee.

This report contains information about recommendations from the OIG's audits, evaluations, reviews, and other reports that the OIG had not closed as of the specified date because it had not determined that the Department of Justice (DOJ) or a non-DOJ federal agency had fully implemented them. The list omits information that DOJ determined to be limited official use or classified, and therefore unsuitable for public release.The status of each recommendation was accurate as of the specified date and is subject to change. Specifically, a recommendation identified as not closed as of the specified date may subsequently have been closed.

The objective for this unannounced inspection was to determine whether U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) complied with National Standards on Transport, Escort, Detention, and Search (TEDS) and other relevant policies and procedures related to conditions of detention at nine CBP short-term migrant holding facilities in the Rio Grande Valley area of Texas. Our inspections and subsequent analysis showed Border Patrol held 1,736 detainees in custody in five facilities longer than the TEDS standard, which generally limits detention in these facilities to 72 hours. Increased migrant encounters was a contributing factor to time in custody, and exacerbated Border Patrol staffing challenges in the Rio Grande Valley.

We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) oversight of the physical condition of public housing developments. Our audit objective was to assess HUD’s oversight of the physical condition of public housing developments; specifically, whether HUD had adequate oversight of public housing agencies’ (PHA) (1) corrective actions in response to periodic Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) inspections and (2) annual self-inspections to ensure that units were maintained in decent, safe, and sanitary condition.Properties receiving assistance through HUD’s public housing program are periodically inspected by a HUD contractor using standards established by REAC. These “REAC inspections” evaluate five areas of a public housing development: site, building exterior, building systems, common areas, and dwelling units. If deficiencies in these areas are identified, the inspector records their severity within one of the following four categories: (1) no health and safety hazards, (2) non-life-threatening health and safety, (3) life-threatening exigent health and safety, or (4) fire safety. HUD requires public housing agencies (PHA) to address life-threatening exigent health and safety and fire safety smoke detector deficiencies identified during REAC inspections within 24-hours. HUD monitors PHAs’ corrections of life-threatening deficiencies.We found that HUD field offices were inconsistent in overseeing whether PHAs corrected life-threatening deficiencies identified during REAC inspections. In addition, HUD does not track PHAs’ corrections of non-life-threatening health and safety deficiencies identified during REAC inspections. These conditions occurred because HUD did not have a standardized policy or a nationwide protocol to guide its field offices’ oversight of PHAs to ensure that all health and safety deficiencies were corrected after a REAC inspection. Instead, HUD relied on its field offices to maintain their own policies and procedures for monitoring PHAs’ unit conditions. However, the field offices generally did not maintain their own written policies and procedures, resulting in inconsistencies regarding what should be done. As a result, HUD lacked assurance that PHAs corrected identified life-threatening and non-life-threatening deficiencies. If HUD implements a nationwide protocol for monitoring and tracking PHAs’ efforts to address inspection results, it could have greater assurance that tenants residing in public housing are living in units that are decent, safe, and sanitary.In addition to the REAC inspection, HUD requires PHAs to perform routine self-inspections of public housing properties. These self-inspections include an annual visual assessment of the property to look for all deficiencies, and to determine the maintenance and modernization needs of the properties. We found that HUD staff had varying interpretations of its requirements regarding the number of public housing units PHAs should self-inspect annually. Further, HUD’s field office staff generally did not monitor PHAs for compliance with HUD’s requirements for self-inspections. These conditions occurred because HUD’s guidance was not clear regarding (1) the number of units PHAs should inspect annually and (2) how its field office staff should monitor PHAs to ensure that self-inspections of public housing units were conducted. Without clear guidance regarding its requirements for self-inspections, HUD lacked assurance that PHAs properly performed self-inspections of public housing units to determine maintenance and modernization needs. HUD could also miss opportunities to provide technical assistance to PHAs through early intervention when self-inspections identify systemic deficiencies. Further, because REAC’s inspection sampling methodology to select between 1 and 27 public housing units is based on the expectation that PHAs are completing self-inspections of 100 percent of their public housing units, REACs’ sampling methodology may no longer be appropriate.We recommend that HUD develop and implement a nationwide inspection review protocol and associated training for its field office staff; determine whether PHAs are required to perform inspections on 100 percent of their public housing units annually; and if so, develop clear, specific guidance on the number and frequency of the self-inspections. If 100 percent annual self-inspections are not required, we recommend that HUD determine whether the rationale for REAC to inspect a sample of public housing units, rather than 100 percent, remains appropriate.