Federal Reports

CBP facilities we visited appeared to be operating in compliance with the 2015 National Standards on Transport, Escort, Detention, and Search. With the exception of inconsistent cleanliness of the hold rooms, we observed that unaccompanied alien children had access to toilets and sinks, drinking water, beverages (including milk and juice drinks), as well as snacks and food. Unaccompanied alien children had access to hygiene items and clean bedding at all facilities we visited. We did not encounter issues with temperatures or ventilation, access to emergency medical care, inadequate supervision, or access to telephones. We also observed that CBP Office of Field Operations (OFO) ports of entry had offices and storage spaces redesigned into hold rooms to be able to detain more unaccompanied alien children, family units, and other border crossers referred for processing. We made no recommendations in this report.

DHS did not complete an assessment of the security value of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) program as required by law. This occurred because DHS experienced challenges identifying an office responsible for the effort. As a result, Coast Guard does not have a full understanding of the extent to which the TWIC program addresses security risks in the maritime environment. This will continue to impact the Coast Guard’s ability to properly develop and enforce regulations governing the TWIC program. For example, Coast Guard did not clearly define the applicability of facilities that have certain dangerous cargo in bulk when developing a final rule to implement the use of TWIC readers at high-risk maritime facilities. Without oversight and policy improvements in the TWIC program, high-risk facilities may continue to operate without enhanced security measures, putting these facilities at an increased security risk. In addition, Coast Guard needs to improve its oversight of the TWIC program to reduce the risk of transportation security incidents. Due to technical problems and lack of awareness of procedures, Coast Guard did not make full use of the TWIC card’s biometric features as intended by Congress to ensure only eligible individuals have unescorted access to secure areas of regulated facilities. During inspections at regulated facilities from FYs 2016 through 2017, Coast Guard only used electronic readers to verify, on average, about one in every 15 TWIC cards against TSA’s canceled card list. This occurred because the majority of the TWIC readers in the field have reached the end of their service life. Furthermore, the Coast Guard’s guidance governing oversight of the TWIC program is fragmented, which led to confusion and inconsistent inspection procedures. This resulted in fewer regulatory confiscations of TWIC cards. The Department concurred with our four recommendations, and described the corrective actions it is taking and plans to take.

We audited the Newark Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher Program. We selected the Authority for review because the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) authorized more than $111 million in program funding for its Housing Choice Voucher Program in fiscal years 2016 and 2017 and based on our risk analysis of public housing agencies located in the State of New Jersey. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Authority ensured that its program units met HUD’s housing quality standards and whether it abated housing assistance payments when required.We found that the Authority did not ensure that its program units met housing quality standards, and it did not accurately calculate housing assistance payment abatements. Of 29 program units inspected, 25 did not meet HUD’s housing quality standards, and 23 of those units materially failed to meet HUD’s standards. Further, the Authority incorrectly calculated the abatement amount for 4 of the 20 abated units reviewed. These conditions occurred because the Authority’s inspectors did not apply their housing quality standards training to thoroughly inspect units and it did not have adequate controls over the calculation of abatements. As a result, the Authority disbursed $110,943 in housing assistance payments for units that materially failed to meet HUD’s housing quality standards and paid its contractor $708 in fees to inspect these units. Additionally, it disbursed $4,459 for housing assistance payments that should have been abated. Unless the Authority improves its inspection program and controls over the calculation of abatements, it will continue to pay housing assistance for units that materially fail to meet housing quality standards. Further, its program participants will continue to be subjected to unsafe living conditions.We recommend that HUD require the Authority to (1) certify, along with the owners of the 25 units cited in the finding, that the applicable housing quality standards violations have been corrected; (2) reimburse its program $111,651 for the 23 units that materially failed to meet housing quality standards; (3) improve controls over its inspection program; (4) reimburse its program $4,459 for housing assistance payments that were not properly abated; and (5) improve controls over the calculation of abatements.

TFC Consulting, Inc. (TFC), an independent licensed Certified Public Accounting firm, wascontracted by the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Office of Inspector General (OIG) toconduct an agreed-upon procedures engagement at Illinois and provide the Food and NutritionService (FNS) with recommendations to enhance program efficiency and effectiveness.

TFC Consulting, Inc. (TFC), an independent licensed Certified Public Accounting firm, was contracted by the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Office of Inspector General (OIG) to conduct an agreed-upon procedures engagement (AUP) to assess aspects of five selected States’ compliance with the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) regulations. TFC was also responsible for providing the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) with recommendations to enhance program efficiency and effectiveness.

OIG reviewed how USDA awards contracts to small and disadvantagedbusinesses to ensure only eligible businesses receive contracts.