An official website of the United States government
Here's how you know
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock (
) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.
Brought to you by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency
Federal Reports
Report Date
Agency Reviewed / Investigated
Report Title
Type
Location
Department of Homeland Security
Whistleblower Retaliation Report of Investigation Regarding Alleged Reprisal Against a USCG Lieutenant Commander
DHS OIG this investigation in response to a complaint made by a Lieutenant Commander in the United States Coast Guard, stationed at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut, alleging that: (1) Complainant received a negative Officer Evaluation Report (OER) after making discrimination and harassment complaints against her superiors; (2) The U.S. Coast Guard failed to respond to the discrimination and harassment experienced by the Complainant; and (3) The U.S. Coast Guard subjected the Complainant to additional harassment and retaliatory actions after filing the complaints. DHS OIG’s investigation substantiated Complainant’s claim that she was retaliated against on the basis of her complaints, in violation of the Military Whistleblower Protection Act, 10 U.S.C. § 1034. Specifically, a preponderance of the evidence established that her complaints were a contributing factor in the numerical marks in her OER for the period ending May 31, 2016. The totality of the evidence demonstrated that the Complainant would have received higher marks absent her complaints. DHS OIG thus recommends that the Secretary order corrective action with regard to the Complainant’s OER.
Department of State's Security Support for Justice Sector, Corrections System, and Counter Narcotics Police Programs in Afghanistan: Audit of Costs Incurred by PAE Justice Support
What We Looked AtThe Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requires Federal agencies to implement Information Security Continuous Monitoring (ISCM), which entails the near real-time detection of cybersecurity risks, threats, and malicious activity. ISCM enables agencies to more effectively address evolving, frequent, and increasingly aggressive cybersecurity attempts to compromise Federal information systems. A large number of systems at the Department of Transportation (DOT) contain sensitive data that require protection; accordingly, we initiated this audit. Our audit objectives were to assess (1) how DOT's ISCM program conforms to OMB and National Institute of Standards and Technology requirements and (2) the status and progress of DOT's implementation of its ISCM program. This review also supports our annual audit mandated by the Federal Information Security Modernization Act.What We FoundDOT's program lacks a procedure for verifying Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) performance data reported to OMB. While DOT has met the requirement to submit quarterly reports, we identified significant errors in one submission. The Department also lacks adequate procedures for providing accurate submissions to OMB. In addition, FAA has not yet completed phase 1 of the Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation Program, which targets the management of cybersecurity assets and activities. Finally, FAA does not have procedures for reporting on or validating its Cross Agency Priority goal data and cannot be certain those data are accurate.Our RecommendationsDOT concurred with our three recommendations to improve its ISCM program.
The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted this audit to determine if VA and State Approving Agencies (SAAs) were effectively reviewing and monitoring education and training programs that enrolled Post-9/11 GI bill students to ensure only eligible programs participated. Prior OIG reports noted significant financial risks for these programs. Based on its review, the OIG estimated that 86 percent of SAAs did not adequately oversee the education and training programs to make certain only eligible programs participated. The OIG estimated that, without correction, the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) could issue an estimated $2.3 billion in improper payments to ineligible programs over the next five years. Oversight deficiencies occurred, in part, because VBA maintained it has a limited role for oversight of SAAs. Congress intended VBA to work cooperatively with the SAAs to ensure the quality and the effective administration of Post-9/11 GI Bill programs and to protect student and taxpayer interests. However, the former Executive Director of VBA Education Service stated that the SAAs were primarily responsible for the review, approval, and monitoring of programs, and that VBA was prohibited under Title 38 from exercising control over the SAAs. VBA maintained this position, even though it is authorized to establish and negotiate contracts with SAAs and to set requirements for the SAAs’ completion of program reviews, approvals, and monitoring in the terms and conditions of these contracts. The OIG recommended clarifying requirements for approvals, requiring periodic reapproval of programs, reporting schools with misleading advertising, strengthening compliance, revising program assessment standards, and confirming that SAA funding can support the recommended steps.
We audited American Family Housing’s special needs assistance program funds due to a hotline complaint alleging that the nonprofit used program funds for hotels, spas, raises, and bonuses not related to the program. Our objective was to determine whether the nonprofit administered its program funds in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements.We determined that the hotline complaint allegations had no merit. The nonprofit administered its program funds in accordance with HUD requirements for the expenses reviewed. The program expenses reviewed were supported and eligible.There are no recommendations.
The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (TFTEA) requires U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to establish standard operating procedures (SOP) for searching, reviewing, retaining, and sharing information in communication, electronic, or digital devices at U.S. ports of entry. We determined that CBP’s Office of Field Operations (OFO) did not always conduct the searches at U.S. ports of entry according to its SOPs. Specifically, because of inadequate supervision to ensure OFO officers properly documented searches, OFO cannot maintain accurate quantitative data or identify and address performance problems related to these searches. These deficiencies in supervision, guidance, and equipment management, combined with a lack of performance measures, limit OFO’s ability to detect and deter illegal activities related to terrorism; national security; human, drug, and bulk cash smuggling; and child pornography.