Federal Reports

To view the report, please click on the link below.

This is our final report on the Department’s top management and performance challenges for fiscal year (FY) 2018. The top management and performance challenges we reported on last year remain critical issues facing the Department. However, we have revised our discussion to reflect the Department’s progress, changing priorities, and emerging risks:Challenge 1: Delivering a Timely 2020 Census That Maintains or Improves Data Quality but Costs Less Per Household Than the 2010 CensusChallenge 2: Ensuring the Continuity of Environmental Satellite ObservationsChallenge 3: Securing Department Systems and InformationChallenge 4: Deploying a Nationwide Public Safety Broadband NetworkChallenge 5: Efficiently and Effectively Enforcing Laws That Promote Fair and Secure TradeChallenge 6: Modernizing the Department’s Legacy IT Systems and Improving Data QualityChallenge 7: Implementing Processes to Improve Management of the Department’s Contracts, Grants, and Cooperative Agreements

The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) had a process in place to ensure that Head Start grantees took corrective action on A-133 audit findings. Head Start grantees are required to have Single Audits conducted in accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular A 133 (also known as A-133 audits) for fiscal years beginning before December 26, 2014. However, for Region VI Head Start grantees that submitted audit reports to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC), ACF did not always resolve recurring audit findings in accordance with Federal requirements and ACF policies and procedures. Specifically, ACF did not issue Audit Determination Letters (letters) for 20 of the 31 audit reports we reviewed within 6 months after receiving the reports. In addition, although ACF provided the grantees with letters stating that the corrective actions planned or taken should prevent recurrence of the findings, ACF did not establish specific dates for grantees to correct all deficiencies noted in the audit reports. Finally, ACF did not always follow up with grantees to ensure that they actually took corrective actions to resolve audit findings. The prompt resolution of audit findings helps ensure that Federal funds are effectively and efficiently used to carry out the activities for which they were authorized.

We determined that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) IT systems and infrastructure did not fully support its border security objective of preventing the entry of inadmissible aliens to the country. The slow performance of a critical system used for pre-screening travelers reduced Office of Field Operations officers’ ability to identify any passengers who may pose concerns, including national security threats. Further, incoming passenger screening at U.S. international airports was hampered by system outages that created passenger delays and public safety risks. IT systems and infrastructure also did not fully support Border Patrol and Air and Marine Operations border security activities between ports of entry. Poor systems performance and network instability resulted in processing backlogs and agents’ inability to meet deadlines for submitting potential criminal alien prosecution cases. Also, network outages hindered air and marine surveillance operations, reducing the situational awareness needed to detect inadmissible aliens and cargo approaching U.S. borders. CBP has not yet addressed these long-standing IT systems and infrastructure challenges, due in part to ongoing budget constraints. We recommended that CBP take steps to address passenger screening and border security IT systems and infrastructure challenges. We made seven recommendations and CBP concurred with all seven of our recommendations.

We identified that the Diocese generally accounted for FEMA funds on a project-by-project basis as required by Federal regulations and FEMA guidelines. However, it did not follow Federal procurement standards in awarding two contracts totaling $897,955. The Diocese and its parishes did not provide supporting documentation for procurements or their local procurement processes. This occurred primarily because the Diocese was not familiar with certain Federal regulations and FEMA guidelines. As FEMA’s grantee, New York should have done more to ensure the Diocese was aware of and complied with Federal procurement standards and documentation requirements. FEMA should emphasize New York’s role in proper grant administration.

We determined that the County accounted for and expended the majority of FEMA grant funds according to Federal regulations and FEMA guidelines. However, the County claimed $246,294 of ineligible and unsupported costs for two large projects. County officials said these issues occurred because FEMA officials provided inconsistent guidance regarding the types of direct administrative costs that were eligible; and internal clerical errors for overstated material costs. We recommended FEMA disallow $246,294 of ineligible and unsupported costs and provide clearer guidance for documenting eligible direct administrative costs.