Federal Reports

This report is part of an ongoing audit to determine whether DHS has training strategies and capabilities in place to train the 15,000 new agents and officers the Department plans to hire. ICE plans to hire and train more than 10,000 agents and officers over the next 5 years. HSI and ERO leaders could not provide justification and their views on training conflict with the centralized training model approach. Without a thorough analysis, efforts to decentralize aspects of ICE training may prove counterproductive to benefits ICE previously identified with the centralized training model analysis. Specifically, ICE may lose any improvements in capturing expenditures and forecasting costs, projecting training requirements, and evaluating the model’s effectiveness across ICE

OIG conducted a healthcare inspection regarding clinical practice concerns and lack of security at the Fort Benning, Georgia, VA Clinic (Clinic), located at the U.S. Army Garrison and part of the Central Alabama Veterans Health Care System (system). The complainant alleged that a Primary Care Provider (PCP X) did not follow up on elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) results, evaluate a patient’s condition, provide timely care, or respond to patient requests for specialty care/pharmacy services. The complainant also alleged the Clinic lacked VA Police presence and panic alarms. We substantiated that PCP X did not routinely follow up on elevated PSA results, which delayed a patient’s prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment. Also, system leaders did not consistently monitor PCP X’s performance or take adequate administrative action. We notified system and VISN 7 leaders about PCP X’s performance and compromised quality of care. Although we did not substantiate that PCP X failed to evaluate a patient’s condition, documentation was regularly inconsistent with presenting conditions, diagnoses, and treatment plans. PCP X did not consistently submit appropriate consultations, follow up on consultant recommendations, or include relevant information to support consultations as required by VHA policy. We substantiated that PCP X did not provide care for an unscheduled patient (another PCP provided care), failed to provide timely care for two patients, and did not respond to a specialty care request. We did not substantiate that PCP X failed to respond to pharmacy service requests. We substantiated the Clinic lacked VA Police presence, but U.S. Army Garrison police responded to calls. We substantiated the Clinic lacked panic alarms, which were not required. Clinic staff also did not receive emergency procedures training or information. We made eight recommendations.

The Office of National Drug Control Policy’s (ONDCP) Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary, requires National Drug Control Program agencies to submit to the ONDCP Director, not later than February 1 of each year, a detailed accounting of all funds expended for National Drug Control Program activities during the previous fiscal year (FY). The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is required to conduct a review of the report and provide a conclusion about the reliability of each assertion made in the report. Independent Accountants’ Report on the U.S. Coast Guard’s (Coast Guard) FY 2017 Drug Control Performance Summary Report. Coast Guard’s management prepared the Performance Summary Report and the related disclosures in accordance with the requirements of the ONDCP Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary, dated January 18, 2013 (Circular).

The Office of National Drug Control Policy’s (ONDCP) Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary, requires National Drug Control Program agencies to submit to the ONDCP Director, not later than February 1 of each year, a detailed accounting of all funds expended for National Drug Control Program activities during the previous fiscal year (FY). The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is required to conduct a review of the agency’s submission and provide a conclusion about the reliability of each assertion in the report. an Independent Accountants’ Report on U.S. Coast Guard’s (Coast Guard) Detailed Accounting Submission. Coast Guard’s management prepared the Table of FY 2017 Drug Control Obligations and related disclosures in accordance with the requirements of the ONDCP Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary, dated January 18, 2013 (Circular).

The Office of National Drug Control Policy’s (ONDCP) Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary, requires National Drug Control Program agencies to submit to the ONDCP Director, not later than February 1 of each year, a detailed accounting of all funds expended for National Drug Control Program activities during the previous fiscal year (FY). The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is required to conduct a review of the report and provide a conclusion about the reliability of each assertion made in the report. Independent Accountants’ Report on the U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement’s (ICE) FY 2017 Drug Control Performance Summary Report. ICE’s management prepared the Performance Summary Report and the related disclosures in accordance with the requirements of the ONDCP Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary, dated January 18, 2013 (Circular).

We evaluated the Department’s draft body camera policy and bureau body camera practices and determined that they were not consistent with industry standards. We identified two leading authorities on law enforcement use of body cameras—the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the Police Executive Research Forum—and concluded that by adopting their recommendations, the Department and bureaus will strengthen their body camera policies and practices. Specifically, the Department’s draft policy would benefit from including standards for controls over body camera recordings, prohibition of manipulating and sharing recordings, requirements to note recordings in incident reports, requirements to document when a recording is not made or not completed, requirements to categorize videos, direction on sharing recordings, requirements for supervisors to review recordings, and requirements to inspect body cameras before shifts.The Department has not yet issued and implemented a final policy on the use of body cameras by law enforcement. To date, bureau use of body cameras has been voluntary and decisions to purchase equipment are generally made at the field or regional level. Meanwhile, the bureaus have or are in process of issuing their own policies. Without a Departmentwide policy, however, these bureau policies vary in content and implementation. We found that bureau practices deviate from industry standard by not: controlling cameras and recordings, tracking camera inventory, identifying recordings in incident reports, purging recordings after the retention period expires, or enforcing supervisory review of recordings. Until the Department issues a final body camera policy that includes critical industry standards, implementation of a successful body camera program is at risk, particularly in areas such as data quality, systems security, and privacy. The inconsistent use of body cameras and failure to adhere to industry standards also increases the risk that investigative or judicial proceedings will be challenged for failure to properly maintain evidence chain of custody, and could lead to an erosion of public trust in bureau law enforcement programs.We made 13 recommendations to address the deficiencies in the Department’s draft policy and bureau practices that, if implemented, will improve consistency with industry standards and reduce the risks described above. On November 28, 2017, the Department provided a response to our draft report. In its response, the Department concurred with Recommendations 1 – 7, did not concur with Recommendation 8, and did not address Recommendations 9 – 13.