Federal Reports

Aransas County’s procurement policies and procedures are not adequate to meet minimum Federal procurement regulations or address key procurement elements despite guidance and contacts with the Texas Department of Public Safety, Texas Division of Emergency Management (Texas). We recommended the Regional Administrator, FEMA Region VI, require Texas to continue providing additional technical assistance and monitoring to the County, and provide to DHS OIG documentation supporting FEMA’s actions to that end. FEMA officials agreed with both recommendations. Prior to final issuance of this report, FEMA took action to resolve and close both recommendations. No further action is required

Through its Criminal Alien Program (CAP), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can successfully identify aliens charged with or convicted of crimes. However, because ICE relies on cooperation from other law enforcement agencies, it sometimes faces challenges apprehending aliens in uncooperative jurisdictions. ICE’s inability to detain aliens identified through CAP contributes to increased risk those aliens will commit more crimes. Furthermore, having to arrest “at-large” aliens may put officer, detainee, and public safety at risk and strains ICE’s staffing resources. We made four recommendations to ICE focused on improving CAP. ICE concurred with all four recommendations and initiated corrective actions to address the findings.

Seek link below for the full report, report summary, multimedia or any agency follow-up.

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) investigated an allegation that an employee in the VA Office of General Counsel’s District Contracting National Practice Group was approved to move his/her office from Pittsburgh to Altoona, Pennsylvania, but continued to improperly receive the higher locality pay for the Pittsburgh area. The OIG substantiated that the employee’s telework agreement did not comply with applicable regulations, which require an employee to report to his or her official worksite twice per pay period when the employee is not in a permanent telework arrangement. In this instance, the employee’s official worksite was Pittsburgh and the employee’s supervisor had approved an exception to accommodate the employee’s caregiving needs for a family member. This approval occurred in 2008, and the telework arrangement remained in effect through at least November 2017. Although exceptions can be granted on a temporary basis, there is no discretion to grant a permanent exception to the requirement that a teleworking employee report to his or her official worksite twice per pay period. There was no evidence that the employee’s supervisors ever reassessed the telework arrangement to determine whether it continued to be appropriate. The OIG determined that the employee and the employee’s supervisors took appropriate corrective action once the issue became known in November 2017, prior to the initiation of the OIG’s investigation. The OIG did not identify any evidence to suggest that the failure to reassess the employee’s telework circumstances was the result of an intentional effort to improperly impact the employee’s locality pay. Accordingly, the OIG did not substantiate misconduct. The OIG makes one recommendation relating to the need to clarify the authority and obligations of telework-approving supervisors within the Office of General Counsel.

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted this review in response to veterans’ benefits claims identified and referred by the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) as being potentially fraudulent. It also addressed whether allegations to the OIG hotline that telehealth questionnaires (without in-person examinations) were being improperly used for benefits determinations. VBA prohibits the use of telehealth for benefit rating purposes. The OIG had previously found problems with the use of disability benefits questionnaires and recommended VBA improve controls on the use of publicly available forms that could be altered to support baseless or exaggerated disability claims. The OIG found claims processors improperly used questionnaires completed by private care providers to determine benefit entitlements without ensuring the examination was done in person. For example, VBA made improper determinations in 41 of the 81 claims the OIG reviewed, amounting to about $613,000 in benefit payments. Many other claims were likely submitted with telehealth examinations. VBA cannot easily identify those examinations improperly used to provide benefits nor correct related claims. VBA did not provide consistent staff guidance, adequately monitor use of telehealth questionnaires, or modify forms to reflect prohibited uses. VBA’s internal controls are inadequate to prevent the use of publicly available questionnaires, which contain an inherent risk of fraud, despite VBA’s risk-mitigation efforts. The OIG recommended the under secretary for benefits consider whether to discontinue using publicly available questionnaires for supporting benefit claims. If use is continued, VBA should update procedures so claims processors know how to handle questionnaires they suspect were completed via telehealth. The OIG also recommended adding to questionnaires whether they were completed in person or through telehealth, and publicly noting that telehealth examinations are not acceptable for determining benefit entitlements.

We reviewed the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) funding allotment for tenant protection assistance at the Vineville Christian Towers (project) related to a housing conversion action and its approval of the project’s Rental Assistance Demonstration Program (RAD) conversion. The review was initiated as a result of internal issues identified during an external audit of the project’s RAD conversion. The objective was to determine whether HUD accurately allotted funding for tenant protection assistance and whether it properly approved the project’s proposed RAD conversion.HUD inaccurately allotted funding for tenant protection assistance at the project and improperly approved the project’s RAD conversion. Specifically, the Financial Management Division inappropriately processed a funding allotment for tenant protection assistance for a housing conversion action at the project based on unsupported requests from Multifamily and PIH program offices. Further, the Office of Recapitalization improperly approved the project’s RAD conversion for 90 units. These conditions occurred because (1) the procedures for funding allotments did not specify requiring support of the housing conversion action and (2) along with not maintaining adequate approval documentation, the Office of Recapitalization did not ensure that its requirement was met before approving the RAD conversion request for the project. As a result, nearly $715,000 in tenant protection assistance funding was inaccurately allocated, and more than $624,000 in housing assistance payments and administrative fees was improperly provided through an ineligible Section 8 Project-Based Voucher Program housing assistance payments contract.We recommend that the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing, in coordination with the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, update and implement the internal procedures for processing housing conversion actions to require documentation, including but not limited to expired contracts or financial documentation from HUD’s Line of Credit Control System, to show when the last payment was made for the contract to support the proposed housing conversion actions before allotment of tenant protection funds, and Update and implement internal procedures to require verification that tenant protection funds were not previously allotted for the same type of housing conversion action. We also recommend that the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Multifamily Housing require the Office of Recapitalization, for the remaining retroactive RAD conversion not completed, to take steps, including but not limited to (1) maintaining adequate approval documentation and (2) training staff responsible for reviewing and approving RAD applications to ensure that it enforces its requirement that the tenant protection assistance is provided to tenants before the submission of the RAD application.

Twenty-one Amtrak machinists and supervisors were coached and counseled between October 31, 2019 and February 16, 2020, after our investigation determined the employees received temporary pay increases they were not entitled to. Known as “pay differentials,” these temporary hourly pay increases are granted for work performed beyond an employee’s regular duties. We found that employees based in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, DC, were ineligible to receive the pay differentials, yet they requested these payments from the company’s Work Management System and their supervisors approved them without proper verification. We found that the company paid approximately $43,000 in pay differentials that it was not contractually obligated to pay under its collective bargaining agreement. Company officials said they implemented an updated pay differential policy that will prevent such future payments unless they are explicitly approved by management.