Federal Reports

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.

The Audit Tips provides an overview of OIG responsibilities; applicable disaster assistance Federal statutes, regulations, and guidelines; the audit process and frequent audit findings; and key points to remember when administering FEMA grants. Using this report should assist disaster assistance applicants to (1) document and account for disaster-related costs; (2) minimize the loss of FEMA disaster assistance funds; (3) maximize financial recovery; and (4) prevent fraud, waste, and abuse of disaster funds. We have updated the report to include information on FEMA’s second edition of the Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide that supersedes many of the Public Assistance publications and individual policy documents.

Through review of a sample of ICE segregation data and visits to seven detention facilities ICE uses to detain aliens held in Government custody, we determined that the seven facilities were generally following ICE guidance for documenting decisions on segregating detainees with mental health conditions and promptly reporting segregation placement information for detainees with mental health conditions to ICE field offices. However, the field offices we reviewed did not record and promptly report all instances of segregation to ICE headquarters, nor did their system properly reflect all required reviews of ongoing segregation cases. Also, ICE does not regularly compare segregation data in the electronic management system with information at detention facilities to assess the accuracy and reliability of data in the system. Unless ICE field offices comply with requirements to report and record these reviews, ICE headquarters cannot be sure required reviews are taking place and may not have all the information needed to assess the use of segregation, which could put detainees and facility staff at risk of harm. We made three recommendations to ICE to improve oversight and accountability for segregation of detainees with mental health conditions.

FEMA is currently responding to Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, some of the most catastrophic disasters in recent United States history. Damages from Hurricane Harvey are estimated to exceed $100 billion. On September 22, 2017, The State of Texas General Land Office (Texas) entered into an Intergovernmental Service Agreement (agreement) to provide assistance to FEMA in the delivery of Direct Housing Assistance (DHA) to Hurricane Harvey survivors on a temporary basis. FEMA estimates these costs will reach approximately $1 billion. The agreement does not clearly identify basic controls to ensure (DHA) funds are spent according to Federal regulations. For instance, the agreement does not include approval authorities and physical inspections, or separation of duties and independent certifications. We are concerned that without adequate controls in place the federal funds may be at risk of fraud, waste, and abuse. Therefore, it is imperative that FEMA ensure Texas’ proposed project management plan clearly identifies the internal controls needed to ensure that Federal funds will be properly spent. It also provides observations on the current and past issues with FEMA’s use of direct housing assistance programs.