Federal Reports

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.

We are required to conduct periodic risk assessments of agency purchase cards and convenience checks, combined integrated card programs, and travel card programs to analyze the risks of illegal, improper, or erroneous purchases and payments. We must report to the Office of Management and Budget Director by January 31 each year on DOI’s progress in implementing our audit recommendations related to Government charge cards.We issued three reports related to internal controls over Government purchase cards and travel cards within the past 6 years, and reported five open recommendations to OMB for FY 2016. As of September 30, 2016, four of those recommendations were resolved but not implemented and one remained unresolved. During FY 2017, three of those five open recommendations were implemented and closed. As of September 30, 2017, two resolved but unimplemented recommendations remained, each from a different report.We also reported to OMB that we anticipate the issuance of one charge card-related report (Report No. 2017-ER-015) in 2018 involving a Federal initiative managed by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. The DOI is also currently in the process of selecting a new charge card contractor to replace J.P. Morgan Chase, and expects the new contractor to be selected by February 2018. After February, the DOI and new contractor will begin work to meet the required November 2018 deadline for implementation of the new charge card program.

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 FY 2017. There are six program offices within CBP that are tasked with drug-control responsibilities: the United States Border Patrol (USBP), the Offices of Field Operations (OFO), Information and Technology (OIT), Training and Development (OTD), Acquisition (OA), and Air and Marine (AMO)

OIG completed a healthcare inspection of Management of Disruptive and Violent Behavior in Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities. The purpose of the evaluation was to determine whether facilities complied with selected VHA requirements. OIG conducted this review at 29 VHA medical facilities during Combined Assessment Program reviews performed across the country from October 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017. OIG noted high compliance in multiple areas, including that all facilities had implemented policies addressing prevention and management of disruptive/violent behavior and had conducted annual Workplace Behavioral Risk Assessments. However, Facility Directors needed to address employee-generated violence by establishing required Employee Threat Assessment Teams. Additionally, while facilities had established Disruptive Behavior Committees/Boards, Facility Directors need to ensure attendance at meetings by all required members. Patient Record Flags (PRF) in patients’ electronic health records communicate to clinicians that certain patients have exhibited disruptive/violent behavior. While most clinicians appropriately documented new flags, OIG found noncompliance with a requirement to inform patients about the PRFs and about the right to request to amend or appeal placement of the PRFs. OIG stressed the importance of informing patients for whom Orders of Behavioral Restriction (a type of therapeutic limit setting sometimes required to manage care for patients whose behavior is disruptive) were issued. Facilities had implemented training plans that used the official Prevention and Management of Disruptive Behavior training curriculum. However, facilities need to improve in providing newly hired employees with Level I Prevention and Management of Disruptive Behavior training and additional levels as indicated by the risk of the area assigned. VHA guidance focuses on managing patients who exhibit disruptive/violent behavior; ensuring a safe workplace would benefit from guidance concerning disruptive/violent behavior that involve non-patients as victims or perpetrators. We made four recommendations.

On January 30, 2018, an Amtrak supervisor was dismissed after an administrative hearing found that he violated company policy by accepting gifts and gratuities from Bayway Lumber (Bayway), a former Amtrak-approved vendor based in Linden, New Jersey.