Office of the Inspector General: Review of Seven Offices by Michael Erbschloe - HTML preview

U.S. Department of Homeland Security OIG

Both the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Act and this Office of Inspector General (OIG) were established by Congress in 2002. The OIG is led by an Inspector General who is appointed by the President and subject to Senate confirmation. The vision of DHS OIG is to drive transformative change to improve DHS programs and operations and promote a safer homeland by providing independent oversight and promote excellence, integrity, and accountability within DHS. The OIG focuses its oversight on DHS’ core mission areas:

• Preventing Terrorism and Enhancing Security;
• Securing and Managing Our Borders;
• Enforcing and Administering Our Immigration Laws;
• Safeguarding and Securing Cyberspace;
• Ensuring Resilient Response to Disasters

Fiscal Year 2018 OIG Accomplishments:

Dollar Impact:

Questioned Costs: $175,133,425

Funds Put to Better Use: $77,657,165

Funds Recovered / Deobligated: $58,748,471

Restitution: $27,561,639

Fines: $60,491

Asset Forfeiture: $72,947,509

Activities:

Reports Issued: 89

Recommendations Issued: 318

Recommendations Closed: 279

Hotline Complaints Received: 40,657

Whistleblower Complaints Received: 198

Investigations Referred to Prosecution: 202

Investigations Closed: 856

Arrests: 103

Convictions: 76

Indictments: 133

In 2019 the OIG found that DHS does not have sufficient policies and procedures to address employee misconduct. Specifically, the Department’s policy does not include procedures for reporting allegations of misconduct, clear and specific supervisor roles and expectations, or clearly defined key discipline terms. These deficiencies occurred because DHS’ Employee Relations office has limited staff, who do not believe they are responsible for managing the allegation process. DHS also does not effectively manage the misconduct program throughout the Department, lacking data monitoring and metrics to gauge program performance. Without oversight through defined policies and program management, DHS cannot make informed decisions to improve the program and ensure all components manage the misconduct process consistently. Additionally, this shortcoming could lead to costly litigation due to inappropriate or unenforceable disciplinary determinations.

In addition, the OIG also reported that overall, our inspections of four detention facilities revealed violations of ICE’s 2011 Performance-Based National Detention Standards, which set requirements for facilities housing detainees. This report summarizes findings on our latest round of unannounced inspections at four detention facilities housing ICE detainees. Although the conditions varied among the facilities and not every problem was present at each, our observations, detainee and staff interviews, and document reviews revealed several common issues. Because we observed immediate risks or egregious violations of detention standards at facilities in Adelanto, CA, and Essex County, NJ, including nooses in detainee cells, overly restrictive segregation, inadequate medical care, unreported security incidents, and significant food safety issues, we issued individual reports to ICE after our visits to these two facilities. All four facilities had issues with expired food, which puts detainees at risk for food-borne illnesses. At three facilities, we found that segregation practices violated standards and infringed on detainee rights. Two facilities failed to provide recreation outside detainee housing units. Bathrooms in two facilities’ detainee housing units were dilapidated and moldy. At one facility, detainees were not provided appropriate clothing and hygiene items to ensure they could properly care for themselves. Lastly, one facility allowed only non-contact visits, despite being able to accommodate in-person visitat