Skip to main content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Government Website

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Safely connect using HTTPS

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock () or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Audits, Inspections, and Evaluations

Report Number Title Issue Date Fiscal Year
OIG-17-82 KPMG LLP, under contract with DHS OIG, audited the S&T financial statements and internal control over financial reporting.  The resulting management letter discusses three observations related to internal control for management’s consideration.  The auditors identified internal control deficiencies in several processes including journal entry review processes; procurement and financial management system reconciliations; and intra-governmental payment and collection expense review and approval.  These deficiencies are not considered significant and were not required to be reported in our Independent Auditors' Report on DHS’ FY 2016 Financial Statements and Internal Control over Financial Reporting, dated November 14, 2016, included in the DHS FY 2016 Agency Financial Report.

>Science and Technology Directorate's' Management Letter for DHS' Fiscal Year 2016 Financial Statements Audit 		2017
OIG-14-83 We contracted with the independent public accounting firm KPMG LLP (KPMG) to conduct the audit of the DHS’ FY 2013 financial statements and internal control over financial reporting. The contract required that KPMG perform its audit according to generally accepted government auditing standards and guidance from the Office of Management and Budget and the Government Accountability Office. KPMG isresponsible for the attached management letter dated January 15, 2014, and the conclusions expressed in it

>Science and Technology Directorate's Management Letter for FY 2013 DHS Financial Statements Audit 		2014
OIG-12-59  

>Science and Technology Directorate's Management Letter for FY 2011 DHS Consolidated Financial Statements Audit 		2012
OIG-11-50  

>Science and Technology Directorate's Management Letter for FY 2010 DHS Consolidated Financial Statements Audit 		2011
OIG-16-76 The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-576) and the Department Of Homeland Security Financial Accountability Act (Public Law 108-330) require us to conduct an annual audit of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) consolidated financial statements and internal control over financial reporting.

>Science and Technology Directorate's Management Letter for DHS' FY 2015 Financial Statements Audit 		2016
OIG-15-73 KPMG LLP reviewed the National Protection and Programs Directorate’s (NPPD) internal control over financial reporting. The management letter contains five observations related to internal control and other operational matters for management’s considerations. KPMG LLP reviewed the Science and Technology Directorate’s (S&T) internal control over financial reporting. The management letter contains four observations related to internal control and other operational matters for management’s considerations.

>Science and Technology Directorate's Management Letter for DHS' FY 2014 Financial Statements Audit ( 		2015
OIG-15-38 We conducted an audit of S&T’s award and management of its contract with NVS Technologies, Inc. Although S&T properly awarded the contract, we identified deficiencies with S&T’s management of the contract. Specifically, program managers did not document contract oversight because S&T does not have adequate policies and procedures governing contract management. As a result, S&T may have wasted $23 million in incurred costs plus additional cost associated with contract termination. If program performance is not adequately documented, S&T may also have difficulty making well-informed decisions on all its contracts.

>Science and Technology Directorate Needs to Improve Its Contract Management Procedures 		2015
OIG-14-56-D The California Governor's Office ofEmergency Services (State), a FEMA grantee, awarded the District $2,540,374 for costs resulting from severe storms, flooding, mudslides, and landslides from December 17, 2005, through January 3, 2006. The award provided 75 percent FEMA funding for one large project and one small project.1 Our audit covered the period from December 17, 2005, to July 2, 2013. We ~udited the one large project (Project 2186) totaling $2,532,324. During our audit fieldwork, FEMA closed the District's grant in July 2013.

>Santa Cruz Port District Generally Followed Regulations for Spending FEMA Public Assistance Funds 		2014
OIG-14-03-D The California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), a FEMA grantee, awarded the County $6,214,400 for costs resulting from storms, flooding, debris flows, and mudslides from March 29, through April 16, 2006.1 The award provided 75 percent FEMA funding for 17 large projects and 26 small projects.2 Our audit covered the period from March 29, 2006 to September 6, 2013. We audited 7 large and 16 small projects totaling $4,628,127 (see exhibit). As of the date of this report, Cal OES was in the process of reviewing the County’s final claim.

>Santa Cruz County, California, Generally Followed Regulations for Spending FEMA Public Assistance Funds 		2014
OIG-14-128-D We conducted this audit early in the Public Assistance process to identify areas where the Pueblo may need additional technical assistance or monitoring to ensure compliance. In addition, by undergoing an audit early n the grant cycle, grant recipients have the opportunity to correct noncompliance with Federal regulations before they spend the majority of their funding. It also allows them the opportunity to supplement deficient documentation or locate missing documentation before too much time elapses. Our audit covered the period July 19, 2013, through January 28, 2014. At the time of our audit,FEMA estimated the Pueblo, a FEMA grantee, sustained approximately $7.4 million in damages from two disasters.

>Santa Clara Pueblo, New Mexico, Needs Assistance to Ensure Compliance with FEMA Public Assistance Grant Requirements 		2014
OIG-18-66 In July 2017, FEMA reported that it awarded 252 projects under the PA alternative procedures pilot program valued at $11.9 billion, with just 26 of those projects (10.32 percent) closed. During our fieldwork, we gained access to FEMA’s grant management system of record and reviewed supporting documentation for the project worksheets in our scope to determine if FEMA followed its criteria when validating cost estimates. However, FEMA did not sufficiently document actions that it took to validate subrecipient cost estimates to ensure costs are reasonable. Of the three obligated projects we reviewed during our fieldwork, we did not find evidence that FEMA completed the required steps identified to validate the reasonableness of subrecipient cost estimates.

>Sandy Recovery Improvement Act Review 		2018
DS-09-04  

>San Diego County, California 		2009
OIG-16-63-D San Bernardino County,California (County), receive a $16.5 million Public Assistance grant award for damages resulting from California wildfires that occurred from October 2007 through March 2008. We audited $14.3 million of the $16.5 million gross award.

>San Bernardino County, California, Generally Accounted for and Expended FEMA Public Assistance Funds Properly 		2016
DS-08-04 San Bernardino County, CA, Public Assistance ID No. 071-99071-00, FEMA Disaster No. 1498-DR-CA 2008
OIG-07-41 Sales of the Federal Emergency Management Agency Travel Trailers and Mobile Homes 2007
W-06-03 Sacramento County, Sacramento, CA, Public Assistance ID No. 067-00000, FEMA Disaster No. 1155-DR-CA, 2004
OIG-22-30 S&T Needs to Improve Its Management and Oversight of R&D Projects 2022
OIG-19-59 We determined that despite requirements of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended, the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) did not effectively coordinate and integrate department-wide research and development (R&D) activities.  In August 2015, S&T established Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) as the central mechanism to identify, track, and coordinate department-wide priority R&D efforts.  However, S&T did not follow its IPT process as intended.  Specifically, not all components submitted all information on capability gaps to the IPTs; S&T did not effectively gather, track, and manage data on the Department’s R&D gaps and activities; and S&T did not adequately monitor the IPT process to ensure it was effective.  As a result, S&T may not be able to provide the Secretary of Homeland Security and Congress with an accurate profile of the Department’s R&D activities or justify funding needs for a wide range of missions, including securing the border, detecting nuclear devices, and screening airline passengers.  We made three recommendations to improve S&T’s coordination of R&D activities across DHS.  S&T concurred with our recommendations.

>S&T Is Not Effectively Coordinating Research and Development Efforts across DHS 		2019
OIG-14-30-D The Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management (State), a FEMA grantee, awarded the Cooperative $3.76 million for damages resulting from severe winter storms from January 28 through 30, 2010. The award provided 75 percent funding for two large projects and one small project.1 The audit covered the period January 28, 2010, through March 28, 2011, the cutoff date of our audit, and included a review of two large projects totaling $3.75 million (see Exhibit, Schedule of Projects Audited). As of our cutoff date, the Cooperative had completed and FEMA had closed all projects.

>Rural Electric Cooperative, Lindsay, Oklahoma, Generally Accounted for and Expended FEMA Public Assistance Grant Funds Correctly 		2014
DS-10-05  

>Rubidoux Community Services District  		2010
DD-10-18 The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New Orleans is a division of the Roman Catholic Church and is the second-oldest diocese in the United States. The Archdiocese encompasses 8 civil parishes in the New Orleans metropolitan area arid includes 108 church parishes. In addition to the religious facilities of each church parish, the Archdiocese also owns primarily non-religious facilities including school buildings, elderly and disabled persons housing, and charitable assistance buildings. Hurricane Katrina's high winds and flooding caused extensive damage to many of the Archdiocese's primarily non-religious buildings. The Archdiocese accounted for disaster costs on a project-by-project basis, as required. However, the Archdiocese did not always follow federal procurement standards, arid its claim included $520,952 in ineligible costs for markups on contract costs ($510,328) and costs not incurred ($10,624).

>Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of New Orleans  		2010
DD-11-11  

>Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of New Orleans Funding of Permanent Work 		2011
DD-10-05  

>Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New Orleans, Bidding Process ( 		2010
OIG-09-64  

>Role of the No Fly and Selectee Lists in Securing Commercial Aviation 		2009
OIG-15-143-D Rock County Highway Department, Minnesota, (Department) received a $1.25 million grant for damages from a 2014 disaster. We conducted this audit early in the grant process to identify areas where the Department may need additional technical assistance or monitoring to ensure compliance with Federal requirements. The Department has established policies, procedures, and business practices to account for and expend Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Public Assistance grant funds according to Federal regulations and FEMA guidelines.

>Rock County, Minnesota, Highway Department Has Adequate Policies, Procedures, and Business Practices to Effectively Manage Its FEMA Public Assistance Grant Funding 		2015
OIG-07-07 Risk Management Advisory for the SBInet Program Initiation, 2007
OIG-20-10 As required under the Grants Oversight and New Efficiency (GONE) Act of 2016, Public Law 114-117, we conducted a risk assessment of FEMA’s grant closeout process to determine whether a full audit is warranted in the future.  We identified risks in three overarching areas:  Unreliable Systems of Record, Lack of Integration in Grant Closeout Policies and Guidance, and Delays in Grant Closeout and Deobligation of Funds.  As a result, we may conduct a full audit of FEMA’s grant closeout process at a future date.  DHS and FEMA concurred with our risk assessment results.  We made no recommendations to FEMA.

>Risk Assessment of FEMA's Grant Closeout Process 		2020
OIG-22-22 Rio Grande Valley Area Border Patrol Struggles with High Volumes of Detainees and Cases of Prolonged Detention but Has Taken Consistent Measures to Improve Conditions in Facilities 2022
OIG-11-22 Revisions to the Marine Safety Performance Plan and Annual Update Supplement Will Facilitate Improved Management 2011
GC-HQ-06-17 Revised Report - Management Advisory Report on Armed Guard Services Provided by Blackwater Security Consulting, LLC under contract 2006
OIG-06-22 Reviews of Vulnerabilities and Potential Abuses of the L-1 Visa Program 2006
OIG-20-11 Weld County, Colorado did not always follow Federal procurement standards in awarding contracts for disaster work.  As a result of our review, we identified and discussed with FEMA various areas where it should review and adjust for cost reasonableness the funding amounts that a project and program management contractor charged related to Weld County.  FEMA agreed to review the costs for reasonableness, unless if FEMA disallowed all of the costs for procurement violations.  We subsequently reviewed FEMA’s cost analysis documentation for Weld County project closeouts related to this disaster.  We found that FEMA appropriately reduced final project amounts due to improper procurements and cost reasonableness concerns, including unreasonable contractor hourly rates.  Consequently, made no recommendations. 

>Review of Weld County, Colorado FEMA Grant Award Disaster No. 4145-DR-CO, Applicant No. 123-99123-00 		2020
OIG-10-06 Review of USCG's Expenditure Plans for the ARRA of 2009 2010
OIG-10-07 Review of United States Coast Guard's Certification of Maritime Awareness Global Network (MAGNET)  2010
OIG-14-38 We contracted with the independent public accounting firm KPMG LLP to perform the review. KPMG LLP is responsible for the attached independent accountants’ report, dated February 04, 2014, and the conclusions expressed in it. We do not express an opinion on the Performance Summary Report. This report contains no recommendation.

>Review of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Reporting of FY 2013 Drug Control Performance Summary Report 		2014
OIG-13-32 We have reviewed the accompanying Performance Summary Report of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for the year ended September 30, 2012. We have also reviewed the accompanying management’s assertions for the year ended September 30, 2012. ICE’s management is responsible for the Performance Summary Report and the assertions.

>Review of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Reporting of FY 2012 Drug Control Performance Summary Report 		2013
OIG-15-23 KPMG LLP, under contract with the Department of Homeland Security OIG, issued an Independent Accountants’ Report on the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) fiscal year (FY) 2014 Drug Control Performance Summary Report. ICE management prepared the Performance Summary Report and related disclosures to comply with the requirements of ONDCP’s circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary (Circular), dated January 18, 2013. Based on its review, nothing came to KPMG LLP’s attention that caused it to believe that the Performance Summary Report for the year ended September 30, 2014, is not presented, in all material respects, in conformity with the criteria in the ONDCP Circular. KPMG LLP did not make any recommendations as a result of its review.

>Review of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's FY 2014 Drug Control Performance Summary Report 		2015
OIG-15-24 KPMG LLP, under contract with the Department of Homeland Security OIG, issued an Independent Accountants’ Report on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Detailed Accounting Submission. ICE management prepared the Table of FY 2014 Drug Control Obligations and related disclosures to comply with the requirements of the Office of National Drug Control Policy’s ONDCP Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary (Circular), dated January 18, 2013. Based on its review, nothing came to KPMG LLP’s attention that caused it to believe that the Detailed Accounting Submission for the year ended September 30, 2014, is not presented, in all material respects, in conformity with the criteria in ONDCP’s Circular. KPMG LLP did not make any recommendations as a result of its review.

>Review of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's FY 2014 Detailed Accounting Submission 		2015
OIG-24-15 Review of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Fiscal Year 2023 Drug Control Budget Formulation Compliance Report 2024
OIG-24-12 Review of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Fiscal Year 2023 Detailed Accounting Report for Drug Control Funds 2024
OIG-22-21 Review of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Fiscal Year 2021 Drug Control Budget Formulation Compliance Report 2022
OIG-22-18 Review of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Fiscal Year 2021 Detailed Accounting Report for Drug Control Funds 2022
OIG-19-30 The Office of National Drug Control Policy’s (ONDCP) Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary, requires each National Drug Control Program agency to submit to ONDCP Director a detailed accounting of all funds expended for National Drug Control Program activities during the previous fiscal year (FY). ICE’s management prepared the Performance Summary Report and the related disclosures in accordance with the requirements of ONDCP Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary, dated May 8, 2018 (the Circular). Williams Adley was unable to assess the accuracy of the number of products reported in Metric 2, “Number of counter-narcotics intelligence requests satisfied,” as part of the PSR.

>Review of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Fiscal Year 2018 Drug Control Performance Summary Report 		2019
OIG-19-25 Review of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Fiscal Year 2018 Detailed Accounting Submission for Drug Control Funds 2019
OIG-18-45 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).

>Review of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Fiscal Year 2017 Drug Control Performance Summary Report 		2018
OIG-18-46 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. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a multi-mission bureau, and obligations are reported pursuant to an approved drug methodology. ICE's Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Domestic Investigations, International Operations (IO) and Office of Intelligence uphold U.S. drug control policy delegated amid the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) initiatives, by fully supporting the overall ICE mandate to detect, disrupt, and dismantle smuggling organizations.

>Review of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Fiscal Year 2017 Detailed Accounting Submission for Drug Control Funds 		2018
OIG-17-31 ICE’s management prepared the Performance Summary Report and the related disclosures to comply with the requirements of ONDCP’s Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary, dated January 18, 2013.  Based on its review, nothing came to KPMG’s attention that caused it to believe that ICE’s FY 2016 Performance Summary Report is not presented in conformity with the criteria in ONDCP’s Circular.  KPMG did not make any recommendations as a result of its review. 

>Review of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Fiscal Year 2016 Drug Control Performance Summary Report 		2017
OIG-17-30 ICE’s management prepared the Table of FY 2016 Drug Control Obligations and related disclosures to comply with the requirements of ONDCP’s Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary, dated January 18, 2013.  Based on its review, nothing came to KPMG’s attention that caused it to believe that the FY 2016 Detailed Accounting Submission is not presented in conformity with the criteria in ONDCP’s Circular.  KPMG did not make any recommendations as a result of its review.

>Review of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Fiscal Year 2016 Detailed Accounting Submission 		2017
OIG-16-30 KPMG LLP, under contract with the Department of Homeland Security OIG, issued an Independent Accountants’ Report on the U.S. Immigration and Enforcement’s (ICE) fiscal year 2015 Drug Control Performance Summary Report. ICE management prepared the Performance Summary Report and related disclosures to comply with the requirements of the ONDCP Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary, dated January 18, 2013 (Circular). Based on its review, nothing came to KPMG LLP’s attention that caused it to believe that ICE’s FY 2015 Performance Summary Report is not presented in conformity with the criteria in the ONDCP Circular. KPMG LLP did not make any recommendations as a result of its review.

>Review of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Fiscal Year 2015 Drug Control Performance Summary Report 		2016
OIG-16-31 KPMG LLP, under contract with the Department of Homeland Security OIG, issued an Independent Accountants’ Report on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Detailed Accounting Submission. ICE’s management prepared the Table of FY 2015 Drug Control Obligations and related disclosures to comply with the requirements of the ONDCP Circular, Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary, dated January 18, 2013 (Circular). Based on its review, nothing came to KPMG LLP’s attention that caused it to believe that ICE’s FY 2015 Detailed Accounting Submission is not presented in conformity with the criteria in ONDCP’s Circular. KPMG LLP did not make any recommendations as a result of its review.

>Review of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Fiscal Year 2015 Detailed Accounting Submission 		2016

*NDAA, Pub. L. 117-263, section 5274 Response Received. View responses

Return to top of page