|Return to the USDOJ/OIG Home Page|
Reemployment of Annuitants by the Immigration and Naturalization Service
Report No. 03-16
Office of the Inspector General
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
In response to a request by the Chairmen of the House Judiciary Committee, and the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, the Office of the Inspector General initiated an audit of waivers to dual compensation restrictions utilized by the INS to reemploy retired annuitants. Our preliminary objectives were three-fold: (1) identify the annuitants INS rehired and the compensation awarded, (2) assess whether the INS approved waivers of dual compensation reductions appropriately, and (3) determine whether the INS developed and implemented long-term hiring and training strategies that would reduce the need to rehire annuitants.
We conducted an entrance conference at INS headquarters where we were provided documentation detailing the extensive involvement of JMD as oversight agency per OPM guidance, in managing the INS's waiver approval process effective September 30, 2000. Accordingly, JMD was included within the scope of this audit. Our objectives, as they pertain to each distinct department, remained three-fold and unchanged.
This audit was conducted in accordance with Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Consequently, we included in our research records pertaining to personnel management and financial accounting as provided by the NFC, JMD, and INS.
In the course of our research we conducted interviews with INS, JMD, NFC, and OPM officials. The audit team conducted on-site visits to the U.S. Border Patrol Academy's training facility in Charleston, SC, in addition to an on-site visit to the Immigration Officer Academy located within FLETC in Brunswick, GA. We interviewed the academy chiefs, border patrol agents, senior administrative personnel, and annuitant training instructors past and present.
As part of our audit process, we routinely ask management of the organization audited to furnish us with a signed management representation letter. In this letter, INS and JMD management would certify to us that: (1) they provided us with all standards, internal reports, memoranda, and other documentation associated with the reemployment of annuitants; and (2) there are no relevant matters, contingencies, irregularities, or subsequent events of which our staff has not been aware. As of the date of issuance of the report, the INS Executive Associate Commissioner for Management declined to sign the letter. At the exit conference, JMD officials indicated that they would provide a management representation letter. However, at the time of issuance of this report, we had not received it. Therefore, our findings are qualified to the extent that the INS and JMD management may not have provided us with all relevant information.