Return to the USDOJ/OIG Home Page
Return to the Table of Contents

Immigration and Naturalization Service Expenditures Charged to the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces Program for Fiscal Years 1997 - 2002

Report No. 04-03
November 2003
Office of the Inspector General


logo of the accounting firm Price Waterhouse Coopers
Audit Results

Questioned Costs

Our review of INS's OCDETF costs for fiscal years 1997 through 2002 found approximately $6.7 million of questioned costs. This amount consists of $3.1 million of non-OCDETF costs and $3.6 million of unsupported costs that had been billed and paid. These amounts do not include any questioned costs for salary and benefits for fiscal years 1997 and 1998 because supporting documentation was not retained past three years. They also do not include any questioned costs for fiscal year 2002 other direct costs, which could not be tested because INS had not yet finalized their billings for this period. Additionally, the unsupported costs represent only the questioned costs from items actually tested and do not contain any projected error.

Our audit determined that certain INS OCDETF dedicated agents reported time to non-OCDETF related investigation codes on their monthly investigation time reports (G-22.12). However, the full cost of their salary and benefits were billed to the EO contrary to EO's policy that only OCDETF-related investigation costs are reimbursable. We were unable to determine if all of the other direct costs we tested were for OCDETF related investigations because documentation was not provided or it did not evidence that costs were incurred for an OCDETF related purpose. Exhibit No. 3 provides a summary of questioned costs by fiscal year.

Exhibit No. 3 - Summary of Questioned Costs
Fiscal Year Non-OCDETF Costs (a) Unsupported Costs (b) Total Questioned
Costs
Salary & Benefits Salary & Benefits Other Direct Costs
Tested Projected
1997 (c) (c) (c) $ 41,417 $ 41,417
1998 (c) (c) (c) $ 69,736 $ 69,736
1999 $ 321,050 $ 460,868 $ 625,952 $ 6,806 $ 1,414,676
2000 $ 400,012 $ 682,279 $ 254,228 $ 1,510,889 $ 2,847,408
2001 $ 198,004 $ 447,518 $ 506,792 $ 218,813 $ 1,371,127
2002 $ 241,382 $ 331,669 $ 356,336 (c) $ 929,387
Total $ 1,160,448 $ 1,922,334 $ 1,743,308 $ 1,847,661 $ 6,673,751
  1. Questioned costs consist of the error identified during the testing of sample items and the error from the untested part of the population that is based upon the projection of the error rate identified during the testing of sample items.
  1. Unsupported costs are a subset of questioned costs and represent only the costs of the sample items selected for testing. For fiscal year 2000, other direct costs of $1.5 million mainly represents INS's requisition of motor vehicles where receiving reports (invoices) where not provided to support the receipt and final cost of the vehicles.
  1. Testing was not performed for these years as discussed in Appendix I, Scope and Methodology.

Non-OCDETF costs represent salary and benefit costs that we calculated to be related to non-OCDETF investigations, and include both tested and projected costs. Non-OCDETF costs were determined by obtaining monthly investigation time reports for a sample of INS OCDETF agents and if applicable, calculating the agent's full-time regular pay that was related to non-OCDETF investigations. Applying this error rate to the remaining salary and benefit costs (excluding certain exempted full-time regular pay)7 of all INS OCDETF dedicated agents, allowed us to project the non-OCDETF related salary and benefits costs that may have been erroneously billed to the EO (see projected column). Unsupported costs represent salary, benefit, and other direct costs (e.g., supplies, transportation, etc.) where we were not able to conclude whether the costs were OCDETF related because sufficient documentation was not provided. In the following sections, we discuss in detail the results of our testing of salary, benefits, and other direct costs for all fiscal years under review.

Salary and Benefits

Non-OCDETF and unsupported costs were calculated based on our testing of INS OCDETF dedicated agents' monthly investigation time reports. Payroll records were not used to determine whether non-OCDETF related time was being reported because INS's payroll records do not track time by investigation. INS personnel are assigned in the payroll system to a program code and, in general, all payroll time reported by INS personnel would be reported in INS's financial records in the program to which the person was assigned. As a result, an INS OCDETF dedicated agent who reported non-OCDETF time on a monthly investigation time report would still have his full salary and benefit costs charged to the OCDETF Program, and ultimately these costs would be billed to the EO.

Our testing of salary and related benefit costs invoiced by the INS to the EO differed depending on the fiscal year under review.8 For fiscal years 1997 and 1998, we did not test salary and related benefit costs because INS officials informed us that retention policies in place within the agency required that monthly investigation time reports only be maintained for period of three years. Accordingly, we were unable to test any salary and related benefit costs for fiscal years 1997 and 1998 due to the timing of this audit. Exhibit No. 4 depicts the total non-OCDETF and unsupported salary and benefit costs for the four years we reviewed.

Exhibit No. 4 - Total Non-OCDETF and Unsupported Salary & Benefit Costs
FY Certainty Random Projected Unsupported Total
1999 $ 218,005 $ 103,045 $ 460,868 $ 625,952 $ 1,407,870
2000 $ 230,148 $ 169,864 $ 682,279 $ 254,228 $ 1,336,519
2001 $ 89,180 $ 108,824 $ 447,518 $ 506,792 $ 1,152,314
2002 $ 107,169 $ 134,213 $ 331,669 $ 356,336 $ 929,387
Total $ 644,502 $ 515,946 $ 1,922,334 $ 1,743,308 $ 4,826,090

The certainty column represents those INS OCDETF dedicated agents that we had identified during the survey phase of our audit as reporting non-OCDETF investigative time on monthly investigation time reports. We selected these agents with certainty because they represented a known population of dedicated agents who had reported non-OCDETF time, and we planned to test whether this was a one-time event or whether these agents consistently incurred non-OCDETF investigation time in each fiscal year. As can be seen in the Appendices, our testing indicated that agents repeatedly incurred non-OCDETF investigation time in each fiscal year.

The random column represents INS OCDETF dedicated agents whom we selected at random to determine whether they reported non-OCDETF investigation time on their monthly investigation time reports. The selected dedicated agents' non-OCDETF investigation time divided by their total time reported represented the error rate that was applied to all INS OCDETF dedicated agents' salary and related benefit costs to project the non-OCDETF related costs that are summarized in the projected column above. Finally, the unsupported column represents the full-time regular payroll costs for those agents we selected for testing (either certainty or randomly) that INS was not able to provide their monthly investigation time reports as support for our testing.

Our review of approximately 50 INS dedicated agents per year identified that for the fiscal years 1999 through 2002, 10.5 percent of INS OCDETF dedicated agents' time was related to non-OCDETF investigations as reported by agents on their monthly investigation time reports. In addition, we were not able to determine whether non-OCDETF investigation time was reported for 13.3 percent of the agents' investigation hours because we were not provided with all of their monthly investigation time reports. Exhibit No. 5 lists the percentages of OCDETF, non-OCDETF, and unsupported time as reported on monthly investigation time reports.

Exhibit No. 5 - Percentage of Investigation Hours by Fiscal Year
FY OCDETF Non-OCDETF Unsupported
1999 67.48% 12.01% 20.51%
2000 76.99% 15.31% 7.70%
2001 77.14% 7.14% 15.72%
2002 85.42% 6.29% 8.29%
Avg 76.11% 10.53% 13.36%

INS officials and regional OCDETF coordinators informed us that it was not unusual for Special Agents In-Charge of INS District Offices to assign INS OCDETF dedicated agents administrative tasks or emergency duty in times of staff shortages or other special circumstances. INS officials stated that these assignments tended to be short in duration and would, in general, not adversely affect the case assignments of INS OCDETF dedicated agents; however, we identified that 64 percent of the INS OCDETF dedicated agents in our sample reported non-OCDETF investigation time. In some instances, agents reported over 40 percent of their total investigation time to non-OCDETF investigations. INS officials also stated that these results might be misleading since some agents may have misreported on their time reports immigration-related duties performed during an OCDETF investigation. However, the INS officials did not provide any documentation to substantiate this claim.

Other Direct Costs

With respect to other direct costs, we selected obligations occurring during the period October 1, 1996 to September30, 2001 that were either material to the amount of other direct costs in each fiscal year quarter's billing by the INS, or where the obligation had been reported in a certain object-classification. We selected non-representative samples because the amount of other direct costs billed in any one year were immaterial to the overall costs the INS invoiced the EO. The objective of our testing of other direct costs was to determine whether the amounts invoiced to the EO were actually expended by the INS,9 and whether they were related to an OCDETF investigation. We did not test other direct costs incurred during fiscal year 2002 because the INS had not finalized their billings to the EO at the time this reported was drafted. Exhibit No. 6 depicts, by fiscal year, the total unsupported other direct costs for the items we selected for testing.

Exhibit No. 6 - Results of Other Direct Cost Testing
FY Total Tested OCDETF Related Unsupported
1997 $ 41,417 $ - $ 41,417
1998 $ 69,936 $ 200 $ 69,736
1999 $ 6,806 $ - $ 6,806
2000 $ 1,846,093 $ 335,204 $ 1,510,889
2001 $ 1,397,650 $ 1,178,837 $ 218,813
Total $ 3,361,902 $ 1,514,241 $ 1,847,661

For the majority of the other direct costs we selected for testing, we were not provided with sufficient documentation to allow us to determine if goods or services were actually received by the INS or whether the costs were incurred for an OCEDTF related purpose.10 For example, most of the documentation provided consisted of obligating documents or credit card statements. There were no invoices, receiving reports, or other documentation evidencing receipt of the goods or services acquired by the INS. Also, the documentation was often annotated with the INS's program code for OCDETF costs, but documentation supporting the OCDETF related purpose of the goods or services acquired was not provided.

We recommend that the EO Director:

  1. Determine the appropriate remedy for (a) $1,160,448 in questioned salary and benefit costs, (b) $1,922,334 in projected questioned salary and benefit costs, (c) $1,743,308 in unsupported salary and benefit costs, and (d) $1,847,661 in unsupported other direct costs.

Improvements Needed in Internal Controls Over INS's OCDETF Billings

As part of our audit objectives, we reviewed both EO's and INS's11 internal controls over the requirements for and preparation of the OCDETF bills. The EO could improve the language of its reimbursable agreements as well as its processes for review and approval of INS invoices. We also noted areas in which INS could amend its practices for preparing quarterly invoices and maintaining supporting documentation.

Management of the INS and the EO is responsible for establishing and maintaining accounting systems and internal control. In fulfilling this responsibility, estimates and judgments are required to assess the expected benefits and related costs of internal control policies and procedures. The objectives of internal control are to provide management with reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that: (1) transactions are properly recorded, processed, and summarized; (2) assets are safeguarded against loss from unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition; and (3) transactions are executed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Because of inherent limitations in any internal control, errors or fraud may nevertheless occur and not be detected. Also, projection of any evaluation of internal control to future periods is subject to the risk that procedures may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and operation of policies and procedures may deteriorate.

In planning and performing our audit of INS's billings to the EO, we obtained an understanding of the design of significant internal controls in order to determine the nature and extent of our auditing procedures. Our purpose was not to provide an opinion on INS's or the EO's internal controls; accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

We noted the following matters that we consider to be reportable conditions under Government Auditing Standards. Reportable conditions involve matters coming to our attention relating to significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control that, in our judgment, could adversely affect INS or EO's ability to meet the internal control objectives described above. Our consideration of internal control would not necessarily disclose all matters that might be reportable conditions.

We identified the following conditions that should be addressed by EO:

The EO's reimbursable agreements with the INS do not include specific requirements that clearly identify the nature and extent of costs that are reimbursable under the agreement.

The EO's reimbursable agreements include information such as the not to exceed amount; agreement term; requirements for submitting documentation; and the estimated number of positions and work years funded by the agreement. In addition, the operating plans submitted by the INS include the amount budgeted by object classification. However, we noted that the agreement does not address the following:

  • Indirect costs - whether allocations of INS support staff, management oversight, or other administrative costs are allowable.
  • Re-allocation of unobligated funds - whether unobligated funds in one object classification code can be transferred to another object classification code. For example, whether funds for permanent positions could be transferred to supply costs without prior notification/approval.

We noted that prior to fiscal year 2002, the INS did not request reimbursement for indirect costs, mainly because the salary and benefit costs of INS OCDETF dedicated agents and other direct program costs appears to have equaled or exceeded the amount of the reimbursable agreement. In fiscal year 2002, the INS began allocating costs of management and administrative support to the EO as a result of a 25 percent matching requirement imposed by Congress. However, the INS did not actually bill the EO for these indirect costs, but did count them as part of their 25 percent matching requirement.

We also noted that the INS did not re-submit budgets by object classification code or receive approval from the EO when funds were used for purposes other than originally intended. Failure to obtain and approve transfers of funds to other object classifications could affect the accuracy of EO's financial reporting and program performance measurement.

We recommend that the EO Director:

  1. Include language in all future reimbursable agreements with the INS that addresses: (a) the specific indirect costs that are allowed to be invoiced and requires detailed schedules to support the calculation of all indirect costs; and (b) whether unobligated funds may be transferred among object classifications, and if allowed, require that EO approval be requested in writing before the INS obligates the funds.

Improvements are needed in the review and approval of quarterly billings by the INS.

The reimbursable agreements with the INS state …INS shall submit quarterly billings directly to the EO, together with documentation on accrued expenditures... This requirement establishes the rules of what an acceptable billing should encompass in order for the INS to receive reimbursement for expenditures incurred. We obtained the quarterly bills the INS provided the EO and noted that supporting documentation typically included: a FACS Report for the INS assigned OCDETF program code that listed the total obligations incurred by the INS during that quarter by sub-object classification, a signed statement from an INS finance officer that obligations were incurred for OCDETF related purposes, and other documentation to support the calculation of the amount billed for that quarter. However, documentation was not provided for the following:

  • For fiscal years 1999 through 2001, a list of the agents who incurred OCDETF related investigation time, the hours incurred, and the salary costs for each agent during the quarter.
  • For fiscal years 1999 through 2001, the assignment of benefit costs to each agent who incurred OCDETF related investigation time.
  • Invoices, receiving reports, or other documentation that support the receipt of goods and services, and the OCDETF related purpose for the cost incurred.
  • A comparison of costs incurred to budgeted amounts by object classification.

In addition to the above, we noted that for fiscal years 1997 through 2001, the INS billed the EO for obligations incurred, not for actual expenditures, and the EO approved the quarterly billings without exception. The EO was not provided, or did not request, documentation to support whether the obligations established by the INS were completely expended. In fiscal year 2002, the INS refunded the EO $626,917 for obligations that were not fully expended but were billed to the EO during fiscal years 2000 and 2001.

We recommend the EO Director:

  1. Establish requirements in the reimbursable agreement with the INS that requires the following documentation be submitted with each quarterly invoice: (a) a list of the agents who incurred OCDETF related investigation time, the hours incurred, and the salary costs during the quarter; (b) support for the assignment of salary related benefit costs for each agent, and (c) invoices, receiving reports, or other documentation that support the receipt of goods and services, and the OCDETF related purpose for the cost incurred.
  1. Issue or revise policy that only permits the reimbursement of expended obligations. The EO should also consider requesting the INS provide an accounting of obligations billed to the EO during fiscal years 1997 to 1999 to ensure that all billed obligations were fully expended.
  1. Require the INS to submit with each quarterly invoice a comparison of costs incurred during the quarter, by object classification, to budgeted amounts.

The EO should establish appropriate criteria for documentation to adequately support costs billed by OCDETF Program participants and the record retention period for such documentation.

For fiscal years 1997 and 1998, we did not test salary and related benefit costs because INS officials informed us that retention policies in place within the agency required that monthly investigation time reports only be maintained for period of three years. These reports provide necessary information to support INS agent's time incurred on OCDETF related investigations.

With respect to most of the other direct cost obligations we selected for testing, INS regional finance offices provided us with documentation that we could not: (a) reconcile to the obligation we selected, (b) determine whether the obligation was fully expended, and/or (c) determine if the costs were incurred for an OCDETF related purpose.

We recommend the EO Director:

  1. Require OCDETF participants retain all documentation that supports billings to the EO for a period of six years (e.g., monthly investigation time reports (G-22.12)).12

We identified the following conditions that should be addressed by OCDETF Program management of the INS:

Monthly investigation time reports should be used in INS's payroll cost determination to prevent billing of non-OCDETF investigation time to the EO.

The INS assigned an OCDETF related program code to the OCDETF dedicated agents in its payroll system. Bi-weekly, OCDETF dedicated agents submit a timesheet that lists the total hours incurred each day as well as other miscellaneous information; however, specific investigation codes or other OCDETF case information is not required for payroll processing.

In addition to bi-weekly timesheets, OCDETF agents prepare monthly investigation time reports. The investigation time reports require INS agents to track daily, the amount of time spent on specific types of investigation and administrative matters. There are numerous types of investigations codes that are required to be tracked (e.g., smuggling, fraud, OCDETF, etc.) each day. The monthly reports are accumulated by the district offices and then forwarded to a regional office that summarize the district office reports and submits them to the INS headquarters where they are consolidated into an agency-wide investigation time report. This report is used to provide information on INS-wide investigation efforts.

However, the monthly investigation time reports are not linked to INS's payroll system and are not used during the billing process. As a result, an OCDETF dedicated agent who was assigned to the OCDETF program code in the payroll system, but who may have reported time to another program code in monthly investigation time reports, would still have his/her entire payroll costs recorded to the OCDETF program code in the payroll system. Ultimately, these costs would be billed to the EO in their entirety even though there was non-OCDETF time reported by the agent.

We recommend the EO Director:

  1. Require the INS to submit monthly investigation time reports in conjunction with payroll system reports to support the amount of salary and benefit costs related to OCDETF investigations. If an INS agent not specifically dedicated to the OCDETF Program incurred OCDETF investigation time, we would also recommend that INS be allowed to bill for such time with proper supporting documentation.13

Footnotes
  1. For a more detailed explanation of how the error rate and exempted pay were determined, please see Appendix I, Scope and Methodology.
  2. For a more detailed discussion of our approach, please see Appendix I, Scope and Methodology.
  3. Prior to fiscal year 2002 the INS was basing its billings on obligations incurred rather than on actual expenditures.
  4. An obligation is incurred when goods or services are ordered. The estimated cost of the order is recorded in the entity's financial management system as an undelivered order-unpaid. This process is a control designed to prevent anti-deficiency violations. Upon receipt and acceptance of the goods or service, the obligation is expended in the entity's financial management system and its status is updated to a delivered order-unpaid. At this point the entity has incurred a cost or expense which is also recorded in the financial management system. When the invoice for the goods or service is received and paid, the obligation's status is updated to a delivered order-paid. It is important to note that when an obligation is incurred the amount recorded in the financial management system is an estimated amount. This amount is adjusted upward or downward, if necessary, when the obligation is expended or when the invoice is paid.
  5. In March 2003 as this audit was being completed, the INS was abolished and its functions, personnel, and equipment were transferred to the Department of Homeland Security in accordance with the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296. The former INS was separated into three bureaus - the Bureau of Immigration and Custom Enforcement, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, and the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. The Bureau of Immigration and Custom Enforcement assumed responsibility for the former INS's OCDETF Program. However, for consistency and to avoid confusion, we continue to refer to the INS in our recommendations. It should be understood that the Bureau of Immigration and Custom Enforcement will respond to all recommendations requiring action by the former INS.
  6. Although OCDETF funds expire at the end of the fiscal year for which they were appropriated, unobligated balances are still available for upward adjustment of existing obligations for the next five years. Any unobligated funds resulting from deobligation of residual balances, disallowances, or lack of need in the participant's OCDETF Program can be transferred to the DOJ WCF prior to the funds canceling at the end of the sixth year. Establishing a minimum record retention policy of six years would ensure that adequate records are maintained to support effective management of DOJ resources.
  7. During our audit, INS officials stated that occasionally non-OCDETF agents did support OCDETF investigations; however, we were not provided with any documentation supporting this claim.