U.S. Department of Education: Promoting Educational Excellence for all Americans

A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Office of the Inspector General (OIG)

Goal 8: To promote the efficient and effective use of taxpayer dollars in support of American education by providing independent and objective assistance to the Congress and the Secretary of Education in assuring continuous improvement in program delivery, effectiveness, and integrity.
Objective 1 of 2: OIG PRODUCTS AND SERVICES ARE USED BY THE DEPARTMENT, CONGRESS, AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES TO IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY, EFFECTIVENESS, AND INTEGRITY OF EDUCATION PROGRAMS AND OPERATIONS.
Indicator 8.1.1 of 4: The number and percentage of significant recommendations accepted and implemented will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Recommendations accepted
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1998
50 (67%)
 
1999
70 (71%)
Continuing increase
2000
274 (94%)
Continuing increase
2001
311( 100%)
Continuing increase

Recommendations implemented
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1998
25
 
1999
62
Continuing increase
2000
94
Continuing increase
2001
117
Continuing increase

Status: Unable to judge. Performance improved from FY 2000. Improvement occurred because of increased Departmental emphasis on resolution and follow-up and on timing; some corrective actions take time to fully implement where legislative, regulatory, or system changes are required. Recommendations related to reports issued in prior fiscal years, and for which corrective action was initiated, may now just be at the completion stage.

Explanation: The percentage is calculated by adding up the total number of significant recommendations that have been resolved for the fiscal year and dividing that number into the total number of significant recommendations that had been accepted for the fiscal year. This indicator uses only recommendations from audit work. This information is only for jobs that are related to Objective 1.

A significant monetary recommendation is defined as recovering monetary amounts of questioned, unsupported, or other dollars of $300,000 or more. It also includes the associated recommendation to establish/implement control techniques to prevent recurrence of the condition that results in the monetary finding or better use of funds of $500,000 or more.

A significant nonmonetary recommendation is a recommendation to establish/implement procedures or control techniques to (1) improve the effective or efficient delivery of program services; (2) safeguard assets or prevent fraud, waste, or abuse; or (3) improve the integrity, accuracy, and completeness of management data involving a program, or a significant component of any program, funded at $500,000 or more annually.

Source: OIG audit files.
A spreadsheet was prepared with the data that were used in calculating this information.

Frequency: Annually.
Next Update: FY 2002.

Limitations: The measure includes only recommendations from audit reports. Significant recommendations from other OIG services, such as quick response projects and advice and technical assistance are not included in this measure.

 
Indicator 8.1.2 of 4: Customers will be satisfied with OIG products and services.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1999
Not available
No target set
2000
Insufficient data
Insufficient data
2001
Dropped
 
Status: Dropped.

Explanation: Measure being replaced in the new performance plan with one that will measure performance impact. 


 
Indicator 8.1.3 of 4: Resources (as measured by the percentage of staff time) will be deployed in accordance with the Work Plan.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1998
48
 
1999
46
Continuing increase
2000
63
Continuing increase
2001
57
Continuing increase

Status: Decrease in FY 2000 directly related to increased hours spent on complex work reflected in Indicator 2.6.

Explanation: This number was calculated by taking the total number of staff hours that the office charged to jobs in the current Work Plan and dividing it by the hours that were spent on Objective 1.

The OIG Work Plan baseline is at the start of the fiscal year, October 1. The actual performance achieved will rarely reach 100 percent because the current Work Plan covers a two-year period, and new jobs are identified that take precedence for reasons such as risk or need for immediate completion.

Source: OIG Time and Travel Reporting System.

Frequency: Annually.
Next Update: FY 2002.

Limitations: Based on self-reported data generated by ED staff.

 
Indicator 8.1.4 of 4: The number, percentage, or both, of Work Plan assignments initiated will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1998
61
 
1999
62
Continuing increase
2000
63
Continuing increase
2001
53
Continuing increase

Status: Percentage of new jobs initiated decreased due to an increased number of carryover jobs from the previous year. In addition, there was an increase in the number of jobs in the Work Plan from 86 to 104 creating a larger denominator.

Explanation:This indicator measures the degree to which OIG work done during the fiscal year related to Objective 1 (Improvement of programs and operations) is work identified in the annually updated OIG Work Plan. Annually, the OIG prepares a Work Plan that contains projects deemed to be the most important. The denominator of the percentage is the number of projects from a prior Work Plan plus any additions to the current Work Plan. The numerator is the number of projects started. This indicator includes those projects where the objectives were intended to improve programs or operations. This information reflects only jobs that are coded as Objective 1.

The current OIG Work Plan baseline is at the start of the fiscal year, October 1. The actual performance achieved will not reach 100 percent because the current Work Plan covers a two-year period, and new jobs are identified which take precedence for reasons such as risk or need for immediate completion.

Source: OIG report on Work Plan Project Status Sheets.All work is listed in Work Plan Project Status Sheets by project number.

Frequency: Annually.
Next Update: FY 2002.

Limitations: The calculation is of projects not staff time. The calculation does not indicate the degree to which OIG staff time is devoted to projects included in the OIG Work Plan.

 

Objective 2 of 2:OIG'S WORK DISCLOSES SIGNIFICANT FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE; RESULTS IN ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS; AND PROMOTES DETERRENCE. WORK DISCLOSES SIGNIFICANT FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE AND RESULTS IN ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS OR OTHER SIGNIFICANT CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AS MEASURED BY THE FOLLOWING INDICATORS.
Indicator 8.2.1 of 6: The number and percentage of cases presented for enforcement actions that are accepted by enforcement officials will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1998
79
 
1999
82
Continuing increase
2000
140
Continuing increase
2001
141
Continuing increase

Status: Unable to judge. The numbers remained constant while there was a decrease in the percentage.

Explanation: Case work can extend over several fiscal years resulting in variations in the number and or percentage reported. The OIG receives and reviews allegations of fraud, abuse, or misconduct in Department programs and operations by program participants, contractors, or department employees. Preliminary investigative activity determines which allegations have merit, and formal criminal, civil, and administrative investigations are initiated.

The percentage is calculated as the total number of cases accepted for an enforcement action divided by the number of cases presented to enforcement officials during the year.

Source: Agents are required to report in a timely manner instances in which investigative cases are presented to, and accepted or declined for action by, enforcement officials.

Frequency: Annually.
Next Update: FY 2002.

Limitations:Agents are reporting these items. Review of ICTS data as part the 90-day case review process includes reviewing the timely and accurate reporting of data.
Indicator 8.2.2 of 6: The number and percentage of presented cases resulting in enforcement actions (e.g., indictments, civil filings, convictions, adverse personnel actions, suspensions and debarments) will increase.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1998
33
 
1999
50
Continuing increase
2000
48
Continuing increase
2001
99
Continuing increase
Status: Increases in both number and percentage of cases that resulted in enforcement action.

Explanation: Casework can extend over several fiscal years resulting in variations in the number and or percentage reported. The percentage is calculated as the total number of enforcement actions divided by the number of cases presented for enforcement action in each fiscal year.
Source:Enforcement actions are initiated by sources outside the OIG. Therefore, the OIG relies on action and documentation from officials from the Department of Justice and the Department of Education. When enforcement actions occur, agents are required to report the items in the Investigative Case Tracking System (ICTS) in a timely manner.

Frequency: Annually.
Next Update: FY 2002.

Limitations: Agents are reporting these items. Review of ICTS data as part the 90-day case review process includes reviewing the timely and accurate reporting of data.

 
Indicator 8.2.3 of 6: The amount of monetary penalties, settlements, and recoveries.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1998
67
 
1999
24
N/A
2000
51.3
N/A
2000
32.2
N/A

Status: Unable to judge. Performance decreased from FY 2000.

Explanation: Given the nature of our investigative work, this indicator must be used judiciously and in conjunction with other indicators. Criminal prosecution is not undertaken primarily to recover money. We have deleted performance targets for monetary recoveries to avoid the appearance of a lack of objectivity.

Enforcement actions that result in convictions or civil settlements/judgments typically include court-ordered restitution and fines, and the payment of civil penalties. Additionally, OIG audits result in sustained questioned costs and sustained unsupported costs. These monetary figures are compiled into a total to determine a financial assessment of enforcement and corrective actions initiated by OIG work.

Source: Semiannual Report to Congress (Audit Tracking System, Investigative Case Tracking System, Common Audit Resolution System, and Department of Justice).

Frequency: Annually.
Next Update: FY 2002.

Limitations: Agents are reporting these items. Review of ICTS data as part the 90-day case review process includes reviewing the timely and accurate reporting of data.
 
Indicator 8.2.4 of 6: The number and percentage of significant recommendations in compliance audits accepted.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Compliance recommendations accepted
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1998
21 (75%)
 
1999
10 (77%)
Continuing increase
2000
27 (81%)
Continuing increase
2001
41 (100%)
Continuing increase

Compliance recommendations implemented
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1998
8
 
1999
16
Continuing increase
2000
22
Continuing increase
2001
12
Continuing increase
Status: Performance improved from FY 2000. Improvement occurred because of increased Departmental emphasis on resolution and follow-up and on timing; some corrective actions take time to fully implement where legislative, regulatory, or system changes are required. Recommendations related to reports issued in prior fiscal years, and for which corrective action was initiated, may now just be at the completion stage.

Explanation: Definitions of significant monetary and non-monetary recommendations and calculation of percentages are the same as in Indicator 1.1 above. This information is only for jobs related to Objective 2.
Source: OIG audit files. A spreadsheet was prepared with the data that were used in calculating this information.

Frequency: Annually.
Next Update: FY 2002.

Limitations: The measure includes only recommendations from audit reports. Significant recommendations from other OIG services, such as quick response projects and advice and technical assistance are not included in this measure

 
Indicator 8.2.5 of 6: The percentage of dollar recoveries sustained versus recommended in Federal audits.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1998
68
 
1999
47
Continuing increase
2000
70
Continuing increase
2001
58
Continuing increase

Status: Performance decreased from FY 2000 due to fluctuations described below.

Explanation: The percentage recoveries sustained may fluctuate from fiscal year to fiscal year. Dollars sustained do not always fall within the same fiscal year as when they were recommended.

This indicator measures OIG’s sustainment rate. The dollars recommended for recovery in audits that were resolved during the fiscal year are compared with the dollars that the Department agreed should be recovered. The dollars recommended for recovery includes questioned costs, unsupported costs, and other recommended recoveries. Dollars recommended for recovery do not include recommendations for better use of funds (BUF).

Source: OIG Audit Tracking System.

Frequency: Annually.
Next Update: FY 2002.

Limitations: The measure includes only OIG audit products that contained dollar recoveries.

 
Indicator 8.2.6 of 6: The degree to which resources (percentage of staff time) were deployed in accordance with the Work Plan.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1998
52
 
1999
54
Continuing increase
2000
28
Continuing increase
2001
43
Continuing increase
Status: Unable to judge. Change in performance from FY 2000 to FY 2001 reflects the increased emphasis on OIG Work Plan reviews of the Department's operations and information technology (IT). Measure 1.3 is also a Work Plan measure, which decreased, as there was an increase in complex indicator 2.6 compliance work.

Explanation: The OIG Work Plan baseline is at the start of the fiscal year, October 1. The actual performance achieved will never reach 100 percent because the current Work Plan covers a two-year period and new jobs are identified that take precedence for reasons such as risk or need for immediate completion. This number was calculated by taking the total number of staff hours that the office charged to jobs in the Work Plan and dividing it by the hours that were spent on Objective 2.
Source: OIG Time and Travel Reporting System.

Frequency: Annually.
Next Update: FY 2002.

Limitations: Based on self-reported data generated by ED staff.

 

Return to table of contents