Without further action, the audit (PDF version) said, the VBA “could continue making unsupported payments to veterans totaling about $371 million over the next 5 years.”

“We remain concerned of VBA’s financial stewardship of these claims,” Linda A. Halliday,
assistant inspector general for audits and evaluations wrote.

The VBA in a response to the audit said it disagreed with the estimate of improper payments, calling it “significantly overstated” and based on a too-small sample.

The report is embedded below.

Shinseki’s departure, the Post writes, “is unlikely to solve the VA’s broader problem — a bureaucracy that had been taught, over time, to hide its problems from Washington. Indeed, as President Obama said, one of the agency’s key failings was that bad news did not reach Shinseki’s level at all.

“This is an ironic development: Until recently, the VA had been seen as a Washington success story. In the 1990s, reformers had cut back on its middle management and started using performance data so managers at the top could keep abreast of problems at the bottom.

“Then that success began to unravel.”

The Post also recounts a major problem at the VA within its earliest days as the Veteran’s Bureau. The problem was an “audcacious crook” — the man whom President Warren Harding appointed to run the bureau.

Historians say that same man, Charles Forbes, was found with Harding’s hands wrapped around his neck after his crooked misdeeds came to light.

“You yellow rat! You double-crossing bastard!” Harding was saying, according to historians. When he noticed the visitor, he let go of Forbes’s neck.

Forbes was eventually convicted of bribery and conspiracy. But afterward, the VA’s next leaders built in layers of bureaucracy and paperwork — to be sure that nobody would ever have the same freedom to steal.

(Memo via Washington Post).

Also worth a look: A VOX explainer “The VA scandal, explained.”

“Although individual employees have engaged in misconduct or inappropriate behavior, we did not find evidence that misconduct is widespread in USSS,” the report (download PDF) from the Department of Homeland Security’s Inspector General’s office summarizes. The IG’s investigation was prompted by reports of hiring prostitutes and excessive drinking by agents on an advance team for a presidential visit to Cartagena, Colombia.

Washington Post summary of the report.

“Allegations of employee misconduct that are entered into Department of Homeland Security (DHS) case management systems are assigned one of several case allegation types; however, there is no primary use of force designation. As a result, we were unable to identify the total number of excessive force allegations and investigations involving CBP employees,” the just-released report said.

The inspector general began investigating incidents of excessive force in 2012 after media reports about an undocumented immigrant dying in 2010 while in Customs and Border Patrol custody in Southern California. Congressional calls for an investigation followed the stories.

Some 21,000 records of possible excessive force incidents were turned over to investigators, who narrowed their review down to just over 2,000 records that seemed most likely to indicate excessive force from 2007 to 2012. It found 1,323 that might include excessive force or use of force. (See below)

The agency’s own tracking of use of force reports, which began in 2010 to “gain insight into use of force trends, training, and equipment needs,” but is not used “for discipline purposes,” showed 1,188 use of force incidents in 2011 and 935 in 2012 — mostly with border patrol and most involving “less than lethal devices.”

The inspector general investigation concluded that Customs and Border Patrol did an acceptable job of use-of-force training even as the size of its workforce expanded significantly during the years studied.

Results of an internal review of use of force that the agency began after the media reports was included in the inspector general’s report, but was largely redacted.

The three recommendations made in the report:

• CBP should work with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to implement a method to identify excessive force allegations in its case management system.
• Develop processes to incorporate information regarding assaults on agents that do not result in the use of force into its analysis of use of force incidents.
• Evaluate and act upon field audit results.

The inspector general’s office said it would also “modify its case management system to identify in greater detail incidents involving excessive use of force allegations.”

“Significant deficiencies are key evidence not being collected, crime scenes not examined, and witness or subject interviews not conducted or not thorough. We also found that certain MCIO policies and practices regarding the collection of physical evidence, crime scene examinations, legal coordination, and records checks need improvement,” the report says.

The investigation of a random sample of 501 cases also found the need for “increased emphasis on thoroughness by supervisors, training, and policy improvements.”

“Minor deficiences” were found in 352 of the 501 cases.

Two key recommendations:

• “. . . implement measures to improve crime scene processing, evidence collection, supervision, and documentation to reduce investigative deficiencies.”
• “. . .evaluate existing policies regarding the collection of clothing worn by suspects and victims subsequent to a sexual assault.”

I strongly disagree with the report’s core assertion that fusion centers have been unable to meaningfully contribute to federal counterterrorism efforts.

That’s what you learn happened in the new report from the Veteran’s Administration inspector general (PDF download) probing the summer 2011 HR-related events for 1,800 human resources staffers at the Orlando World Center Marriott. (Politico broke the story late yesterday).

Says the report: “In our opinion, VA held these conferences to fulfill valid training needs. However, VA’s processes and the oversight were too weak, ineffective, and in some instances, nonexistent. Thus, many conference costs were not sufficiently documented, which made them difficult to clearly justify, or identify whether they were accurate, appropriate, necessary, or even reasonably priced.”

Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and Administration John Sepulveda “abdicated his responsibilities,” the report concludes.  Politico reports that he has resigned.

The conferences cost about $5-$6 million — maybe. The inspector general said conflicting numbers have been issued by the VA, which “continues to provide varying estimates.” The report says “serious management weaknesses” preclude the VA from providing an accurate estimate.

The report also found 11 of VA employees who organized the event accepted improper gifts from event contractors, including comped rooms and food — as well as perks such as massages, manicures and pedicures, and helicopter tours.

Below is a screen grab of the itemization of expenses that the inspector general found questionable.