Stafford Act employees include CORE and Reservists hired  specifically to support disaster-related activities on a temporary or  intermittent basis. Surge Capacity Force volunteers include employees of other DHS  components who augment FEMA’s workforce in the event of a  catastrophic disaster. FEMA Has Developed and Documented Misconduct Policies and Procedures for Most Employees, but Not its Entire Workforce

		FEMA Has Documented Misconduct Policies and Procedures for Most of its Employees, and Is Taking Steps to Offer Misconduct Training to Supervisors

FEMA has developed a policy outlining procedures regarding  investigations of misconduct as documented in FEMA’s Administrative  Investigations Policy directive. The directive applies to all FEMA  personnel. Aspects of FEMA’s Data Limit Their Usefulness for Identifying and Addressing Trends in Employee Misconduct

OCSO, LER, and PLB collect data on employee misconduct and  outcomes, but limited standardization of fields and entries within fields,  limited use of unique case identifiers, and a lack of documented guidance  on data entry restricts their usefulness for identifying and addressing  trends in employee misconduct. FEMA also provides DHS OIG with information on employee misconduct  cases on a regular basis. We reviewed a non-generalizable random sample of employee  misconduct complaints DHS OIG referred to FEMA for review and found  that FEMA did not adequately track all referred complaints and therefore  could not ensure that all complaints in the sample we selected were  reviewed and addressed at the time of our inquiry. We found that FEMA missed 6 of the 20 complaints during the  referral process and had not reviewed them at the time of our inquiry. As a result of our review, FEMA subsequently took action to  review the complaints. The AID Committee recommended that OCSO  open inquiries in 3 of the 6 cases to determine whether the allegations  were against FEMA employees, assigned 2 cases to LER for further  review, and closed 1 case for lack of information. The remaining 2 cases were open as of April 2017. The results from our sample cannot be generalized to the entire  population of referrals from DHS OIG to FEMA; however, they raise  questions as to whether there could be additional instances of misconduct  complaints that FEMA has not reviewed or addressed. Conclusions

Employee misconduct can detract from FEMA’s mission and negatively  impact public perceptions of the agency, particularly when associated  with disaster response efforts. Because the Reservist  disciplinary action options and appeals currently in practice are not  documented, FEMA supervisors and Reservist employees may not be  aware of all aspects of the process. Clearly documented policies and procedures for all workforce categories  and communication about offenses and penalties could help to better  prepare management to address misconduct and to mitigate any  perceptions that misconduct is handled inconsistently across FEMA’s  workforce. Addressing  these limitations by implementing quality control measures could improve  FEMA’s ability to track misconduct cases and to identify potential problem  areas and opportunities for targeted training. Moreover, developing  reconciliation procedures to track cases referred from DHS OIG to FEMA  could help reduce the risk that FEMA does not address all misconduct  complaints. Recommendations for Executive Action

In order to improve employee misconduct policies and procedures, the  Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the FEMA Administrator to  take the following three actions: document policies and procedures to address potential Surge document Reservist disciplinary options and appeals policies and  procedures that are currently in practice at the agency; and  communicate the range of penalties for specific misconduct offenses  to all employees and supervisors. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of this report were to determine (1) the extent to which the  Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed policies  and procedures for addressing employee misconduct; (2) what data are  available on FEMA employee misconduct cases and their outcomes, and  the extent to which FEMA uses these data to identify and address trends  in employee misconduct; and (3) the extent to which information  regarding misconduct cases is shared within FEMA’s personnel  management offices and with the Department of Homeland Security  Office of the Inspector General (DHS OIG). To address objective one, we reviewed, where available, FEMA’s policies  and procedures for reporting, investigating, and adjudicating allegations  of misconduct across all of the agency’s workforce categories, including:  Title 5 employees, Cadre of On-Call Response/Recovery Employees  (CORE), Reservists, Surge Capacity Force members, and FEMA Corps  members. We selected these three regions based on factors such as geographic  dispersion and regions that typically respond to different types of  disasters, as well as those with the highest number of misconduct  allegations reported to OCSO from January 2014 through September 30,  2016. Finally, we used  fiscal year 2016 data from DHS OIG’s Enforcement Data System to  randomly select a non-generalizable sample of 20 FEMA employee  misconduct complaints which were referred from DHS OIG to FEMA.
Why GAO Did This Study

FEMA is responsible for coordinating government-wide efforts in preparing for, responding to, and recovering from natural or man-made disasters, including acts of terror. The agency relies on permanent and disaster-related temporary employees and has a total workforce of over 22,000. Employee misconduct incidents can detract from FEMA's mission, damage the agency's reputation, and hamper its ability to respond to disasters and maintain public trust.
GAO was asked to review employee misconduct at FEMA. This report examines: (1) the extent to which FEMA developed policies and procedures for addressing misconduct; (2) available data on FEMA misconduct cases and the extent to which FEMA uses the data to identify and address trends; and (3) the extent that misconduct cases are shared within FEMA and with DHS OIG. GAO reviewed FEMA procedures, analyzed misconduct data, and interviewed officials from FEMA HQ and three regions (selected based on geographic dispersion and number of misconduct allegations). GAO also analyzed a random, non-generalizable sample of 20 complaints referred from DHS OIG to FEMA to determine whether they were addressed.

What GAO Found

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed and documented misconduct policies and procedures for most employees, but not its entire workforce. Specifically, FEMA has developed policies and procedures regarding misconduct investigations that apply to all FEMA personnel and has also documented options to address misconduct and appeal rights for Title 5 (generally permanent employees) and Cadre of On-Call Response/Recovery Employees (temporary employees who support disaster related activities). However, FEMA has not documented misconduct policies and procedures for Surge Capacity Force members, who may augment FEMA's workforce in the event of a catastrophic disaster. Additionally, FEMA's Reservist (intermittent disaster employees) policies and procedures do not outline disciplinary actions or the appeals process currently in practice at the agency. As a result, supervisors and Reservist employees may not be aware of all aspects of the process. Clearly documented policies and procedures for all workforce categories could help to better prepare management to address misconduct and mitigate perceptions that misconduct is handled inconsistently.
FEMA records data on misconduct cases and their outcomes; however, aspects of this data limit their usefulness for identifying and addressing trends. GAO reviewed misconduct complaints recorded by FEMA's Office of the Chief Security Officer (OCSO) from January 2014 through September 30, 2016, and identified 595 complaints involving 799 alleged offenses, the most common of which were integrity and ethics violations. FEMA reported 546 disciplinary actions related to misconduct from calendar year 2014 through 2016. In addition to OCSO, two other FEMA offices involved in investigating and adjudicating misconduct also record data. However, limited standardization of data fields and entries within fields, limited use of unique case identifiers, and a lack of documented guidance on data entry across all three offices restricts the data's usefulness for identifying and addressing trends in employee misconduct. Improved quality control measures could help the agency use the data to better identify potential problem areas and opportunities for training.
FEMA shares misconduct case information internally and with the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General (DHS OIG) on a regular basis; however, FEMA does not have reconciliation procedures in place to track DHS OIG referred cases to ensure that they are reviewed and addressed. GAO reviewed a random sample of 20 cases DHS OIG referred to FEMA in fiscal year 2016 and found that FEMA missed 6 of the 20 complaints during the referral process and had not reviewed them at the time of GAO's inquiry. As a result of GAO's review, FEMA took action to review the complaints and opened inquiries in 5 of the 6 cases (1 case was closed for lack of information). In 3 of these cases, officials determined that the complaints did not involve FEMA employees. The 2 remaining cases were open as of April 2017. While the results from this review are not generalizable to the entire population of referrals from DHS OIG to FEMA, they raise questions as to whether there could be additional instances of misconduct complaints that FEMA has not reviewed or addressed. Procedures to ensure reconciliation of referred cases across FEMA and DHS OIG records could help ensure that FEMA accounts for all complaints.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making six recommendations with which DHS concurred, including that FEMA document policies and procedures for addressing Surge Capacity Force and Reservist misconduct, improve the quality and usefulness of its misconduct data, and develop reconciliation procedures to consistently track referred cases.