Inspection of the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs

ISP-I-23-08
    Report Contents
    Unclassified

    What OIG Inspected
    OIG evaluated executive direction, policy and program implementation, foreign assistance program management, resource management, and information management operations of the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs.

    What OIG Recommends
    OIG made 28 recommendations to the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs. In its comments on the draft report, the bureau concurred with 27 recommendations and disagreed with 1 recommendation. OIG considers all 28 recommendations resolved. The bureau’s response to each recommendation, and OIG’s reply, can be found in the Recommendations section of this report. The bureau’s formal response is reprinted in its entirety in Appendix B.

    What OIG Found

    • Management control deficiencies hindered the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs’ ability to effectively plan, manage, and evaluate the results of its projects, programs, and operations.
    • Bureau leadership set a positive tone at the top and generally acted in accordance with Department of State leadership and management principles.
    • Department stakeholders and other federal agencies described the bureau as a collaborative partner and leader in the U.S. government’s efforts to counter illegal drugs, stop corruption, fight transnational organized crime, train and equip foreign law enforcement officials, and promote the rule of law.
    • A bureau reorganization has yet to be fully implemented as envisioned, which limited some of its intended organizational efficiencies.
    • Deficiencies in the bureau’s strategic approach resulted in limited evaluation planning and reduced program performance data.
    • Foreign assistance programs lacked oversight documentation, program evaluation, and a bureau-level policy for risk management.
    • The Executive Office lacked customer service standards and procedures that led to employee dissatisfaction and negatively affected bureau efficacy.
    • Issues with records management procedures reduced the bureau’s ability to systematically access and share information.
    • The bureau did not effectively monitor unliquidated obligations, which resulted in up to $220 million that could be put to better use.
    • The bureau canceled its cloud migration project after 5 years and a total expenditure of at least $3.4 million due to a lack of internal information technology management controls and poor contractor oversight.
    • The bureau did not follow the Department’s information technology project planning and system oversight and assessment procedures, which created vulnerabilities and wasted funds.