Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

DHS Conference Spending 
 

Practices and Oversight 
 

OIG-10-19 November 2009 
Office a/Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 20528 

Homeland 

Security 

NOV 16 2009 

Preface 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office ofInspector General (OIG) was 

established by the Homeland Security Act of2002 (Public Law 107-296) by amendment 

to the Inspector General Act of1978. This is one of a series of audit, inspection, and 

special reports prepared as part of our oversight responsibilities to promote economy, 

efficiency, and effectiveness within the department. 

This report is in response to a request from Representative Bennie G. Thompson, 

Chairman ofthe House Committee on Homeland Security. It addresses the strengths and 

weaknesses of the department's policies, oversight, and reporting of conference planning 

and related expenditures. It is based on interviews with employees and officials of 

relevant agencies, components, and offices; direct observations; and a review of 

applicable documents. 

The recommendations herein have been developed to the best knowledge available to our 

office, and have been discussed in draft with those responsible for implementation. We 

trust that this report will result in more effective, efficient, and economical operations. 

We express our appreciation to all who contributed to the preparation ofthis report. 

£~K~ Richard L. Skinner 

Inspector General 
Table of Contents/Abbreviations 

Executive Summary.............................................................................................................1
 


Background..........................................................................................................................2
 


Results of Review ........................................................................................ .. 
 . .................. ...6 
 

Department Needs Clear and Consistent Conference Planning Guidan e c
 ...................7
 


Policies Do Not Identify Responsibilities or Authorities Clearly . ..
 
 . .................. ...7 


Recommendation...................................................................................................9
 


Management Comments and OIG Analysis................................ .. 
 ... ................... ..9 
 

DHS Has Inconsistent Conference Terminology and Guidance .........................11
 


Recommendation.................................................................................................13
 


Management Comments and OIG Analysis................................ .. 
 ... .................. .14 
 

Some Components Have Policy Instructions and Clear Procedur es That 

Should be Leveraged................................................................ .. ... ................... 16 
 

Recommendation......................................................................... .. 
 ... .................. .17 
 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis................................ .. 
 ... .................. .18 
 

Conference Data Were Unreliable and Unverifiable..................................................18
 


... .................. .23 
 

Recommendations ....................................................................... .. 


Accountability and Tracking Need Improvement ....................... .. 


... .................. .25 
 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis........................................................26
 


Conference Costs Do Not Have Sufficient Supporting Documentatio n ....................27
 


... .................. .37 
 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis................................ .. 


Recommendations ....................................................................... .. 


... .................. .38 
 

DHS Travel Expenditures Were Not Supported Consistently or in Com pliance 

With Applicable Regulations .......................................................... .. ... .................. .39 
 

Recommendations ....................................................................... .. 
 ... .................. .43 
 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis ........................................................43
 


Departmental Coordination of Sponsored Conferences Would Facilitate 

Efficiencies..............................................................................................................44
 


Recommendations ...............................................................................................46
 


Management Comments and OIG Analysis ................................ .. 
 ... .................. .46 
 

Conclusion .......................................................................................... ... ................... 4
7
 .. 

Appendices 

Appendix A: Purpose, Scope, and Methodology....................................................... 49 
 

Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report ....................................... 51 
 

Appendix C: Congressman Thompson’s Request Letter........................................... 56 
 
Table of Contents/Abbreviations
 

Appendix D: Descriptions of Eleven Sample Conferences Reviewed ...................... 57 
 

Appendix E: Total Amount Spent, by Component and by Fiscal Year..................... 63 
 

Appendix F: FY 2007 Conferences ........................................................................... 66 
 

Appendix G: Major Contributors to this Report........................................................ 67 
 

Appendix H: Report Distribution............................................................................... 68 
 

Tables 

Table 1: DHS Reported Conference Activity and Expenditures FYs 2005–2007....... 3 
 

Table 2: Eleven DHS Conferences Examined in Further Detail ................................. 5 
 

Table 3: Discrepancies in Conference Costs Reported by Components.................... 22 
 

Table 4: Discrepancies in Conference Attendance Reported by Components .......... 23 
 

Table 5: Component Response Times for Requested Documentation ...................... 29 
 

Table 6: Component-Reported Expenditures for Eleven Sample Conferences......... 31 
 

Table 7: Summary of Travel Documentation Requested and Received.................... 39 
 

Figures 

Figure 1: Breakdown of DHS Reported Conference Expenditures FYs 2005–
 

2007............................................................................................................. 6 
 

Figure 2: Discrepancies In DHS Conference Spending Data Reported and 
 

Obtained.................................................................................................... 21 
 

Attachments 

Attachment 1: FY 2007 Conferences Data Are Provided in a Separate 
 

Attachment to this Report Because of Size 
 

Abbreviations 

AToN Aids to Navigation 
 

CAO Chief Administrative Officer 
 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 
 

CONUS continental United States
 


DEP OPS Departmental Operations 
 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 
 

FTR Federal Travel Regulations 
 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 
 

GAO Government Accountability Office 
 

GSA General Services Administration 
 
Table of Contents/Abbreviations 

ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

M&IE meals and incidental exp enses 

MD Management Directive 

Management Directorate for Management 

NDMS National Disaster Medical System 

OCFO Office of Chief Financial Officer 

OCHCO Office of Chief Human Capital O fficer 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

RISC Regional Interagency Steering Committee 

S&T Directorate for Science and Technology 

USCG United States Coast Guard 
Executive Summary 

The Department of Homeland Security conducts conferen ces for a variety 

of purposes, including employee and stakeholder training, information 

sharing, and mission support. During FYs 2005–2007, the department 

reportedly spent approximately $110 million on confe rence-related 

activities—spending approximately $60 million in direc t costs and an 

additional $50 million identified as salary expenses for emp loyees 

attending the conference. At the request of Representative B ennie G. 

Thompson, Chairman of the House Committee on Hom eland Security, we 

reviewed the department’s conference spending practices and evaluated its 

policies, oversight, and reporting of conference planning and related 

expenditures. 

Specifically, we assessed the total amount spent by t he department on 

producing or facilitating conferences, retreats, and other offsite activities 

for FYs 2005, 2006, and 2007. For each component, we fur ther analyzed 

budgets, funds spent on conferences, the number and l ocations of 

conferences, full-time equivalent staff allotments, an d employee 

attendance at conferences. From this analysis and comparison, we 

selected five components and examined 11 conferences inmore detail. In 

addition, we obtained a full listing of each conference that received 

funding or staffing support from the departme nt during FY 2007. 

Although we did not review all Department of Homeland Security 

components, this report seeks to identify areas in which th e department 

can leverage best practices and generate new efficiencies. 

The department has made progress in developing departmen t-wide 

conference planning policies. However, work is still needed to provide 

clear, consistent, and adequate guidance and instructions. For example, 

conference cost data did not contain sufficient supporting documentation, 

and were unreliable, unverifiable, and provided little assuran ce that all 

conferences and related costs were tracked and accounted for properly. In 

addition, the department needs coordination across comp onents to ensure 

that duplication of efforts related to sponsoring conferences is minimized. 

We are making 12 recommendations to assist the Directorate for 

Management in improving oversight and reporting of conference planning 

activities across the department. In response to our report, Management 

has proposed plans and taken action that, once fully implemented, will 

enhance its oversight and reporting capabilities. The department 

concurred with all 12 recommendations. 

DHS Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 


Page 1 

Background
 

Federal departments and agencies sponsor or send employees to thousands 

of conferences each year. Estimates indicate that in FYs 200 0–2006, 

federal spending associated with such conferences amounted to more than 

$2 billion.1

 In his request letter, Chairman Thompson sa id an audit by the 

Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General rev ealed troubling 

spending patterns by Department of Justice officials andemployees on 

food, travel, resources, and other items purchased to conduc t or facilitate 

various conferences, retreats, and other off-site activities.2

 Chairman 

Thompson requested that we conduct a similar examinati on of conference 

spending at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).3 

A conference, as defined by the Federal Travel Regulations (FTR), 41 

C.F.R. § 300-3.1, is “a meeting, retreat, seminar, symposium , or event that 

involves attendee travel. The term 'conference' also applie s to training 

activities that are considered to be conferences under 5 C.F.R. § 410.404.” 

It is typically a prearranged event with designated or regi stered 

participants, a substantive published agenda, and sc heduled speakers or 

discussion panels on a particular topic. In many cases, s ponsoring 

conferences and funding attendee travel are important and necessary to 

fulfilling an agency’s mission. Conferences facilitate outreach efforts, 

enable staff to obtain job-related training, and provide a way to 

communicate with stakeholders and other professionals in associated 

fields. 

DHS conducts conferences for a variety of purposes, including employee 

and stakeholder training, information sharing, and miss ion support. DHS’ 

overall mission involves securing the country, preservi ng freedoms, and 

preparing for and responding to all hazards and disasters. It accomplishes 

this mission through many components, each having supporting missions 

and goals. These components share the department’s broa d responsibility 

for domestic security. In addition, they operate in a decentra lized 

environment, often with business processes, programs, policies, and 

systems that the components brought from legacy departm ents and 

agencies. 

DHS and its components have more than 216,000 employees located in 

the District of Columbia, all 50 states, and 80 countries around the world. 

1

 Office of Senator Tom Coburn, M.D., For the Farmers or For Fun: USDA Spends Over $90 Million in
 


Conference Costs, May 2008.
 2

 Department of Justice Office of Inspector General, Audit Report 07-42: Department of Justice Conference 
 

Expenditures, September 2007. 
 3

 The Chairman’s request letter is Appendix C. 
 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 2 
These employees may attend conferences in local workin g areas or travel 

to other locations. As shown in Table 1, during FYs 2005– 2007, DHS 

sent employees to conferences across the nation and around the world in 

43,989 instances, which include individuals who attende d more than one 

conference as well as many who attended the same confer ences. Data 

reported by the DHS Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) 

suggest that the department spent approximately $110 million on 8,359 

conferences during FYs 2005–2007. 

Table 1: DHS Reported ConferenceActivity an d E xpenditures F Ys 2005–2007 

Fiscal 

Year 

Conferences 

Reported 

Amount 

Spent 

DHS Budget 

(Enacted) 

Percent of 

DHS Enacted 

Budget 

Conference Travel 

Instances * 

2005 702$ 9 mi llion $35 bill ion .03% 2,887 

2006 3,024 $50 million $38 billion .13% 20,298 

2007 4,633 $51 million $40 billion .13% 20,804 

Total 8,359 $110 million $113 billion .10% 43,989 

Source: OIG analysis based on data provided by OCFO, August 2008. 

NOTE: Because of variation in reporting quality across years and between components, these numbers may or may 

not representan increase in conference activity and could indicate an increase in reporting. 

* Number of times DHS sent an employee to a conference. 

When compared to the annual enacted budgets of DHS, the amount spent 

on conferences represents less than 1% of available funds each year. 

However, these small ratios represent millions of doll ars where 

management vulnerabilities can exist and an area where benefits and 

outcomes are generally neither evaluated nor measured. They also 

demonstrate a financial and programmatic area where DHS must exercise 

due diligence to ensure that funding conference-related activities is an 

appropriate means for accomplishing department-wide objectives. 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 


Page 3 

Directorate for Management Responsibilities 

The mission of the Directorate for Management (Manageme nt) is to 

ensure that departmental employees have well-defi ned responsibilities and 

that managers and their employees have effective mea ns for 

communicating with one another, with other governmental and 

nongovernmental entities, and with the public. Through Secretarial 

delegation, the Under Secretary for Management has depart mental 

responsibility for budget, appropriations, expenditures of funds, 

accounting and finance, procurement, and human resource s.4 In addition, 

the Under Secretary oversees information technology and communications 

systems, facilities, property, equipm ent, and other material resources; as 

well as identification and tracking of performance measure s related to 

those responsibilities. 

Through secretarial delegation, the Under Secretary for Management has 

responsibility for and the oversight of the functions, personnel, assets, and 

liabilities of entities within DHS. In addition, the Under Secretary has 

responsibility for and oversight of the functions and dut ies of the Chief 

Financial Officer, the Chief Procurement Officer, theChief Information 

Officer, the Chief Human Capital Offi cer, the Chief of Administrative 

Services, and the Director of Strategic Initiatives.5 As provided by the 

Chief Financial Officer's Act, the Chief Financial Officer also reports 

directly to the Secretary regarding financial management m atters.6 

DHS Components and Conferences Reviewed 

In response to Chairman Thompson’s request, we e valuated a variety of 

conference data and policies to determine the nature and extent of 

department-wide policies and oversight of conferences and related travel. 

We also evaluated conference spending data from Man agement for all 

DHS components for FYs 2005, 2006, and 2007. 

We further analyzed conference spending practices in five DHS 

components to obtain a perspective on individual c omponents’ 

conference-related activities and how they interrelate with Management. 

The five components included the Federal Emergen cy Management 

Agency (FEMA), the Directorate for Science and Technology (S&T), U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the United States Coast 

4

 Department of Homeland Security Delegation 0201.1: Delegation to the Under Secretary for 
 

Management; November 10, 2003. 
 5

 Department of Homeland Security Delegation 0201.1: Delegation to the Under Secretary for 
 

Management; November 10, 2003. 
 6 31 U.S.C. § 902. 
 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 4 
Guard (USCG), and Departmental Operations in the Directo rate for 

Management (DEP OPS).7

 From these five components,we examined 11 

conferences, which included the most expensive within the c ontinental 

United States (in-CONUS) and the most expensive non-CO NUS 

conference for each of the five components held during FY s 2005–2007. 

In addition, we examined one FY 2009 conference in Hawaii, attended by 

19 S&T personnel. Table 2 lists these conferences; detailed descriptions 

are in Appendix C. 

Table 2: Eleven DHS Confe rences Examin ed in Furthe r Detail 

Component FY Conference Name Conference Location In/NonCONUS 

FEMA 

2006 edical System 

(NDMS) Conference 

National Disaster M Reno, NV In-CONUS 

2007 ng 

g 

Regional Interagency Steeri 

Committee (RISC) Meetin Honolulu, HI Non-CONUS 

ICE 

2006 ro 

ing 

Detention Management Cont 

Train 

l Program Batavia, NY In-CONUS 

2007 Regional (Asia) Attaché Confe rence 

Orchard 

pore 

District, 

Singa Non-CONUS 

USCG 

2006 West Coast Aids to Na ion

Conference 

vigat (AToN) Everett, WA In-CONUS 

2006 District 17 Commanding O ffic 

Conference 

ers’ Juneau, AK Non-CONUS 

2005 2005 National BioWatch Co nf erence Washingto n, DC In-CONUS 

S&T 2007 International Underwater T unnel 

Protection London, England Non-CONUS 

2009 2008 Asia Pacific Homeland Security 

Summit and Exposition Honolulu, HI Non-CONUS 

DEP OPS 

2007 FY2007 Chief Administrative Officer’s 

(CAO) Forum Washington, DC In-CONUS 

2007 29th International Data Protection and 

Privacy Commissioner’s Conference Montreal, Canada Non-CONUS 

Cost Breakdown 

Although DHS conference spending is limited by the availab ility of funds 

for such purpose, and participation is generally determined by whether the 

conference is a mission-related or job-related requirement, no specified 

limits exist—in legislation, regulation, or poli cy—on how much DHS or 

its components can spend on conference support or participation. We 

reviewed costs for the conferences by categories such as general support 

(i.e., facilities, audiovisual equipment, materials, and supplies), employee 

7

 Departmental Operations consists of the Office of the Secretary & Executive Management, Office of the 

Under Secretary for Management, OCFO, and Office of the Chief Information Officer. 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 5 
 

salaries, travel expenses, and other costs incurred. Figure 1 depicts these 

expenditures for FYs 2005–2007. 

Figure 1: Breakdown of DHS Reported Conference Expenditures FYs 2005–2007 

Total expenditure: $110 million 

Other Costs General Support
 


$7 million $11 million
 


6% 10%
 


Salaries 

$50 million 

46% 

Travel 

$42 million 

38% 

Source: OIG analysis based on data provided by OCFO, August 2008. 

Results of Review 

Although conferences and related travel might be important to enhancing 

federal government operations, DHS must provide assur ance that it is a 

responsible steward of public funds. Many policies already exist within 

DHS and throughout the federal government that demonstrate the need for 

prudent judgment when funding conferences and determining employee 

travel and attendance. Although we did not review all DHS components, 

this report seeks to identify areas in which Management can leverage best 

practices that will allow the department to generate new efficiencies, 

institute a coordinated “program to improve efficiency and streamline 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 


Page 6 

decision-making,” and ensure that conferences and travel are appropriately 

coordinated and conducted solely for mission-critical purposes.8 

Department Needs Clear and Consistent Conference Planning 

Guidance 

Conference planning is multifaceted. It involves travel, acq uisitions, 

budget, ethics, and appropriations laws and regulations. As a result, DHS 

staff requires comprehensive instructions and detailed, useful inform ation 

on proper procedures for conference planning. 

In October 2008, OCFO issued a department-wide conferen ce planning 

policy as part of its Travel Handbook within the Financial Management 

Policy Manual. The handbook delineates DHS-wide policy regarding 

employee travel expenses a nd conference planning, and provides official 

travel policies and general travel guidance to employees of D HS and its 

components. The conference planning policy was based on regulations 

and guidelines outlined in the FTR. 

Although the conference planning document is intende d to represent DHSwide policy and reflects a progressive effort, it still defer s to components 

with stricter directives to continue following their existin g guidance. 

Similarly, an undated internal directive, Management Direct ive 3160: 

Attendance at Meetings and Conferences (MD 3160), also permits a 

decentralized conference planning process. As there is no unified or 

consolidated set of rules under which DHS components are to operate, 

confusion exists among departmental staff. Consequently, the 

departmental conference planning policy does not iden tify responsibilities 

or authorities clearly; define terminology and guidance consistently; nor 

clarify policy instructions and procedures adequately. 

Policies Do Not Identify Responsibilities or A uthorities Clearly 

Prior to October 2008, DHS had no formal depa rtment-wide 

conference planning policies, and it was unclear who was 

responsible for developing and communicating DHS-wide policies. 

Within various departmental documents, multipleManagement 

entities were cited as having responsibilities associated with 

conference planning. This conflicting information often caused 

staff to rely on inappropriate policies and irrelevant points of 

contact. 

8

 Department of Homeland Security Press Release: “Secretary Napolitano Rolls Out DHS Efficiency 

Review Initiative,” March 27, 2009. 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 7 
For FYs 2005-2007, we determined that only two Management 

documents dealt specifically with conference plan ning and 

attendance policies. The first, issued by the Office of the Chief 

Human Capital Officer (OCHCO), is MD 3160. This directive 

establishes DHS policy regarding attendance at mee tings and 

conferences, and applies to all DHS organizations, em ployees, and 

contractors who provide services at DHS’ expense. According to 

the directive, until such time that OCHCO establ ishes a permanent, 

department-wide policy regarding attendance at meetings and 

conferences, all DHS organizational elements may c ontinue to 

enforce their existing policies and procedures. 

The second document, issued by DHS’ Office of Ge neral Counsel 

and coordinated with the department’s Office o f Ethics, was a 

memorandum dated March 4, 2006, and entitled Conferences. It 

applies to all DHS offices and components with contrac ts serviced 

by the Office of Procurement Operations and is “int ended to 

illuminate some distinctions between permissible a nd 

impermissible methods to conduct conferences.” It includes a 

caveat that the memorandum is not intended to be co mprehensive 

and generally recommends that agency conference planners seek 

additional legal advice on issues not specifically addressed. On 

March 20, 2009, the Office of General Counsel issued an updated 

and superseding Conferences memorandum; howeve r, specifically 

it directs department conference planners to seek ad ditional legal 

advice from appropriations and fiscal law attorneys o n related 

issues not specifically addressed in the memorand um. 

On September 14, 2006, the Deputy Chief Financi al Officer stated 

that the policies governing employee travel are the responsibility 

of the Chief Financial Officer and referred to mor e comprehensive 

policy and guidance on travel and conference a ttendance under 

development.9 That guidance was issued in October 2008 as the 

Travel Handbook in the Financial Management Policy Manual. 

Conflicting information about conference policie s makes it 

difficult to determine who or what has res ponsibility for setting 

policy. MD 3160 places responsibility for setting policy on 

training, conference attendance, and planning on OCHCO; the 

9

 Statement by Eugene Schied, DHS Deputy Chief Financial Officer, before the Senate Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, 

Government Information, and International Security Hearing: DHS’ Conference Spending; 

September 14, 2006 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 8 
Office of General Counsel’s 2006 Conferences memorandum 

directed employees to the Offices of Ethics and G eneral Counsel; 

and congressional testimony refers to OCFO as the responsible 

entity. Several officials we interviewed, whose duties involve 

developing component policy, did not receive D HS-wide guidance 

on conference planning policy or travel and did not know that 

MD 3160 or Office of General Counsel’s 2006 Conferences 

memorandum existed. These officials either referred to 

component-specific policies or followed the FTR. 

MD 3160 also states that the Office of International Affairs at DHS 

must clear attendance at conferences outside of the United States. 

However, when reviewing our sample of internation al conferences, 

component officials did not know of the requirem ent or said that 

they were not required to clear or coordinate attend ance at 

international conferences with the Office of International Affairs. 

In addition, international affairs officials said there is no clear 

policy on its office’s role in coordinating the DHS presence 

overseas and were unaware that the new Travel Handbook within 

the Financial Management Policy Manual contained a section on 

conference planning and international travel. 

It is unclear to what extent these policies and guida nce have been 

distributed or announced to DHS headquarters, component, and 

contractor personnel. Little knowledge or alignment of practices 

with policies establishing guidelines for conference planning or 

spending at the department level or identification of responsible 

policy-makers exists. As a result, significant challenges confront 

adherence to and monitoring of de partmental guidelines and 

federal regulations. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Under Secretary for Management: 

Recommendation #1: Assume oversight responsi bility for 

department-wide conference planning activities. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

We evaluated management’s written comments and have made 

changes to the report where we deemed appropriate. In general, 

Management agreed with all recommendations in the report. A 

summary of management’s written response to the report 

recommendations and our analysis of the response follows each 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 9 
recommendation. A copy of Management’s response, in its entirety, is 

included as Appendix B. 

Management Response: Management agreed with 

Recommendation 1. Management responded that DHS leads a unified 

national effort to secure America—this requires a unifie d department 

and an integrated approach across our varying operat ions. DHS’ 

Secretary continu es to prioritize unifying the department and creating 

a common culture: one enterprise, a shared vision, with integ rated 

results-based operations. 

In March 2009, the Secretary launched a department-wide efficiency 

review to trim costs, streamline operations, elimin ate duplication, and 

better manage resources across the department. This effort includes 

more than 20 initiatives that will increase efficiency, leverage 

economies of scale, create a culture of responsibility an d fiscal 

discipline, and save t axpayers millions of dollars. Elements of the 

efficiency program, the travel and use of governmen t facilities 

initiatives, have already generated department-wide polic ies over the 

conference planning process. 

There are various cross-functional aspects of conferences, su ch as 

planning, ethics, attendance, travel, record keeping, an d other legal and 

management aspects, which have been covered by different 

authoritative sources at the department. Management agrees to bring 

DHS stakeholders together, review best practices, and develop 

department-wide clear, consistent, and authoritative g uidance on the 

multiple aspects of conferences, along with a well-rounded and 

comprehensive definition of a conference. 

Management further responded that work is under way as a part of the 

efficiency initiatives on use of government facilities and travel, and 

will serve as a basis for building comprehensive DHS p olicy on 

conferences. DHS established a Conference and EventPlanning 

Services working group to investigate potential methods of achieving 

savings in this area. This working group has surveyed components to 

gather requirements for events across the department and is conducting 

market and industry research with internal governm ent event planners. 

The working group is also developing a resource package with low or 

no cost alternatives for employees to use while planning conferences 

and events. 

OIG Analysis: In response to Recommendations 1, 2, and 3, 

Management provided one response to address these 

recommendations. We consider Management’s proposed actions 

responsive to Recommendation 1, which is resolved and open. This 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 10 
recommendation will remain open pending our receip t of an official 

department-wide policy, which assigns oversight resp onsibility and 

policy-making authority for department and componen t conference 

activities to a central designated entity. This policy should include a 

reporting process to facilitate this oversight, and clearly outline 

responsibilities, policies, and procedures. Further, all department 

employees should receive this policy, particularly those responsible for 

organizing or authorizing conference activities. 

DHS Has Inconsistent Conference Terminology and G uidance 

Although the DHS mission often justifies staff presence a t 

conferences, DHS does not have a department-wid e definition of what 

constitutes a conference. The distinction between a c onference, 

training, and a routine meeting can affect the justification requirements 

of an event, how it is funded, as well as who can attend. In the 

guidance used by DHS components, the definition of a c onference 

varies significantly. For example: 

The FTR defines a conference as a meeting, retreat, 

seminar, symposium, or event that involves attendee travel 

The FTR also applies the term to training activ ities that are 

considered to be conferences under 5 CFR § 410.404. 

MD 3160 does not provide a distinction between a 

conference and a meeting, but defines both a s a gathering 

of individuals on DHS-related subjects held outside of DHS 

and within or outside the United States. 

The two Conferences memoranda of the O ffice of General 

Counsel distinguish conferences from routine meetings by 

defining the latter as being held to discuss day-to-day 

operations of the government, while a form al conference 

typically involves matters of topical interestto multiple 

agencies and/or nongovernmental participants and m ight 

include registration, a substantive published agenda, and 

scheduled speakers. 

The October 2008 DHS Travel Handbook conference 

planning policy provides no definition of a conference or 

any distinction among conferences, meetings, or training. 

In 2006, Senator Tom Coburn, then Chairman of the Subcommittee on 

Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and 

International Security; U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 11 
and Governmental Affairs, sent a letter to all fede ral agencies 

requesting information about their conference spen ding which 

included a definition of conferences.10 When respondin g to this 

congressional request, OCFO chose to develop yet anoth er definition 

for conferences by reviewing definitions provided in Senator Coburn's 

letter, the FTR, and the Department of Defense J oint Federal Travel 

Regulation.11 The resulting OCFO definition state d: 

“A pre-arranged seminar, annual meeting, fo rum, or 

symposium held at a non-DHS facility th at involves the 

attendance of DHS and/or non-DHS employees who travel 

and/or participate for the provision of training, or the 

exchange of information, during which spe akers make 

presentations on various topics.” 

While the OCFO guidance presented in response to a congressional 

request might have been communicated to staff involv ed in the data 

request, it was not communicated throughout the dep artment or to the 

component program office levels where conference exp enditure 

information is often maintained. Program offices used previous 

definitions or their own professional judgment w ith respect to what 

they believed constituted a conference. For example, USCG 

supplemented the OCFO definition with further guida nce to its staff, 

stating, “a conference is a pre-arranged meeting/expo with a formal 

agenda that is open for public discussion of a particular topic, 

provision of training or the exchange of information.” 

Because of those varying definitions, OCFO staff initi ally received 

more than 20,000 component conference submissions f or FY 2006. 

One official involved in data collection explained that many 

components submitted information on all activities or meetings that 

they thought might meet whateve r definition of “conference” they 

were using. The official explained it was very difficult to centralize 

this information and that, even within a componen t, different offices 

had different definitions and reported their spending accordingly. 

Once verified and examined to ensure a degree of unifo rmity and 

eliminating events that did not fit OCFO’s definition , the number of 

FY 2006 conferences was reduced to 3,024. 

10 Conference definition, provided by Senator Coburn, is a “meeting for consultation, education or 

discussion that includes non-agency participants, not held entirely at an agency facility.” 11 The Department of Defense Joint Federal Travel Regulations, Appendix R, defines a conference as "A 

meeting, retreat, seminar, symposium, or event that involves attendee travel. Also applies to training 

activities that are considered to be conferences under 5 C.F.R. 410.404. ” In an annotation, the JFTR 

specifies that the definition does not include "regularly scheduled courses of instruction conducted at a 

[government] or commercial training facility." 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 12 
Of the five components, whose policies we examined in further detail, 

only DEP OPS had a policy during FYs 2005–2007 that included a 

definition of a conference following the one in MD 3 160. FEMA and 

S&T did not offer any information disclosing how t hey defined a 

conference. Both ICE and USCG, however, were able to provide 

policies issued in 2008 that include detailed definitions of a 

conference, although each was different from the guida nce above. 

The current ICE Conference Planning Procedure defines a 

conference as “a meeting, retreat, seminar, s ymposium, 

congressional event, convention, workshop, selected training, 

or other event that has a published agenda, scheduled 

speakers or discussions, and frequently involves attendee 

travel. All conferences are to cover only official government 

business.”12 

The current USCG Financial Resource Management Manual 

defines a conference as “gatherings that are n ot routine in 

nature and that are intended to cover topical matters of 

general interest that might appeal to governm ental and 

nongovernmental participants.”13 The manu al also refers 

staff to definitions found in the FTR and the Joint Federal 

Travel Regulations. 

Given the importance of conferences to help achieve and further the 

DHS mission, DHS should adopt and u se department-wide one 

definition. The same should apply to differentiating training and 

meet ings. Having consistent terminology and guidance would reduce 

confusion; provide better use of staff resources; improve record 

keeping, reporting, and monitoring; and facilitate th e oversight of 

department-wide, conference-related expenditures. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Under Secretary for Management: 

Recommendation #2: Develop and adopt a common departmentwide definition for what constitutes a conference. The definition 

12 ICE Management Procedures (MAP) #304:107:001: Conference Planning Procedure; April 24, 2008; § 

2.2: Definitions–Conference. 
 13 USCG Commandant Instruction (COMDTINST) M7100.3D: Financial Resource Management Manual;
 


October 3, 2008; § 5.K.11.b: Internal Coast Guard Business Meetings and Conferences, p. 5-53. 
 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 


Page 13 

should ensure that a distinction is made between a conference, retreat, 

seminar, symposium, workshop, training, and routine meeting. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

Management Response: Management agreed with 

Recommendation 2. Management responded that it will bring DHS 

stakeholders together, review best practices, and develop departmentwide clear, consistent, and authoritative guidance on the multiple 

aspects of conferences, along with a well roundedand comprehensive 

definition of a conference. 

OIG Analysis: We consider Management’s proposed actions 

responsive to Recommendation 2, which is resolved and open. This 

recommendation will remain open pending our rec eipt of an official 

department-wide poli cy that identifies a single conference definition 

for the department and all components, and clearly distinguishes 

between a conference, retreat, seminar, sym posium, workshop, 

training, and routine meeting. 

Inadequate Policy Instructions and Procedures Exist 

According to the FTR, an agency is responsible for developing and 

establishing internal policies to ensure that, while plann ing a 

conference, it minimizes all costs, maximizes the use of government 

facilities, identifies cost-reduction opportunities, and ensures that 

conference planners do not misuse conference plannin g benefits.14 As 

an aid in planning and conducting conferences, government-wide and 

department-specific rules, regulations, and guidelines are to be used. 

However, DHS component policies vary, which pr esents challenges in 

applying adequate procedures and practices across the department. 

Further, disparities in the existence, maintenance, and rigor of some 

component policies highlight that DHS, as a whole, ope rates under 

multiple rules. 

The MD 3160 language is vague, general, and does not provide 

adequate guidance to DHS staff for conference planning. Many DHS 

officials we interviewed did not know that this directive exists, 

suggesting some components may not be aware of DHS-wide policy. 

As a result, many components continue to use legacy policies, 

government-wide policies, guidance issued by other federal agencies, 

or from a combination of sources. Of the five components we 

14 41 CFR § 301-74.1: What policies must we follow in planning a conference? 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 14 
reviewed, only DEP OPS, USCG, and FEMA had component-specific 

conference planning policies available during FYs 2005–2007. 

DEP OPS was the only component of the f ive that knew 

about MD 3160 and used the document for guidance. It 

also referred to the 2006 Office of General C ounsel’s 

Conferences memorandum, but even together these 

documents d o not provide staff with adequate instructions 

or comprehensive guidance on matters related to 

conference planning. 

USCG follows its Financial Resource Management 

Manual, issued in 2004 and revised in October 2008; the 

Joint Federal Travel Regulations for conference planning 

and attendance; and its internal supplement to the FTR for 

travel guidance. 

FEMA also relies on the FTR and on other General 

Services Administration (GSA) regulations w hen planning 

conferences. FEMA has a 1988 internal Travel 

Regulations Manual guidance document that contains a 

section on conference planning. FEMA off icials said they 

also use bulletins to alert employees to chan ges in the FTR, 

but were unaware of the MD 3160 policy. 

ICE issued two conference planning documents in April 

2008. The Conference Planning Policy and a Conference 

Planning Procedure document outline the re sponsibilities 

of every officer level in the conference planning process. 

The document includes attachments show ing sample 

request-approval forms for having a conferen ce, a 

worksheet for estimating facility costs, a procurement 

request template, and a sample conference announcement. 

S&T relies on the FTR and the Federal Acquisition 

Regulations when planning conferences. S&T officials 

expressed no knowledge of DHS policies and said that they 

did not have their own component-sp ecific policies. 

In addition, limited department-wide procedures exist for 

determining or minimizing the number of employees attending 

conferences or for standards justifying attendance. Based on our 

review of the five components, employees obtain permission from 

their supervisors to attend a conference and, when funding is 

available, they are permitted to incur related travel costs. 

However, the components do not appear to have specific standards 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 15 
for determining whether an employee’s attendance i s important 

and necessary or whether it would be more prudent to send only a 

few employees, who could in turn brief others. 

MD 3160 advises DHS components to keep atten dance at 

conferences to a prudent level by only allowing a n employee to 

attend a conference when the employee is delive ring a paper or 

serving as a participant; discussing issues import ant to the 

employee’s job and attendance would benefit the em ployee’s 

subsequent job performance, or when substantial pro fessional 

advantage beneficial to DHS is expected.15 However, this broad 

language would seem to endorse the attendance of m ost employees 

at any conference related to DHS’ mission. MD 3160 does not 

provide adequate limits or direction on who shoul d be permitted to 

attend a conference and for what purpose. 

Consequently, when DHS components have up-to-da te internal 

policies that supplement federal regulations, very spe cific guidance 

can be provided to staff, but differences still exist. For example, 

while policy states that USCG must keep records of cost-reduction 

efforts, the ICE conference planning procedure is more specific 

and states that any action costing more than $2,500 requires at least 

three quotes. Components also review and appro ve their 

procurement agreements for conferences in different ways. USCG 

employs a six-level chain of command proc ess to ensure that 

actions are legitimate and legal before entering i nto procurement 

agreements, while ICE routes procurement reque sts through its 

Office of the Principal Legal Advisor for review. 

These inconsistencies, coupled with the need for overall 

department-wide guidance, suggest that components abide by 

different rules. Although MD 3160 refers components to their 

legacy policies, policy maintenance varies by component. In 

addition, components without legacy policies do no t have clear 

instructions on conference planning and attendance . 

Some Components Have Policy Instructions and Clear 

Procedures That Should be Leveraged 

However, some policies have very specific language and provide 

definitions that could help prevent the confusion that often 

surrounds conference planning and attendance rules. In addition, 

some components have very clear processes and procedures 

15 DHS Management Directive 3160: Attendance at Meetings and Conferences; undated. 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 16 
regarding conference planning. For example, USCG kept its 

purchase orders, travel authorizations, and cos t information readily 

available for review of the FY 2006 Command ing Officers’ 

Conference, suggesting an organized and accessible recordkeeping system. 

In another example, the entire bidding process that le d the Office 

of the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) to ch oose its contractor 

for an annual conference was documented in an organized, readily 

available contract file and included detailed cost an d attendee 

information. Also, USCG and ICE had review processes and 

responsibilities clearly defined, reducing the likelihood of 

confusion and noncompliance with applicable polic y. Although 

these policies and practices provide examples of sound business 

and management practices that could be leveraged throughout 

DHS, no coordinated effort by the department has been instituted 

to consolidate these practices. 

The October 2008 department-wide conference plan ning policy 

within the Financial Management Policy Manual addresses 

conference planning and attendance, but does no t provide a 

comp rehensive department-wide supplement to federal regulations. 

Instead, it refers components to their legacy policies . In addition, 

the conference planning policy does not address ma naging 

conference attendance at either the component or the program 

office level. 

In leveraging sound business practices from all components, DHS 

has an opportunity to strengthen its conference attendance and 

planning policies and to create efficiencies in this area. By 

unifying, streamlining, and effectively communicating available 

guidance to DHS employees and c onference planners, all 

components would benefit, allowing DHS to become a better 

steward of public funding. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Under Secretary for Management: 

Recommendation #3: Revise conference planning and attendance 

policies by leveraging and consolidating existing best practices and 

component legacy policies to develop and communicate a single, 

department-wide policy that provides clear and comprehensive 

guidance to all DHS components, and contractor staff. 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 17 
Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

Management Response: Management agreed with 

Recommendation 3. Management responded that work is under way 

as a part of the efficiency initiatives on use of governm ent facilities 

and travel, and will serve as a basis for building compr ehensive DHS 

policy on conferences. DHS established a Conference and Event 

Planning Services working group to investigate potential methods of 

achieving savings in this area. This working group has surveyed 

components to gather requirements for events across thedepartment 

and is conducting market and industry research with internal 

government event planners. The working group is also developing a 

resource package with low or no cost alternativesfor employees to use 

while planning conferences and events. 

OIG Analysis: We consider Management’s proposed a ctions 

responsive to Recommendation 3, which is resolved and open. This 

recommendation will remain open pending our receip t of a single, 

department-wide policy addressing the approval process for hosting 

and attending conferences, as well as the reporting and documentation 

requirements necessary for such events. 

Conference Data Were Unreliable and Unverifiable 

DHS operates in a decentralized financial manageme nt environment, 

which creates difficulties in accurately tracking departm ental funds 

spent on conferences and related travel. Informat ion related to 

conferences sponsored by DHS and its components is maintained in 

many different offices within each component. In addition, conference 

planning and attendance often include planning, procurement, and 

travel of employees. Therefore, while conference planning data may 

reside in program or budget offices; documentation supporting 

procuring facilities and otherservices may be maintained in 

contracting offices; financial transaction data may be h andled by 

accounting; staff expenses may be tracked in human reso urces; and 

travel costs and related documents are handled withi n component 

travel systems. 

Discrepancies Exist in Cost Data 

Federal regulations provide guidance on the use of federal funds 

for conferences with the objective of ensuring that conferences are 

managed in a cost effective manner. During our review, DHS 

officials were unable to produce precise and consistent numbers on 

conference spending. For example, related conference expenses in 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 18 
the financial management systems throughout th e department are 

not differentiated from other costs incurred. Therefore, direct 

reporting from the program offices and manual re view of 

documentation were necessary in each component. Often, 

information was not maintained in a manner to facilita te proper 

examination, tracking of actual conf erence costs, or identification 

of a sponsoring entity. 

As a result, most responses we received from com ponents 

contained missing data and had discrepancies. For FY 2007 

conferences, sponsorship information was often incom plete or 

inaccurate, as indicated in Attachment 1. Because of the size of 

Attachment 1, it is provided as a separate attachment to this report. 

In essence, the data received for FYs 2005–2007 were unreliable, 

unverifiable, and contained little assurance that components 

properly tracked or accounted for all conferences and related costs. 

Conference planners frequently did not take into co nsideration all 

of the information required to estimate potential co sts or account 

for actual costs. In particular, the costs incurred dur ing the 

planning and preparation stages and other staff-related costs such 

as salaries, travel, and incidentals were overestimated in some 

cases and underestimated in others. According to OCFO data, in 

FYs 2005–2007, DHS spent $110 million on confe rences. OCFO 

compiled conference information from comp onents and separated 

costs into categories such as general support, programming, 

salaries, travel, and other costs. Appendix D shows the component 

totals of expenditures reported in these categories. Because of 

different definitions of what constitutes a conference, along with 

inconsistencies in the nature and extent of documentation 

maintained by the components, OCFO faced signif icant challenges 

in compiling data on conferences sponsored by D HS or attended 

by DHS employees. 

When reviewing previous DHS congressional submissions and 

data, we determined there were discrepancies in conference costs 

and attendance counts. Although unintentional, this provides an 

inaccurate account of actual total costs incurred, the size of the 

event, and expenses per attendee, and does not provide for 

transparency or accountability in conference activities throughout 

the department. For example: 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 


Page 19 

FY 2005—Conference spending previously reported to 

Congress totaled $7,064,774.16 Although OCFO and 

components were unable to provide us with complete and 

reliable information for FY 2005 , our analysis of cost data 

for FY 2005 conferences totaled $9,377,829. 

FY 2006—Partial amount initially reported t o Congress of 

$15,370,713 represented estimated travel .

17 As Figure 2 

shows, DHS subsequently revised its report to Congress to 

includeadditional conference-related expenses, which 

totaled $50,410,028. This revised amount also was 

provided to us. 

FY 2007—DHS reported to Congress spending 

$33,865,220 for the first eight months o f the fiscal year 

(October 2006–May 2007). Although OCFO provided 

information to us for the remaining four m onths (June– 

September 2007) totaling an additional $17 ,266,049, 

OCFO staff said that this amo unt received from 

components had not been verified or vetted by OCFO. 

Attachment 1, provided as a separate document to this 

report, indicates FY 2007 conferences that have not been 

verified or vetted for accuracy by OCFO. 

16 The Office of Senator Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, Conference spending by agency, 02/16/06. 
 17 Statement by Eugene Schied, DHS Deputy Chief Financial Officer, before the Senate Committee on 
 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, 
 

Government Information, and International Security Hearing: DHS Conference Spending;
 


September 14, 2006. 
 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 20 
60

50

40

30

$51.13 

20

10

0

2005 2006 2007

$7.06 

$9.38 

$50.41 

$15.37 $33.87 

$50.41 

Expenditures (in millions) 

Figure 2: Discrepancies in DHS Conference Spending Data Reported and Obtained 

Fiscal year 

Reported to Congress Updated report to Congress Obtained by OIG 

Source: OIG analysis based on data provided by OCFO, August 2008. 

NOTE: Because of v ariation in reporting quality over years and among components, these numbe rs may or may not 

represent an increase in conference activity and could indicate an increase in reporting. 

Similar differences existed when reviewing the 11 c onferences in 

detail. During FYs 2005–2007, OCFO issued data calls to DHS 

components requesting information on all conferences sponsored 

or attended. However, the amounts reported by components to 

OCFO for the 11 conferences were different from the amounts we 

obtained directly from the components for the same conferences. 

As shown in Table 3, eight of the 11 conferences we reviewed 

reported different conference costs, some substantively. 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 


Page 21 

Table 3: Discrepancies in Conference C osts Reported by Component s 

Component Conference 

Reported to 

OCFO 

Reported to 

OIG Discrepancy 

FEMA 

2006 NDMS $ 3,392,575 $ 3,347,952 $ (44,623)

Region IX RISC $ 66,247 $ 176,094 $ 109, 847

ICE Detention Managemen t $ 724,596 $ 146,647 $ (577,9 49)

Asia Attaché $ 82,358 $ 113,184 $ 30,826

USCG 

D13 AToN $ 1,458,383 $ 34 22,9 $ (1,435,449) 

D17 Commanding Officers’ $ 96,570 $ 113,401 $ 16,831

2005 BioWatch $ 503,000 $ 503,000 $ —

S&T Underwater Tunnel $ 104,500 $ 100,000 $ (4,500) 

Asia Pacific Expo* n/a $ 93,036 n/a 

DEP OPS 

FY2007 CAO Forum $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ — 

29th Privacy Commissioners’ $ 16,903 $ 16,354 $ 549 

Source: OIG analysis based on data provided by OCFO, August 2008, as well as data received directly from 

components, October2008 to March 2009. 

*This conference occurred after the components provided these figures to the OCFO 

Discrepancies Also Exist in Attendance Counts 

According to the FTR, each agency must establish policies that 

reduce the overall cost of conference attendance. These policies 

must limit employee attendance to a minimum numbe r of 

attendees, determined by a senior official, necessa ry to accomplish 

the agency’s mission; and provide for the consider ation of travel 

expenses when selecting attendees.18 

According to MD 3160, a need also exists to ensure that attendance 

at meetings and conferences is held to a pru dent level; however, 

this guidance is subjective and no standardized department-wide 

method is used to minimize attendance. We reviewed data from 

OCFO and information directly from components with respect to 

the number of employees who attended the 11 conferences. Again, 

discrepancies existed in attendance totals and we were unable to 

validate the accuracy of the information. Because of an 

inconsistent departmental definition, numbers could include only 

the sponsoring program office’s employees, component 

employees, or all DHS employees who attended. Without using 

consistent methodology in maintaining attendance records and a 

18 41 CFR § 301-74.18: What policies and procedures must we establish to govern the selection of 

conference attendees? 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 22 
final reconciliation of conference details, Management cannot 

effectively provide oversight and monitor policy compliance. 

As indicated in Tab le 4, seven of the 11 conferences provided 

different data on attendance. 

Table 4: Discrepancies in Conference Atte ndance Re orted by C p om ponents 

Component Conference 

Reported 

to OCFO 

Reported 

to OIG 

Discrepancy 

(#) 

Reported 

Difference 

(%) 

FEMA 2006 NDMS 842 831 11 (1%) 

Region IX RISC 13 32 19 40% 

ICE Detention Management 105 61 44 (58%) 

Asia Attaché 17 17 0 0% 

USCG D13 AToN 22 175 15 3 13% 

D17 Commanding Officers’ 32 65 33 51% 

2005 BioWatch 2 16 14 13% 

S&T Underwater Tunnel 3 3 0 0% 

Asia Pacific Expo* n/a 18 n/a n/a 

DEP OPS FY2007 CAO Forum 635 639 4 (0.2%) 

29th Privacy Commissioners’ 5 5 0 0% 

Source: OIG analysisbased on data provided by OCFO, August 2008, as well as data received directly from components, 

October 2008 to Ma rch 2009. 

*This conference oc curred after the components provided these figures to OCFO 

Accountability and Tracking Need Improvement 

The general inability of DHS to produce precise and consistent 

information provides little assurance that all c onferences and costs 

were accounted for properly. We determined that D HS did not 

have a uniform reporting system to capture conferen ce costs or a 

process to easily track or extract all costs associated w ith 

conferences. 

A DHS official said there is no reason to track conference 

expenditures because there are no spending restrictions. Another 

said there was no benefit to DHS components tracking conference 

expenditures, other than data call reporting to Congress. However, 

Management and components have a fiduciary and strategic 

responsibility for establishing and maintaining internal controls to 

achieve effective and efficient operations and reliable financial 

reporting. Conferences represent a significant area of activity in 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 23 
DHS and should be managed with the same diligence as other 

program activities. 

Reconciliations or comparisons of data and periodic assessments 

should be integrated into Management’s and compon ents’ 

continuous monitoring of internal controls.19 By not having such 

internal controls, staff relied on ad hoc system que ries and manual 

analysis to produce requested information. The data provided to us 

by Management and components on conferences s ponsored and 

funds spent were questionable in both accuracy and completeness. 

DHS was unable to determine why variances occurre d, but 

explained that a need for compatible inform ation and accounting 

systems, coupled with human error and mult iple field and program 

offices, are major reasons why numbers vary. 

Currently, DHS components are planning and spon soring 

conferences without any consistent approval or track ing processes. 

When combined with inconsistent conference costs a nd attendance 

numbers, DHS needs to develop better manag ement controls to 

ensure that conferences are funded and attended only for missioncritical purposes and that costs are minimized to the greatest extent 

possible. In assessing, tracking, and monitor ing conferences, DHS 

must use innovative tools, methods, and system s to ensure 

accountability and cost minimization across the departm ent. By 

promoting cooperation among its components and analysis of 

lessons learned internally and by other federal entities, 

Management has the opportunity to develop a syste matic, 

disciplined approach to managing conference-relate d costs. 

Exploring options such as centralizing conference planning 

functions can add value to the process by circumvent ing known 

risks and by maximizing benefits attained departm ent-wide. For 

example, the U.S. Department of Energy em ploys a departmental 

Conference Management System, which can obtain advance 

approvals of conference details and is a centralized m onitoring and 

reporting tool for management officials and Congress. Reportedly, 

the system provides accessible, retrievable, and reliable data on the 

number of conferences funded, asso ciated costs, and a valuable 

foundation for comprehensive conference budgeting and 

planning.20 DHS must develop processes and tools to increase the 

transparency of conference spending, which will help identify and 

19 Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-123, Revised: Management’s Responsibility for 
 

Internal Control, § II.E.: Standards—Monitoring, December 21, 2004. 
 20 Department of Energy Order 110.3A: Conference Management; January 25, 2007 . 
 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 24 
eliminate non-mission-critical travel for empl oyees and promote 

better accountability of funds used to sponsor conferences. 

Comprehensive cost and planning information s hould be collected 

to allow managers to make informed decisions regarding the 

reasonableness or necessity of proposed DHS conference 

expenditures. A singular, defined practice of capturing and 

reporting all conferences costs incurred is nee ded to ensure that 

data are reliable and verifiable. In addition, quality control 

procedures should be created to prevent discrepancies and 

variances in reported conference totals. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Under Secretary for Management: 

Recommendation #4: Establish a department-wide m ethodology to 

uniformly and consistently capture and report on confere nce related 

planning and cost information. 

Recommendation #5: Develop a plan to approve, track, report, and 

conduct periodic reviews of department-wide conferenc e related costs 

and attendance to increase accountability and transparen cy of DHS 

conference activities. 

Recommendation #6: Conduct a cost-benefit analysis to determine 

the value of implementing a department-wide conference management 

information system to facilitate tracking, monitoring, and reporting 

costs, attendance, and mission achievement. 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 


Page 25 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

Management Response: Management responded that it agreed with 

Recommendation 4. Management said that consistently reported 

conference information and periodic reviews of confere nce activities 

are important factors in establishing proper controls for a ccountability 

and transparency of DHS conference activities. DHS directives on 

travel and use of government facilities include sp ecific guidance on the 

various aspects of conference planning, travel, performing a cost 

benefit analysis, and ensuring adequate controls and approval 

processes are in place. As part of establishing compreh ensive 

guidance on conference activities, which will cover definitions, 

planning, ethics, travel, record keeping, and other legal and 

management aspects, DHS will also implement an oversight function 

to provide assurance that conference guidance is successfully and 

consistently implemented in DHS components. 

In addition, Management responded that long-term DHS -wide 

financial systems consolidation efforts cou ld be leveraged to support 

accurate tracking of conference related costs. Including conference 

data elements as part of financial and acquisitionsystems will provide 

a centralized data reporting mechanism and preclud e the need for a 

separate conference management information system. 

OIG Analysis: In response to Recommendations 4, 5, and 6, 

Management provided one response to address these 

recommendations. We consider Management’s p roposed actions 

responsive to Recommendation 4, which is resolved and open. This 

recommendation will remain open pending our receipt of an official 

department-wide policy, which provides clear guidance to the 

department and all components on the reporting and do cumentation 

requirements necessary for hosting, co-hosting, and atten ding 

conferences as defined by the department. This guidance should 

include direction on the quality control of data submis sions. 

Management Response: Management responded that it agreed with 

Recommendation 5. As part of establishing comprehensive guidance 

on conference activities, which will cover definitions, planning, ethics, 

travel, record keeping, and other legal and management aspects, DHS 

will also implement an oversight function to provide assurance that 

conference guidance is successfully and consistently implemented in 

DHS components. 

OIG Analysis: We consider Management’s proposed actions 

responsive to Recommendation 5, which is resolved and open. This 

recommendation will remain open pending our receipt of an official 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 26 
department-wide policy, which clearly outlines the roles and 

responsibilities for periodic reporting of conference activity to a 

central designated entity. 

Management Response: Management responded that it agreed with 

Recommendation 6. Management said that long-term DHS-wide 

financial systems consolidation efforts could be leverage d to support 

accurate tracking of conference related costs. Includi ng conference 

data elements as part of financial and acqu isition systems will provide 

a centralized data reporting mechanism and precl ude the need for a 

separate conference management information system. 

OIG Analysis: We consider Management’s proposed actions 

responsive to Recommendation 6, which is resolved an d open. This 

recommendation will remain open pending our receipt of cost and 

benefit results, a specific impleme ntation plan, or a feasibility study 

for including conference data elements into DHS-wide financial and 

acquisition tracking systems. The option taken needs to identify the 

types of data captured across the departme nt. 

Conference Costs Do Not Have Sufficient Supporting 


Documentation 


According to the DHS Records Management Handboo k, all government 

employees and contractors are required to make and preser ve records 

containing adequate and proper documentation of the org anization, 

functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the 

agency. Further, DHS requires that records be properly stored, preserved, 

and available for retrieval, and disposed of only in accordance with 

National Archives and Records Administration-approv ed records control 

schedules.21 Maintaining adequate and proper document ation supports 

business processes, and maintaining sufficient working fi les provides a 

complete understanding of the entire transaction cycle. 

Most documentation developed to support conference planning activities 

is financial. Whether it is procurement for such items as securing a 

facility, arranging for exhibition materials, ordering food a nd beverage 

service, printing programs; or incurring expenses such as travel 

arrangements, lodging, shipping of materials to the site, and mailing of 

invitations or flyers; there is a fiscal effect on program, office, component, 

and department budgets. There can also be an effect on the department’s 

21 DHS Records Management Handbook, v.2; 0550 Publication, Chapter 1, § 3(c): Policy; January 2005. 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 


Page 27 

ability to demonstrate that particular performance measure s have been 

met, through conference activities, when no records of the achievement 

exist. 

During our review, DHS had no efficient means of locating a pplicable 

documents or information systems that could be easily queri ed to obtain 

detailed financial or other supporting information abo ut conferences. As a 

result, components were slow to respond and did not unifo rmly document 

or categorize expenditures. We also reviewed reported co sts, cost 

comparisons for locations, and the use of external event pla nners for the 

11 conferences. This information revealed that site compar isons were 

frequently not performed or documented, and cost-benefit factors often 

were not considered when choosing external event planners over internal 

staff to carry out conference planning and organizing. 

Conference Information Was Not Retrievable in a Timely 

Manner and Descriptions Varied 

We requested basic information on each of the 11 co nferences such 

as the date, location, number of attendees, sponsorship, and 

whether the conference was held annually. Although DHS 

components were able to provide this inform ation, and the 

descriptions of each conference appeared relat ed to programmatic 

goals, responses were not timely and descriptions varied. 

Also, there was no central point within DHS or the five 

components we reviewed responsible for m aintaining all 

documents or reporting on all costs elements of con ference 

spending. As a result, components were slow to respond to our 

information requests, provided incomplete information, and had 

trouble identifying the appropriate individuals or offices within the 

component that would have knowledge of the requested 

information. As Table 5 indicates, response times and amount of 

requested documentation received varied by component. 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 


Page 28 

 

Table 5: Component Response Times for Requested Documentation 

Source: OIG analysisbased on data provided directly by components, October 2008 to March 2009 . 

For two of the five components, it was difficultto determine which 

program office sponsored the conference or to identi fy the correct 

points of contact. For example, FEMA offic ials could not locate 

any documentation or knowledgeable internal point s of contact for 

the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) conference that 

FEMA sponsored in 2006. As a result of the transitioning of 

NDMS from FEMA to the U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services in January 2007, the need for more institu tional 

knowledge resulted in poor accessibility and limit ed preservation 

of pertinent conference records. 

Reported Costs Were Not Comprehensive 

When planning and sponsoring conferences, comprehensive data 

and cost information must be collected and maintain ed to allow 

managers to make informed decisions, to ensure that costs are 

reasonable and necessary, and to prevent departmental 

vulnerabilities to excessive charges. Maintaining comprehensive 

and organized documentation has the benefit of eliminating 

disputes on decisions reached, work authorized, and agreed-upon 

costs. It also reduces the need for frenzied data compilation when 

requested by departmental or congressional officials. In addition, 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 29 
organized record-keeping often makes up for instit utional 

knowledge when program staff moves on, and allows for readily 

retrievable records whenever necessary. 

For the conferences we reviewed, there was little documentation 

associated with planning and insufficient supporting 

documentation for costs. We were unable to ass ess steps taken for 

decisions made and actions taken to minimize costs. Although all 

components reviewed indicated that all funds u sed were from 

assigned program budgets, and that there wasno reprogramming of 

funds to support these conferences, it is incumben t upon the 

components to ensure that funds used to sponsor or attend 

conferences are expended in accordance with relevant 

appropriations law and organizational mission. In cases where 

document support existed, it was not readily available for 

examination and staff was initially unable to locate detailed 

information on the selected conferences. 

In addition, costs were reported inconsistently as estimates, 

projections, awarded, budgeted, or actual expenses. Supporting 

documents and invoices frequently did not equate with the total 

reported costs spent on the conference. For instance, S&T reported 

that for the BioWatch conference, they spent appro ximately 

$190,000 on conference costs, excluding travel and salary 

expenses. However, a task order was issued for $426,637. We 

requested the related invoices from S&T, and they provided a set 

of cumulative invoices from one contractor, which included one 

invoice related to the conference indicating that it wa s the final 

invoice for the conference totaling $288,888 cumulative to date. 

We have no information to confirm whether the r emaining funds 

were spent and what they were spent on. In addition, it appears 

that components have underestimated and underrep orted 

conference costs. For example, invoices ret rieved from the NDMS 

contractor and subcontractor were significantly more than what 

was reported to us by FEMA, a difference of approximately 

$580,000. Another underestimate of costs appears inthe S&T 

Asia Pacific Homeland Security Summit and Exposit ion, where the 

component estimated $62,500 in conference exp enses, excluding 

travel and salary, and we received copies of invoices for 

approximately $85,000. 

Other DHS components did not include similar expenses within 

conference cost categories. ICE’s Detention Management Control 

Program and the Regional Asia Attaché conferences included some 

travel costs, such as taxis, rental cars, and hotels in the “Other 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 30 
 

 

Costs” category, and not within the travel expense category. This 

initially caused an overstatement of other costs for w hich we 

expected to see related documentation or invoices to explain such 

expenses. However, after further examination, the se other 

expenses were determined to be associated with e mployee travel 

reimbursements. For other conferences, some expe nses such as 

salaries or travel were not include d in the total costs. Table 6 

shows the breakdown of costs for the 11 conferences, as provided 

by components or determined from invoices. 

Tab e 6: Componen l t-Repo rted Expenditures for Eleven Sam ple Conferences 

Comp. Conference 

General 

Support Salaries Travel 

Other 

Costs Total 

FEM A 2006 NDMS $ 99 9,434 $ 1,277,359 $ 1,071,159 — $ 3,347,952 

Region IX RISC $ 100,000 $ 26,500 $ 39,250 $ 10,344 $ 176,094 

ICE Detention Management — $ 44,137 $ 91,116 $ 11,393 $ 146,646 

Asia Attaché — $ 33,550 $ 54,620 $ 25,013 $ 113,184 

D13 AToN — — $ 12,233 $ 10,700 $ 22,933 

USCG D17 Commanding 

Officers’ $ 7,094 $ 69,556 $ 36,750 — $ 113,400 

2005 BioWatch $ 97,000 — $ 311,800 $ 94,200 $ 503,000 

S&T Underwater Tunnel $ 99,999 — — — $ 99,999 

Asia Pacific Expo $ 85,835 — — $ 7,200 $ 93,035 

DEP 

OPS 

FY2007 CAO Forum $ 300,000 — — — $ 300,000 

29th Privac 

Commissio 

y 

ners’ — — $ 8,307 $ 8,046 $ 16,354 

Source: OIG analysis based on data provided directly by components, October 2008 to March 2009. 

We also examined available documentation for food and 

beverages, audiovisual and equipment, registration fees, site cost 

comparisons, and use of external event planners. 

Food and Beverages 

According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), as a 

general rule, appropriated 

funds are not available to 

provide free food to 

government employees at their 

official duty stations unless 

specifically authorized by 

statute.22 However, GAO has 

determined that there are 

certain exceptions to this 

Food and Beverages 

CAO Forum............ $137,700 

BioWatch .................. $42,638 

NDMS........................ $41,250 

D17............................... $2,478 

RISC............................ $2,315 

22 GAO, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law (Red Book), pg. 4-103. 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 31 
 

rule.23 One such exception is provided for in section 301-74.11 of 

the FTR, which allows agencies hosting conferences to provide 

light refreshments to agency employees in a travel status. 24 

GAO contemplates other exceptions in its Red Book, as well as in 

numerous Comptroller General opinions. However, a succinct 

summary of those rules, as they relate to DHS conference planners, 

is provided in both the 2006 and 2009 DHS Office of General 

Counsel’s Conferences memoranda. The memor andum provides 

guidance for conference planners to use when determining whether 

appropriated funds may be used to provide food at training 

conferences, as well as formal conferences spons ored by DHS, 

other federal agencies, or non-federal entities. 

We reviewed the conferences to determine food an d beverage 

expenses and determined that five conferences incur red costs for 

food and beverages totaling $226,381. Because of insufficient 

supporting documentation, it was difficult to determ ine what the 

food and beverage expense included and whether it would be 

considered light refreshments or a meal. In only one case were we 

able to verify that the cost of the meal was in line with the 

applicable regulations and with the per diem rate for that location. 

Audiovisual Support 

Similar to othe r conference costs, agencies have considerable 

discretion regarding their spending on audiovisual support for 

conferences, including equipment rental and direct labor associated 

with equipment setup and operation. Furthermore, the Acquisition 

Oversight Program Guidebook 

attached to MD 0784: 

Acquisition Oversight Program 

directs acquisition personnel to 

obtain supplies and services at 

fair and reasonable prices. 

However, neither fair nor 

reasonable are explicitly defined 

in the directive. 

Audiovisual 

NDMS...................... $113,118 

CAO Forum.............. $54,871 

BioWatch .................. $22,472 

Asia Pacific Expo ..... $13,242 

RISC............................ $2,173 

23 GAO, Red Book, pp. 4-103 through 4-119. 
 

24 41 CFR § 301-74.11: May we provide light refreshments at an official conference? GAO, Red Book, pp. 
 

4-110 through 4-111.
 


DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 32 
Based on documentation we received, in five o f the 11 

conferences, costs amounting to $2 05,876 were incurred for 

audiovisual or other technological equipment. 

We also note other significant costs that can be incurred in holding 

conferences and for which discretion should be used to ensure 

reasonableness. One such cost appeared in the docum ents for 

S&T’s presence at the Asia Pacific Expo, where $35,000 was spent 

for booth space, along with $19,791 to rent and set u p a display, 

$11,082 to fly the display to Hawaii, and $6,201 for miscellaneous 

exhibit space and freight costs. Although we did not have enough 

information to determine the reasonableness of these costs, th is is 

an example of areas where components should maintain proper 

documenta tion and justifications to demonstrate the necessity of 

such costs and the fairness of the price. 

Registration Fees 

According to 31 U.S.C. § 3302(b), also known as the 

Miscellaneous Receipts Statute, an official or agent of the 

government receiving funds “from any so urce shall deposit the 

money in the Treasury as soon as practicable without any 

deduction for any charge or claim.” This is to prevent an agency 

from augmenting its funds from sources outside of those 

appropriated by Congress without statutory authority. 

DHS’ Office of General Counsel 2006 and 2009 Conferences 

memoranda explicitly state that DHS may not dir ectly collect 

"funds from indiv idual conferees" or "exhibitor fees from private 

entities" to defray or reduce the official costs of conferences. 

Components confirmed that they did not charge atte ndees any 

registration fees in connection with any of the DHS-sponsored 

conferences we reviewed. 

Cost Comparisons Often Were Not Conducted 

Conference planners are required to conduct site com parisons and 

are to consider both lower cost conference locations and venues at 

various locations.25 For conferences with greater than 30 

attendees, federal agencies must consider at least three conference 

sites and must maintain a cost record of each alternative 

25 41 CFR § 301-74.3: What must we do to determine which conference expenditures result in the greatest 

advantage to the Government? 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 33 
conference site.26 With respect to comparing c osts for specific 

venues, a planner considers such items as th e availability of 

lodging rooms at per diem rates, transportation fees, the 

convenience of location, availability of meeting spac e, and 

equipment and supplies.27 In addition, agencies “may not directly 

procure lodging facilities in the District of Columbia withou t 

specific authorization and appropriation from Congress.”28 

In assessing the justification for an agency host ing a formal 

conference, GAO issued an opinion stating that “[a ]n agency, 

generally, does not need express statutory authority to host a 

conference, so long as the agency determines that a f ormal 

conference is reasonably and logically related to carrying out its 

statutory responsibilities and serves its statutory mission.”29 

Therefore, for formal conferences, DHS should exe rcise great care 

when expending federal resources on conferencerelated activities, 

ensuring that the conference site is not extravagant, overly 

associated with vacation destinations, or otherwi se inappropriate 

for a conference of government personnel performing official 

duties. 

We determined that two components did not prov ide adequate 

supporting documentation related to conducting c ost comparisons. 

FEMA sponsored a conference for its Region IX R egional 

Interagency Steering Committee (RISC) meeting, wh ich was held 

at the Waikiki Beach Marriott Hotel.30 The conference was 

scheduled to coincide with the State of Hawaii’s Makani Pahili 

Exercise as an opportunity to gain information and develop 

realistic contingency plans for requirements to sup port the state 

during an emergency response. FEMA reported agency attendance 

at 32 and the total conference attendance, including local 

attendees, was 195. Federal agencies are required to consider at 

least three conference sites and keep records of these cost 

comparisons when planning a conference for over 30 attendees. 

FEMA officials stated that they were not aware of any cost 

comparisons that might have been done with respe ct to the site 

selection for the RISC meeting. 

26 41 CFR § 301-74.19: What records must we maintain to document the selection of a conference site?
 
 27 41 CFR §301-74.4: What should cost comparisons include?
 
 28 41 CFR §301-74.17: What special rules apply when a conference is held in the District of Columbia?
 
 29 GAO Opinion B-300826
 


30 RISC meetings rotate from state to state in Region IX, and this meeting was held in Hawaii as its normal
 


place in the rotation. 
 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 34 
Similarly, S&T provided inform ilarly, S&T provided information describing the ation describing the purpose of the purpose of the

BioWatch conference, held in W atch conference, held in Washington, DC, shington, DC, as an opportunity as an opportunity

to share accom to share accomplishments, discuents, discuss lessons learne ss lessons learne d, and targetd, and target

future goals. future goals. According to S& According to S&T officials, 16 compon T officials, 16 compon ent staffent staff

attended the conference, but attended the conference, but approximapproximately 400 peop ately 400 people from

federal and state governm federal and state governments and the private sector ents and the private sectoralso attended. also attended.

For this conf For this conference, Serence, S&T used an external event pla T used an external event pla nner thatnner that

organized the event and arranged for the location organized the event and arranged for the location. However, S&T However, S&T 

did not mdid not maintain any supporting do intain any supporting documentation toentation to ensure th ensure that the

external event planner conducted site com external event planner conducted site comparisons orparisons or followedfollowed

federal regulations regarding renting facilities in the District oistrict of 

Columbia. S&T officials also noted that the in S&T officials also noted that the intern al S&T proal S&T program 

manager and Contracting Officer' nager and Contracting Officer's Technical Representative are no s Technical Representative are no 

longer emlonger employed by S&T, m ployed by S&T, making it difficult to king it difficult to determine whatine what 

was actually done or was actually done or where supporting docum where supporting documentation mentation may be.31 

Even though inform Even though inform a tion provided for the other conferences

demonstrated that co onstrated that co st

comparisons were don parisons were don e for the for the Facilities locations, eflocations, efforts can forts can be made 

NDMS......................
........ $218,477$218,477
 to minimize expen ze expenditures forditures for

the rental of ptal of p rivate facilities RISC............................ ............................ $5,837 

when governmn government facilities are ent facilities are Asia Attach Asia Attaché................................ $1,725 

available. available. Of the conferences the conferences D17 ............................................... $800 

we reviewed, five incurred we reviewed, five incurred AToN.......... .................................................. $200 
 

facility costs, totaling 
 facility costs, totaling

$227,039.
 $227,039.

In addition, consideration m In addition, consideration must be given to other c ust be given to other c ost categories to

ensure a well rounded evaluation of all costs whe ensure a well rounded evaluation of all costs when choosing a n choosing a

location.location. For example, to elimple, to eliminate unnecessary inate unnecessary expense, ICexpense, ICE 

used its own facilities, incurri used its own facilities, incurring no costs, when sponsoring the ng no costs, when sponsoring the 

conference on Detention Management Control Training. conference on Detention Management Control Training. In 

another case, the USCG used a na another case, the USCG used a naval station for the W val station for the West Coast st Coast

AToN confe AToN conference at a cost of $200 with staff lodg rence at a cost of $200 with staff lodg ed on USCG ed on USCG

ships, mships, minimizing hotel costs. izing hotel costs. 

31 A Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative is the liaison between the government and a private 

contractor. The representative is responsible for recommending, authorizing, or denying actions and 

expenditures for standard delivery orders and task orders, as well as monitoring the contractor’s progress in 

performance of the technical requirements specified in the contract. The representative maintains 

administration records, approves invoices, and performs final inspection and acceptance of work performed 

under the contract. 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 35 
External Event Planner Use 

The FTR does not provide specific guidance regardi ng the 

outsourcing of conference planning to an external event planner. 

In the absence of such guidance, it can be inferred, an d was by the 

Department of Justice Office of Inspector General, that the extern al 

event planner, as an agent of the government, should comply with 

the FTR’s general conference planning mandates. 32 

DHS’ Office of General Counsel reinforces this inf erence in its 

2006 Conferences memorandum by providing some DHS specific 

guidance regarding what contract conference facilitators can and 

cannot do. 

Contract Conference Facilitators Can: 

Act on behalf of an agency to identify suitable f acilities and 

generally assist with conference logistics 

Assist in arranging the agenda, preparing co nference
 

materials, and identifying speakers 


 Collect the costs of "unofficial activities" that are available t o 

individual conferees at no additional cost to the government, 

such as sightseeing trips or tickets to local s porting events 

Contractors Cannot: 

Do anything by proxy that government ag ents are barred 
 

from doing themselves 
 

According to a DHS official knowledgeable of department’s 

conference activities, most planning is done inter nally. Three 

conferences we reviewed used external event planners. Each 

provided different levels of support, but the services included 

performing site selections, arranging for hotel lodg ing and meeting 

room space, and preparing budgets for DHS officia ls. 

As a result of using external event organizers, we were able to 

review detailed breakdowns of funds spent in specific cost 

categories. For example, through the contract files maintained for 

the FY 2007 CAO Forum, we obtained checklists of 

documentation and comparisons, which ensured full compliance 

with all applicable regulations. Similarly, we examined the 

32 Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, Audit Report 07-42: Department of Justice 

Conference Expenditures; September 2007. 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 36 
records of the external event planner for the FEMA 2006 NDMS 

conference, which provided essential information about budgeted 

vs. actual expenditures and a comparison with prior year 

expenditures. In this case, we obtained valuable co st information 

from the contractor and subcontractor that FEMA w as unable to 

provide. Other than the submitted invoices, S&T d id not provide 

any documentation from its extern al event planner for the 

BioWatch conference, so we were unable to determine the extent 

of documentation created for this conference. 

Because of insufficient documentation for all confer ences 

reviewed, we did not draw conclusions about pot ential cost savings 

that may exist with the use or non-use of external ev ent planners. 

However, when developing plans to sponsor a con ference, an 

assessment is necessary to ensure that external event planning 

costs comply with regulations and policies and would be the m ost 

cost-effective means for planning a conference, com pared with 

using internal staff. 

Given the identified deficiencies, it is prudent for DHS to develop 

effective methods to ensure that records created and received are 

maintained in a manner that allows for easy and t imely retrieval. 

Adequate and proper documentation provides evid ence of DHS 

activities and ensures a decision-making trail. In addition, a 

comprehensive record-keeping system supports the functions 

required to track financial and administrative transactions, and 

provides detailed information significant to the management of 

operations. These efforts will reduce inconsistencies in reported 

costs, minimize costs related to the rental of nongovernm ent 

facilities, and identify cost savings related to confe rence planners. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Under Secretary for Management, in coordination with 

DHS components: 

Recommendation #7: Develop a department-wide record-keeping 

standard for conference related documents and records to ensure 

adequate documentation is maintained to justify and support all 

decisions and transactions. 

Recommendation #8: Designate a central point within each DHS 

component responsible for maintaining component-specific 

documentation related to conference expenditures. 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 37 
Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

Management Response: Management responded tha t it agreed with 

Recommendation 7. Management said comprehensive conference 

guidance should include direction on how to properly document and 

justify the decision for conducting a conference, including a cost 

benefit analysis and elements of cost that must be consi dered and 

documented in the decision process. Guidance onrecord-keeping 

standards should also be included and will be co nsistent with existing 

DHS Directives and guidance on record keeping requirem ents. 

Currently, DHS requires each component designate asenior 

accountable official to ensure component conference and travel related 

activities are mission critical and are conducted as efficiently and 

effectively as possible, but further comprehensive guidance would 

enhance implementation. 

OIG Analysis: In response to Recommendations 7 and 8, 

Management provided one response to address th ese 

recommendations. We consider Management’s propo sed actions 

responsive to Recommendation 7, which is resolved and open. This 

recommendation will remain open pending our receipt of an official 

department-wide policy, which provides clear guidanc e to the 

department and all components on the reporting and docum entation 

requirements necessary for hosting and co-hosting conf erences as 

defined by the department. This guidance should be a mandatory 

minimum standard, in compliance with and sup plementing the FTR, 

and include direction on the quality control of data submissions. 

Management Response: Management responded that it agreed with 

Recommendation 8. Currently, DHS requires each component 

designate a senior accountable official to ensure comp onent 

conference and travel related activities are mission crit ical and are 

conducted as efficiently and effectively as possible, but further 

comprehensive guidance would enhance implementation . 

OIG Analysis: We consider Management’s proposed actions 

responsive to Recommendation 8, which is resolved and open. This 

recommendation will remain open pending our receipt of an official 

department-wide policy, which assigns the responsibility for tracking 

component-specific documentation related to conference expenditures 

and the reporting of such expenditures to a central designated entity. 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 


Page 38 

 

 

 

DHS Travel Expenditures Were Not Supported Consistently or in 

Compliance With Applicable Regulations 

Federal employees on official government travel are limited in the types 

and amount of expenses that can be reimbursed from approp riated funds. 

They are expected to exercise the same care in incurrin g expenses that a 

prudent person would when traveling on personal business. According to 

the FTR, the per diem allowance is a flat daily payment, ins tead of a 

reimbursement for actual expenses for lodging, meals, and related 

incidental expenses.33 The maximum per diem rate is dependent upon the 

location of travel; and in general, receipts are required only for lodging 

expenses and other expenses over $75.34 These allowance rates are 

established by GSA for in-CONUS locations. For non-CONUS locations, 

the Department of Defense establishes allowances for non-foreign 

locations, and the Department of State does the same for for eign locations. 

Based on the number of attendees reported to us by five DHScomponents, 

we requested 25% of the travel vouchers for examination in detail. Of the 

72 vouchers we requested, DHS components were able to provide only 47, 

or 65%. We were unable to determine or verify the co sts of conference 

related travel and travel reimbu rsements accurately bec ause of deficiencies 

in supporting do cumentatio n. 

Table 7: Summ aryumentation of Travel Doc Requeste d and Received 

Component 

Vouchers 

Requested 

Vouchers 

Received * 

Percentage 

Received 

FEMA 27 21 78% 

ICE 18 5 28% 

USCG ** 13 13 ** 100% 

S&T 12 6 50% 

DEP OPS 2 2 100% 

Totals 72 47 65% 

Source: OIG analysis based on data provided directly by components 

* Attendees who incurred only local travel and were identified as such by the 

component were included under “Voucher Received.” 

** USCG information included here is only for the D17 Commanding Officers’ 

Conference. No attendee list was kept for the D13 AToN conference; therefore, no 

travel vouchers were requested. 

33 41 CFR §300-3.1 What do the following terms mean? 34 41 CFR § 301-11.25 & 41 CFR § 301-52.4. 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 


Page 39 

Some Meals Were Not Deducted 

We reviewed the available travel vouchers to determine whether 

costs were reimbursed in accordance with applicable regulations 

and policies. The FTR mandates the following when m eals or light 

refreshments are furnished by the governm ent or are included in 

the registration fee: 

If meals are furnished, the appropriate deduction from the 

meals and incidental expenses (M&IE) rate m ust be made, 

and 

If only light refreshments are furnished, no ded uction of the 

M&IE allowance is required.35 

Although meals had been provided to the attendees during several 

of the conferences, we determined that some DHS e mployees had 

not deducted the corresponding meal per diem amounts from their 

official travel vouchers, as required. Thus, it appears these 

individuals claimed and were reimbursed for meal s they received 

at no cost. For example, six employees neglected to deduct the 

lunch portion of their M&IE for the FEMA NDMS conference 

totaling $78. In another instance, one S&T employee who 

attended the Asia Pacific Homeland Security S ummit and Expo, 

did not reduce the per diem to reflect any of the meals provided, 

amounting to an overpayment of $102. 

Some Transportation Reimbursements May Have Been 

Excessive 

We also noted some reimbursements seemed excessi ve and the 

reasonableness could not be determined since there were no 

notations justifying such costs. For instance, the federal 

government reimbursed two t ravelers for what appears to be 

unreasonably expensive taxi costs for the ICE De tention 

Management Control Program Training. With thi s conference, 

component officials said the travel vouchers were archived and no 

longer available in their travel system. In lieu of travel vouchers, 

the component provided travel authorizations printe d from its 

Federal Financial Managem ent System. 

In addition, to show the amounts paid to the attendees, ICE 

officials provided copies of the travelers’ Obligation Document 

35 41 CFR § 301-74.21: What is the applicable M&IE rate when meals or light refreshments are furnished 

by the Government or are included in the registration fee? 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 40 
Transaction Reports from this system. However, ICE did not 

provide receipts or invoices for the reimbursed expe nses. Without 

the receipts, it is difficult to determine whether the two payments 

of $206 and $104 for taxi cost reimbursements were reasonable. 

However, when compared to other travelers for the same 

conference, records indicate that two other travelers were 

reimbursed for taxis in the amount of $80 and $85. Also, for 

S&T’s presence atthe Asia Pacific Expo and DEP OPS’ presence 

at the Privacy Conference, employees were reimbursed $272 and 

$177 respectively for taxis. 

In addition, there were flights to Singapore for two em ployees to 

the ICE Asia Attaché Conference, which cost $8,65 4 and $7,207, 

respectively. Although this conference took place in January 2007, 

recent searches of similar itineraries for a round trip, restrictionfree, refundable coach ticket from Washington, DC , to Singapore 

on the same air carrier quoted much lower fares . Although these 

costs may be reasonable, the component did not subm it receipts or 

invoices to support the amounts claimed on the tr avel vouchers. 

We also reviewed a number of other travel records that were 

completed incorrectly and omitted relevant information. Some did 

not provide adequate explanation or justifications o n the travel 

documentation to readily determine the appropri ateness of the 

costs. For example, it appeared that FEMA reimbur sed one 

employee $176 for a canceled airline ticket, a seco nd employee 

$466 for duplicate lodging costs, and a third for $145 for an extra 

day of lodging and per diem. In another exampl e, DEP OPS 

provided reimbursement of a $454 co nference fee to attend an 

evening gala for an employee at the Privacy Confe rence. The cost 

was separate from the cost of the conference itself an d typically 

would not be reimbursable. Again, without proper justifications 

noted on the supporting documentation, we cannotdetermine 

whether these reimbursed costs were appropriate. 

Lastly, S&T approved a reimbursement for an employee to use a 

non-city-pair airline carrier for restricted air travel booked through 

a commercial web-based travel site.36 The FTR requires federal 

employees to use city-pair contract fares, reserved through the EGov travel service or their agency’s travel management system, 

with very limited exceptions. One exception states that a noncontract carrier can be used when a lower fare is offered to the 

36 GSA administers the Airline City-Pair program, which offers discounted air passenger transportation for 

federal government travelers. 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 41 
general public that, when used, will result in a lower total trip cost 

to the government. Although the employee saved $226, or 19% of 

the city-pair unrestricted contract fare, by using the commercial 

travel service, no documentation existed comparing unrestricted 

airfare through the commercial web-based trav el site. In addition, 

this exception appeared to be used solely for the purpose of 

allowing the employee to conduct personal travel . 

The employee was on approved leave for four days p rior to the 

conference. Records indicate that the employee flew from the duty 

station in Washington, DC, to Texas, stayed in T exas for four days, 

and then flew from Texas to Hawaii, the conference site. After the 

weeklong conference, the employee flew from H awaii back to 

Texas, stayed for the weekend, and then flew back to the duty 

station. This flight activity appears to have supplem ented personal 

costs for a vacation that was in essence paid for by the federal 

government. In addition, there was no documentation in the travel 

packet to support the claim that the price differenc e represented a 

significant cost-saving to the government, or that it resulted in a 

lower total trip cost, as required by the FTR. 

Although DHS may not have incurred any addition al costs with 

these travel plans—and actually saved money in the transaction— 

DHS must ensure that decisions to use non-contracted airfares are 

made for mission-critical purposes and not solel y for employee 

preferences. For instance, the Departmen t of Health and Human 

Services requires authorization for the use of non-contract carrier 

service only when the cost savings on the non-contract fare w ill be 

at least 40% of the total cost of the contract carrier fa re. This helps 

ensure the integrity of the entire federal government contract, 

which is negotiated to provide major cost savings and 

competitiveness over time. 

Under the 2009 DHS Secretary’s Efficiency Review Initiatives, the 

department recently identified particular areas of p otential 

inefficiency, and employee travel is one of thos e areas. Every 

effort should be made to ensure that conference -related travel is for 

mission-relate d purposes and incurs the least cost. Establishing 

controls will assist in identifying costs that do not further DHS’ 

mission, or are not advantageous for the department to incur. By 

not performing adequate internal controls for conference-related 

travel, DHS is subject to unallowable and excessive charges. 

Attention must be paid to reimbursements for travel so that 

adequate documentation is maintained and all employees are 

exercising fiscal care. 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 42 
Recommendations 

We recommend that the Under Secretary for Management, in coordination with 

DHS components: 

Recommendation #9: Develop measures to ensure compliance with 

federal regulations regarding the reduction of meals and related 

incidental expense rate for government-provided meals, use of noncontract airline carriers, and reasonableness of travel costs. 

Recommendation #10: Ensure that justifications for travel expenses 

are properly documented and rec ords are retained to support decisions 

and transactions. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

Management Response: Management responded that i t agreed with 

Recommendation 9. Guidance on federal regulations regarding the 

reduction of meals and related incidental expense rate for governmentprovided meals, use of non-contract airline carriers, and 

reasonableness of travel costs is currently provided in the D HS Travel 

Handbook. 

Management will further develop and communicate guidan ce on how 

to comply with these regulations. Sampling of invoices from 

conferences in which meals were provided as w ell as sampling of noncontract carrier costs and of travel costs exceeding a review trigger 

level are among of several approaches being considere d to test 

compliance with Federal regulations. 

OIG Analysis: In response to Recommendations 9 and 10, 

Management provided one response to address these 

recommendations. We consider Management’s proposed actions 

responsive to Recommendation 9, which is resolved and open. This 

recommendation will remain open pending our recei pt of 

documentation describing the methodology and procedu res used to 

ensure department and component compliance with th e FTR and DHS 

conference policies. 

Management Response: Management responded that it agreed with 

Recommendation 10. Management will further develop and 

communicate guidance on how to comply with these regulations. 

Sampling of invoices from conferences in which meals were provided 

as well as sampling of non-contract carrier costs and of travel costs 

exceeding a review trigger level are among of several approaches 

being considered to test compliance with federal regulations. 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 43 
OIG Analysis: We consider Management’s proposed a ctions 

responsive to Recommendation 10, which is resolved a nd open. This 

recommendation will remain open pending our receipt of a 

department-wide communication that provides specific guidance and 

stresses the importance of maintaining pertinent docum entation. In 

addition, the communication should identify a saving threshold above 

which it is allowable for DHS employees to procure flights with noncontract air carriers, and the documentation necessary to demonstrate 

the non-contract price satisfies the savings threshold . 

Departmental Coordination of Sponsored Conferences Would 

Facilitate Efficiencies 

One of the fundamental management goals for DHS leaders hip is to unify 

the diverse aspects of each component. This includes the standardization 

of managerial pra ctices and systems to allow interconnectivity and crosscommunication. This standardization is essential to join interrelated 

functions and eliminate duplicate activities and costs. However, there is a 

need to coordinate across DHS components to minimize duplication in 

facilitating conferences. 

Leverage Technology and Resources to Share Information and 

Reduce Costs 

It is critical that components develop innovative methods to 

leverage skills, capabilities, experiences, and knowledge that reside 

throughout the department, and explore new ways to share 

information that are less costly than conferences that require travel. 

For example, rapidly expanding technologies such as videolinking, teleconferencing, and online interactive webinars could be 

effective alternatives to smaller conferences and could reduce 

costs. 

Larger conferences could use similar technologies or be combined 

with other training and related events to reduce the planning and 

execution costs of sponsoring several different co nferences with 

similar purposes. For example, NDMS holds a DH S and 

government-wide annual conference that creates crossorganization collaboration to provide many opportunities at a 

single event. It has become a central gathering point for numerous 

organizations that participate in the same industry, but in differing 

and complementary capacities. Such coordination and 

collaboration helps to use facilities and resources better, while 

fostering new avenues of communicating and mission efficiency. 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 44 
The department should undertake a review of annua l conferences 

to determine whether other cost saving means for co mmunicating 

information would be more appropriate. For exam ple, the USCG 

District 17 Commanding Officers’ Conference is hel d annually 

after USCG staff is rotated throughout the district offices. The 

conference provides an opportunity for the District Commander to 

meet with officers to review procedures and expectat ions. For the 

FY 2009 conference, the Commanding Officer c onducted a needs 

assessment, determined that there had been no change in leadership 

since the last annual Commanding Officers’ Conference, and 

canceled the one scheduled. Rather than holding the annual 

conference solely because it is sponsored every year, USCG 

leadership exercised fiscal prudence and decided to use other 

means to communicate with the staff, potentiallysaving more than 

$113,000.37 

Oversight and Coordination Measures Need Development 

A coordinated approach to planning conferences is critical to align 

departmental efforts and resources adequate ly. In some cases, 

components are disconnected from each other, with little or no 

interaction, which creates different resource prioritization and 

potential duplication of efforts across the departme nt. Without 

knowledge of ongoing component conference act ivities, 

headquarters elements do not have the information they need to 

ensure that DHS’ overall strategic goals are being achieved in the 

most efficient manne r possible. Therefore, the department needs 

to develop measures that provide oversight and coordination of 

conference planning to ensure that all possible cos t savings are 

explored, cooperative relationships are used to ma ximize benefits 

and departmental objectives, and organizational tools are 

incorporated into the process. 

Oversight measures provide the department with an a bility to 

allocate and monitor limited resources, and expand its efforts to 

review how components use program funds for conferences. A 

central coordinator or oversight capacity within Management can 

provide a broader perspective of conference planning activities 

occurring across the department. Specifically, best practices from 

previous events and lessons learned from external departments and 

agencies could be reviewed to assist and monitor the planning and 

costs of future DHS conferences. 

37 The FY 2006 Commanding Officers’ Conference cost $113,401. 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 45 
Recommendations 

We re ommen c d that the Under Secretary for Management, in coordination with 

DHS components: 

Recommendation #11: Develop a plan to standardize managerial 

practices and systems to allow coordination, cross-communication, 

and interconnectivity in conference planning and spendi ng activities. 

Recommendation #12: Explore using more cost-effective means and 

technologies as alternatives to sponsoring conferences and related 

travel. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

Management Response: Management responded that it agreed with 

Recommendation 11. Management said that wo rk is under way as a 

part of the efficiency initiative on travel and use of gov ernment 

facilities for DHS events, and efficiency will serve as a basis for 

building comprehensive DHS policy on conferences. DHS established 

a Conference and Event Planning Services working group to 

investigate potential methods of achieving savings in th is area. This 

working group has surveyed components to gather requirem ents for 

events across the department, and is conductin g market and industry 

research with internal government event planners. The working group 

is also developing a resource package with low or no cos t alternatives 

for employees to use while planning conferences and eve nts. 

As part of the quarterly reporting for efficiency initiatives, 

Management said that components are identifying alterna tive costcutting measu res, such as holding conferences locally, using non-DHS 

government-owned facilities, and sending fewer people to 

conferences. Live web-conferencing has been held to link participants 

at hundreds of locations across the country and, in another cost-cutting 

move, information was posted on the web and then loc al and webbased training was conducted instead of gathering pers onnel in a single 

commercial location. 

In addition, Management said there are several noteworthy examples 

of progress toward implementing a more cost effective means of 

conducting conferences across the department. The department held 

an initial Industry Day conference to introduce the EAGLE II 

procurement using Microsoft Live Web-conferencing reaching over 

600 participants across the country. The cost for this conference was 

only $30.00 compared to over $10,000 for similar events in rented 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 46 
space. U.S. Customs and Border Protection restructuredits mission 

support training form and saved approximately $640,000 in travel and 

administrative costs. Posting training material on the C ustoms website 

and by conducting local and web-based training instea d of gathering 

mission support personnel in a si ngle commercial location achieved 

the savings. 

OIG Analysis: In response to Recommendations 11 and 12, 

Management provided one response to address these 

recommendations. We consider Management’s propo sed actions 

responsive to Recommendation 11, which is resolved an d open. This 

recommendation will remain open pending our receipt of 

docume ntation describing the methodology and procedures used to 

facilitate communication and coordination among the department and 

all components to minimize conference hosting and atte ndance 

redundancies. 

Management Response: Management responded that it agreed with 

Recommendation 12. In its response, Management cited a number of 

examples where progress toward implementing amore cost effective 

means of conducting conferences across the department was 

accomplished. 

OIG Analysis: We consider Management’s proposed actions 

responsive to Recommendation 12, which is resolved and closed. No 

further reporting on this recommendation is ne cessary. 

Conclusion 

Optimizing processes and systems to facilitate inte gration and 

coordination of departmenta l operations is an objective identified in DHS’ 

Strategic Plan.

38 Department-wide conference planning policies can 

result in significant benefits such as establishing joint strateg ies; reducing 

the effect of conflicting strategies; addressing needs through leveraging 

combined resources; defining component roles and res ponsibilities to 

reduce duplication; and defining and implementing compatible 

regulations, policies, and procedures. 

The department’s conference planning policies need to provide clear, 

consistent, and adequate guidance and instructions. Conference planning 

should be defined and monitored at the departmental level to ensure 

38 One Team, One Mission, Securing Our Homeland: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Strategic 

Plan, Fiscal Years 2008–2013. 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 47 
consistency across components and the incorporation of du e diligence and 

standards into conference planning and administration. DHS needs to be 

able to demonstrate its results in sponsoring and hosting conf erences. 

Current departmental guidance provides for widely varyin g policies and 

procedures among the components, which perpetuates confusion and 

inconsistency in policy interpretations. A central coordination point for 

policies, monitoring, and reporting of conference expenditur es should be 

established to minimize these differences. This will provide consistency 

of policy and guidance application, term definition, cost cons olidation and 

report reconciliation; sharing of common data among components; and 

program performance and contribution alignment to departmental strategic 

goals and objectives. 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 


Page 48 

Appendix A: Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

At the request of Representative Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman 

of the House Committee on Homeland Security, we reviewed 

DHS’ conference spending practices. Specifically, we assessed: 

The total amount spent by DHS on producing or facilitating 

conferences, retreats, and other offsite activ ities for 

FYs 2005, 2006, and 2007, and obtained 

A full listing of each conference that received funding or 

staffing support from DHS during FY 200 7.39 

Our scope was limited to examining department-wide policies, 

oversight, and reporting of conference planning and spending 

practices, as well as evaluating conference-related a ctivities in five 

DHS components. We examined conference spen ding data 

provided by OCFO for FYs 2005–07, computed the total 

expenditure, and arranged these costs by compon ent in categories 

such as general support, programming, staff salar ies, travel, and 

other associated costs. 

We further analyzed the components’ budgets, funds spent on 

conferences,the number and location of conferences, full-time 

equivalent staff allotments, and employee attenda nce at 

conferences for each component. From this analy sis and 

comparison, we selected FEMA, S&T, USCG, ICE , and DEP OPS 

to examine in detail. 

To emulate the methodology used in the Departmen t of Justice 

Conference Expenditures report as requested by Chairman 

Thompson, we then selected the most expensive in -CONUS and 

non-CONUS conferences, according to DHS records, held or 

attended during FYs 2005–07 by each of our sample components, 

totaling ten conferences.40 By selecting both in-CONUS and nonCONUS conferences, we were able to include a review of other 

areas of potential concern, such as the selection of conference 

locations. In addition, we included a recent FY 2009 conference 

attended by S&T staff in Hawaii. We reviewed these 11 

conferences in detail, including general backg round information, 

justifications, and financial documentation, such as contracts or 

invoices, travel vouchers, and relevant cost comparisons. 

39 Due to the size of the FY 2007 conference list, it is provided as a separate attachment to this report, 
 

Attachment 1. 
 

40 Department of Justice Office of Inspector General, Audit Report 07-42: Department of Justice 
 

Conference Expenditures, September 2007 
 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 49 
Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

We conducted DHS headquarters and component in terviews and 

site visits in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area. In addition, 

we conducted teleconferences with DHS componen t field offices. 

We interviewed officials from OCFO, CAO, Privacy Office, and 

Office of the Procurement Officer. We also interview ed officials 

from the Office of International Affairs, FEMA, S &T, USCG, and 

ICE. Last, we reviewed relevant laws and regulations, departmentwide and component-specific policies and procedures related to 

conference spending, and analyzed documents received throu gh 

data requests. 

Our fieldwork was performed between August 2008 and March 

2009. This review was conducted under the authority of the 

Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and according to the 

Quality Standards for Inspections, issued by the President’s 

Council on Integrity and Efficiency. 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 


Page 50 

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 51 

Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 
 

Page 52 
 
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 
 

Page 53 
 
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 
 

Page 54 
 
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 
 

Page 55 
 
Appendix C 

Congressman Thompson’s Request Letter

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 56 

Appendix A: Congressman Thompson’s Request Letter
Appendix B: Descriptions of Eleven Sample Conferences Reviewed 

Appendix D 

Descriptions of Eleven Sample Conferences Reviewed 

National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) Conference 

Component: FEMA 

edical System 

n’s capability to respond 

e

 of wounded 

nflicts. The goal 

he exchange of 

 of emergency 

ortunities to 

06 conference 

local, 

s academic institutions, 

al medicine, health system, 

y issues, and mortuary issues. 

state, and federal agencies, as well a 

presented on advances in clinic 

About the Conference: 

The federally coordinated National Disaster M 

was designed to enhance the Natio 

to medical emergencies. It supports the medical response of 

state and local authorities to medical peacetim 

emergencies, and helps coordinate the care 

military evacuated from overseas armed co 

of this annual conference was to increase t 

ideas among key stakeholders in this aspect 

management, as well as give participants opp 

network with experts. The theme of the 20 

was Catastrophic Care for the Nation. Experts from 

response teams, veterinar 

DHS-Sponsored: Yes 

Venue/Location: Hil 

Resort and Casino. 

ton 

Reno, Nevada 

Date: April 21–27, 2006 

Cost: $3,347,95241 

Detention Management Control Program Training 

Component: ICE 

to detain and 

l aliens. These 

s, seven 

te jails and 

ensures that staff at all these detention facilities can perform 

their duties in line with standards for the treatment of 

detainees. Training is based on responsibilities and 

exposure to detainees and is required annually (including 

volunteers and contractors). This training is held at multiple 

times during the fiscal year. 

About the Conference: 

ICE uses facilities all over the United States 

apprehend illegal, fugitive, and crimina 

include eight secure ICE-operated facilitie 

contracted facilities, and several local and sta 

federal prisons. National Detention Standards Training 

DHS-Sponsored: Yes 

Venue/Location: ICE 

lity. 

Batavia, New York 

training faci 

Date: January, March, and 

June 2006 

Cost: $146,647 

41 All costs shown are those reported by the components for our review, unless otherwise noted. 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 57 
Appendix D 

Descriptions of Eleven Sample Conferences Reviewed 

West Coast AToN Conference 

Component: USCG 

ollection of 

rs to navigate U.S. 

he positioning 

oN 

oN personnel from 

andated training 

t affect the 

rovided an 

raining received at 

tioning, CPR, and 

aterway procedure 

updates. In addition, this conference featured a 

ol events such as a firefighting 

About the Conference: 

The Aid to Navigation (AToN) system is a c 

markers and signals that allow boate 

waters safely. The USCG is responsible for t 

and upkeep of these aids. The West Coast AT 

Conference is an annual forum where AT 

the 11th and 13th USCG Districts receive m 

and updates on Major Command changes tha 

AToN program, ships, and teams. It also p 

opportunity for sharing best practices. T 

the 2006 conference ranged from aids posi 

food service to chainsaw training and w 

policy 

competition comprising events that also serve as training, 

including damage contr 

obstacle race. 

DHS-Sponsored: Yes 

Venue/Location: Naval 

Station Everett. 

Everett, WA 

Date: May 15–19, 2006 

Cost: $22,934 

2005 National BioWatch Workshop 

Component: S&T 

ed to thwart a 

 system is 

and depends on 

ng laboratories, all 

alth community. 

workshop provided an 

rtunity for key BioWatch leaders and stakeholders to 

discuss accomplishments, lessons learned, and future goals 

for the program. The 2005 workshop included breakout 

sessions in field sampling and collection, laboratory 

analysis, medical and epidemiologic response, public 

relations and risk communications, and information 

technology. 

About the Conference: 

BioWatch is an early detection system design 

biological attack on the United States. The 

composed of sensors and collection devices 

coordination of state and local health testi 

levels of government, and the public he 

The system is overseen by DHS. The 

oppo 

DHS-Sponsored: Yes 

Venue/Location: Hy 

itol Hill. 

att 

Regency Cap 

Washington, DC 

Date: August 16–18, 2005 

Cost: $503,00042 

42 Cost provided to OCFO by S&T 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 58 
Appendix D 

Descriptions of Eleven Sample Conferences Reviewed 

FY 2007 CAO Forum 

Component: DEP OPS 

histo 

and f 

About the Conference: 

This annual conference was targeted toward 

administrative professionals within DHS as 

guests. The conference included presentation 

Administrative Services’ plans, policies, 

regulations, and compliance and the 

vision for Organizational Excellence. In 

were sessions on how to brainstorm solut 

administrative challenges. At the 200 

attendees were able to express interest and 

breakout sessions in the following fields: re 

personal property, mobile assets, mail manag 

e

 the 

well as invited 

s on DHS 

evolving systems, 

DHS Senior Leadership 

addition, there 

ions to 

7 conference, 

participate in 

al property, 

ement, 

nvironmental management, environmental planning and 

ric preservation, employee safety and health, energy 

uels management, and records and library management 

services. 

DHS-Sponsored: Yes 

Venue/Location: 

Mandarin Oriental Hotel. 

Washington, DC 

Date: January 9–11, 2007 

Cost: $300,000 

Non-CONUS Conferences Reviewed 

Regional Interagency Steering Committee (RISC) Meeting 

Component: FEMA 

RISC) are 

ency 

SC for 

 meets at least 

egion IX. It 

lace at the same time as the State of Hawaii’s Makani 

Pahili Exercise to inform and review the content of and to 

test the assumptions made in the federal section of the draft 

Hurricane Concept of Operations Plan for the State of 

Hawaii. Key discussion points included logistics and timely 

resource access and distribution throughout the state in cases 

of emergency. 

About the Conference: 

Regional Interagency Steering Committees ( 

groups of stakeholders responsible for emerg 

preparedness and response in a region. There is a RI 

each of the ten FEMA regions and each RISC 

quarterly. This meeting was held by FEMA R 

took p 

DHS-Sponsored: Yes 

Location: Waikiki Be 

I 

ach 

Marriott. 

Honolulu, H 

Dates: May 22–23, 2007 

Cost: $176,094 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 
 

Page 59 
 
Appendix D 

Descriptions of Eleven Sample Conferences Reviewed 

Asia Regional Attaché Conference 

Component: ICE 

ir role is to 

ations with other ICE 

es, and foreign 

rence included an 

der Crossing, 

ional Affairs 

ntion and 

verviews of 

ment. The 

 enforcement, the 

ment of State, and the other component attachés in 

Singapore. Attachés presented and discussed challenges, 

issues, and lessons learned from significant cases and 

About the Conference: 

ICE stations attachés all over the world. The 

facilitate and conduct overseas investig 

offices, DHS components, federal agenci 

counterparts. This meeting brought together the ICE 

attachés in the Asia region. The confe 

observation of the Woodlands Land Bor 

overviews of the ICE Office of Internat 

mission, Visa Security Unit training, Dete 

Removal training, database training, and o 

Forced Child Labor and Textile Transship 

attendees also interacted with local law 

Depart 

investigations. 

DHS-Sponsored: Yes 

Location: The Regent. 

Singapore 

Date: January 22–26, 

2007 

Cost: $113,184 

D17 Commanding Officers’ Conference 

Component: USCG 

ased District 17. 

November, at 

 throughout the 

een placed within district 

offices. At this conference, the District Commander meets 

with all of the Commanding Officers in the district, and 

reviews his or her vision and expectations. This opportunity 

to review critical procedures ensures that Commanding 

Officers are compliant with D17 mission goals. 

About the Conference: 

This conference was held by the Alaska-b 

This annual conference is traditionally held in 

which time USCG staff has been rotated 

district offices and new staff has b DHS-Sponsored: Yes 

Venue/Location: 

Westmark Baranof Hotel. 

Juneau, AK 

Date: November 29– 

December 1, 2005 

Cost: $113, 401 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 
 

Page 60 
 
Appendix D 

Descriptions of Eleven Sample Conferences Reviewed 

International Underwater Tunnel Protection Workshop 

Component: S&T 

sment of existing 

ons, and 

ry. The main 

e the participants to 

ecurity, and 

European 

to discuss the 

h, and information 

ere invited to this 

rnational conference, bringing together various 

stakeholders including government agencies, industry, 

infrastructure owners, and academic and professional 

institutions. 

About the Conference: 

The main conference themes were asses 

infrastructure, mitigation measures and soluti 

emergency planning response and recove 

objective of the conference was to expos 

recent developments in underwater tunnel s 

comparing and contrasting U.S., U.K., and 

practice. In addition, attendees were able 

potential for future partnerships, researc 

exchange. More than 50 participants w 

inte 

DHS-Sponsored: Co 

h United 

e Offic 

-

e 

sponsored wit 

Kingdom Hom 

Venue/Loca 

Institution of 

tion:

 Civil 

London, England 

Engineers. 

Date: June 11–13, 2007 

Cost: $100,000 

2008 Asia-Pacific Homeland Security Summit and Exposition 

Component: S&T 

tific Research for 

Partnerships.

 and it included 

s were from the 

d security 

roducts and 

rvices. Over the three days, a number of panels were held 

on various topics, including persistent surveillance – 

surface, underwater, and air; science and technology 

solutions to homeland security challenges; avian influenza; 

all-hazards awareness in Oceania; energy security and 

resiliency; food defense vulnerabilities, and intervention 

strategies. 

About the Conference: 

The theme of the conference was Scien 

Homeland Security: Fostering International 

The State of Hawaii hosted the Summit 

presentations by S&T staff. The participant 

public and private sectors who had homelan 

responsibilities or who provided related p 

se 

DHS-Sponsored: No 

Venue/Location: 

aikiki Hote 

Honolulu, HI 

Sheraton W l. 

Date: October 8–10, 2008 

Cost: $93,036 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 
 

Page 61 
 
Appendix D 

Descriptions of Eleven Sample Conferences Reviewed 

29th International Data Protection and Privacy Commissioner’s Conference 

Component: DEP OP 

(Privacy) 

S 

ral privacy 

ts technology, 

n, Internet crime, 

es to 

i-sector and 

ls, 

Some of the broader conference themes included “the 

meaning of privacy, the privacy vs. security dichotomy, and 

deficiencies in existing legal approaches.”43 

About the Conference: 

The conference was organized around seve 

issues: public safety, globalization, law mee 

ubiquitous computing, the next generatio 

and the body as data. In addition, institutional respons 

these issues were discussed, including mult 

inter-jurisdictional collaboration, privacy sea 

de-identification, audits, and privacy impact assessments. 

DHS-Sponsored: No 

Venue/Location: Le 

tel 

ontreal, Canada 

Centre Sheraton Ho 

M 

. 

Date: September 25–28, 

2007 

Cost: $16,354 

43 A Report on “Terra Incognita:” The 29th International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy 

Commissioners; accessed March 10, 2009. 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 62 
Appendix E 

Total Amount Spent, by Component and by Fiscal Year Appendix C: Total Amount Spent, by Component and by Fiscal Year 

Conference Costs by Component, 2005. Total Reported Expenditure: $9.12 million 

Component Number of Conferences General Support Programming Salaries Travel Other Costs Total** 

Customs and Border Protection* Unknown 80,000 $ 242,985 $ 699,741 $ 875,617 $ 116,270 $ 1,771,628 $ 

DEP OPS*** 126 157,433 $ 29,388 $ 242,795 $ 108,735 $ 32,521 $ 541,484 $ 

Emergency Preparedness and Response (FEMA) 297 55,958 $ 630,653 $ 957,225 $ 1,149,688 $ 69,062 $ 2,231,933 $ 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 19 3,000 $ None reported 128,431 $ 98,400 $ None reported 229,831 $ 

Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection 63 31,920 $ 387,079 $ 144,058 $ 91,466 $ 12,053 $ 279,497 $ 

ICE 60 40,263 $ 2,160 $ 279,261 $ 322,638 $ 655,519 $ 1,297,681 $ 

S&T 56 178,445 $ 845,112 $ 80,089 $ 518,170 $ 527,001 $ 1,303,705 $ State & Local Government Coordination & Preparedness 75 326,620 $ 1,174,554 $ 31,345 $ 24,890 $ 19,957 $ 402,812 $ 

Transportation Security Administration* Unknown 259,977 $ None reported None reported None reported None reported 259,977 $ 

US VISIT 1 10,526 $ None reported 15,555 $ 12,000 $ None reported 38,081 $ Citizen and Immigration Services 5 20,913 $ 52,403 $ 629,088 $ 359,488 $ 11,712 $ 1,021,200 $ 

Totals 702 1,165,054 $ 3,364,334 $ 3,207,588 $ 3,561,092 $ 1,444,095 $ 9,377,829 $ 

Prepared by ISP using data received from the DHS Office of the Chief Financial Officer, 8/20/2008 *TSA and CBP did not report number of conferences to the DHS-CFO for FY 2005 **Totals do not include Programming Costs, which are pre-conference cost estimates ***Departmental Operations (DEP OPS) includes the Offices of the Secretary & Executive Management, the Undersecretary for Management, the Chief Financial Officer, and the Chief Information Officer. 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 
 

Page 63 
 
Appendix E 

Total Amount Spent, by Component and by Fiscal Year 

Conference Costs by Component, 2006. Total Reported Expenditure: $50.4 million 

Component Number of Conferences General Support Programming Salaries Travel Other Costs Total** 

Analysis and Operations 7 None reported None reported 8,035 $ 6,035 $ 4,985 $ 19,055 $ Customs and Border Protection 56 646,236 $ 3,504,746 $ 2,412,988 $ 2,144,317 $ 118,076 $ 5,321,618 $ DEP OPS*** 115 579,614 $ 20,395 $ 246,050 $ 108,855 $ 21,440 $ 955,959 $ Domestic Nuclear Detection Office 25 96,023 $ 42,770 $ 18,235 $ 100,948 $ 4,347 $ 219,553 $ FEMA 376 2,385,762 $ 469,405 $ 5,413,347 $ 4,856,046 $ 106,256 $ 12,761,411 $ Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 20 7,200 $ None reported 55,607 $ 51,169 $ 1,011 $ 114,987 $ ICE 584 58,507 $ 348,223 $ 5,880,146 $ 3,577,721 $ 557,536 $ 10,073,910 $ Office of the Inspector General 1 None reported None reported 7,495 $ 2,628 $ 1,050 $ 11,173 $ Preparedness Directorate 187 2,840,670 $ 2,134,626 $ 352,466 $ 199,383 $ 28,696 $ 3,421,214 $ S&T 66 116,549 $ 12,765 $ 152,823 $ 114,524 $ 39,770 $ 423,666 $ Transportation Security Administration 115 None reported None reported 1,206,596 $ 736,131 $ 258,217 $ 2,200,944 $ US VISIT 24 None reported None reported 25,281 $ 13,490 $ 15,192 $ 53,963 $ U.S. Coast Guard 1300 530,376 $ 586,384 $ 6,074,743 $ 6,023,457 $ 1,749,840 $ 14,378,417 $ Citizen and Immigration Services 6 None reported 439,600 $ 208,705 $ 187,075 $ 43,434 $ 439,214 $ Unknown/Other* 142 None reported 3,000 $ 5,491 $ 8,357 $ 1,095 $ 14,943 $ 

Totals 3024 7,260,937 $ 7,561,914 $ 22,068,008 $ 18,130,137 $ 2,950,946 $ 50,410,028 $ 

Prepared by ISP using data received from the DHS Office of the Chief Financial Officer, 8/20/2008 *Includes $9,416.36 of reported expenditures with no component designation, and one DoD conference for $5,527.
 
**Totals do not include Programming Costs, which are pre-conference cost estimates
 
***Departmental Operations (DEP OPS) includes the Offices of the Secretary & Executive Management, the Undersecretary for Management, the Chief Financial Officer, and the Chief Information Officer.
 


DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 
 

Page 64 
 
Appendix E 

Total Amount Spent, by Component and by Fiscal Year 

Conference Costs by Component, 2007. Total Expenditure: $51.13 million 

Component Number of Conferences General Support Programming Salaries Travel Other Costs Total* 

Analysis and Operations 29 None reported 6,500 $ 8,777 $ 7,591 $ 840 $ 17,208 $ Customs and Border Protection 242 325,481 $ 1,488,661 $ 2,842,630 $ 3,606,850 $ 477,009 $ 7,251,970 $ DEP OPS** 200 89,670 $ 155,670 $ 569,608 $ 336,139 $ 78,110 $ 1,073,528 $ Domestic Nuclear Detection Office 68 100,934 $ None reported 126,034 $ 104,259 $ 4,495 $ 335,722 $ FEMA 736 80,368 $ 442,390 $ 2,220,054 $ 2,478,303 $ 266,272 $ 5,044,997 $ Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 93 71,422 $ None reported 264,940 $ 261,169 $ 53,955 $ 651,486 $ Intelligence and Analysis 88 8,502 $ None reported 222,606 $ 173,505 $ 3,825 $ 408,438 $ ICE 680 77,530 $ 1,332,230 $ 4,413,732 $ 4,645,624 $ 348,126 $ 9,485,013 $ National Protection & Programs Directorate 83 68,406 $ 1,145,490 $ 331,602 $ 164,408 $ 90,945 $ 655,361 $ Office of Health Affairs 19 1,722,561 $ 13,525 $ 89,897 $ 28,020 $ 4,337 $ 1,844,815 $ Office of the Inspector General 2 675 $ None reported 6,620 $ 666 $ None reported 7,961 $ S&T 173 175,557 $ 14,642 $ 533,181 $ 479,683 $ 339,908 $ 1,528,328 $ Transportation Security Administration 292 75,694 $ 386,141 $ 1,619,932 $ 1,480,897 $ 95,072 $ 3,271,595 $ U.S. Coast Guard 1711 217,699 $ 2,422,953 $ 9,836,311 $ 5,662,432 $ 494,999 $ 16,211,442 $ Citizen and Immigration Services 57 25,321 $ 593,103 $ 1,239,359 $ 1,114,425 $ 98,995 $ 2,478,100 $ U.S. Secret Service 160 None reported 14,342 $ 575,561 $ 142,060 $ 145,102 $ 862,723 $ 

Totals 4633 3,039,822 $ 8,015,647 $ 24,900,845 $ 20,686,031 $ 2,501,990 $ 51,128,688 $ 

Prepared by ISP using data received from the DHS Office of the Chief Financial Officer, 8/20/2008 and 8/25/2008 *Totals do not include Programming Costs, which are pre-conference cost estimates
 
**Departmental Operations (DEP OPS) includes the Offices of the Secretary & Executive Management, the Undersecretary for Management, the Chief Financial Officer, and the Chief Information Officer.
 


DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 
 

Page 65 
 
Appendix D: FY 2007 Conferences 

Appendix F 

FY 2007 Conferences 

Due to its size, the FY 2007 conference list is provided in a separate attachment to this 

report. Attachment 1: FY 2007 Conferences as Reported by DH S Components lists the 

conferences either held or attended by DHS and its components in FY 20 07. 

The conferences are presented in three sections. The first section lists the conferences 

whose information appears complete and non-conflicting. The second section lists 

conferences with complete information, but whose sponsorship details appear to be 

conflicting. The third section lists all conferences submitted with incom plete 

information. 

As DHS does not have a uniform reporting system to capture conferenceinformation, 

DHS’ OCFO compiledthis conference information, of varying completeness and 

consistency, from components for FY 2007. OCFO has verified the information for 

many of these conferences. However, other submissions remain unverified; these are 

marked with an asterisk (*). 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 


Page 66 

Appendix G 

Major Contributors to this Report

Appendix E: Major Contributors to this Report 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 

Page 67 

Marcia Moxey Hodges, Chief Inspector, Department of Homeland 

Security, Office of Inspector General, Office of Inspections 

Nikole Smith, Senior Inspector Department of Homeland Security, 

Office of Inspector General, Office of Inspections 

Katherine Roberts, Inspector, Department of Homeland Security, 

Office of Inspector General, Office of Inspections

Kimberley Lake, Inspector, Department of Homeland Security, 

Office of Inspector General, Office of Inspections 
Appendix F: Report Distribution 

Appendix H 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff for Policy 

Chief of Staff for Operations 

Deputy Chiefs of Staff 

General Counsel 

Executive Secretariat 

Under Secretary for Management 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs 

Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office 

Directorate for Management Audit Liaison 

DEP OPS Audit Liaison 

USCG Audit Liaison 

FEMA Audit Liaison 

ICE Audit Liaison 

S&T Audit Liaison 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHSOIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as 

appropriate 

DHS’ Conference Spending Practices and Oversight 
 

Page 68 
 
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES 

To obtain additional copies of this report, please call the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at (202) 254-4100, 

fax your request to (202) 254-4305, or visit the OIG web site at www.dhs.gov/oig. 

OIG HOTLINE 

To report alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any other kind of criminal or noncriminal 

misconduct relative to department programs or operations: 

• Call our Hotline at 1-800-323-8603; 

• Fax the complaint directly to us at (202) 254-4292; 

• Email us at DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov; or 

• Write to us at: 

DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL STOP 2600, 

Attention: Office of Investigations - Hotline, 

245 Murray Drive, SW, Building 410, 

Washington, DC 20528. 

The OIG seeks to protect the identity of each writer and caller.