Audit Division 20-055 April 2020

Office of the Inspector General

U.S. Department of Justice

OVERSIGHT ★ INTEGRITY ★ GUIDANCE

Examination of the U.S. 

Department of Justice’s Fiscal Year 

2019 Compliance under the 

Improper Payments Elimination 

and Recovery Act of 2010
i

Executive Summary

Examination of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Fiscal Year 2019 

Compliance under the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act 

of 2010

Objectives

The Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act 

of 2010 (IPERA) requires each Office of the Inspector 

General (OIG) to determine its department’s compliance 

under IPERA and to submit a report on that 

determination. The Department of Justice (Department 

or DOJ) OIG examined the Department’s compliance 

under IPERA for the fiscal year ended September 30,

2019.

Results in Brief

The OIG found that the Department complied under 

IPERA for fiscal year 2019.

Furthermore, through payment recapture audits in fiscal 

year 2019, the Department identified for recovery $8.81 

million and recovered $11.78 million in current and prior 

year improper payments. Outside of the Department’s 

payment recapture audits, the OIG identified through its 

audits $2.42 million in additional improper payments, and 

the Department recovered $2.18 million of current and 

prior year improper payments.

Recommendations

No recommendations are provided in the report.

Audit Results

The OIG examined the Department’s compliance under 

the requirements of Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) Circular A-123, Management’s 

Responsibility for Enterprise Risk Management and 

Internal Control, Appendix C, Requirements for 

Payment Integrity Improvement; and OMB 

Circular A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements, for 

the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019.

The following table summarizes the Department’s 

compliance status for each requirement.

Compliance Requirements 

for Agencies:

Department’s 

Compliance

Publish an Agency Financial Report 

(AFR) or Performance and Accountability 

Report (PAR) for the most recent fiscal 

year and post that report and any 

accompanying materials required by 

OMB on the agency website.

Compliant

Conduct a program-specific risk 

assessment for each program or activity 

that conforms with Section 3321 note of 

Title 31 U.S.C. (if required).

Compliant

Publish improper payment estimates for 

all programs and activities identified as 

susceptible to significant improper 

payments under its risk assessment (if 

required).

Not Required

Publish programmatic corrective action 

plans in the AFR or PAR (if required). Not Required

Publish, and meet, annual reduction 

targets for each program assessed to 

be at risk and estimated for improper 

payments (if required and applicable).

Not Required and 

Not Applicable

Report a gross improper payment rate 

of less than 10 percent for each program 

and activity for which an improper 

payment estimate was obtained and 

published in the AFR or PAR.

Not Required
EXAMINATION OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’S FISCAL 

YEAR 2019 COMPLIANCE UNDER THE IMPROPER PAYMENTS 

ELIMINATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................1

EXAMINATION RESULTS .................................................................................3

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S INDEPENDENT REPORT ON 

COMPLIANCE UNDER THE IMPROPER PAYMENTS ELMINATION AND 

RECOVERY ACT OF 2010........................................................................5

APPENDIX 1: OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY ...................................7

APPENDIX 2: IMPROPER PAYMENTS REPORTING IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2019 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AGENCY FINANCIAL REPORT............................. 9
1

EXAMINATION OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’S FISCAL 

YEAR 2019 COMPLIANCE UNDER THE IMPROPER PAYMENTS 

ELIMINATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 2010

INTRODUCTION

On July 22, 2010, the President of the United States signed into law the 

Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 (IPERA); and on 

January 10, 2013, the President signed into law the Improper Payments Elimination 

and Recovery Improvement Act of 2012 (IPERIA), both of which amended the 

Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA). IPERA expanded the scope of 

IPIA beyond commercial payments to include more payment types, such as grants 

and cooperative agreements, and benefit and assistance payments. IPERA also 

required agencies, including the Department of Justice (DOJ or Department), to 

annually report information on improper payments to the President and Congress 

through their Agency Financial Report (AFR). IPERIA further expanded the types of 

payments to be considered to include employee disbursements and government 

charge card payments. It also required agencies to have implemented prepayment 

and pre-award procedures that include verifying all vendor payments through the 

Do Not Pay system by June 1, 2013.

Agencies are required to assess every federal program and dollar disbursed 

for improper payment risk, measure the accuracy of payments, and initiate 

program improvements to ensure payment errors are reduced. Specifically, they 

are required to review all programs and activities and identify those that are 

susceptible to significant improper payments. For those programs or activities that 

are deemed susceptible to significant improper payments, either by the agency or 

by law, the agency must obtain a statistically valid estimate of the annual amount 

of improper payments and thereafter implement a plan to reduce improper 

payments. Agencies should annually report in the AFR their progress in reducing 

improper payments. In fiscal year 2019, federal agencies reported $175 billion in 

estimated improper payments.

In addition to reporting the estimated annual amount of improper payments 

for programs or activities susceptible to significant improper payments, IPERA 

requires agencies to conduct payment recapture audits for each program and 

activity that expends $1 million or more annually, if conducting such audits is cost 

effective. Agencies must have a cost-effective program of internal controls to 

prevent, detect, and recover overpayments resulting from payment errors. All 

agencies are required to establish annual targets for their payment recapture audit 

programs that will drive annual performance.

Each fiscal year, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of each agency is 

responsible for determining its department’s compliance under the improper 

payment reporting requirements, as set forth in Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) Circular A-123, Management’s Responsibility for Enterprise Risk 

Management and Internal Control, Appendix C, Requirements for Payment Integrity 

Improvement; and OMB Circular A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements. The 
2

OIG is required to complete its assessment and submit a report, by May 15 of the 

following year after issuance of the AFR, on its determination to the head of the 

agency, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the 

U.S. Senate, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the 

U.S. House of Representatives, the Comptroller General, and the Controller of OMB.

The OIG’s responsibility, as described in OMB Circular A-123, Appendix C, 

and as related to a compliance examination, is to determine an agency’s 

compliance under IPERA. Compliance under IPERA means that the Department 

has: (1) published an AFR for the most recent fiscal year and posted that report 

and any accompanying materials required by OMB on the Department’s website; 

(2) conducted a program-specific risk assessment for each program or activity that 

conforms with Section 3321 note of Title 31 U.S.C. (if required); (3) published 

improper payment estimates for all programs and activities identified as susceptible 

to significant improper payments under its risk assessment (if required); 

(4) published programmatic corrective action plans in the AFR (if required); 

(5) published, and is meeting, annual reduction targets for each program assessed 

to be at risk and estimated for improper payments (if required and applicable); and 

(6) reported a gross improper payment rate of less than 10 percent for each 

program and activity for which an improper payment estimate was obtained and 

published in the AFR. If the OIG identifies any noncompliance with the items noted 

above, these issues are to be documented in the Independent Report on 

Compliance under the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 

and the Department would be deemed to be noncompliant under IPERA.

Additionally, OMB Circular A-123, Appendix C, states that the OIG “should

also evaluate the accuracy and completeness of agency reporting, and evaluate 

agency performance in reducing and recapturing improper payments.” The Circular 

also states, “As part of its report, the agency Inspector General should include its 

evaluation of agency efforts to prevent and reduce improper payments, and any 

recommendations for actions to further improve the agency's or program's 

performance in reducing improper payments; corrective actions; or internal 

controls.” We considered these additional procedures while performing the examination.
3

EXAMINATION RESULTS

The OIG examined the Department’s compliance under the requirements of 

OMB Circular A-123, Management’s Responsibility for Enterprise Risk Management 

and Internal Control, Appendix C, Requirements for Payment Integrity 

Improvement; and OMB Circular A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements, for the 

fiscal year ended September 30, 2019.

Our procedures confirmed that the Department reviewed the requirements of 

IPERA, as well as OMB Circular A-123, Appendix C, and OMB Circular A-136, to 

collect and publish information on the Department’s improper payments as of 

September 30, 2019, in its AFR (item 1 in the previous section). Our procedures 

also confirmed that the Department conducted a risk assessment of its five selfidentified programs (item 2 in the previous section) to determine if any were 

deemed to be susceptible to significant improper payments, defined as gross annual 

improper payments in the program exceeding the statutory thresholds of either 

$100 million or both 1.5 percent of program outlays and $10 million. Based on the 

results of its risk assessment, the Department determined that it did not have any 

programs or activities that were susceptible to significant improper payments as of 

September 30, 2019. Therefore, the Department did not publish a gross estimate 

for its annual amount of improper payments (item 3 in the previous section). As a 

result of the Department’s risk assessment not identifying any programs or 

activities to be susceptible to significant improper payments, the Department was 

not required to include the following information in its AFR: programmatic 

corrective actions plans, annual reduction targets for programs at risk, and a gross 

improper payment rate of less than 10 percent for each program (items 4, 5, and 6 

in the previous section, respectively).

The OIG found that the Department complied under IPERA requirements for 

fiscal year 2019, and we issued an unmodified opinion in our independent auditors 

report. Table 1 summarizes the Department’s compliance status for each 

requirement and DOJ mission-aligned program. We provide no recommendations in 

this report.
4

Table 1

The Department’s Compliance under IPERA

DOJ MissionAligned Program

Published 

an AFR 

or PAR

Conducted 

a Risk 

Assessment

Published 

an 

Improper 

Payment 

Estimate

Published 

Corrective 

Action 

Plans

Published 

and is 

Meeting 

Reduction 

Targets

Reported an 

Improper 

Payment of 

Less than 

10 Percent

Administrative, 

Technology, and 

Other

Compliant Compliant Not 

Required

Not 

Required

Not Required 

and

Not Applicable

Not

Required

Litigation Compliant Compliant Not 

Required

Not 

Required

Not Required 

and

Not Applicable

Not

Required

Law Enforcement Compliant Compliant Not 

Required

Not 

Required

Not Required 

and

Not Applicable

Not

Required

State, Local, Tribal, 

and Other 

Assistance

Compliant Compliant Not 

Required

Not 

Required

Not Required 

and

Not Applicable

Not

Required

Prisons and 

Detention Compliant Compliant Not 

Required

Not 

Required

Not Required 

and

Not Applicable

Not

Required

Source: DOJ OIG analysis

Through payment recapture audits in fiscal year 2019, the Department 

identified for recovery $8.81 million. In fiscal year 2019, the Department 

recovered, $11.78 million of which $7.91 million was identified for recapture in the 

current year and $3.87 million in previous years. As a result, the improper 

payments recaptured exceeded the improper payments identified for an annual 

improper payment recovery rate of 133.7 percent. As noted in the aging schedule 

on page 12, the Department reported $3.48 million in overpayments identified 

through payment recapture audit activities that was outstanding (not recaptured) 

as of the end of FY 2019.

Outside of payment recapture audits, the OIG, through its audits, identified 

$2.42 million in additional improper payments, and the Department recovered 

$2.18 million of current and prior year improper payments, which is an annual 

improper payments recovery rate of 90.1 percent.1

 1 As of the end of FY 2019, the OIG reported open audit recommendations associated with 

over $151 million in questioned costs awaiting Department management’s final action necessary to 

remedy. U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, Semiannual Report to Congress, 

(April 1, 2019 – September 30, 2019)
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of the Inspector General

Washington, D.C. 20530

5

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S INDEPENDENT REPORT 

ON COMPLIANCE UNDER THE IMPROPER PAYMENTS 

ELIMINATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 2010

United States Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

We have examined the U.S. Department of Justice’s (Department) 

compliance under the requirements of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

Circular A-123, Management’s Responsibility for Enterprise Risk Management and 

Internal Control, Appendix C, Requirements for Payment Integrity Improvement; 

and OMB Circular A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements as they relate to the 

Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010, for the fiscal year ended 

September 30, 2019. Management is responsible for the Department's compliance 

with these specified requirements. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on 

the Department's compliance under the specified requirements based on our 

examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards 

contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of 

the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

examination to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the Department 

complied, in all material respects, with the specified requirements referenced 

above. An examination involves performing procedures to obtain evidence about 

whether the Department complied under the specified requirements. The nature, 

timing, and extent of the procedures selected depend on our judgment, including 

an assessment of the risks of material noncompliance, whether due to fraud or 

error. We believe that the evidence we obtained is sufficient and appropriate to 

provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a 

legal determination on the Department's compliance with specified requirements.

In our opinion, the Department complied, in all material respects, with the 

aforementioned specified requirements for the fiscal year ended September 30, 

2019.
Independent Report on the Department of Justice’s Compliance under the 

Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act Of 2010

Page 2

6

The purpose of this report is solely to provide the results of our examination 

to Department management, the Office of Management and Budget, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, and the U.S. Congress. This report is not 

suitable for any other purpose.

Kelly A. McFadden, CPA

Director, Financial Statement Audit Office

Office of the Inspector General

U.S. Department of Justice

April 27, 2020
7

APPENDIX 1

OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY

Objectives

The objective of this examination was to determine the Department’s 

compliance under IPERA, in accordance with OMB Circular A-123, Management’s 

Responsibility for Enterprise Risk Management and Internal Control, Appendix C, 

Requirements for Payment Integrity Improvements; and OMB Circular A-136, 

Financial Reporting Requirements, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019. 

Pursuant to IPERA, we were required to determine whether the agency is in 

compliance under IPERA and to submit a report on that determination. Compliance 

under IPERA means that the Department has: (1) published an AFR for the most 

recent fiscal year and posted that report and any accompanying materials required 

by OMB on the Department’s website; (2) conducted a program-specific risk 

assessment for each program or activity that conforms with Section 3321 note of 

Title 31 U.S.C. (if required); (3) published improper payment estimates for all 

programs and activities identified as susceptible to significant improper payments 

under its risk assessment (if required); (4) published programmatic corrective 

action plans in the AFR (if required); (5) published, and is meeting, annual 

reduction targets for each program assessed to be at risk and estimated for 

improper payments (if required and applicable); and (6) reported a gross improper 

payment rate of less than 10 percent for each program and activity for which an 

improper payment estimate was obtained and published in the AFR.

Scope and Methodology

We performed an examination of the Payment Integrity information section 

published in the Department’s fiscal year 2019 AFR to determine compliance under 

IPERA. The Department’s improper payments information was for the period ended 

September 30, 2019. To determine compliance under IPERA, we gained an 

understanding of the Department and component-level controls through inquiry 

procedures, examined documentation supporting the information published in the 

Department’s AFR, as well as re-performed calculations computed by the 

Department to populate the improper payment information published in the AFR.

We also examined the Department’s risk assessment. We confirmed that the 

Department properly included its five self-identified programs and evaluated the 

risk factors required by OMB Circular A-123, Appendix C.2 Based on the results of 

its risk assessment, the Department determined that it did not have any programs 

or activities that were susceptible to significant improper payments as of 

 2 The risk factors examined by the Department and components included the following –

whether the program or activity is new to the agency; recent major changes in funding, authorities, 

practices, or procedures; results of OMB Circular A-123 assessment, OIG audits/ reviews, and other 

external audits/reviews; results of monitoring activities; results of recapture audit activities; process 

complexities; volume and dollar amount of payments; inherent risk; capability of personnel; and 

payments or payment eligibility decisions made by non-DOJ entities.
8

September 30, 2019. Therefore the remaining items were not applicable for the 

Department to include in its AFR.

The OIG conducted the examination and prepared its report in accordance 

with attestation standards contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by 

the Comptroller General of the United States. In determining the level of 

assurance, we considered the requirements outlined in OMB Circular A-123, 

Appendix C, and OMB Circular A-136; the expectations of the users of the report; 

and any potential risks associated with performing the engagement. We performed 

a compliance examination due to the higher level of assurance it provides, the 

result of which is the expression of an opinion.

The OIG is not independent with respect to amounts pertaining to OIG 

operations that are presented in the improper payments reporting. However, the 

amounts included for the OIG are not material to the Department’s improper 

payments reporting, and the OIG is organizationally independent with respect to all 

other aspects of the Department’s activities.
9

APPENDIX 2

IMPROPER PAYMENTS REPORTING IN THE 

FISCAL YEAR 2019 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

AGENCY FINANCIAL REPORT

The Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA), as amended, requires agencies to annually report certain 

information on improper payments to the President and Congress through their annual Agency Financial Report 

(AFR) or Performance and Accountability Report (PAR).1 The Department provides the following improper payments 

reporting as required by IPIA, as amended; OMB Circular A-123, Appendix C, Requirements for Payment Integrity 

Improvement; and OMB Circular A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements. See https://paymentaccuracy.gov for 

more detailed information on improper payments.

I. Payment Reporting.

For all programs and activities under OMB Circular A-123, Appendix C, Part I.D, agencies shall identify 

the:

- program/activity outlays, estimated amount of payments that were properly paid, estimated amount 

improperly paid, estimated amount within the improperly paid thatis unknown due to inability to 

discern whether a payment was proper as a result of insufficient or lack of documentation and their 

respective percentages for each by program or activity for the current fiscal year;

- estimated amount within the improperly paid estimate attributed to monetary loss,non- monetary 

loss, and unknown, and their respective percentages for each by program or activity for the current 

fiscal year;

- estimated amount of improper payments that resulted in an overpayment andan underpayment for 

each by program or activity for the current fiscalyear;

- estimated amount of improper payments made directly by the Government andthe amount of 

improper payments made by recipients of Federal money by program or activity for the current fiscal

year;

- root cause and type of improper payment for overpayments and underpaymentsby amount and by 

program or activity for the current fiscal year;

- reduction targets by program or activity for the next fiscal year; and

- for programs and activities as determined under OMB Circular A-123, Appendix C, PartI.D with 

improper payments exceeding the statutory thresholds listed in OMB Circular A-123, Appendix C, Part 

I.B.1, the agency shall describe the corrective action plans for reducing the estimated improper 

payment rate and amount, and each of the corrective actions should be clearly linked to the root 

cause(s) they are addressing. Agencies should also describe the results of actions taken to address 

the root causes and the planned or actual completion date of the actions taken to address each root 

cause. If the agency does not have a corrective action plan for a particular root cause, they must 

provide justification for not having such a plan.

Based on the results of the FY 2019 Department-wide risk assessment, there were no programs 

susceptible to significant improper payments, i.e., improper payments exceeding the statutory thresholds 

of (1) both 1.5 percent of program outlays and $10 million or (2) $100 million.

1 IPIA was amended by the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 (IPERA) and the Improper Payments 

Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act of 2012 (IPERIA).

Payment Integrity
10

II. Recapture of Improper Payments Reporting.

a. When applicable, for all programs and activities that expend $1 million or more annually, agencies shall

describe any action the agency has taken or plans to take to recapture and intends to take to prevent 

future improper payments.

See the response for the next item for a discussion of the Department’s payment recapture audit program, to 

include actions to recapture and prevent improper payments.

b. Agencies shall discuss payment recapture audit efforts, including:

- the actions and methods used by the agency to recoup overpayments,

- a justification of any overpayments that have been determined to be not collectible,and

- any conditions giving rise to improper payments and how those conditions are being resolved, and

- any programs or activities excluded from review under the agency’spayment recapture audit

program.

The Department’s payment recapture audit program is part of its overall program of internal control over 

disbursements. The program includes establishing and assessing internal control to prevent improper payments, 

reviewing disbursements to identify improper payments, assessing root causes of improper payments, developing 

corrective action plans, and tracking the recapture of improper payments and disposition of recaptured funds. The 

scope of the program includes all payment types required by IPIA, as amended, and OMB implementing 

guidance. Payments that could compromise law enforcement operations or endanger the safety of personnel are 

excluded because of the Department’s responsibility to protect such information. In FY 2019, two components 

used a recapture audit contractor to supplement internal review efforts to detect improper payments.

The Department’s top-down approach for tracking and reporting the results of payment recapture audit activities 

promotes consistency across the Department in implementing the requirements of IPIA, as amended. In FY 2019, 

the Department provided components a template to assist them in assessing root causes of improper payments and 

tracking the recapture of such payments and disposition of recaptured funds.

The root causes for overpayments other than for grants largely fell within the OMB-defined error category of 

Administrative or Process Errors. Most errors were user errors, including data entry errors. Department 

components have implemented actions to address specific areas where improvements could be made. For 

example, to prevent improper payments, the DEA conducts data analytics on payment data entered into the 

Unified Financial Management System prior to processing disbursements to identify payments that, if processed, 

would be improper, e.g., payments to ineligible recipients, payments for ineligible services, and duplicate 

payments.

The root causes for grant overpayments also largely fell within the OMB-defined error category of Administrative 

or Process Errors. Most errors involved payments for which grantees did not provide sufficient documentation to 

support the payments. To reduce the risk of these types of overpayments, the Department components that issue 

grants continue to provide training and communications informing grantees of their responsibilities related to 

receiving Federal awards. For example, the OJP requires all grantees responsible for improper payments to submit 

written policies and procedures describing the internal controls put in place to prevent similar occurrences in the 

future.

Department components also have taken actions to facilitate the recapture of improper payments. For example, 

the FBI produces an accounts receivable report to track the age and collection efforts for all uncollected improper 

payments. The ATF issues demand letters to debtors notifying them of the status of the debt, the payment due 

date, where to send payment, and the collection actions the ATF can pursue.
11

In accordance with IPIA, as amended, and OMB implementing guidance, the Department measured payment 

recapture performance. Based on performance through the period ended September 30, 2019, the Department 

achieved an annual payment recapture rate of 133.7 percent.4 The table below provides additional detail on the 

$8.81 million in overpayments identified in FY 2019 through the Department’s payment recapture audit program 

and the $11.78 million of recaptured funds. Management also determined $0.85 million to be not collectible, the 

majority of which related to unallowable expenditures by three grantees in fiscal distress ($0.80 million or 94.1 

percent).

c. For each program or activity that expends $1 million or more annually and either conducts a payment 

recapture audit, or recaptures payments outside of apayment recapture audit, the agency must report:

- the amount recaptured through recapture audits in that fiscal year, includingthe percent such 

amount represents of the total overpayments identified through payment recapture audits during 

that fiscal year, and

- the amount recaptured through sources other than payment recapture audits in that fiscal year, 

including the percent such amount represents of the total overpayments identified for recapture 

through sources other than payment recapture audits in that fiscal year.

The following table provides a summary of overpayments identified in FY 2019 through the Department’s 

payment recapture audit activities ($8.81 million), as well as overpayments identified outside of such activities, 

i.e., through audits conducted by the DOJ OIG ($2.42 million).2 The table also provides the amounts recaptured 

through payment recapture audits and outside of payment recapture audits, as well as the percent such amounts 

represent of the total overpayments identified for recapture.

Overpayment Recaptures with and without Recapture Audit Programs

(Dollars in Millions)

DOJ Mission-Aligned Program

Overpayments Recaptured through 

Payment Recapture Audits

Overpayments Recaptured outside of 

Payment Recapture Audits3

FY 2019

Amount 

Identified

FY 2019

Amount 

Recaptured

FY 2019

Recapture 

Rate (%)

FY 2019

Amount 

Identified

FY 2019

Amount 

Recaptured

FY 2019

Recapture 

Rate (%)

Administrative, Technology, and Other $1.79 $1.91 106.7%4 $0.03 $0.03 100.0%

Litigation $3.02 $3.00 99.3% $0.00 $0.03 ̶

Law Enforcement $1.02 $1.73 169.6%4 $0.54 $0.00 0.0%

State, Local, Tribal, and Other Assistance $1.72 $2.90 168.6%4 $1.85 $2.11 114.1%4

Prisons and Detention $1.26 $2.24 177.8%4 $0.00 $0.01 ̶

TOTAL $8.81 $11.78 133.7%4 $2.42 $2.18 90.1%

2 The overpayments identified through audits conducted by the OIG do not include all questioned costs. When questioned costs are identified in an 

OIG audit report, Department management initiates a process to validate whether the costs in question were improper payments; e.g., the 

Department will request additional support from grantees for transactions that, at the time of audit, were not supported by adequate documentation. 

The validation process can take months, and in some cases years, to complete. Therefore, for payment recapture audit reporting purposes, improper 

payments identified for recapture include only the questioned costs for which Department management has completed the validation process and 

determined that the incurred costs should not have been charged to the Government and should be recaptured from the grantee.

3 The information in this section of the table provides the overpayments identified through audits conducted by the DOJ OIG and the amounts 

recaptured. Although the overpayments are identified outside of the Department’s payment recapture audit program, component processes to 

recapture improper payments are the same, regardless of whether they are identified by the OIG or through component payment recapture audit 

activities.

4 The improper payments recaptured exceeded the improper payments identified due to the recapture during FY 2019 of improper payments 

identified in previous years.
12

d. Agencies shall report a summary of how their overpayments recaptured through payment recapture audits 

in that fiscal year were used.

The following table provides the disposition information for the overpayments recaptured in FY 2019 through the 

Department’s payment recapture audit activities. As shown in the table, $11.33 million of the $11.78 million 

recaptured (or 96.2 percent) was returned to the original purpose for which the payments were made.

Disposition of Funds Recaptured through Payment Recapture Audits

(Dollars in Millions)

DOJ Mission-Aligned Program

Amount 

Recaptured in 

FY 2019

Disposition

Returned to Original 

Purpose

Returned to 

Treasury

Agency Expenses to 

Administer the Program

Administrative, Technology, and Other $1.91 $1.91 $0.00 $0.00

Litigation $3.00 $3.00 $0.00 $0.00

Law Enforcement $1.73 $1.73 $0.00 $0.00

State, Local, Tribal, and Other Assistance $2.90 $2.45 $0.44 $0.01

Prisons and Detention $2.24 $2.24 $0.00 $0.00

TOTAL $11.78 $11.33 $0.44 $0.01

e. Agencies shall report an aging schedule of the overpayments identified through the payment recapture 

audit program that are outstanding, including the percent such amounts represent of the total 

overpayments from recapture audits of the agency, i.e., overpayments that have been identified but not 

recaptured. Agencies must include the aging for all overpayments that have been identified through 

payment recapture audits and are yet to be collected, thus the aging may span across multiple fiscal 

years.Agencies should also report the amount of overpayments identified through their payment 

recapture audit program determined to be not collectible in that fiscal year, including the percent the 

amount represents of the total overpayments identified through payment recapture audits.

The following table provides the aging schedule for the $3.48 million in overpayments identified through 

payment recapture audit activities that was outstanding (not recaptured) as of the end of FY 2019. Of the $3.48 

million, $0.83 million (or 23.9 percent) was outstanding 0 to 6 months; $0.37 million (or 10.6 percent) was 

outstanding 6 months to 1 year; $1.43 million (or 41.1 percent) was outstanding over 1 year; and $0.85 million (or 

24.4 percent) was determined to be not collectible. The $0.85 million determined to be not collectible represents 

9.6 percent of the $8.81 million in total overpayments identified through payment recapture audit activities in FY 

2019.

Aging of Outstanding Overpayments Identified through Payment Recapture Audits

(Dollars in Millions)

DOJ Mission-Aligned Program

Amount 

Outstanding

(0 to 6 months)

Amount 

Outstanding

(6 months to 1 year)

Amount 

Outstanding

(over 1 year)

Amount 

Determined to be

Not Collectible

Administrative, Technology, and Other $0.01 $0.00 $0.09 $0.00

Litigation $0.01 $0.23 $0.44 $0.01

Law Enforcement $0.08 $0.08 $0.20 $0.01

State, Local, Tribal, and Other Assistance $0.66 $0.00 $0.62 $0.83

Prisons and Detention $0.07 $0.06 $0.08 $0.00

TOTAL $0.83 $0.37 $1.43 $0.85

Percent of Outstanding Overpayments 23.9% 10.6% 41.1% 24.4%
13

III. Agency Improvement of Payment Accuracy with the Do Not PayInitiative.

Agencies should provide a brief narrative of the reduction that is attributable to the Do Not Pay Initiative, as 

applicable.

The Department leverages the Do Not Pay Initiative’s centralized data sources and other government databases, either 

via the Department of the Treasury’s Do Not Pay portal or via the General Services Administration’s System for Award 

Management (SAM), to improve payment accuracy and reduce the likelihood of improper payments. For example, 

contracting officers are required to verify before making an acquisition award that vendors are not in the SAM 

exclusions list of debarred vendors. Similarly, the grant-making components review Do Not Pay sources, such as the 

SAM exclusions, as part of the process to create a risk profile for a potential grantee. In addition, when the Department 

requests the Department of the Treasury to make payments to vendors, Treasury uses the Payment Automation Manager 

(PAM) Do Not Pay integration process to identify potential matches against the SAM exclusions. The Do Not Pay portal 

also provides conclusive matches between payees and the Social Security Administration’s Death Master File. This 

ensures that components making payments to deceased individuals’ estates (e.g., refunds of firearms licenses and Civil 

Division compensation fund payments) benefit from secondary levels of control beyond the initial review of eligibility.

IV. Barriers.

Agencies with programs and activities with improper payments exceeding the statutory thresholds may 

describe any statutory or regulatory barriers that may limit the agency’s corrective actions in reducing improper 

payments and actions taken by the agency to mitigate the barriers’ effects.

Not applicable. Based on the results of the FY 2019 Department-wide risk assessment, there were no programs and 

activities with improper payments exceeding the statutory thresholds.

V. Accountability.

Agencies with programs and activities with improper payments exceeding the statutory thresholds shall 

describe the steps the agency has taken and plans to take (including timeline) to ensure that agency managers 

(including the agency head), accountable officers, program officials/owners, and States and localities (where 

appropriate) are held accountable for reducing and recapturing improper payments through annual performance 

appraisal criteria.

Not applicable. Based on the results of the FY 2019 Department-wide risk assessment, there were no programs and 

activities with improper payments exceeding the statutory thresholds.

VI. Agency Information Systems and OtherInfrastructure.

Agencies with programs and activities with improper payments exceeding the statutory thresholds shall 

describe whether the agency has the internal controls, human capital, and information systems and other 

infrastructure it needs to reduce improper payments to the levels the agency has targeted. If the agency does 

not have such internal controls, human capital, and information systems and other infrastructure, describe the 

resources the agency requested in its most recent budget submission to Congress to establish and maintain the 

necessary internal controls, human capital, and information systems and other infrastructure.

Not applicable. Based on the results of the FY 2019 Department-wide risk assessment, there were no programs and 

activities with improper payments exceeding the statutory thresholds.

VII. Sampling and Estimation.

Agencies with programs and activities with improper payments exceeding the statutory thresholds and that are 

reporting an improper payment rate shall briefly describe the statistical sampling process used to estimate the 

improper payment rate for each program. Agencies that were granted OMB approval to use a non-statistically valid
14

sampling and estimation methodology under OMB Circular A-123, Appendix C, Part I.D.2., must also include the 

justification for using the non-statistical methodology.

The sampling and estimation requirements were not applicable to the Department in FY 2019. Based on the results of 

the FY 2019 Department-wide risk assessment, there were no programs and activities susceptible to significant improper 

payments. This remains unchanged from FY 2018.

In FY 2018, the Department received approximately $85.2 million under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (Public law 

115-123) for activities to respond to and recover from hurricanes, wildfires, and other natural disasters. Two Department 

programs received Bipartisan Budget Act funds – the Prisons and Detention Program and Law Enforcement Program. 

OMB required agencies to designate programs or activities expending $10 million in Bipartisan Budget Act funds in any 

one fiscal year as susceptible to significant improper payments. Neither DOJ program met that threshold.

VIII. Risk Assessment.

Agencies performing improper payment risk assessments during the fiscal year may include a description of the 

assessments, including the risk factors considered. In addition, agencies should discuss the basis for any 

groupings of programs or activities and highlight any changes they made to the risk assessment from the prior 

year, if applicable.

In accordance with IPIA, as amended, and OMB implementing guidance, the Department assessed its programs and 

activities for susceptibility to significant improper payments. The Department’s top-down approach for assessing the 

risk of significant improper payments allows for the analysis and reporting of results by the Department’s five missionaligned programs – Law Enforcement; Litigation; Prisons and Detention; State, Local, Tribal, and Other Assistance; and 

Administrative, Technology, and Other.5 The approach allows management to focus on the most significant programs 

and activities in terms of risk and materiality and promotes consistency across the Department in implementing the 

requirements of IPIA, as amended.

In FY 2019, the Department disseminated an updated risk assessment survey instrument for Department components to 

use in assessing risk. The instrument examined disbursement activities against various risk factors likely to contribute to 

a susceptibility of significant improper payments, including the risk factors required by OMB Circular A-123, Appendix 

C, and covered the payment types of contracts, grants, benefits, and other – the latter included custodial payments 

(payments to non-Federal individuals under programs such as Debt Collection Management) and employee payments 

(payments to employees for salary, locality pay, travel pay, etc.).6

The Department’s risk assessment methodology for FY 2019 did not change from FY 2018. For FY 2019, the 

methodology again included assessing risk against various risk factors and for various payment types. In addition, the 

results of the FY 2019 risk assessment did not change from FY 2018. For FY 2019, the Department-wide risk assessment 

again determined there were no programs susceptible to significant improper payments, i.e., improper payments 

exceeding the statutory thresholds of (1) both 1.5 percent of program outlays and $10 million or (2) $100 million.

5 When OMB began requiring agencies to report improper payments data by program, Department management used the same five mission-aligned 

programs established in the Department’s FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report, which aligned with the Department’s budget presentations in 

the FY 2010 President’s Budget. Since FY 2011, there have been some changes in the organizational composition of the programs, due in part to 

reorganizations within the Department. Nonetheless, for continuity and coverage purposes, the Department continues to present its annual improper 

payments data using the same five groupings.

6 The risk factors examined by the Department and components included the following – whether the program or activity is new to the agency; recent 

major changes in funding, authorities, practices, or procedures; results of OMB Circular A-123 assessment, OIG audits/ reviews, and other external 

audits/reviews; results of monitoring activities; results of recapture audit activities; process complexities; volume and dollar amount of payments; inherent 

risk; capability of personnel; and payments or payment eligibility decisions made by non-DOJ entities.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

 

Also at Oversight.gov

The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (DOJ OIG) is a 

statutorily created independent entity whose mission is to detect and deter 

waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct in the Department of Justice, and to 

promote economy and efficiency in the Department’s operations.

To report allegations of waste, fraud, abuse, or misconduct regarding DOJ 

programs, employees, contractors, grants, or contracts please visit or call the

DOJ OIG Hotline at oig.justice.gov/hotline or (800) 869-4499.

Website Twitter YouTube

oig.justice.gov @JusticeOIG JusticeOIG