FEMA and California Need 

to Assist CalRecycle, a

California State Agency,

to Improve Its Accounting

of $230 Million in Disaster 

Costs 

October 30, 2017 

OIG-18-08 
 

 

 

 

DHS OIG HIGHLIGHTS

 FEMA and California Need to Assist CalRecycle, 

a California State Agency, to Improve Its Accounting 

of $230 Million in Disaster Costs 

October 30, 2017 

Why We Did 

This Audit 

The California Office of 

Emergency Services 

(California), a FEMA grant 

recipient, anticipates 

awarding the California 

Department of Resources 

Recycling and Recovery 

(CalRecycle), a state 

agency, about 

$230 million in Public 

Assistance grant funding 

for debris removal work 

resulting from the 2015 

wildfires. 

What We 

Recommend 

FEMA should disallow 

$142.7 million in costs 

incurred, and not fund 

$87.2 million CalRecycle 

expects to claim in cost 

overruns for the 

remaining debris removal 

work, for a total of about 

$230 million. 

For Further Information: 

Contact our Office of Public Affairs at 

(202) 254-4100, or email us at 

DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@oig.dhs.gov 

What We Found 

CalRecycle has procurement policies, procedures, and 

practices in place to (1) comply with most Federal 

procurement requirement, and (2) to account for disaster 

costs on a project-by-project basis in accordance with 

Federal regulations and Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) guidelines. 

CalRecycle did not follow these policies, procedures, and 

practices when it accounted for and expended $142.7 

million in grant funding and $56.2 million in cost 

overruns; it also expects to incur an additional $31 million 

for a total of $87.2 million in cost overruns. Specifically, 

CalRecycle did not adequately document costs, account for 

costs on a residential lot basis, monitor contractors, or 

clearly separate eligible from ineligible work. Although 

FEMA and California have consistently provided 

CalRecycle with adequate guidance, CalRecycle’s 

deficiencies in accounting for project costs occurred 

primarily because CalRecycle did not follow most Federal 

regulations or FEMA guidelines for documenting costs. 

California expects to collect about $22.9 million in 

insurance proceeds. California, rather than CalRecycle, 

will administer the collection of these insurance proceeds. 

As a result, California has tasked Lake and Calaveras 

counties, California, to collect the insurance proceeds 

directly from private property owners who may receive 

benefits from their insurance carriers for debris cleanup. 

California, therefore, will need to ensure that (1) it collects 

all insurance recoveries from private property owners, and 

(2) it will identify and report all insurance recoveries so 

FEMA can deduct the correct amount of insurance 

proceeds from the Public Assistance grant awarded to 

CalRecycle. 

FEMA Response 

FEMA Region IX officials agreed with our 

recommendations. Appendix C includes FEMA’s written 

response in its entirety. 

www.oig.dhs.gov OIG-18-08 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 20528 / www.oig.dhs.gov 

OCT 30 2017 

MEMORANDUM FOR: Dr. Ahsha Tribble 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FROM: John E. McCoy II tJ-1 { /J'L-£ 

Acting Assistant ctr,r Ge"'neral for Audits 

SUBJECT: 	 FEMA and California Need to Assist CalRecycle, 

a California State Agency, to Improve Its Accounting 

of$230 Million in Disaster Costs 

We audited the capability of the California Department of Resources Recycling 

and Recovery (CalRecycle) to manage Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) Public Assistance grant funds. We conducted the audit early in the 

Public Assistance process to identify areas where CalRecycle may need 

additional technical assistance or monitoring to ensure compliance with 

Federal regulations and FEMA guidelines. By undergoing an audit early in the 

grant cycle, grant recipients have the opportunity to correct noncompliance 

before they spend the majority of their grant funding. It also allows them the 

opportunity to supplement deficient documentation or locate missing records 

before too much time elapses. 

As of February 27, 2017 (our audit cutoff date), the California Office of 

Emergency Services (California), a FEMA grant recipient, has awarded 

CalRecycle two large projects (Projects 36 and 37) totaling $142.7 million (net 

of $22.9 million in estimated insurance proceeds) to fund debris removal work 

resulting from the 2015 wildfires.I The award provides 75 percent Federal 

funding. CalRecycle had expended the $142.7 million grant for these two 

projects, but had not submitted a cost claimed to FEMA. CalRecycle plans to 

request FEMA about $87.2 million in supplemental funding for cost overruns 

for the two large projects, because CalRecycle expects the debris removal work 

will total about $230 million.2 

Federal regulations in effect at the time of the disaster set the large project threshold at 

greater than $121,600 [Notice of Adjustment of Disaster Grant Amounts, 79 Fed. Reg. 62,648 

(Oct. 20, 2014)]. 

2 Cost overruns are cost that exceed the amount approved under the grant, and which require 

additional Federal funds. If FEMA approves the additional funds, FEMA shall increase the 

grant through an amendment to the original award document (44 Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) 79.9(d)). 

i 
                                                      

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

To determine whether CalRecycle properly managed the FEMA grant award, we 

assessed the policies, procedures, and business practices CalRecycle used to 

account for and expend the $142.7 million, and an additional $56.2 million 

CalRecycle incurred in cost overruns during the time of our audit for a total of 

$198.9 million. 

Background 

On September 9, 2015, wildfires swept through several communities in 

Northern California and continued to burn for at least 3 weeks. By September 

13, 2015, the Governor of California had declared a state of emergency for the 

Valley fire in Lake County and the Butte fire in Calaveras County. The fires 

rank among the top most destructive fires in California's history and destroyed 

over 146,000 acres and 2,876 structures, including 1,830 homes, and resulted 

in the loss of 6 lives. 

On September 22, 2015, President Obama issued Federal declaration 4240 to 

make available Public Assistance funding and help communities recover from 

the fires. CalRecycle applied for a FEMA Public Assistance grant to remove 

debris from private properties damaged by the fires.3 

Results of Audit 

CalRecycle has procurement policies, procedures, and practices in place to 

comply with most Federal procurement requirements at 2 CFR 200.318 

through 326. CalRecycle also has sufficient policies, procedures, and business 

practices in place to account for disaster costs on a project-by-project basis in 

accordance with most Federal regulations and FEMA guidelines. 

CalRecycle did not follow these policies, procedures, and practices when 

accounting for and expending $198.9 million in project costs. Therefore, we 

questioned these costs unless CalRecycle can correct the deficiencies we 

identify in finding A of this report. Specifically, CalRecycle did not adequately 

document costs, account for costs on a residential lot-by-lot basis, effectively 

monitor contractors to ensure they performed to contract terms and conditions, 

or clearly separate costs for eligible and ineligible work. 

3 FEMA’s Public Assistance program awards grants to State, local, and federally recognized 

tribal governments and certain private non-profit entities to assist them with the response to 

and recovery from federally declared disasters. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 2 OIG-18-08 
 

                                                      

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Although FEMA and California have consistently provided CalRecycle with 

adequate guidance, CalRecycle’s deficiencies in accounting for project costs 

occurred primarily because CalRecycle did not follow most Federal regulations 

or FEMA guidelines for documenting costs. As a result, FEMA does not have 

full assurance that (1) the $198.9 million CalRecycle incurred in debris removal 

work are eligible disaster-related costs; or (2) CalRecycle will properly 

document the remaining $31.1 million in estimated costs according to Federal 

Regulations and guidelines, for total expected costs of $230 million.4 

California, as grant recipient, is responsible for ensuring CalRecycle is aware of 

and complies with all grant requirements, for which the State received FEMA 

funding to support oversight activities. Therefore, California should provide 

technical assistance and monitoring to ensure CalRecycle properly accounts for 

its Public Assistance grant funds. 

Lastly, California expects it will collect about $22.9 million in insurance 

proceeds. California, rather than CalRecycle, will administer the collection of 

these insurance proceeds. As a result, California has tasked Lake and 

Calaveras Counties, California, to collect the insurance proceeds directly from 

private property owners who may receive benefits from their insurance carriers 

for debris cleanup. California, therefore, will need to ensure that (1) it collects 

all insurance recoveries from private property owners, and (2) it will identify 

and report all insurance recoveries so FEMA can deduct the correct amount of 

insurance proceeds from the Public Assistance grant awarded to CalRecycle. 

Finding A: Project Costs Accounting 

CalRecycle did not conform fully to Federal regulations or FEMA guidelines 

when accounting for $198.9 million it incurred in project costs. As a result, 

FEMA does not have full assurance that CalRecycle adequately supported its 

costs and that the costs were eligible under the FEMA grant. Specifically, 

CalRecycle did not ensure that it — 

 adequately documented costs; 

 accounted for costs on a residential lot-by-lot basis; 

 monitored contractors to ensure they performed to contract terms and 

conditions; and 

 separated costs for eligible and ineligible work. 

4 We calculated the $31.1 million by subtracting incurred costs of $198.9 million from the 

$230 million total estimated costs. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 3 OIG-18-08 
                                                      

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

According to 2 CFR 200.403(g), CalRecycle is required to adequately document 

costs to be allowable under a Federal award. CalRecycle did not conform fully 

with this requirement. As we previously reported, CalRecycle has paid its 

contractors about $186.4 million for debris removal work, yet it had not 

completed its review of invoices or collected all missing support records.5 In 

some instances, we observed invoices for labor costs with missing timesheets, 

costs for standby crews, equipment used with no justification or support 

records, and lodging expenses with no receipts. 

CalRecycle officials also acknowledged that within the first 6 months of debris 

removal operations, it paid contractors about $45 million of the $198.9 million 

in total incurred cost, even though it did not (1) review most of the invoice 

support documentation, (2) collect most support records needed to determine 

cost eligibility, or (3) segregate ineligible costs from eligible. CalRecycle officials 

explained that they paid the initial $45 million because California’s Prompt 

Payment Act requires CalRecycle to pay its contractors within 45 days of 

receiving a request for payment.6 

Additionally, CalRecycle did not always require its contractors to conform to 

contract provisions pertaining to tracking costs on a residential lot-by-lot 

basis.7 FEMA’s approved scope of work (SOW) for Projects 36 and 37 also 

includes similar requirements. According to 2 CFR 200.318(b) CalRecycle is 

required to maintain sufficient oversight to ensure that contractors perform in 

accordance with the terms, conditions, and specifications of their contracts or 

purchase orders. 

Furthermore, FEMA’s approved SOW for the two projects requires an 

appropriate breakdown of project costs that clearly separates eligible from 

ineligible work; CalRecycle did not always comply with this requirement. 

According to 2 CFR 200.403(c), for cost to be allowable it must be consistent 

with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed 

and other activities of the non-Federal entity. 

We conducted a limited review of CalRecycle’s cost records for the two large 

projects. We observed instances in which prime contractors submitted invoices 

with ineligible expenses and CalRecycle did not separate them from eligible 

costs. Specifically, these invoices included ineligible expenses such as — 

 subcontractors’ profit; 

 work performed at lots not approved in the projects’ SOW; 

 subcontractors’ markups; and 

5 Management Advisory Report to FEMA, OIG-17-44-D, March 6, 2017.
 6 California Government Code section 927 et seq.
 7 CalRecycle awarded four contracts to two prime contractors, two time-and-material and two 

cost-plus-fixed-fee, valued at about $223 million to perform residential debris removal work.
 

www.oig.dhs.gov 4 OIG-18-08 
 

 

                                                      

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

 removal and transport of concrete slabs.8 

Moreover, FEMA has expressed similar concerns regarding CalRecycle’s 

accounting for project costs. On September 19, 2016, CalRecycle submitted to 

FEMA a funding request for cost overruns under Projects 36 and 37 totaling 

$56.2 million.9 

FEMA denied the funding request because the support for the request did not 

conform to Federal regulations or the terms of the projects’ SOW. Specifically, 

FEMA noted that CalRecycle’s request — 

 did not separate costs on a per-residential-lot basis as the SOW required; 

 included ineligible work such as the transport and disposal of concrete, 

bricks, and masonry; and 

 included invoices for ineligible work completed at unknown addresses 

and non-residential locations—which is ineligible for FEMA grant 

funding. 

According to 44 CFR 206.204(e)(2), CalRecycle must evaluate each cost overrun 

and, when justified, submit a request for additional funding that contains 

sufficient documentation to support the eligibility of all claimed work and 

costs. 

FEMA and California both agreed that CalRecycle needs additional technical 

assistance to conform fully to Federal regulations and guidelines for project 

cost accounting. CalRecycle has implemented some corrective actions to assist 

in improving its accounting for project costs. Specifically, CalRecycle has 

enhanced some of its procedures and practices for tracking and documenting 

project costs, payments to contractors, and invoicing. 

Therefore, if CalRecycle follows its policies, procedures, and business practices, 

specifically for project cost accounting, FEMA has reasonable, but not absolute, 

assurance that CalRecycle will properly manage the FEMA Public Assistance 

grant funds according to Federal regulations. 

However, if CalRecycle does not improve its methods of accounting for project 

costs and does not correct the deficiencies identified in this finding, it risks 

(1) FEMA disallowing the $142.7 million grant award, and (2) misspending the 

$87.3 it expects to claim in cost overruns for the remaining debris removal 

work, for a total cost of $230 million. 

8 According to FEMA’s Disaster Assistance Policy 9523.13, page 6, paragraph 2.c., the removal 

of concrete slabs or foundations-on-grade is ineligible work.
 9 Cost overruns are in excess of the initial FEMA grant award of $142.7 million.
 

www.oig.dhs.gov 5 OIG-18-08 
                                                      

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Finding B: Grant Management 

CalRecycle’s project cost accounting deficiencies occurred primarily because 

CalRecycle did not follow the policies, procedures, and business practices in 

place to account for disaster-related costs in accordance with most Federal 

regulations or FEMA guidelines. 

We found that FEMA and California officials consistently provided CalRecycle 

with adequate guidance. For instance, California, during the applicant briefings 

and kick-off meetings — which CalRecycle attended — provided resources and 

informed applicants of their responsibility to comply with all requirements of 

FEMA’s Public Assistance Program or risk losing Federal funding. In fact, in a 

letter to the Office of Inspector General (OIG), CalRecycle states that California 

and FEMA have provided technical assistance to CalRecycle since the inception 

of the projects, including during the contract procurement phase. Therefore, 

California, as grant recipient, has made CalRecycle (subrecipient) sufficiently 

aware of the need to comply with all grant requirements in accordance to 2 

CFR 200.331(d) and (e)(1).10 Yet, as presented in finding A of this report, 

CalRecycle did not fully apply all grant management requirements, specifically 

for documenting disaster-related costs. 

Because of our audit, CalRecycle implemented corrective measures for 

improving its management of the FEMA grant, including the process for 

documenting costs. For instance, CalRecycle has obtained training resources 

from FEMA and California on the Public Assistance program, and has trained 

staff on conforming to all Federal regulations and FEMA guidelines. 

CalRecycle also noted that it plans to request additional technical assistance 

from California and other state agencies to improve its review and 

implementation of debris removal activities, and make them more efficient, 

effective, and consistent with Federal and State requirements. Furthermore, 

CalRecycle plans to improve its procedures and practices for tracking and 

documenting project costs, reviewing invoices, and paying contractors. 

Finding C: Insurance 

California estimated it could receive about $22.9 million in insurance proceeds 

from about 1,760 private property owners who have insurance for debris 

cleanup. California, rather than CalRecycle, will administer the collection of the 

insurance proceeds from private property owners who may receive benefits 

from their insurance carriers for debris cleanup. 

10 California’s Administrative Plan for Federal Disaster Assistance also stipulates that California 

is responsible for monitoring CalRecycle and ensuring compliance with grant requirements. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 6 OIG-18-08 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Because CalRecycle’s debris removal activities are primarily located within 

Lake and Calaveras Counties (Counties), California has tasked these Counties 

to collect these insurance proceeds. California, as a FEMA grant recipient, 

awarded the Counties about $500,000 to fund their efforts of recovering 

insurance proceeds from owners of private residencies. 

According to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief Emergency Assistance Act, as 

amended, no entity will receive assistance for any loss for which it has received 

financial assistance from any other program, insurance, or any other source 

(see 42 United States Code 5155). Further, 44 CFR 206.250(c) requires FEMA 

to deduct actual or anticipated insurance recoveries from otherwise eligible 

costs. FEMA has deducted the anticipated insurance proceeds from 

CalRecycle’s Public Assistance grant award amount of $165.6 million, for a net 

award amount of $142.7 million. California, therefore, needs to ensure that the 

Counties collect all insurance recoveries from private property owners and 

accurately document the proceeds so that FEMA can adjust the amount of 

anticipated insurance proceeds from CalRecycle’s Public Assistance grant if 

necessary. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Regional Administrator, FEMA Region IX: 

Recommendation 1: Disallow as ineligible $142,669,989 ($107,002,492 

Federal share) in debris removal costs that did not comply fully with Federal 

regulations, specifically project cost accounting, unless FEMA (1) grants an 

exception to this administrative requirement as 2 CFR 200.102 allows, or 

(2) determines that costs are as a result of the declared disaster, eligible for 

Federal funding, and fully documented (finding A). 

Recommendation 2: Direct California, as recipient, to continue providing 

CalRecycle with technical assistance and monitoring to ensure compliance with 

all applicable Federal regulations and FEMA guidelines, specifically for project 

cost accounting, to avoid improperly funding any of the $87,197,228 

($65,397,921 Federal share) it expects to claim in costs overruns for the 

remaining debris removal work, for a total cost of $230 million 

(findings A and B). 

Recommendation 3: Direct California, as grantee, to ensure the Counties 

collect all insurance recoveries from private property owners, and accurately 

report the amount of insurance proceeds to FEMA (finding C). 

www.oig.dhs.gov 7 OIG-18-08 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Discussion with Management and Audit Follow-Up 

We discussed our findings with FEMA, California, and CalRecycle officials 

during our audit and included their comments in this report, as appropriate. 

We also provided a draft report in advance to officials from FEMA and 

California on May 17, 2017, and CalRecycle on May 24, 2017. 

We also discussed the draft at an exit conference with FEMA on May 24, 2017, 

and California and CalRecycle officials on July 6, 2017. These officials agreed 

with the findings and recommendations. 

FEMA officials provided a written response on August 25, 2017, agreeing with 

our observations and recommendations (see appendix C). FEMA expects to 

complete its proposed corrective actions to address our recommendations by 

December 31, 2017. Because we accepted FEMA’s proposed corrective actions, 

we, therefore, consider the three report recommendations to be resolved but 

open. We will close these recommendations when we receive and review 

documentation that FEMA has completed its proposed corrective actions. 

Please email closeout documentation and request to 

OIGAuditsFollowup@oig.dhs.gov. 

The Office of Audits major contributors to this report are Humberto Melara, 

Director; Louis Ochoa, Audit Manager; Renee Gradin, Auditor-in-charge; Victor 

Du, Auditor; and William Stark, Independent Reference Reviewer. 

Please call me with any questions at (202) 254-4100, or your staff may contact 

Paul Wood, Acting Deputy Assistant Inspector General or Humberto Melara, 

Director, Western Regional Office, at (510) 637-1463. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 8 OIG-18-08 
  

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix A 

Objective, Scope, and Methodology 

We audited the capability of CalRecycle, Public Assistance Identification 

Number 000-UUJ4B-00, to manage FEMA Public Assistance grant funds. Our 

audit objective was to determine whether CalRecycle’s policies, procedures, and 

business practices are adequate to account for and expend FEMA grant funds 

according to Federal regulations and FEMA guidelines for FEMA Disaster 

Number 4240-DR-CA. We conducted this audit early in the Public Assistance 

process to identify areas where CalRecycle may need additional technical 

assistance or monitoring to ensure compliance with Federal regulations and 

FEMA guidelines. In addition, by undergoing an audit early in the grant cycle, 

CalRecycle has an opportunity to correct noncompliance before they spend the 

majority of their grant funding. It also allows them the opportunity to 

supplement deficient documentation or locate missing records before too much 

time elapses. 

Our audit covers the period of September 9, 2015, the first day of the incident 

period, through February 27, 2017, our audit cutoff date for this report. At the 

time of our audit, California, a FEMA grant recipient, had awarded and 

obligated $142.7 million (net of $22.9 million in estimated insurance proceeds) 

to CalRecycle for two large projects (Projects 36 and 37) to fund debris removal 

work from the 2015 wildfires. The award provides 75 percent Federal funding. 

CalRecycle had expended the $142.7 million grant for these two projects, but 

had not submitted a cost claimed to FEMA. It plans to request FEMA about 

$87.2 million in supplemental funding for cost overruns for the two large 

projects, because CalRecycle expects the debris removal work will total about 

$230 million. 

To determine whether CalRecycle properly managed the FEMA grant award, we 

assessed the policies, procedures, and business practices CalRecycle used to 

account for and expend the $142.7 million, and an additional $56.2 million 

CalRecycle had incurred during the time of our audit for a total of $198.9 

million. 

We interviewed FEMA, California, and CalRecycle officials; assessed the 

adequacy of the policies, procedures, and business practices CalRecycle uses 

to account for and expend Federal grant funds and to procure and monitor 

contracts for disaster work; reviewed applicable Federal regulations and FEMA 

guidelines; and performed other procedures considered necessary to 

accomplish our objective. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 9 OIG-18-08 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix A (Continued) 

We conducted fieldwork activities at FEMA, California, and CalRecycle offices. 

We did not perform a detailed assessment of CalRecycle’s internal controls over 

its grant activities because it was not necessary to accomplish our audit 

objective. However, we did assess the adequacy of the policies, procedures, and 

business practices CalRecycle uses and plans to use to account for and expend 

Federal grant funds and to procure for and monitor disaster work. 

We are conducting this performance audit pursuant to the Inspector General 

Act of 1978, as amended, and according to generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis 

for our findings and conclusions based upon our audit objective. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based upon our audit objective. We are conducting this audit by 

applying the statutes, regulations, and FEMA policies and guidelines in effect 

at the time of the disaster. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 10 OIG-18-08 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix B 

Potential Monetary Benefits 

Table 1: Summary of Potential Monetary Benefits 

Type of Potential Monetary Benefit Total Federal Share 

Questioned Costs – Ineligible $ 142,669,989 $ 107,002,492 

Questioned Costs – Unsupported 0 0 

Funds Put to Better Use (Cost Avoidance) 87,197,228 65,397,921

 Totals $229,867,217 $172,400,413 

Source: Office of Inspector General analysis of findings in this report 

www.oig.dhs.gov 11 OIG-18-08 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix C 

FEMA Region IX Response 

www.oig.dhs.gov 12 OIG-18-08 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix C (Continued) 

www.oig.dhs.gov 13 OIG-18-08 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix D 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Chief of Staff 

Chief Financial Officer 

Under Secretary of Management 

Executive Secretary 

Chief Privacy Officer 

Audit Liaison, DHS 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Administrator 

Chief of Staff 

Chief Financial Officer 

Chief Counsel 

Chief Procurement Officer 

Infrastructure Branch Chief 

Director, Risk Management and Compliance 

Audit Liaison, FEMA Region IX 

Audit Liaison, FEMA (Job Code G-17-006) 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees 

External 

Director, California Governor's Office of Emergency Services 

Audit Liaison, California Governor's Office of Emergency Services 

California State Auditor 

Deputy Director, California Dept. of Resources Recycling and Recovery 

www.oig.dhs.gov 14 OIG-18-08 
Additional Information and Copies 

To view this and any of our other reports, please visit our website at: 

www.oig.dhs.gov. 

For further information or questions, please contact Office of Inspector General 

Public Affairs at: DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@oig.dhs.gov. 

Follow us on Twitter at: @dhsoig. 

OIG Hotline 

To report fraud, waste, or abuse, visit our website at www.oig.dhs.gov and click 

on the red "Hotline" tab. If you cannot access our website, call our hotline at 

(800) 323-8603, fax our hotline at (202) 254-4297, or write to us at: 

Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General, Mail Stop 0305 

Attention: Hotline 

245 Murray Drive, SW 

Washington, DC 20528-0305