Department of the Treasury

Office of the Special Inspector 

General for TARP

(SIGTARP)

Congressional Budget

Justification and Annual 

Performance Plan and Report

FY 2021
SIGTARP - 2

Table of Contents

Section I – Budget Request........................................................................................................... 3

A – Mission Statement................................................................................................................ 3

B – Summary of the Request ...................................................................................................... 3

Special Inspector General’s Comments...................................................................................... 3

1.1 – Appropriations Detail Table .............................................................................................. 6

1.2 – Budget Adjustments Table................................................................................................. 7

C – Budget Increases and Decreases Description....................................................................... 7

1.3 – Object Classification (Schedule O) Obligations................................................................ 8

D – Appropriations Language and Explanation of Changes ...................................................... 9

E – Legislative Proposals............................................................................................................ 9

Section II – Annual Performance Plan and Report................................................................. 10

A – Strategic Alignment ........................................................................................................... 10

B – Budget and Performance by Budget Activity .................................................................... 12

2.1.1 – Investigations Resources and Measures........................................................................ 12

Investigations Budget and Performance ................................................................................... 12

2.1.2 – Audit Resources and Measures..................................................................................... 13

Audit Budget and Performance................................................................................................. 13

D– Evidence-Building Activity ................................................................................................ 13

Section III – Additional Information ........................................................................................ 14

A – Summary of Capital Investments....................................................................................... 14
SIGTARP - 3

Section I – Budget Request

A – Mission Statement

The Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP) 

is a federal law enforcement agency and an independent audit watchdog that targets financial 

institution crime, and other fraud, waste, and abuse related to TARP. Protecting Americans, 

taxpayer dollars, and TARP programs drives SIGTARP’s mission.

B – Summary of the Request

The Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 Budget proposes $17,500,000, a 20 percent reduction from the 

FY 2020 level. The proposed Budget is intended to fund the Congressionally mandated

independent oversight of TARP through SIGTARP criminal investigations and audits. TARP 

spending continues because TARP foreclosure prevention programs, the Making Home 

Affordable (MHA) and the Hardest Hit Fund (HHF) programs continue. Banks, mortgage 

servicers, state agencies, thousands of contractors and other recipients have already received over 

$30 billion via these programs. SIGTARP’s investigations and audits stop fraud, waste, and 

abuse of the $30 billion spent, and recover lost dollars for the Government and other victims. 

The more than $3.5 billion in future TARP spending will add to SIGTARP’s existing and 

planned investigations and audits.

Special Inspector General’s Comments

Pursuant to section 6(f)(3)(E) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, as applied 

through the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, I have concluded that the President’s 

FY 2021 Budget request of $17.5 million would substantially inhibit the Special Inspector 

General from performing the duties of the office. I independently proposed an appropriation of 

$19 million (an additional $1.5 million) for FY 2021, as the level needed to support SIGTARP’s 

Congressionally mandated mission to conduct oversight of TARP, while also reflecting an 

orderly and responsible step down towards TARP’s sunset of March 2024. I respectfully request 

that Congress consider this level, which is a 14 percent reduction from the FY 2020 enacted 

level; a 17 percent reduction from the FY 2019 enacted level; a 44 percent reduction from the

FY 2018 enacted level; and a 54 percent reduction from the FY 2017 enacted level.

The President’s Budget request would substantially inhibit our oversight because it will require a 

larger reduction in staffing and mission support levels than I have determined is necessary to 

fulfill the mission. The President’s Budget request is a 49 percent reduction from the FY 2018 

enacted level, even though the same TARP programs are open as in FY 2018 with significant 

activity, spending more than $1 billion each year – spending that should be accompanied by 

SIGTARP’s oversight. 

In FY 2019 alone, TARP programs had significant operations and spent more than $1.7 billion. 

Of this amount, Treasury paid $1.12 billion in TARP dollars to 74 financial institutions in MHA, 

including, for example, $290 million to Ocwen Financial, $155 million to SPS, $132 million to 

Wells Fargo, $101 million to JP Morgan Chase, $59 million to Bank of America, $129 million to 

Nationstar, $19 million to Citigroup, and $5 million to CIT Bank. 
SIGTARP - 4

As more TARP dollars are spent in MHA and HHF, SIGTARP’s investigations and audits over 

that spending increases. Every TARP dollar spent is another dollar potentially subject to fraud, 

waste and abuse, increasing the need for investigations and audits. Treasury has already paid 

more than $20 billion in MHA. Additionally, through FY 2024, Treasury is obligated or 

committed to pay $2.8 billion to banks and non-bank mortgage servicers in MHA to modify 

these residential mortgages. For example, Treasury is obligated or committed to pay in the future 

$675 million to Ocwen Financial, $359 million to Wells Fargo, $218 million to JP Morgan 

Chase, $152 million to Bank of America, $338 million to Select Portfolio Servicing, $340 

million to Nationstar, $69 million to CitiMortgage, and $22 million to CIT Bank/One West 

Bank. In the Hardest Hit Fund, 19 state agencies have received more than $9 billion in TARP 

funds from Treasury, and have another nearly $800 million in state agency bank accounts ready 

to be spent through December 2021. 

When left unchecked, fraud, waste, and abuse in these programs can have a devastating impact 

on those the program are intended to help. HAMP continues today with nearly 800,000 people 

in all 50 states receiving mortgage modifications to make their payments affordable and 

sustainable. The billions of TARP dollars that Treasury will pay financial institutions in the 

future are not automatic, but instead require the banks and other servicers to comply with the law 

and rules of the program for those homeowners – decisions and actions that require oversight and 

law enforcement. 

There are 40 HHF programs still open to applicants, plus open programs that continue to spend 

TARP dollars related to existing homeowners, many of which are unemployed or 

underemployed, and other participants. This year, there were more TARP-funded demolitions of 

blighted houses than any other year, and 58 percent of all new first-time homebuyers receiving 

HHF down payment assistance occurred in the last year. Just this past year, more than 29,000 

new borrowers came into the program. State agencies told SIGTARP that they expect an 

additional 8,000 demolitions in the future. After those discussions, Treasury approved an 

additional 450 demolitions in Ohio. These programs have important goals for communities, 

goals that would be hurt by fraud, waste, and abuse. 

SIGTARP has demonstrated that it is a solid investment for taxpayers, as SIGTARP’s work has 

led to cumulative recoveries for the government and other victims of $11 billion – a 31 time 

cumulative return on investment (ROI) from our annual budgets. 

This ranks SIGTARP as having the third highest ROI out of 18 OIGs reviewed by the Brookings 

Institution Center for Effective Public Management in its analysis of how cutting the budget of 

positive-revenue OIGs costs the government money and contributes to the federal deficit.1

 

We appreciate Congress’s strong support for our budget each year. 

 1 Hudak, J. Wallack, G. (2015). Brookings Institution Center for Effective Public Management, Website: 

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/CEPMHudakWallackOIG.pdf.
SIGTARP - 5

In FY 2019:

• $900 million was recovered as a result of SIGTARP’s law enforcement work, 

representing a 39 times annual return on investment from our $23 million budget.

• SIGTARP investigations resulted in criminal charges against 13 defendants, four arrests, 

criminal convictions of 18 defendants, courts sentencing 28 defendants to prison, federal 

enforcement activity against three corporations/organizations, and 26 referrals to prosecutors.

• SIGTARP auditors questioned more than $848,000 in costs, including more than $411,000 

that state agencies in HHF spent on travel and conference costs that violated Federal cost 

regulations, some of which also constituted waste. For example:

 The North Carolina agency spent $130,000 on annual housing counselor conferences 

including paying $2,500 to a guest speaker who lectured on “Motivation by Chocolate.” 

Also, before homeowners received a single dollar from HHF, housing counselors were 

treated to an evening reception featuring a carved beef station staffed by a uniform chef, 

cake bites and strawberry shortcake martinis. 

 After the Ohio agency decided to close the HHF program to new homeowner 

applications, it deviated from past practices to hold housing counselor conferences at 

zoos. 

 Two top Florida officials charged TARP more than a dozen conferences each, often at 

luxury hotels, beaches and other resort destinations, despite the fact that the state agency 

was one of the most underperforming state agencies in HHF, providing assistance to only 

20percent of applicants, the lowest of any state. 

 Officials from some state agencies attending an annual meeting with Treasury in 

Washington, D.C. charged TARP for luxury hotels, while other state agencies attending 

the same meeting stayed at hotels at or near the GSA rate. Two senior Ohio agency 

officials stayed at the W hotel paying $315-$423 per night, while a junior Ohio official 

on the same trip stayed at a hotel with the rate of $170 per night. 

 

• SIGTARP has open investigations into financial institutions participating in MHA and 

receiving TARP dollars. SIGTARP has referred some of these investigations to the 

Department of Justice, and SIGTARP continues to work these cases with the U.S. 

Department of Justice (DOJ). 

• SIGTARP continued to obtain convictions and sentencings of defendants who defrauded 

nearly 30,000 homeowners with false promises of entry into HAMP, including some who 

claimed affiliation with the government, and preyed on the elderly, and other vulnerable 

Americans. Already, 93 of these scammers were sentenced to prison as a result of 

SIGTARP’s investigations. 

• SIGTARP’s investigations resulted in the conviction and prison sentencing of the Detroit city 

official in charge of contracts for HHF’s blight demolition program, the conviction for 

bribery of an official from one of the largest demolition contractors in the HHF program in 

Detroit, and the indictment of a land bank official in the HHF program in Ohio on one count 

of conspiracy to commit bribery and honest services fraud, three counts of honest services 

wire fraud and one count of bribery.

• SIGTARP’s investigations resulted in DOJ resolving a false claim act action against the sole 

contractor in HHF blight demolition in Fort Wayne, Indiana for filling the demolition sites 

with construction debris rather than clean fill dirt, and falsely billing the HHF program as if it 

had used clean fill dirt. 
SIGTARP - 6

• SIGTARP’s investigations have also resulted in criminal charges and arrests this year for 

homeowners defrauding HHF. 

• SIGTARP’s audits have focused on the costly and harmful risks of asbestos and lead 

exposure, illegal dumping, and contaminated dirt. 

• SIGTARP’s recent audit warned Treasury about a lack of fraud controls that led to more 

than $437,000 in payments to California homeowners who lost eligibility but continued 

receiving TARP payments for years. 

 

SIGTARP is grateful for the support of Congress. We will continue to deliver investigative and 

audit results, and a high return on investment. In every year since FY 2016, recoveries from 

SIGTARP’s work have far exceeded our annual appropriations. Investing in SIGTARP is one of 

the most effective and efficient ways to protect the Government. The Government will receive 

far more than our budget in recovered dollars lost to fraud, in addition to cost savings. Our work 

ensures that TARP dollars are used as Congress intended, and that the government does not pay 

more for TARP than is necessary. 

1.1 – Appropriations Detail Table

Dollars in Thousands

Appropriated Resources

New Appropriated Resources FTE AMO UNT FTE AMO UNT FTE AMO UNT FTE AMO UNT

Investigatons 87 $19,550 75 $18,920 72 $15,050 -4.0% -20.5%

Audit 9 $3,450 10 $3,080 8 $2,450 -20.0% -20.5%

Subtotal New Appropriated 

Resources 96 $23,000 85 $22,000 80 $17,500 -5.9% -20.5%

O ther Resources

Unobligated Balances from Prior 

Years 0 $16,912 0 $14,642 0 $14,000 NA -4.4%

Subtotal O ther Resources 0 $16,912 0 $14,642 0 $14,000 NA -4.4%

Total Budgetary Resources 96 $39,912 85 $36,642 80 $31,500 -5.9% -14.0%

FY 2019 Other Resources and Full-time Equivalents (FTE) reflect actuals. 

% Change

FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2020 to FY 2021

O perating Plan Enacted Request
SIGTARP - 7

1.2 – Budget Adjustments Table

Dollars in Thousands

FTE Amount

FY 2020 Enacted 85 $22,000 

Changes to Base:

Maintaining Current Levels (MCLs): 0 $510 

Pay Annualization (2020 3.1% average pay raise) 0 $117 

Pay Raise (1.0% average pay raise) 0 $115 

FERS Contribution Increase 0 $141 

Non-Pay 0 $137 

Subtotal Changes to Base 0 $510 

FY 2021 Current Services 85 $22,510 

Program Changes:

Program Decreases (5) ($5,010)

Staff Reduction (5) ($344)

Efficiency Savings 0 ($946)

Realignment from Annual to No-Year 0 ($3,720)

FY 2021 President's Budget Request 80 $17,500 

C – Budget Increases and Decreases Description

Maintaining Current Levels (MCLs) ...........................................................+$510,000 / +0 FTE

Pay Annualization (3.1%) +$117,000 / +0 FTE: 

Funds are requested for annualization of the January 2020 3.1% average pay raise.

Pay Raise (1.0% in 2021) +$115,000 / +0 FTE: 

Funds are requested for a 1.0% average pay raise in January 2021.

FERS Contribution Increase +$141,000 / +0 FTE 

Funds are requested for the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) contribution rates 

effective FY 2021.

Non-Pay +$137,000 / +0 FTE

Funds are requested for non-labor expenses such as travel, contracts, rent, supplies, 

and equipment.

Program Decreases ....................................................................................-$5,010,000 / -5 FTE

Staff Reduction -$344,000 / -5 FTE

Reduction in SIGTARP staff levels to 80 FTE.

Efficiency Savings -$946,000/ -0 FTE

SIGTARP will seek to reduce non-personnel costs.

Realignment from Annual to No-Year -$3,720,000/ -0 FTE

SIGTARP will fund a portion of its operations from its no-year account.

SIGTARP actively reduces costs and its footprint, while creating an appropriately sized, skilled 

and structured workforce. 
SIGTARP - 8

• In the last two years, SIGTARP cut its footprint by 47 percent in cost and square footage. In 

FY 2018, SIGTARP eliminated 50 percent of its headquarters annual rent expenses. In 

FY 2019, SIGTARP eliminated 100 percent of its San Francisco annual rent expense.

• Beginning in FY 2020, SIGTARP is reducing its New York annual rent expense by 43 

percent. 

• SIGTARP reduced fleet-related expenses by 40 percent since FY 2014. 

• In FY 2021, over $3 million of the proposed budget (23 percent) will be spent on goods and 

services from the government, more that 95 percent of which will be paid to Treasury. 

• SIGTARP has eliminated management layers and is structuring the workforce in such a way 

to create maximum flexibility as the agency’s sunset approaches. 

• SIGTARP drives efficiencies through innovative processes and the use of technology, 

including through data mining. 

• SIGTARP coordinates with other law enforcement agencies and Inspectors General, 

leveraging its unique position and expertise by forming law enforcement and other 

partnerships to create operational efficiencies and realize cost savings. 

1.3 – Object Classification (Schedule O) Obligations

Dollars in Thousands

FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021

O bject Classification

Actual

O bligations

Estimated

O bligations

Estimated

O bligations

11.1 - Full-time permanent 10,573 9,315 9,128

11.3 - Other than full-time permanent 1,907 1,472 1,384

11.5 - Other personnel compensation 1,034 989 930

11.9 - Personnel Compensation (Total) 13,514 11,776 11,442

12.0 - Personnel benefits 3,915 3,385 3,383

Total Personnel and Compensation Benefits $17,429 $15,161 $14,825

21.0 - Travel and transportation of persons 261 250 250

23.1 - Rental payments to GSA 138 110 59

23.3 - Communications, utilities, and miscellaneous charges 34 29 20

25.1 - Advisory and assistance services 708 500 200

25.2 - Other services from non-Federal sources 20 20 15

25.3 - Other goods and services from Federal sources 6,692 5,729 1,956

25.6 - Medical care 50 40 30

25.7 - Operation and maintenance of equipment 38 20 15

26.0 - Supplies and materials 138 131 125

31.0 - Equipment 19 10 5

Total Non-Personnel $8,098 $6,839 $2,675

Total O bligations $25,527 $22,000 $17,500

Full-time Equivalents (FTE) 96 85 80

Amounts reflect obligations of annually appropriated resources, does not include unobligated balances from prior years 

($17M in FY 2019 and estimated $14M in FYs 2020 and 2021). 
SIGTARP - 9

D – Appropriations Language and Explanation of Changes

Appropriations Language Explanation of Changes

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

SPECIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE 

TROUBLED ASSET RELIEF PROGRAM

Federal funds

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Special 

Inspector General in carrying out the provisions of the 

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Public 

Law 110–343), [$22,000,000] $17,500,000. (Department of 

the Treasury Appropriations Act, 2020.)

E – Legislative Proposals

PPIP Funds 

The Public-Private Investment Program (PPIP) Improvement and Oversight Act of 2009

(12 U.S.C. § 5231a) provided $15 million in no-year appropriations to SIGTARP for the purpose 

of providing oversight to PPIP and the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility. SIGTARP 

does not plan PPIP or TALF activity in FY 2020 and FY 2021. SIGTARP is requesting that 

these PPIP funds be made available to also support SIGTARP’s oversight of ongoing TARP 

programs. This proposed language is identical to that included in the FY 2018 enacted 

appropriation.

Proposed Language 

Section 124

Notwithstanding paragraph (2) of section 402(c) of the Helping Families Save their Homes Act of 

2009, in utilizing funds made available by paragraph (1) of section 402(c) of such Act, the Special 

Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program shall prioritize the performance of audits 

or investigations of any program that is funded in whole or in part by funds appropriated under the 

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, to the extent that such priority is consistent with 

other aspects of the mission of the Special Inspector General.
SIGTARP - 10

Section II – Annual Performance Plan and Report

A – Strategic Alignment

The Investigation Division budget supports SIGTARP’s priority of law enforcement of crimes 

and civil violations of the law related to TARP, and the Audit Division budget activity supports 

SIGTARP as the independent watchdog over TARP dollars and programs. 

SIGTARP’s activities and goals of justice, impact, innovation, and stewardship support and 

complement Treasury’s FY 2018 – 2022 Strategic Plan goals: (1) boost U.S. economic growth

by investigating anti-competitive practices; (2) promote financial stability; (3) enhance national 

security by investigating money laundering; (4) transform government-wide financial 

stewardship; and (5) achieve operational excellence. 

All of SIGTARP’s work aligns with Treasury’s strategic goal to promote financial stability given 

that all TARP programs are designed to promote financial stability. Fraud, waste, and abuse 

erode that goal. All of SIGTARP’s planned work for FY 2021 also aligns with Treasury’s 

Strategic Plan goal (4) “Transform Government-wide Financial Stewardship” by winding down 

sunsetting programs responsibility and funding the government at the least cost over time. 

Fraud, waste, and abuse are costly for taxpayers. SIGTARP’s efficiency and high return on 

investment also aligns with Treasury’s strategic goal to achieve operational excellence

SIGTARP’s audit and investigative goals and priorities are driven by independently-identified 

TARP threats and findings of fraud, waste, and abuse. SIGTARP’s goals through 2023 are: 

• Justice - protect Americans through law enforcement’s fight against TARP-related crime; 

• Impact - assess, understand, and counter the most serious risks, threats, and challenges to 

TARP; 

• Innovation - expand the use of technology, virtual information sharing, and data analytics to 

increase the expedited identification of TARP-related crime, fraud, waste and abuse; and 

• Stewardship - ensure TARP programs and oversight proceed responsibly and transparently. 

Justice: As a law enforcement office with 85 percent of its resources focused on criminal 

investigations, SIGTARP strives to bring justice, accountability, and deterrence in the fight 

against TARP-related crimes, including major financial crimes and money laundering. This past 

year SIGTARP continued to support prosecutions of defendants SIGTARP investigated. 

SIGTARP’s cumulative law enforcement record includes 430 defendants charged with crimes, 

and law enforcement actions against 24 corporations/organizations. SIGTARP achieved justice 

when, in FY 2019, 4 defendants were arrested, 13 defendants were indicted or criminally 

charged by information, 18 defendants were convicted, and courts sentenced to prison 28

defendants. For example, in FY 2019, courts sentenced four defendants for their part in a wideranging investigation into narcotics trafficking and international money laundering that included 

money laundering at a TARP bank. SIGTARP has one of the highest conviction rates in the 

federal government, a DOJ conviction rate of 97 percent, achieving operational excellence. 

Alignment: Treasury Goals (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5).

Impact: SIGTARP analyzes risks from the most serious and imminent threats to TARP. 

SIGTARP prioritizes its resources and conducts confidential investigations to combat serious 
SIGTARP - 11

threats, the largest of which SIGTARP believes is potential wrongdoing by the more than 130 

financial institutions that continue to receive billions of TARP dollars in the MHA program, 

including some of the nation’s largest. Criminal and civil violations of the law by these financial 

institutions directly lead to foreclosures of homeowners.

SIGTARP’s investigations into corruption into the HHF blight demolition program impact 

competition in, and the integrity of, this federally funded program. In FY 2019, SIGTARP’s 

investigations resulted in the conviction and prison sentencing of the Detroit city official in 

charge of contracts for HHF’s blight demolition program. SIGTARP’s investigations also 

resulted in the conviction for bribery of an official from one of the largest demolition contractors 

in the HHF program in Detroit. SIGTARP’s investigations also resulted in the indictment of a 

land bank official in the HHF program in Ohio on one count of conspiracy to commit bribery and 

honest services fraud, three counts of honest services wire fraud and one count of bribery. 

SIGTARP achieves operational excellence by leveraging task forces and other partnerships to 

reduce the number of personnel assigned to each case. Alignment: Treasury Goals (1), (2), (4), 

and (5).

Innovation: SIGTARP achieved an unparalleled record of criminal charges against more than 

100 bankers through innovation. SIGTARP developed an intelligence-based method to find 

crime in banks proactively without waiting for a whistleblower. SIGTARP is deploying similar 

techniques to find crime proactively in the housing, foreclosure, and demolition industries. By 

expanding the use of technology, virtual information sharing using central repositories of 

information, and data analytics, SIGTARP can expedite its identification of crime, fraud, waste, 

and abuse in MHA and HHF. Alignment: Treasury Goals (2), (4) and (5).

Stewardship: SIGTARP stands as the independent watchdog for Americans, ensuring that TARP 

programs operate and spend responsibly. In FY 2019, SIGTARP auditors uncovered that state 

agencies in the Hardest Hit Fund had spent more than $411,000 on travel and conference costs 

that violated federal cost regulations. SIGTARP also uncovered more than $437,000 in HHF 

mortgage assistance to California homeowners who had lost eligibility for the program. 

SIGTARP also acts as a good steward of taxpayer dollars. SIGTARP reduces its operating

budget each year. Additionally, SIGTARP seeks to recover dollars lost to fraud, waste, and 

abuse for taxpayers and other victims. Every year, recoveries far exceed SIGTARP’s budget. 

FY 2019 recoveries were $899.2 million, a 39x annual ROI from its $23 million appropriation. 

SIGTARP has achieved a 31x lifetime ROI. Alignment: Treasury Goals (4) and (5).
SIGTARP - 12

B – Budget and Performance by Budget Activity

2.1.1 – Investigations Resources and Measures

Dollars in Thousands

The FY 2015 - FY 2019 appropriated resources represents the approved operating plan. The FY 2015 - FY 2019 columns represent realized 

resources for full-time equivalents, reimbursables, and user fees.

Investigations Budget and Performance

($15,050,000 from discretionary appropriations, $11,750,000 from other resources)

SIGTARP exceeded all metric targets in FY 2019. The “Percentage of Cases Accepted for 

Consideration by Civil or Criminal Authorities Resulting in a Positive Final Outcome” in 

FY 2019 was 77 percent, which exceeded the target of 70 percent. Typically, the positive final 

outcome is indictment and criminal conviction of individual defendants. Appropriate case 

selection and effective field performance continue to increase the number of cases resulting in 

convictions. SIGTARP’s rate of conviction for cases prosecuted by DOJ is 97 percent, one of the 

highest in federal law enforcement. This is a strong indicator of investigative quality. As an 

investigative agency, SIGTARP must depend on DOJ’s ability to accept its cases for prosecution 

and to move such cases through the courts. SIGTARP will continue to coordinate with the U.S. 

Attorney Offices and DOJ’s Criminal and Civil Divisions on prosecutorial priorities and on the 

appropriate movement of pipeline investigations to ensure a positive final outcome.

The “Percentage of Cases Presented to Civil or Criminal Authorities within Eight Months of the 

Case Being Opened” was 75 percent, which exceeded the target of 70 percent. The “Percentage 

of Cases that are Joint Agency/Task Force Investigations” with other law enforcement agencies 

was 76 percent, which exceeded the target of 70 percent. Both of these measures recognize that 

as SIGTARP reduces spending and staffing, it must act with efficiency, in its investigative 

timeline, and in leveraging other law enforcement partnerships for resources.

FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021

Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Enacted Request

Appropriated Resources $27,295 $32,478 $32,103 $28,855 $19,550 $18,920 $15,050

Other Resources $6,354 $376 $82 $1,311 $14,412 $12,392 $11,750

Budget Activity Total $33,649 $32,854 $32,185 $30,166 $33,962 $31,312 $26,800

115 103 114 106 87 75 72

FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021

Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Target Target Target

Percentage of Cases Accepted 

for Consideration by Civil or 

Criminal Authorities Resulting 

in a Positive Final Outcome

N/A 77 81 79 77 70 60 35

Percentage of Cases Presented 

to Civil or Criminal Authorities 

within Eight Months of Being 

Opened

N/A 80 80 85 75 70 50 25

Precentage of Cases That are 

Joint Agency/Task Force 

Investigations

70 71 75 78 76 70 70 70

 Resource Level

Full-time Equivalents (FTE)

Performance Measure
SIGTARP - 13

2.1.2 – Audit Resources and Measures

Dollars in Thousands

The FY 2015 - FY 2019 appropriated resources represents the approved operating plan. The FY 2015 - FY 2019 columns represent realized 

resources for full-time equivalents, reimbursables, and user fees.

Audit Budget and Performance

($2,450,000 from discretionary appropriations, $2,250,000 from other resources)

SIGTARP exceeded its FY 2019 audit performance target of three for the “Number of 

Completed Audit Products Identifying Waste, Abuse, Mismanagement, Inefficiencies, or 

Referrals to Investigations Division,” with four products. SIGTARP auditors questioned more 

than $860,000 in costs. In one audit, SIGTARP auditors uncovered more than $411,000 that 

state agencies in HHF spent on travel and conference costs that violated federal cost regulations, 

some of which also constituted waste. In another evaluation, SIGTARP made recommendations 

to mitigate the risk of asbestos and lead exposure in the HHF blight program. In another letter, 

SIGTARP recommended fraud controls after SIGTARP learned that homeowners received more 

than $437,000 in Hardest Hit Fund mortgage assistance after becoming ineligible for the 

program. SIGTARP auditors also made a referral to SIGTARP’s Investigations Division.

D– Evidence-Building Activity

In FY 2019, SIGTARP engaged in the following evidence-building activities:

• Linked spending to program outputs by analyzing SIGTARP’s annual return on investment 

(31 x for FY 2019) by comparing actual dollars recovered annually ($899 million in FY

2019) compared to appropriations ($23 million in FY 2019); 

• Determined short term and long term questions about how SIGTARP’s audits encourage 

Hardest Hit Fund grant-like recipients to implement practices to support stronger 

performance, efficiency, and to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse;

• Determined short term and long term questions about the factors that positively lead to 

prosecutions of SIGTARP investigations;

• Engaged stakeholder state agencies in the Hardest Hit Fund to learn how their demographic 

and economic forecasts have changed the demand for HHF dollars, and have shifted the 

dollars from one HHF subprogram to others with higher demand;

• Engaged stakeholder Treasury to determine status of TARP programs and to understand its 

oversight and management of TARP; 

• Engaged stakeholders at DOJ, U.S. Attorney’s offices, the Securities Exchange Commission, 

and state and local prosecutors to discuss their priorities and requirements for prosecution or 

civil charges;

FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021

Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Enacted Request

Appropriated Resources $6,824 $7,618 $7,530 $5,092 $3,450 $3,080 $2,450

Other Resources $1,069 $99 0 $231 0 0 0

Budget Activity Total $7,893 $7,717 $7,530 $5,323 $3,450 $3,080 $2,450

35 34 27 25 9 10 8

FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021

Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Target Target Target

Number of Completed Audit 

Products Identifying Waist, 

Abuse, Mismanagement, 

Inefficienceis, or Referrals to 

Investigations Division (units)

N/A N/A N/A 6 4 3 2 2

 Resource Level

Full-time Equivalents (FTE)

Performance Measure
SIGTARP - 14

• Engaged the public through efforts to increase public contacts to SIGTARP’s hotline;

• Undertook data analysis related to TARP recipients blight demolition program partners and 

contractors in the Hardest Hit Fund to inform SIGTARP’s efforts in prioritizing SIGTARP 

resources;

• Undertook data analysis of homeowner data in the HAMP program to inform SIGTARP’s 

investigative efforts; and

• Undertook program evaluation of the Hardest Hit Fund blight demolition program in South 

Carolina in FY 2019, and began program evaluation of the program in Detroit, Michigan in 

FY 2019, which will continue in FY 2020.

Section III – Additional Information

A – Summary of Capital Investments

SIGTARP has no capital investments. Capital investments that support SIGTARP are included in 

the Departmental Offices’ plan. A summary of capital investments, including major information 

technology and non-technology investments, can be accessed at: 

https://www.treasury.gov/about/budget-performance/Pages/summary-of-capitalinvestments.aspx.