Office of the Special Inspector 

General for TARP 

(SIGTARP) 

Congressional Budget 

Justification and Annual 

Performance Plan and Report 

FY 2022 
SIGTARP - 2 

Table of Contents

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

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

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

SIGTARP Audit .......................................................................................................................... 6

1.1 – Appropriations Detail Table .......................................................................................... 7

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

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

1.3 – Object Classification (Schedule O) Obligations ................................................................ 9

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

E – Hiring Authority Proposal .................................................................................................. 10

Section II – Annual Performance Plan and Report ................................................................. 11

A – Strategic Alignment ........................................................................................................... 11

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) 

was established by section 121 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) 

(P.L. 110-343). The mission of SIGTARP is to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in the 

more than $442 billion in funds from the EESA and $2 billion in funds from the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2016, and to promote economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and 

accountability in these economic stability programs. EESA programs have included bank 

investments programs, assistance to AIG and the auto industry, and housing programs intended 

to bring economic stability by preventing avoidable foreclosures, keeping people in their homes, 

and neighborhood stabilization. Under the largest ongoing housing program, Making Home 

Affordable, Treasury continues to provide incentive payments to borrowers, investors, and 

mortgage servicers – including more than 150 financial institutions – for permanently lowering 

mortgage payments to terms that are affordable and sustainable for homeowners at risk of 

foreclosure. In addition, through the Hardest Hit Fund, state housing finance agencies have 

developed locally tailored foreclosure prevention solutions in areas hard-hit by the financial 

crisis. In 2016, an additional $2 billion was allocated to participating HHF states to continue 

foreclosure prevention and neighborhood stabilization efforts, which includes for homeowners 

who are unemployed, underemployed, or suffering other hardships due to the COVID-19 

pandemic.

SIGTARP received an initial appropriation of $50 million in permanent, indefinite budget 

authority in EESA. The Public-Private Investment Program Improvement and Oversight Act of 

2009 (12 U.S.C. 5231a) provided $15 million in supplemental funding. Since 2010, SIGTARP 

has received annual appropriations to fund its operations. 

B – Summary of the Request 

The Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 Budget proposes $17 million, a reduction of 10.5 percent from the 

FY 2021 enacted level of $19 million. It also reflects a reduction of 59 percent from the FY 

2017 enacted level. The proposed budget is intended to fund Congressionally mandated 

independent oversight of EESA programs through SIGTARP criminal and civil investigations 

and independent audits. SIGTARP prioritizes investigations and audits of MHA’s Home 

Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) (which has 664,644 homeowners participating as of 

March 17, 2021) and the Hardest Hit Fund. In April 2020, SIGTARP recommended that 

Treasury shift HHF to address the pandemic and shift available EESA funding to HHF 

unemployment mortgage assistance programs. Treasury has been implementing this 

recommendation. In April 2020, Treasury extended HHF, citing employment hardships caused 

by the pandemic. 

 

SIGTARP’s work has led to recoveries for the government and other victims of $11.2 billion – a 

30 times cumulative return on investment (ROI) from SIGTARP’s annual budgets. Every year, 

the Government and other victims recover dollars that exceed SIGTARP’s enacted level. 

Recoveries to date in FY 2021 are $87 million, exceeding SIGTARP’s $19 million enacted level 

by more than four times. FY 2020 recoveries were $157.3 million, exceeding SIGTARP’s $22 

million enacted level by more than seven times. 
SIGTARP - 4 

SIGTARP Investigations

SIGTARP is a law enforcement office as Congress provided SIGTARP the authority to search, 

seize and arrest. SIGTARP’s law enforcement work has resulted in criminal charges against 456 

defendants. SIGTARP has a 97% Department of Justice (DOJ) conviction rate. Courts have 

already sentenced 306 of these defendants to prison including 74 bankers. Other convicted 

defendants await sentencing. SIGTARP’s investigations also resulted in enforcement actions by 

DOJ, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and others against 25 entities (including 

large Wall Street institutions). 

SIGTARP Investigations Related to HAMP 

SIGTARP continues its long-standing record of holding financial institutions accountable, with 

the top law enforcement priority to bring justice to unlawful conduct by financial institutions in 

HAMP. As with all investigations, SIGTARP’s investigations are backwards-looking, 

investigating past conduct and spending. SIGTARP has a number of open confidential 

investigations. SIGTARP has referred some of these investigations to DOJ. SIGTARP 

continues to work HAMP investigations cases with DOJ, other prosecutors, and regulatory 

enforcement divisions. 

In December 2020, SIGTARP’s investigation of Nationstar resulted in an $86.3 million 

enforcement action by 51 state Attorney Generals, 53 state financial regulators, and the 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for violating consumer protection laws and harming 

40,000 homeowners, including in HAMP, during the time period of 2012-2016. The 

investigation found that Nationstar conducted improper foreclosures, improper escrow practices, 

and improperly increased monthly payments, among other violations. Treasury distributed $1.7 

billion to Nationstar in HAMP mortgage servicer, investor, and borrower incentives ($117.7 

million in FY 2020-21), making it the third largest current HAMP institution. 

Recent HAMP activity and spending adds to SIGTARP’s existing case load. In FY 2020-2021, 

Treasury distributed $919.5 million in incentive payments under HAMP for mortgage servicers, 

investors, and borrowers. Treasury sends the distributions to the mortgage servicer, including 

banks (i.e. $91.7 million to Wells Fargo, $51.4 million to JP Morgan Chase, $49.4 million to 

Bank of America, and $17.7 million to Citigroup), and non-banks (i.e. $233.6 million to Ocwen 

Financial, $117.7 million to Nationstar). 

SIGTARP also investigated and supported the prosecution of 121 convicted scammers who 

victimized nearly 31,000 homeowners seeking foreclosure relief through HAMP. For example, 

in August 2020, a Federal court sentenced the two owners of U.S. Homeowners Relief to 12 

years and 5 years in prison for a nationwide $3.5 million fraud scheme targeting more than 250 

homeowners seeking loan modifications, including through HAMP. The company’s marketing 

materials implied they were affiliated with HAMP’s umbrella program the Making Home 

Affordable Program, made specific reference to the government website, and displayed official 

government logos. 

 
SIGTARP - 5 

SIGTARP’s Investigations Related to the Hardest Hit Fund 

SIGTARP also investigates corruption, fraud, and environmental/safety crimes such as illegal 

dumping, asbestos exposure, or contaminated dirt in demolitions of blighted properties under 

HHF. Public results from SIGTARP’s corruption investigations in HHF blight include: 

 In FY 2019, the Detroit city official in charge of demolition bids for HHF was sentenced to 

prison after his conviction for bribery conspiracy and fraud related to HHF contracts. 

 In FY 2019, a senior official from one of the largest Detroit HHF blight contractors was 

sentenced to prison after his conviction to commit fraud by taking bribes and kickbacks from 

a subcontractor related to demolition contracts, including in HHF. 

 In FY 2019, DOJ resolved False Claims Act violations against a contractor in Fort Wayne, 

Indiana who the city had awarded all its HHF blight contracts. Instead of filling postdemolition excavation sites with clean fill dirt as required, the contractor filled the holes with 

construction debris and then falsely billed HHF. 

 In FY 2020, the head of a major Detroit asbestos abatement subcontractor, and the 

subcontractor itself, was barred for 20 years from contracts in Detroit for paying bribes for 

HHF contracts. 

 In FY 2020, SIGTARP agents arrested an Illinois contractor charged with fraud in HHF 

demolitions in Hammond, Indiana. The Department of Justice charged the contractor with 

failing to dispose of demolition debris properly, and allegedly disposing of the demolition 

debris in unknown locations enabling him to avoid the registered facility fee. According to 

the indictment, the contractor allegedly submitted false disposal, dumping, and clean fill dirt 

documentation. 

 In FY 2020, SIGTARP agents arrested an Indiana contractor who the Department of Justice 

charged with submitting false documents for HHF demolitions stating that he properly 

disposed of demolition debris. The indictment alleges that the contractor improperly disposed 

of demolition debris on-site in Logansport, Indiana. 

 In FY 2021, an asbestos abatement contractor who allegedly was chosen as a subcontractor 

in Detroit demolitions was criminally charged by the Michigan Attorney General for bribery, 

false pretenses, and money laundering, including charges related to public health laws for 

asbestos removal. 

 In FY 2021, a Cleveland, Ohio land bank official was sentenced for lying to federal agents, 

including a SIGTARP agent, who were conducting an investigation about work by a 

demolition contractor awarded HHF contracts on the official’s house, for which work the 

official did not pay. 

 In FY 2021, an investigation into contractors conducting demolitions in Detroit resulted in 

the Detroit Inspector General finding that four contractors used unapproved dirt from I-94 as 

backfill. 

SIGTARP also investigates HHF mortgage assistance recipients for fraud and works with DOJ 

or state and local prosecutors to hold these defendants accountable and recover dollars lost to 

fraud. In FY 2020-21, defendants prosecuted defrauded HHF in California, Indiana, Illinois, 

Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, and South Carolina. 

SIGTARP Investigations Related to EESA Investment Programs 

SIGTARP continues to support criminal prosecutions by the Department of Justice of defendants 

that SIGTARP investigated. SIGTARP’s investigations have resulted in criminal prosecutions of 
SIGTARP - 6 

107 bankers and 100 of their co-conspirators. Courts sentenced 74 of the bankers to prison, 

along with 67 of their co-conspirators. Criminal prosecutions take time, and SIGTARP does not 

control the pace of DOJ prosecutions. Despite delays in prosecutions related to the pandemic, in 

FY 2020-21, SIGTARP has seen progress in several high-profile prosecutions in cases that have 

lasted many years, including: 

 7-year 3-month prison sentence for a Mexican national involved in a criminal enterprise to 

launder international narcotics trafficking proceeds including for the Sinaloa drug cartel 

through Saigon Bank while the bank was in TARP, in Operation Phantom Bank that charged 

25 defendants. 

 2-year prison sentence for CEO of failed TARP bank Cecil Bank in Maryland for fraud 

conspiracy and bribery that included lying to the bank’s board and a Federal Reserve 

examiner. Treasury wrote off more than $10 million in TARP when the bank filed 

bankruptcy. 

 Home confinement sentence for supervisory trader at Nomura Securities convicted of 

conspiracy to commit securities fraud in residential mortgage backed securities, including 

through EESA’s PPIP program, that caused more than $15 million in losses. The SEC also 

brought charges against this trader, others, and Nomura (who repaid $25 million to 

customers). 

SIGTARP Audit 

SIGTARP audits promote transparency, effectiveness, and efficiency, identify waste, abuse, and 

mismanagement, and prevent future fraud, waste, and abuse, in HAMP and HHF. For example: 

 SIGTARP audits identified obstacles and roadblocks to homeowners timely receiving 

assistance and made recommendations to speed assistance. 

 SIGTARP identified mismanagement by the Georgia HHF agency who had the lowest 

admission rate of any state agency in HHF, with the agency turning away two-thirds of all 

applicants and made recommendations that resulted in an increase in homeowners receiving 

assistance. 

 SIGTARP audits identified $11 million in waste, abuse, and questioned costs by HHF state 

agencies, including a Mercedes Benz, a motivational speaker who spoke about “Motivation 

by Chocolate,” holiday parties, picnics, celebratory dinners, employee gifts, employee gym 

memberships, flowers, gift cards, conferences at resorts, etc. State agency employees were 

the first recipients of the $2 billion that Congress provided HHF in 2016. One state agency 

paid for an employee lunch, “to celebrate getting new HHF funds and an employee’s 

upcoming wedding.” Another state agency threw catered barbeques, inviting 50, 60, and 90 

people, charging it to HHF. 

 SIGTARP identified abuse of HHF blight demolition program when it was used to demolish 

lived-in houses on the desired relocation site of a car dealership. 

 SIGTARP identified risks in the HHF blight demolition program of illegal dumping, 

contaminated dirt, and exposure to asbestos. 

SIGTARP’s work ensures that programs are operating effectively and efficiently, that EESA 

dollars are used as Congress intended, and that the government does not pay more for EESA than 

is necessary. 
SIGTARP - 7 

1.1 – Appropriations Detail Table 

Dollars in Thousands 

 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2021 to FY 2022 

Appropriated Resources Operating Plan Operating Plan Request % Change 

New Appropriated Resources FTE AMOUNT FTE AMOUNT FTE AMOUNT FTE AMOUNT 

Investigations 72 $18,920 65 $16,550 59 $14,485 -9.2% -12.5% 

Audit 8 $3,080 9 $2,450 9 $2,515 0.0% 2.7% 

Subtotal New Appropriated Resources 80 $22,000 74 $19,000 68 $17,000 -8.1% -10.5% 

Other Resources 

Unobligated Balances from Prior Years 0 $1,000 0 $0 0 $0 NA NA 

Subtotal Other Resources 0 $1,000 0 $0 0 $0 NA NA 

Total Budgetary Resources 80 23,000 74 $19,000 68 $17,000 -8.1% -10.5% 

FY 2020 Other Resources and Full-time Equivalents (FTE) reflect actuals. 

1.2 – Budget Adjustments Table 

Dollars in Thousands 

 FTE Amount 

FY 2021 Operating Plan 80 $19,000 

Changes to Base: 

Maintaining Current Levels (MCLs): 0 $544 

Pay Annualization (1.0% average pay raise) 0 $39 

Pay Raise (2.7% average pay raise) 0 $313 

FERS Contribution Increase 0 $120 

Non-Pay 0 $72 

Subtotal Changes to Base 0 $544 

FY 2022 Current Services 80 $19,544 

Program Changes: 

Program Decreases (12) ($2,544) 

Staff Reduction (12) ($2,298) 

Efficiency Savings 0 ($246) 

FY 2022 President's Budget Request 68 $17,000 

C – Budget Increases and Decreases Description 

Maintaining Current Levels (MCLs) .......................................................... +$544,000 / +0 FTE 

Pay Annualization (1.0%) +$39,000 / +0 FTE 

Funds are requested for annualization of the January 2020 1.0% average pay raise. 

Pay Raise (2.7% in 2022) +$313,000 / +0 FTE 

Funds are requested for a 2.7% average pay raise for January 2022. 

FERS Contribution Increase +$120,000 / +0 FTE 

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

effective FY 2022. 

 
SIGTARP - 8 

Non-Pay +$72,000 / +0 FTE 

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

and equipment. 

Program Decreases .................................................................................... -$2,544,000 / -12 FTE 

Staff Reduction -$2,298,000 / -12 FTE 

Reduction in SIGTARP staff levels to 68 FTE. The reduction of FTE is part of responsible 

planning towards SIGTARP’s sunset. 

Efficiency Savings -$246,000/ -0 FTE 

Effect of reduction of FTE on Non-Personnel costs (training, travel, support services, etc.) 

Other adjustment (not reflected in table)

Realignment from Annual to No-Year -$3,000,000/ -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 has decreased its footprint, with ~51 percent reduction in square foot entering 

FY 2022. 

 In FY 2018, SIGTARP eliminated 50 percent of its Washington, D.C. headquarters annual 

rent expenses. 

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

 In FY 2020, SIGTARP decreased rent under Treasury lease for the New York office ≈ 43 

percent reduction from $90K to $51K per year. 

 At the end of FY 2021, SIGTARP will close its Atlanta office eliminating 100 percent of the 

Atlanta rent expense. 

 SIGTARP reduced fleet-related expenses by 40 percent since FY 2014, with another 10 

percent reduction planned for FY 2022. 

 In FY 2022, over $6 million of the proposed budget (35 percent) will be spent on goods and 

services from the government, more than 90 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. 

 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. 
SIGTARP - 9 

1.3 – Object Classification (Schedule O) Obligations 

Dollars in Thousands FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 

Object Classification 

Actual 

Obligations 

Estimated 

Obligations 

Estimated 

Obligations 

11.1 - Full-time permanent 9,278 6,313 5,514 

11.3 - Other than full-time permanent 1,725 700 700 

11.5 - Other personnel compensation 1,036 500 800 

11.9 - Personnel Compensation (Total) 12,039 7,513 7,014 

12.0 - Personnel benefits 3,391 3,411 2,174 

Total Personnel and Compensation Benefits $15,430 $10,924 $9,188 

21.0 - Travel and transportation of persons 115 117 150 

23.1 - Rental payments to GSA 109 100 100 

23.3 - Communications, utilities, and miscellaneous charges 13 12 12 

25.1 - Advisory and assistance services 283 175 150 

25.2 - Other services from non-Federal sources 21 16 15 

25.3 - Other goods and services from Federal sources 6,778 7,450 7,180 

25.6 - Medical care 55 35 30 

25.7 - Operation and maintenance of equipment 20 15 15 

26.0 - Supplies and materials 176 156 160 

Total Non-Personnel $7,570 $8,076 $7,812 

Total Obligations $23,000 $19,000 $17,000 

 

Full-time Equivalents (FTE) 80 74 68 

Amounts reflect obligations of annually appropriated resources, carryover balances, reimbursables, and 

transfers. 

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), [$19,000,000] $17,000,000. 

(Depart of the Treasury Appropriations Act, 2021.)
SIGTARP - 10 

E – Hiring Authority Proposal 

Hiring Authority Similar to Other Special IG’s 

SIGTARP is requesting additional special hiring authority to enable SIGTARP to backfill critical 

vacancies with qualified personnel. This authority is similar to the special authority available to 

the Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), another 

special inspector general, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3161. 

Proposed Language 

‘Sec. _________ 

Section 121 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5231) is amended 

in subsection (e)(1)(B)(ii) by striking “subparagraph” and all that follows through the period at 

the end and inserting “subparagraph, the Special Inspector General may not make any 

appointment that exceeds 24 months or that extends beyond the date on which the Special 

Inspector General terminates under subsection (k).”.’
SIGTARP - 11 

Section II – Annual Performance Plan and Report 

A – Strategic Alignment 

The Investigations activity supports SIGTARP’s priority of law enforcement of crimes and civil 

violations of the law related to EESA, and the Audit activity supports SIGTARP’s independent 

audits of EESA. 

In accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act 

(GPRAMA) of 2010, the Department of the Treasury is currently developing the FY 2022 – 

2026 Departmental Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan is scheduled for publication in 2022. The 

Annual Performance Plan will be updated in the FY 2023 President’s Budget to reflect new 

departmental strategic goals and objectives. 

SIGTARP’s goals through 2024 are: 

 Justice - protect Americans through law enforcement’s fight against EESA-related crime. 

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

EESA. 

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

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

 Stewardship - ensure EESA programs and oversight proceed responsibly and transparently. 

Justice: As a law enforcement office with 86 percent of its resources focused on criminal 

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

against EESA-related crimes. SIGTARP has a high DOJ conviction rate of 97 percent. 

SIGTARP’s law enforcement results are 456 defendants charged with crimes, and law 

enforcement actions against 25 corporations/organizations. SIGTARP has investigated bankers 

and banks that led to DOJ and state criminal prosecutions of more than 100 bankers (including 

74 sentenced to prison) and 100 of their co-conspirators; and civil actions by DOJ, the Securities 

and Exchange Commission and bank regulators against individuals and banks. SIGTARP caught 

and investigated 121 foreclosure rescue scammers who were convicted after DOJ prosecutions. 

These scammers victimized nearly 31,000 homeowners seeking foreclosure relief through 

HAMP. 

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

SIGTARP prioritizes its resources and conducts confidential investigations to combat serious 

threats, the largest of which SIGTARP believes is potential wrongdoing by the more than 150 

financial institutions in HAMP. Criminal and civil violations of the law by these financial 

institutions directly lead to foreclosures and other harm to homeowners. SIGTARP’s 

investigations into corruption into the HHF blight demolition program impact competition in, 

and the integrity of, this federally funded program. SIGTARP’s investigations into illegal 

dumping, contaminated dirt, and the exposure of asbestos or other hazardous materials impact 

the integrity of this federally funded program and the health, safety, and environment of the 

communities this program was intended to help. 

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

100 bankers through innovation. SIGTARP developed an intelligence-based method to find 
SIGTARP - 12 

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

techniques to find and investigate 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 HAMP and HHF. 

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

programs operate and spend responsibly. SIGTARP investigators uncover costly fraud and other 

crimes. SIGTARP auditors uncovered $11 million in waste, abuse and questioned costs. 

SIGTARP leverages task forces and other partnerships to reduce its number of personnel. 

SIGTARP reduces its operating budget each year. Additionally, SIGTARP seeks to recover 

dollars lost to fraud, waste, and abuse for taxpayers and other victims, with SIGTARP achieving 

a lifetime return on investment (ROI) of 30 times its annual budget. Every year, recoveries 

exceed SIGTARP’s budget. 

 

B – Budget and Performance by Budget Activity 

2.1.1 – Investigations Resources and Measures 

Dollars in Thousands FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 

 Resource Level Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Operating 

Plan Request 

Appropriated Resources $32,478 $32,103 $28,855 $19,550 $18,920 $16,550 $14,485 

Other Resources $376 $82 $1,311 $1,000 $1,000 $3,000 $3,000 

Budget Activity Total $32,854 $32,185 $30,166 $20,550 $19,920 $19,550 $17,485 

Full-time Equivalents (FTE) 103 114 106 87 72 65 59 

 

Performance Measure 

FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 

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 

77 81 79 77 77 60 70 70 

Percentage of Cases Presented 

to Civil or Criminal 

Authorities within Eight 

Months of Being Opened 

80 80 85 75 75 50 65 65 

Percentage of Cases That are 

Joint Agency/Task Force 

Investigations 

71 75 78 76 86 70 70 70 

Investigations Budget and Performance

($14,485,000 from discretionary appropriations, $3,000,000 from other resources) 

SIGTARP exceeded all metric targets in FY 2020. The “Percentage of Cases Accepted for 

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

FY 2020 was 77 percent, which exceeded the target of 60 percent. Typically, the positive 

outcome is indictment and criminal conviction of individual defendants, with a high 97 percent 

DOJ conviction rate, and enforcement actions against 25 entities. As an investigative agency, 

SIGTARP must depend on DOJ’s and other prosecutors’ ability to accept its cases for 

prosecution. 
SIGTARP - 13 

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 measures recognize that as 

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

timeline, and leverage other law enforcement partnership resources. 

2.1.2 – Audit Resources and Measures 

Dollars in Thousands FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 

 Resource Level Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Operating 

Plan Request 

Appropriated Resources $7,618 $7,530 $5,092 $3,450 $3,080 $2,450 $2,515 

Other Resource $99 0 $231 0 0 0 0 

Budget Activity Total $7,717 $7,530 $5,323 $3,450 $3,080 $2,450 $2,515 

Full-time Equivalents (FTE) 34 27 25 9 8 9 9 

 

Performance Measure 

FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 

Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Target Target Target 

Number of Completed Audit 

Products Identifying Waist, 

Abuse, Mismanagement, 

Inefficiencies, or Referrals to 

Investigations Division (units) 

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

 

Audit Budget and Performance

($2,515,000 from discretionary appropriations) 

SIGTARP exceeded its FY 2020 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. This included SIGTARP’s 

recommendations to shift HHF to address hardships caused by the pandemic, including 

unemployment. 

D – Evidence-Building Activity 

In FY 2020, SIGTARP engaged in the following evidence-building activities: 

 Linked spending to program outputs by maintaining recoveries that exceed SIGTARP’s 

enacted levels, resulting in a positive annual ROI. 

 Determined short term and long-term questions about how SIGTARP’s audits and 

recommendations improve program effectiveness, efficiency, and prevent fraud, waste, and 

abuse. 

 Determined short term and long-term questions to ensure successful prosecutions in 

SIGTARP investigations. 

 Engaged stakeholder state agencies in the HHF to understand the demands to use HHF for 

pandemic-related unemployment and other hardships. 

 Engaged Treasury stakeholders to determine their extension of HHF and allowing changes in 

the program to address pandemic-related unemployment and other hardships. 

 Engaged law enforcement stakeholders to understand their priorities and requirements for 

criminal and civil prosecutions. 

 Engaged the public through SIGTARP’s hotline. 

 Undertook data analysis related to Hardest Hit Fund to target SIGTARP’s investigative 

efforts. 
SIGTARP - 14 

 Undertook data analysis related to HAMP to target SIGTARP’s investigative efforts.

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. This website also contains a digital copy of this document.