DOJ’s Civil Rights Division (Division) was established in 1957 to enforce federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender preference, disability, religion, and national origin. The Division’s enforcement responsibilities include enforcing antidiscrimination protections in education, employment, credit, housing, public accommodations and facilities, voting, and certain federally funded and conducted programs. The Division has three significant goals: (1) to fulfill the promise of basic civil-rights protections through effective and vigorous enforcement of the law; (2) to deter and remedy discriminatory and illegal conduct through the successful prosecution of these federal laws; and (3) to promote voluntary compliance and civil-rights protection through a variety of educational, technical-assistance, and outreach programs. To fulfill these goals, Division employees are required to travel to investigate potential discrimination, and pursue litigation in court where appropriate. Division employees also travel to engage in community outreach and education, and for training, conference, or administrative purposes. The Division comprises 11 sections, as shown in figure 1 below, all of which are stationed in Washington, D.C. Because of this, nearly all Division attorneys and, occasionally, some nonattorney personnel are required to travel since litigation activities occur in all parts of the United States. The Division spent a combined total of $6 million on travel in fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013 as shown in table 1 below. Travel made up approximately 2 percent of the Division budget in fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013. In 1991, the Division established a fair-housing testing program within its Housing and Civil Enforcement Section and commenced testing in 1992. Housing testing involves sending individuals who pose as prospective buyers or renters of real estate to gather information that can indicate whether a housing provider is complying with fair-housing laws. The primary focus of the section's fair-housing testing program has been to identify housing discrimination based on race, national origin, disability, or familial status. Under the Fair Housing Act, DOJ may initiate a lawsuit where it has reason to believe that a person or entity is engaged in a “pattern or practice” of discrimination or where a denial of rights to a group of persons raises an issue of general public importance. The section employs various means to accomplish testing in local communities, including contracts with private fair-housing organizations, contracts with individuals, and by using nonattorney DOJ employees throughout the country. The majority of fair-housing testing cases filed in court are based on testing evidence that involved allegations of agents misrepresenting the availability of rental units or offering different terms and conditions based on race, national origin, familial status, or disability. DOJ also uses the testing program to test for discrimination in lending and public accommodations. Most federal government travel is regulated by the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) issued by GSA. The FTR implements statutory requirements and executive branch policies that applicable federal entities must follow, including the general principle that employees traveling on official government business exercise the same care in incurring expenses that a prudent person would exercise if traveling on personal business. In addition to the FTR, DOJ has issued its own travel policies, supplements, and bulletins to further describe and implement the specific travel requirements for the agency. Division employees are issued government travel charge cards through J.P. Morgan Chase and are to use them for all costs associated with government travel, including airfare, hotel rooms, food, and other miscellaneous expenses. The travel charge cards are issued directly to employees, and the cardholder holds all liability for any charges made to the travel card. Employees are expected to pay the card balance in full at the time it is due. There is no interest assessed on unpaid balances but cardholders may be charged a late fee. According to the travel authorization process the Division had in place at the time of our review (see fig. 2), prior to travel, generally the traveler or a travel arranger was to complete an authorization form. The authorization form would then be routed to the appropriate travel authorization-approving official within the section. According to Division officials, approving officials are generally the Section Chief, Deputy Section Chief, or Special Counsel. According to Division travel officials, the authorization must also be signed by a funds certifier, indicating that funds are available to cover travel expenses. Once the authorization form has been signed by the appropriate approving official, the forms are then either e-mailed or faxed to the Division’s finance group, which is responsible for entering the travel authorization information into the Financial Management Information System (FMIS). FMIS is the financial system of record that contains data on travel authorizations and vouchers for the Division. Upon completion of travel, Division employees are to submit a travel voucher document requesting reimbursement for travel expenses, per DOJ policy. In preparing and submitting voucher documents, Division employees are to follow a similar process to the authorization process. According to DOJ policy, the traveler or a travel arranger is to fill out the appropriate travel voucher forms, attach required receipts, and then submit the voucher to the travel voucher-approving official at the section level. The traveler must sign the voucher before the travel voucher- approving official signs the approval. According to Division officials, the same approving official generally signs off on both the authorization and the voucher unless the official is absent. After that, the voucher is to be sent to the Division’s finance group where an accounting technician enters the voucher information into FMIS. At the time of our review, all copies of travel authorization and voucher documents were maintained in a separate data system called Web Docs. The Division implemented the department’s new travel system called E2 in August 2013, shortly after the period covered by our review. E2 is a web-based, end-to-end travel-management application used for travel authorizations; booking of flights, rooms, and cars; and vouchering for reimbursement. E2 is intended to streamline travel management and enable real-time visibility into the buying choices of travelers, as well as assist in optimizing travel budgets while saving taxpayers’ money. According to DOJ financial management officials, this new travel system automates certain tasks compared to the process in place during the period of this review. For example, the E2 system allows travelers to submit and obtain approval for travel requests electronically. The new system directly interfaces with FMIS so that travel authorization and voucher information is automatically entered into the financial system. We did not analyze data from E2 because at the time of our review there was not a sufficient number of trips made and processed through E2 for valid analysis. Instead, after identifying weaknesses in the Division’s existing system, we consulted with GAO travel experts familiar with E2 and reviewed the Division’s documentation of E2 controls to determine whether these controls were designed in a manner that could address these weaknesses. We tested the outcomes of compliance with key travel policies and implementation of related internal controls in nine areas and found indications that controls functioned effectively in four areas but that weaknesses existed in five other areas. Two of these weaknesses should be addressed by the design of the new travel system. In three other areas our testing indicated that the control did not always function as intended and these weaknesses may remain unaddressed by the design of new or existing controls. Table 2 summarizes the travel policies and controls we tested and whether E2 is designed to address any weaknesses we identified. For four areas of travel that we tested, we found the outcomes indicated the Division complied with policy and that controls were effectively implemented and functioning to help ensure that travel complied with applicable rules. Because the outcomes of the related policy testing in three of these areas indicated effectively functioning systems, we did not conduct additional analysis of the underlying control mechanisms in those areas. Meals and Incidental Expenses (M&IE) Reimbursed Appropriately. Federal employees on official travel are reimbursed for lodging and for M&IE up to a set daily rate that varies by location and, for some locations, by time of year. These rates are published annually by the GSA. To examine the extent to which Division M&IE reimbursements complied with standard rates, we analyzed all Division travel for which we had location information from October 2011 through June 2013, by comparing the M&IE reimbursements from FMIS travel data to the standard rates. In almost all cases, the traveler’s reimbursement for M&IE was the amount it should have been or lower. Out of the 2,494 travel vouchers included in this analysis, we identified 13 instances where a higher amount was reimbursed, but the aggregate amount of potential overpayment was $159.50, and in all 13 cases the amount was $18.75 or less per case. Given the small number of cases identified and small dollar amounts potentially reimbursed above standard rates, we did not conduct further review of the associated travel documents for these trips. Required Receipts Provided to Justify Reimbursement. The FTR requires travelers to include receipts for lodging and any single expense over $75 when filing a travel voucher. DOJ policy states that travelers should submit all receipts for expenses over $75, and also specifies that the official approving the voucher should verify that all required receipts are included in the voucher documents. We analyzed travel documents for a generalizable sample of 105 Division trips covering travel from October 2011 through June 2013 to determine the extent to which Division travel complied with DOJ policy regarding the inclusion of required receipts to justify reimbursement. We estimate that approximately 95 percent of all travel vouchers included required receipts. Our sample data were not designed to estimate the dollar value of expenses without receipt for all Division travel, but through our review of trips in our sample we identified a total of $2,023 in travel expenses for four trips that lacked required receipts to justify reimbursement.