Updated at 1:25 pm after reading the original reports:
The AP and a US Senator were quoted in the article below as saying that SIGAR (Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction) had "failed" and needed a housecleaning based on a recent Inspector Peer Review that was REQUESTED by SIGAR.
As an experienced Internal Auditor who was in both Iraq and Afghanistan, I did not find any justification for the negative statements from AP or the Senator after reading the peer review reports.
We went through this a few months ago. Congressmen and Senators (like Claire McCaskill, mentioned below) wrote letters to the President complaining about the effectiveness of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGAR) run by MJ (ret) Arnie Fields. I probably also commented on SIGAR weaknesses at that time.
But, after reading the peer review, it seems SIGAR is getting their act together, rather than "failing".
Now it is round two... an inspector general PEER review of SIGAR conducted by the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) resulted in news headlines that recommended that the law enforcement powers of SIGAR be rescinded after their review. That had to be a pain because SIGAR requested the peer review, thus I give kudos to SIGAR for requesting the review and then also publishing the reports.
Thus the AP headlines might be overblowing the significance of the review results. After reading the headlines and quotes trying to say SIGAR should be cleaned out, I read the actual reports at the link below and do not see the same thing. The peer review was to test compliance with the Federal Yellow Book and other Federal Inspector General guidelines, and mostly reported administrative issues that were not significant. In the actual review of the administration "system review", the audit team said:
In our opinion, the system of quality control for SIGAR’s audit organization in effect for the
year ended March 31, 2010, was suitably designed. Further, except for the deficiencies
described below, SIGAR complied with its system of quality control and has reasonable
assurance of performing and reporting in conformity with applicable professional standards
in all material respects. SIGAR has received a peer review rating of pass with deficiencies.
The above opinion means they PASSED with a few deficiencies, so don't believe the headlines or quotes from officials about the importance of one or two audit findings.
Additionally, here is a revealing section from one of the audit reports that explained, that yes, the SIGAR audit team, operating in a WAR ZONE, surrounded by corruption, focused on "PRODUCTIVITY rather than implementing quality control activities."
At the June 18 meeting, audit organization leadership commented that there were usually
no formal meetings to specifically support audit plan development and that they chose to
focus on productivity rather than implementing quality control activities.
So, the report focused on mundane administration issues while SIGAR rightly (in my non-bureaucratic, corporate audit approach) focused on getting results. The head of the team that did the peer review was from the Tennessee Valley Water Authority Inspector General. He probably didn't have Congress after him for results and didn't have to worry about attacks, driving to the golf range, or power failing when he was trying to use the internet.
Thirdly, the audit team used criteria used for domestic audits, not for a new agency that is operating in a war zone. When I was in Iraq, we also had significant problems with State Dept. bureaucratic requirements designed for peaceful countries, not a war zone. The focus of the peer review should be on results to report corruption rather than having the correct boilerplate in audit reports. If I had been doing the audits, I would not have even looked at the "Yellow Book", but focused on detecting, reporting and fixing fraud and corruption, since there is so much of it. Results is what Congress wants, not technically correct formatting of reports.
You can find the reports and related letters at THIS SIGAR webpage. Notice that the titles of the documents do not disclose anything about the results buried in the reports and described in the article below.
The report and Senator McCaskill are asking for a house cleaning, and maybe this is another straw... there never are complaints about SIGIR (another Inspector General group in Iraq), which set the bar of performance, but only SIGAR.
I do agree with the problem of State Dept. constraints, but maybe there will be changes. However, readers should keep in mind this is a routine peer review REQUESTED by SIGAR, so they expected some problems to be reported for future resolution, and they didn't wait until 3-4 years went by like other IG's.
Report Section on Investigations: The separate group of investigators, as described in the SIGAR response to the peer review report, was only created in late 2009 after a transition from SIGIR providing loaner staff. The investigations section of the report contained numerous, valid issues, but SIGAR has already implemented, or will implement most of the suggestions derived from rapid growth of a new investigations unit.
But, if they had a professional Inspector General or very experienced prosecutor type running SIGAR who is focused on results, they might not even have these reported problems. Another solution would be to create an Afghan only branch of the SIGAR which could do the traveling. When I was in Afghanistan in 2009, I was involved in a USAID training program for Afghan Inspector General staff for two months, and we already had agreement to accompany their Ministry audit teams to provinces (using our Afghan audit trainers) to observe how they implemented new audit techniques. SIGAR could do the same - we didn't expect the American advisors to go to the worst provinces, but we also didn't use State Dept. rules for trips - we used unmarked cars driven by very well trained Afghans, not a military convoy. SIGAR could hire civilian advisers with military background to go on trips to provinces.
Favorite quotes:
The review looked separately at the investigative work — which involves criminal and civil law enforcement investigations — and the conduct of audits that search for fraud, waste and abuse.
The Afghanistan inspector general's office did not meet professional standards for investigators, the review said. (Ed note: Most issues were compliance to regulations that are nice to have, but not necessarily implemented in the first year of an IG organization.vj )
The audit operation fared slightly better, getting a passing grade but with deficiencies. Among them: the watchdog was not monitoring the quality of its work, was inconsistent in following its own audit plan and, in about half its reports, failed to clearly state their objective. (Ed note: Oh, so guys with an average 20 years audit experience can't figure out the objectives? They just didn't write them down...vj).
Brummet characterized the Afghanistan watchdog office as a "young and growing organization" that is encountering huge obstacles in the war zone. (Note from editor: I agree. - vj)
Conclusion:
I have criticized SIGAR in the past, but these reports only indicate to me that the growing organization wasn't compliant with many requirements that don't affect performance, but are nice to have in a domestic program in a peacetime environment. It seems that SIGAR has greatly improved their staff quality over what they had a year ago.
I DO NOT THINK the report results justify overblown results from the press or Senator Clair McCaskill saying this:
"This report proves that SIGAR's performance is inept," she said in a statement. "It is time for a house-cleaning at SIGAR, including new leadership. For the sake of our soldiers and the American taxpayer, time is of the essence."
Additionally, the AP article below said this, which is NOT justified by the reports:
"The inspector general investigating fraud, waste and abuse in the $51 billion Afghanistan reconstruction program has received a failing grade from his peers." (Ed: I could not find where the report said failing - they said that SIGAR PASSED with deficiencies, which is nowhere like "failing" - the report basically said they did not comply with various investigation administrative procedures, but noted that SIGAR had implemented many already and would implement others within 6 months - that is NOT failing .- vj)
The press and McCaskill should instead focus on why the State Dept. keeps putting limits on SIGAR. As the article says, State only allows SIGAR 20 auditors in Afghanistan to audit $51-BILLION in reconstruction spending. That is a much bigger problem than a requirement to have written policies on firearms for staff who have over 20 years using them.
Note: This AP article has been used as the basis for a blog report on the growing national "Examiner.com" website to also blast SIGIR just based on the article, not the actual reports. It is HERE.
vj
Poor grades to watchdog for Afghan reconstruction
WASHINGTON — The inspector general investigating fraud, waste and abuse in the $51 billion Afghanistan reconstruction program has received a failing grade from his peers.
The council of government auditors who reviewed the work asked Attorney General Eric Holder to consider suspending or rescinding law enforcement powers of the Afghanistan reconstruction watchdog.
The United States has committed $51 billion to Afghanistan reconstruction since 2001, and plans to raise the amount to $71 billion over the next year.
The review found the Afghanistan reconstruction inspector general did not train investigators in use of firearms and deadly force, did not even have a policy on firearms, and lacked an electronic filing system to collect important information — including data to measure investigators' performance.
The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) is led by retired Marine Maj. Gen. Arnold Fields. Fields told the review group, the inspectors' general Council on Integrity and Efficiency, that he accepted the findings and promised improvements were under way.
That didn't satisfy Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who heads a committee that investigates government contracting.
"This report proves that SIGAR's performance is inept," she said in a statement. "It is time for a house-cleaning at SIGAR, including new leadership. For the sake of our soldiers and the American taxpayer, time is of the essence."
Fields' top deputy, John Brummet, disagreed in an interview with the recommendation to remove the office's law enforcement powers.
"The areas of noncompliance are administrative," he said. "There's no malfeasance. Of course we need one (a firearms policy) but we do not have agents who are armed. We're waiting to have a policy on firearms use before arming our agents."
Since May 2009, the office has completed 17 audits and has 14 under way.
The letter to Holder was signed by Richard Moore, who conducted the peer review of the Afghanistan watchdog's investigative section. Moore, who is the inspector general of the Tennessee Valley Authority, did say that it's likely Field's operation will improve in the coming months.
The review looked separately at the investigative work — which involves criminal and civil law enforcement investigations — and the conduct of audits that search for fraud, waste and abuse.
The Afghanistan inspector general's office did not meet professional standards for investigators, the review said.
The audit operation fared slightly better, getting a passing grade but with deficiencies. Among them: the watchdog was not monitoring the quality of its work, was inconsistent in following its own audit plan and, in about half its reports, failed to clearly state their objective.
Brummet characterized the Afghanistan watchdog office as a "young and growing organization" that is encountering huge obstacles in the war zone.
The State Department only allows the office to have 20 people in Afghanistan, although they're augmented by people on temporary assignment. The office is negotiating for an additional 12 staff members in Afghanistan.
But regardless of the number, getting around Afghanistan presents massive problems in security and transportation, Brummet said. One of the most difficult tasks is reaching locations outside Kabul to assess the U.S. training of Afghan forces.
Brummet said that in one of his own visits, he needed an escort of five armored vehicles and 30 U.S. soldiers to leave a provincial base.
In another instance, because of transportation bottlenecks, he needed five days to reach, and return from, a meeting that took two hours.
He said of the review, which his office requested: "It's good we had these things pointed out to us. We began taking actions to remedy deficiencies."
Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Dear Mr. Jochim-
First of all thank you for reading and commenting on my site, I welcome other perspectives at all times.
As far as your critique, I did read the actual report and not only the AP article. I copied excerpts directly from the report and have a link to it in the 3rd paragraph of my article.
I did read the responses and they were honest and sounded like: "yes, we know we have issues, it's broke and we are fixing it."
You are right that part of the audit did pass with deficiencies but part of didn't meet standards.
I still have a hard time believing they didn't have an electronic filing system in place (I read the response and I know they are working or have one now - not the point). But that is what it said in the report.
I've never audited anything in a war zone, but as a former sourcing and procurement manager and consultant I've audited a ton of expenses and the first step is to get the data. So the lack of an electronic filing system for that long really blew me away.
Posted by: Michael Hughes | July 18, 2010 at 04:47 PM