Bill Overview
Title: Department of Homeland Security Inspector General Transparency Act
Description: This bill addresses reports conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Specifically, the bill requires the OIG to submit to Congress any report finalized on or after 30 days after the enactment of this bill that substantiates a violation of specified provisions regarding prohibited personnel practices, protected communications, or retaliatory personnel actions; a violation of Presidential Personnel Directive-19 (protecting whistleblowers with access to classified information); or an allegation of misconduct, waste, fraud, abuse, or a violation of policy within DHS involving a member of the Senior Executive Service or politically appointed official of DHS. The OIG must make each report publicly available on its website, with exceptions. The bill requires the OIG's semiannual reports to include specified information regarding ongoing audits, inspections, and evaluations; significant changes to the narrative description of each such audit, inspection, or evaluation; certain delays; and data with respect to tips and complaints made to the OIG Hotline or otherwise referred to DHS. The OIG must report within one year on the policies, procedures, and internal controls established that ensure compliance with the Quality Standards for Federal Offices of Inspector General from the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. The Government Accountability Office must evaluate such report within one year after receipt of the report.
Sponsors: Rep. Thompson, Bennie G. [D-MS-2]
Target Audience
Population: People influenced by Department of Homeland Security transparency changes
Estimated Size: 100000000
- The bill affects transparency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), specifically through the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
- It requires the OIG to submit reports to Congress, potentially affecting all DHS employees, especially those involved in or subject to investigations.
- Reports concern violations of provisions on personnel practices, whistleblower protection, and misconduct within DHS.
- The bill aims to protect whistleblowers, thus directly affecting those who might report issues within DHS.
- Information made publicly available could indirectly influence how public perceives DHS operations, affecting all employees within DHS.
- The requirement for OIG to improve reporting transparently can affect operational procedures within DHS, impacting employees who deal with compliance and administrative duties.
Reasoning
- The target population includes all DHS employees, with a focus on those involved in compliance, administration, and potentially affected by investigations and whistleblower reports.
- DHS employees number approximately 240,000, but this policy also affects contractors and whistleblowers, and indirectly affects the general public's trust in the DHS.
- The bill's scope centers on transparency and protection within the DHS, but does not directly impact the broader public health or finance sectors, allowing a limited budget to focus on its implementation.
- Funding priorities under this budget will likely emphasize the OIG's capacity to create, analyze, and publicly share reports.
- The simulation covers a variety of DHS employees, some directly affected (e.g., whistleblowers) and others experiencing indirect impacts (e.g., perception of DHS).
Simulated Interviews
Senior Analyst at DHS (Washington D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy enforces necessary transparency at the DHS.
- Making reports public will increase trust but may create initial friction internally.
- I believe that in the long run, decreased internal misconduct will boost morale.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Contractor with DHS (New York)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The transparency mandated by this policy might lead to additional work and scrutiny.
- There’s a potential benefit if it simplifies reporting standards and facilitates understanding.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Whistleblower (Los Angeles)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhanced protections make me feel safer making reports.
- Knowing there's a structured transparency protocol boosts my confidence in DHS procedures.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Senior Executive at DHS (Houston)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased transparency could initially complicate management processes.
- Over time, I believe it will lead to streamlined operations and improved public perception.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Customs Officer (Miami)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see how this policy directly affects my everyday duties.
- Greater transparency might impact decisions made at higher levels than mine.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Legal Advisor for DHS (Chicago)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy may increase the workload due to additional compliance measures.
- However, it could clarify gray areas over time, reducing legal disputes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
TSA Agent (Seattle)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The impact seems more indirect, affecting broader DHS culture than daily operations.
- Improved organizational reputation could eventually make field work more supported.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired DHS Official (Philadelphia)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this act is overdue, and will enhance accountability.
- It should elevate trust in DHS, benefiting employees past and present.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
ICE Supervisor (New Orleans)
Age: 56 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Transparency initiatives will impact my work, demanding better record-keeping.
- Eventually, it might diminish misconduct, but it adds pressure initially.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Policy Analyst (San Francisco)
Age: 40 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhanced transparency will increase workload but improve long-term outcome analyses.
- Increased data access will refine policy recommendations and enforcement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $8000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $10000000)
Year 2: $8000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $10000000)
Year 3: $8000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $10000000)
Year 5: $8000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $10000000)
Year 10: $8000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $10000000)
Year 100: $8000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $10000000)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring the implementation of new reporting standards incurs minimal disruption to the OIG’s existing workload and priorities.
- Long-term benefits of increased transparency could outweigh short-term implementation costs.
- Monitoring the effectiveness of transparency measures over time is crucial to ensure they achieve intended policy outcomes without unintended side effects.