Department of Interior, Office of the Inspector General
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is an important department of the U.S. government. The government agency is responsible for ensuring professionalism in federal-related resources and activities. The OIG implements its mandate using the Interior Department of Interior. It is through this department that complains of misconduct among federal employees and contractors are addressed. The Department of Interior ensures that the OIG makes sound decisions that lead to successful conflict resolution (Thornhill & Coleman, 2017). The U.S. public has been complaining of wrongful convictions in court whose procedures. Most defendants claim that the court the Department of Interior In OIG does not present tangible evidence to prove a crime. Digital sources are an important source of evidence in a case that involves public officers of both state and federal authorities.
There is need to train employees at OIG on the importance of collecting evidence. Most officials in the Department of Interior fail to collect information that prove a criminal case against public servants. The OIG ends up accusing employees of criminal activities without considering the evidence presented in a federal court. It would be vital to educate employees on the importance of digital sources in collecting evidence (Cordis & Milyo, 2016). The training program will ensure that all employees at OIG are equipped with modern skills of collecting digital information. The program will include both theoretical and practical sessions among employees. Classroom lessons will be important for imparting theoretical knowledge among participants.
Practical sessions of the training program will include field lessons and teamwork assessment. Field or site lessons will include simulated scenarios. Participating employees will be trained on how to collect evidence in a criminal scene. For instance, training officials will use digital devices such as advanced camera and smartphones (Newcomer, Hatry & Wholey, 2015). Participants will be informed on how to collect evidence which involve federal employees in most cases. The use of smartphone devices in collecting evidence is a common practice in most countries. Some nations prohibit taking pictures and videos in public places. However, the OIG will apply for exemption and seek legal permission to use digital devices in collecting evidence.
|Direct Costs||Cost in Dollars ($)|
|In-House Trainer (per Day)||125*14=1750/-|
|Benefits (20% of Salary)||375/-|
|Materials per Trainee||50*30=1500/-|
|Space and Digital Devices||3000/-|
|Refreshments per Day||450/-|
|Indirect Costs||Cost in Dollars ($)|
|Pre and post-training Materials||200/-|
|Clerical and Administrative Salaries||250/-|
|Grand Total cost||7075/-+550/- = 7625/-|
|Training Program Outcomes||Measurement Criteria||Before Training||After Training||Costs
(in Dollars )
|Quality of evidence collecting procedures||Sound and credible court verdicts||25% of accused employees appealed against decisions at Federal Courts||65% of court cases were proven in short durations||The training program will save 30% of OIG training budget.|
Return on Investments (ROI) = Returns (Benefits – Cost) / Investments
= ((0.3*100000) – 7625) / 7625
Value of the Program
Using digital devices to collect evidence is a program that will improve operations at the Department of Interior. The OIG will benefit from improved operations in the state agency (Thornhill & Coleman, 2017). There are numerous court cases in which public servants complain of wrongful convictions. Most victims claim that enough evidence was not presented in a court of law. Affected employees feel discriminated when convicted of a crime which they never committed. Most federal courts use evidence provided by the OIG. Witnesses are called in to provide their account on a case. Accused employees complain that false witnesses are used to convict public servants without a fair trial.
Eye witnesses are not sufficient in proving a case presented by the OIG. There are possibilities that the Department of Interior might collude with rogue individuals to criminalize an employee. These instances affect public trust and relationship with the federal government in general. This is a dangerous precedence in any democratic country that puts it trust on the authorities. This program is intended to improve public trust by ensuring fair trails against accused employees. Court proceedings can only be fair if tangible evidence is tabled in a court of law. Digital information provides real-time account of scenarios. For instance, CCTV cameras are accurate in capturing illegal actions among employees while at work.
Collecting digital evidence is a wide topic that will entail different discussion points. Participants will be encouraged to carry a digital device every time they are investigating a public servant. For instance, OIG officers would record video instances which relate a federal employee to a crime (Newcomer, Hatry & Wholey, 2015). Video records are critical in court proceedings as they make the work of jurors easy when issuing verdicts. A criminal case against an employee takes a short time if digital evidence is credible enough to judges. The training program will encompass what to record during investigations. Some employees might gather evidence that is irrelevant for a court case.
Digital sources provide real-time evidence against criminal courts. The death of a journalist – Jamal Khashoggi – made use of digital evidence to incriminate perpetrators. Digital evidence would not only improve credibility of OIG; it will also improve public relations with the people. A training program that equips federal officers with adequate knowledge on digital evidence will be necessary for OIG. The program will enhance accountability and transparency in federal and state institutions. Successful cases against accused employees will be possible if the OIG understands which information is relevant for a case. Implementing digital evidence in court cases will hasten criminal procedures in federal and state courts.
Cordis, A. S., & Milyo, J. (2016). Measuring public corruption in the United States: Evidence from administrative records of federal prosecutions. Public Integrity, 18(2), 127-148.
Newcomer, K. E., Hatry, H. P., & Wholey, J. S. (2015). Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis. Handbook of practical program evaluation, 636.
Thornhill, A. D., & Coleman, R. A. (2017). 3. Scientific Integrity: Recent Department of the Interior Policies, Codes, and their Implementation. Scientific Integrity and Ethics in the Geosciences, 73, 29.