V20140101-1.0.0

Reporting and Follow Up

Report Purpose

The final product produced as a result of the planning and execution efforts is the inspection report. The purpose of the inspection report is to communicate accurate, factual data that fairly, objectively and persuasively depicts deficiencies, strengths and recommended improvement areas (RIA) observed by the inspectors.

Characteristics of a Good Report

Reports must be able to stand alone on their own merit. Readers won’t have access to the raw data like you did during the inspection and they also won’t have participated in the inspection. So the only thing they have to go on is what you put in the report. While the specific writing style or format may vary slightly due to individual IG organizational desires, a good report will have the following characteristics:

• Technically complete and accurate • Logically organized • Grammatically correct • Written to drive positive change • Balanced and accurate • Evidence clearly supports findings • Written in active voice and past tense • Free of inflammatory statements or exaggerations • Objective

Report Content

Again, the actual organization and flow of a report may vary slightly due individual IG organizational desires. However, all reports contain the following basic content:

• Executive summary highlighting o Inspection Authority o Overall grade o Synopsis of key observations o Report Point of Contact

• Key Definitions • Inspection Summary showing grades of each major graded area (MGA) • Specific inspection results (recommended improvement areas (RIA), strengths, and

deficiencies) • Reply instructions

V20140101-1.0.0

• Superior performers • Key Personnel • Inspection Team Members • Distribution List • Acronym List • Misc. sections as required

Report Classification and Marking

Review all reports prior to publication to ensure they are properly classified and marked IAW DOD 5200.1-R, Procedures Governing the Activities of DOD Intelligence Components that Affect United States Persons and AFI 31-401. At a minimum, mark unclassified inspection reports "For Official Use Only (FOUO)" IAW DOD 5200.1-R and AFI 31-401. For nuclear inspection reports, see Chapter 4 of AFI 90-201.

Releasability

The TIG is the confidential agent of the SECAF and CSAF for obtaining uninhibited self-analysis and self-criticism of the internal management, operation, and administration of the Air Force. Therefore, Air Force IG reports are internal memoranda and constitute privileged information that is not releasable outside the AF except with specific approval of the TIG. All requests for IG reports, or extracts therefrom, originating from sources outside the original distribution, shall be referred to SAF/IGI for coordination and clearance. Classifications and restrictions on the disclosure or use of IG reports shall be strictly observed. See AFI 90-201, for specific guidance on release determination authority, release within DOD, release to news media, and Releasability statement.

Reporting Timelines

Executive summary - NLT 5 work days after the IG team outbriefs the inspected unit, the MAJCOM/IG will send an executive summary of the inspection, IAW AFI 90-201 Figure A6.2 to the inspected unit CC and SAF/IGI, unless the final inspection report has already been published and distributed.

Final Inspection Report - NLT 30 days after the IG team departs the inspected unit, the MAJCOM/IG will send the final IG inspection report and notify organizations the final IG inspection report is available in IGEMS.

V20140101-1.0.0

Inspection Findings

Specific inspection findings are categorized as follows:

• Strengths - An area that far exceeds compliance directives or mission requirements and/or expectations.

• Recommended Improvement Area (RIA) - An identified process, product, or capability which could be improved by a suggested course of action. RIAs will not be used in lieu of minor deficiencies.

• Deficiency - A validated inspection discrepancy, finding, inadequacy or observation.

Strengths

Strengths should only be written when a program or person exceed the standard in a quantifiable way. A strength should never be written because a program or person is meeting the minimum standards. A strength should be something that other units can benefit and learn from (benchmark, best practice, etc.)

RIA

A RIA is used for a situation when a person or program is meeting the expected standard, but based on your expertise you think they could do it more efficiently if they improved their process. Unlike a deficiency which must be corrected, a RIA does not have to be acted on. As human beings, we don’t like to change processes because it gets us out of our routines and requires extra effort (document updates, train new process, etc.). Therefore, a good RIA write up does three specific things:

1. It tells the person specifically in detail what needs to change. 2. It tells the person specifically in detail what change should look like. 3. Most important of all, it tells them how they will benefit if they expend the extra time

and energy to make the change (money saved, manpower reduced, more capacity, etc.)

Additionally, RIAs will not be used to document procedural deviations or non-compliance; they should only be used to recommend a more efficient or effective course of action. Procedural deviations or non-compliance findings should be written up as deficiencies as appropriate.

V20140101-1.0.0

Deficiencies

Deficiency write-ups will:

• Be assigned a unique tracking number. • Describe, in sufficient detail, the deficiency and contextual facts as necessary to

clearly convey the defect requiring resolution. The written description alone should be adequate for the inspected party to begin corrective action planning.

• Be assigned a deficiency severity of CRITICAL, SIGNIFICANT, or MINOR. o CRITICAL - Any deficiency that results in, or could result in, widespread

negative mission impact or failure. Regarding nuclear inspections, a critical deficiency results in, or meets the criteria for an ―UNSATISFACTORY‖ condition as described in paragraph C-2.b. in CJCSI 3263.05.

o SIGNIFICANT - A validated deficiency that has or could have negative mission impact. Regarding nuclear inspections, a significant deficiency will have, or is likely to have a major negative effect on the nuclear weapons mission of the activity but is not defined as an ―UNSATISFACTORY‖ condition as defined in CJCSI 3263.05.

o MINOR - A validated deficiency that does not meet the definition of a Critical or Significant Deficiency but requires corrective action.

• Reference the applicable instruction, technical order or other source documentation.

• Address impact of continued deviation or non-compliance for critical deficiencies. • Identify MAJCOM FAM OPRs for CRITICAL and SIGNIFICANT deficiencies

(MAJCOM functional office responsible for coordinating on unit’s corrective action plan).

• Identify the Office of Collateral Responsibility (OCR), if applicable. • Be categorized as HHQ/Support Agency Deficiencies. If they involve

hosts/tenants outside the inspected unit’s chain-of-command, HHQ, other MAJCOMs, DRU/FOAs, HAF or non-AF entities.

• Be entered in IGEMS

V20140101-1.0.0

Ratings

For non-nuclear related inspections, the following five-tier scale is used to rate the unit’s overall performance, MGAs and sub-MGAs (taken from AFI 90-201 Aug 2013).

4.9.4. Five-Tier Rating System. 4.9.4.1. OUTSTANDING – Given for a UEI score between 85 and 100, this rating indicates

the Wing meets/exceeds the criteria for a HIGHLY EFFECTIVE rating AND most or all of the following are consistently true:

4.9.4.1.1. Mission activities, programs and processes are executed in an increasingly cost-effective manner. 4.9.4.1.2. Results of long-term commitment to continuous process improvement are evident. 4.9.4.1.3. Leaders’ decisions and priorities demonstrate genuine care for their Airmen. 4.9.4.1.4. Leaders are engaged to help Airmen achieve their own goals as well as the unit’s goals. 4.9.4.1.5. Widespread evidence of high proficiency, unit pride and cohesion. 4.9.4.1.6. Programs and processes are institutionalized and produce highly reliable results. 4.9.4.1.7. Programs are nearly deficiency-free, and efforts to benchmark and share lessons learned with other Wings are evident. 4.9.4.1.8. Effective Management Systems are in place and are used to maximum effectiveness at all levels. 4.9.4.2. HIGHLY EFFECTIVE – Given for a UEI score greater than 65 and less than or

equal to 85, this rating indicates the Wing exceeds the criteria for an EFFECTIVE rating AND most or all of the following are consistently true:

4.9.4.2.1. Mission activities, programs and processes are executed in a highly effective and efficient manner; personnel demonstrate high proficiency. 4.9.4.2.2. CCIP is institutionalized, used to measure and report improvements in all 4 MGAs, and provide actionable feedback to HHQ on policy, guidance and resource adequacy. 4.9.4.2.3. Continuous process improvement efforts are widespread and have improved efficiency. 4.9.4.2.4. Most programs and processes are measured and repeatable, and produce reliable results.Ratings for nuclear-related inspections are specified in CJCSI 3263.05 and covered in the NSI inspector course.

4.9.4.2.5. Risk-based criteria are habitually applied when allocating resources and making decisions. 4.9.4.2.6. Programs have very few deficiencies and necessary waivers are in effect. 4.9.4.2.7. Deliberate efforts to train, communicate, and engage Airmen are evident. 4.9.4.2.8. Effective processes are in place to improve Airmen’s quality of work and home life. 4.9.4.2.9. Management Systems are mature and continuous improvement crosses across multiple programs.

V20140101-1.0.0

4.9.4.3. EFFECTIVE – Given for a UEI score greater than 35 and less than or equal to 65, this rating indicates most or all of the following are generally true:

4.9.4.3.1. Requirements are met in all mission areas (Primary, AEF, Mission Assurance C2) and personnel are proficient. 4.9.4.3.2. CCIP provides the command chain an accurate, adequate and relevant picture of unit performance. 4.9.4.3.3. Resources are managed in an effective and compliant manner. 4.9.4.3.4. Leaders treat Airmen with respect and provide a healthy and safe work environment. 4.9.4.3.5. Continuous process improvement efforts are evident. 4.9.4.3.6. Critical programs and processes are measured and repeatable. 4.9.4.3.7. Risk-based criteria are often considered when allocating resources and making decisions. 4.9.4.3.8. Programs have few significant deficiencies and many necessary waivers are in effect. 4.9.4.3.9. Management Systems are present and continuous improvement occurs.

4.9.4.4. MARGINALLY EFFECTIVE – Given for a UEI score greater than 15 and less than or equal to 35, this rating indicates the Wing does not meet the criteria for an EFFECTIVE rating, and some or all of the following are consistently true:

4.9.4.4.1. Requirements are met in some but not all mission areas (Primary, AEF, Mission Assurance C2). 4.9.4.4.2. Unit personnel meet minimum performance criteria but with limited proficiency. 4.9.4.4.3. CCIP provides the command chain an accurate, though limited, picture of unit performance. 4.9.4.4.4. Some key processes and activities are not carried out in a competent or compliant manner, or are personality-dependent. 4.9.4.4.5. Little to no evidence exists of continuous process improvement efforts. 4.9.4.4.6. Resources and programs are not well managed.

4.9.4.4.7. Risk and resource scarcity are not deliberately considered in decision-making processes. 4.9.4.4.8. Deficiencies exist that significantly increase risk to Airmen, the mission or the Air Force. 4.9.4.4.9. Management systems have some elements by are not working in a cohesive process.

4.9.4.5. INEFFECTIVE – Given for a UEI score between 0 and 15, this rating indicates the Wing does not meet all of the criteria for an EFFECTIVE rating, and some or all of the following are consistently true:

4.9.4.5.1. Wing does not demonstrate ability to meet mission requirements. 4.9.4.5.2. Evidence exists of systemic non-compliance or widespread disregard for prescribed procedures. 4.9.4.5.3. The number and severity of deficiencies preclude or seriously limit mission accomplishment. 4.9.4.5.4. CCIP does not provide an accurate, adequate or relevant picture of unit performance.

V20140101-1.0.0

4.9.4.5.5. Leaders do not treat Airmen with respect or do not provide a healthy and safe work environment. 4.9.4.5.6. Resources and programs are grossly mismanaged. 4.9.4.5.7. Management systems are not evident.

While the definitions above are relatively clear, the process of assigning a rating is subjective based on the inspection team’s collective professional judgment in evaluating the cumulative findings for a sub-MGA, MGA, and the unit overall. The key is to be consistent from inspection to inspection and be able to defend the rating you assigned with facts and evidence.

Follow Up

Once the report is published and the findings entered into IGEMS, there is still some post-inspection work left to do.

Root Cause Analysis - Problem-solving responsibility and the corrective action process reside at the lowest appropriate command level. Commanders will ensure root cause analysis is completed for all deficiencies using the problem-solving approach/tool and level of effort best suited to the situation. Commanders should strongly consider using the rigor of the AF 8-Step Problem Solving Model as outlined in the AF Smart Operations for the 21st Century (AFSO21) playbook for CRITICAL and SIGNIFICANT deficiencies to determine primary and, if applicable, contributing root causes.

Cause Code Assignment – The corrective action OPR for each deficiency must assign a Deficiency Cause Codes to all deficiencies in IGEMS IAW AFI 90-201, Attachment 7. The cause code assigned should be based on a thorough root cause analysis of the problem.

Corrective Action Plans - The corrective action OPR must develop corrective action plans to address the deficiencies identified in the report. Per AFI 90-201, para 2.20.9.1, associated corrective action plans for critical and significant deficiencies will be provided to MAJCOM/IGs NLT 45 days and for ARC units NLT 90 days after the final inspection report is published.

Corrective Action Report Status (CARS) – Each IG organization will appoint a CARS monitor to track corrective actions for all deficiencies until they are closed.

The inspected unit performs the bulk of the work associated with root cause analysis, cause code determination, and corrective action planning. However, you and the IG organization you are part of have a responsibility to monitor these activities and make sure the deficiencies you identified are corrected and closed out.

V20140101-1.0.0