Report Category
Submitting Agency
- Alaska Division of Legislative Audit (1)
- AmeriCorps Office of Inspector General (1)
- Amtrak (National Railroad Passenger Corporation) OIG (1)
- Architect of the Capitol OIG (4)
- Arizona Auditor General (7)
- California State Auditor (12)
- Connecticut Office of the Auditors of Public Accounts (1)
- Department of Agriculture OIG (12)
- Department of Commerce OIG (3)
- Department of Defense OIG (38)
- Department of Education OIG (30)
- Department of Health & Human Services OIG (28)
- Department of Homeland Security OIG (17)
- Department of Housing and Urban Development OIG (28)
- Department of Justice OIG (12)
- Department of Labor OIG (57)
- Department of the Interior OIG (10)
- Department of the Treasury OIG (98)
- Department of Transportation OIG (8)
- Department of Veterans Affairs OIG (5)
- Election Assistance Commission OIG (23)
- Environmental Protection Agency OIG (9)
- Federal Housing Finance Agency OIG (4)
- Federal Reserve Board & CFPB OIG (4)
- General Services Administration OIG (8)
- Government Publishing Office OIG (1)
- Illinois Auditor General (2)
- Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit (5)
- Maryland State Legislative Audits (1)
- Mississippi Office of the State Auditor (2)
- National Science Foundation OIG (10)
- National Security Agency OIG (1)
- New York, Ulster County Office of the Comptroller (4)
- New York State Comptroller (2)
- North Carolina, City of Charlotte Internal Audit Department (3)
- North Carolina State Auditor (1)
- Office of Personnel Management OIG (1)
- Oregon, Multnomah County Auditor's Office (5)
- Oregon Secretary of State, Audits Division (1)
- Pandemic Response Accountability Committee (23)
- Peace Corps OIG (2)
- Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation OIG (4)
- Railroad Retirement Board OIG (6)
- Securities and Exchange Commission OIG (1)
- Small Business Administration OIG (13)
- Social Security Administration OIG (6)
- Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery (28)
- Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (2)
- State of Louisiana (1)
- Tennessee Valley Authority OIG (4)
- Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (41)
- U.S. Agency for International Development OIG (16)
- U.S. Postal Service OIG (13)
- Virginia Auditor of Public Accounts (1)
- Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau (12)
State (State and Local Reports)
- Alaska (1)
- Arizona (8)
- California (19)
- Colorado (5)
- Connecticut (1)
- Delaware (4)
- District Of Columbia (10)
- Florida (3)
- Georgia (1)
- Hawaii (3)
- Illinois (8)
- Iowa (3)
- Kansas (5)
- Kentucky (4)
- Louisiana (20)
- Maryland (1)
- Massachusetts (9)
- Michigan (11)
- Minnesota (2)
- Mississippi (2)
- Missouri (49)
- New Jersey (4)
- New Mexico (2)
- New York (33)
- North Carolina (14)
- North Dakota (2)
- Ohio (4)
- Oklahoma (3)
- Oregon (11)
- Tennessee (3)
- Texas (8)
- Vermont (9)
- Virginia (3)
- Washington (11)
- Wisconsin (12)
Fraud Type
Agency Reviewed
- AmeriCorps (1)
- Amtrak (National Railroad Passenger Corporation) (1)
- Architect of the Capitol (4)
- Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System & CFPB (3)
- Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (2)
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (1)
- Department of Agriculture (12)
- Department of Commerce (3)
- Department of Defense (38)
- Department of Education (30)
- Department of Health & Human Services (28)
- Department of Homeland Security (17)
- Department of Housing and Urban Development (28)
- Department of Justice (12)
- Department of Labor (57)
- Department of the Interior (10)
- Department of the Treasury (127)
- Department of Transportation (8)
- Department of Veterans Affairs (5)
- Election Assistance Commission (23)
- Environmental Protection Agency (7)
- Federal Housing Finance Agency (4)
- General Services Administration (8)
- Government Publishing Office (1)
- Internal Revenue Service (41)
- Multiple Agencies (21)
- National Science Foundation (10)
- National Security Agency (1)
- Office of Personnel Management (1)
- Peace Corps (2)
- Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (4)
- Railroad Retirement Board (6)
- Securities and Exchange Commission (1)
- Small Business Administration (13)
- Social Security Administration (6)
- Tennessee Valley Authority (4)
- Troubled Asset Relief Program (1)
- U.S. Agency for International Development (16)
- U.S. Postal Service (13)
Related Organizations
Management Challenges
- Agency Operations (56)
- Data Transparency and Completeness (15)
- Financial Management of Relief Funding (102)
- Grants and Guaranteed Loan Management (47)
- Informing and Protecting the Public from Pandemic-Related Fraud (4)
- IT Management and Security (3)
- Preventing and Detecting Fraud against Government Programs (21)
- Protecting the Health and Safety of the Public (20)
Any Recommendations
Any Open Recommendations
Reports
Desk Review of the District of Columbia’s Use of Coronavirus Relief Fund Proceeds
Treasury Office of Inspector General (OIG) should request DC to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $5,217,865 of ineligible costs charge to the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds.
Based on DC management's ability to respond to Treasury OIG's requests related to the health care contract's ineligible costs, Treasury OIG should request the details on the remainder of the contract balance. If DC management is unable to itemize the portion of the medical expenses that were COVID-19 related, Treasury OIG determine if the remaining contract balance was similarly ineligible and should be recouped or replaced by other eligible expenditures, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Based on DCs responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace ineligible transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type.
Treasury OIG should request DC's management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $202,695 of ineligible questioned cost reconciliation error (other matters charged to the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds. Based on DC management's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace ineligible transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment types.
Treasury OIG should request DC's management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $575,000 of ineligible questioned cost reconciliation error (other matters charged to the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds. Based on DC management's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace ineligible transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment types.
Treasury OIG should follow-up with the DC's management to confirm if the $30,107 noted as unsupported expenditures within Aggregate Payments to Individuals can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request DC's management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance. Further, based on the DC management's responsiveness to Treasury Office of Inspector General requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation, and/or replace unsupported transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Treasury Office of Inspector General should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment type.
Treasury OIG should request DC to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $6,117 of ineligible costs charged to the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds. Based on DC management's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and management's ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace ineligible transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment types.
Treasury OIG should request DC to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $148,721 of ineligible costs charged to the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds. Based on DCs management's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace ineligible transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment types.
Treasury OIG should follow-up with DC's management to confirm if the $39,384 unsupported expenditures within the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request DC management to provide replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance.
Treasury OIG should follow-up with DC's management to determine if the remaining grant balance was similarly unsupported and should be recouped or replaced by other eligible expenditures, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Based on DC's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation, and/or replace unsupported transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type.
Treasury OIG should follow-up with DC's management to confirm if the $24,261 noted as unsupported expenditures within the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request DC management to provide replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance.
Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of performing additional testing over portions of the remaining untested grant balance. If DC is unable to provide support Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request that DC management provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance. Further, based on DC's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation, and/or replace unsupported transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type.
Treasury OIG should request DC to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $8,290 of ineligible costs charge to the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds. Based on DC management's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and management's ability to provide sufficient documentation, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type.
Treasury OIG should request DC to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $14,000 of ineligible costs charged to the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds. Based on DC management's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace ineligible transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment types.
Treasury OIG should request DC management perform an assessment over the remaining balance of $861,000 within its Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment types to determine if there were other similarly ineligible expenses.
Treasury OIG should request DC to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $12,744 of ineligible costs charged to the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds. Based on DC management's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace ineligible transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment types.
Treasury OIG should request DC management perform an assessment over the remaining balance of $862,256 within its Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment types to determine if there were other similarly ineligible expenses.
Treasury OIG should request DC's management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $21,202,722 of ineligible costs (other matters) charged to the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds. Based on DC management's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace ineligible transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment types.
Desk Review of the State of North Dakota’s Use of Coronavirus Relief Fund Proceeds
Treasury OIG should follow-up with North Dakota's management to confirm the transactions noted as unsupported or ineligible expenditures within the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000, Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000, Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000, and Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types are recouped or replaced by other eligible expenditures, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Based on North Dakota management's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000, Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000, Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000, and Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types. Treasury OIG should follow-up with Treasury's Office of Capital Access to ensure that management decision letters are issued on the findings identified by the auditor in the Single Audit Report for fiscal years 2021/2022 (combined report). Treasury OIG should follow-up on any CRF specific questioned costs reported in the fiscal year 2021-2022 Single Audit report. 1) Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of performing additional follow-up with North Dakota to determine if there were other instances of unsupported balances within the DUC oil well grant program; 2) Follow-up with North Dakota management and request that management performs an analysis over all of their grants portal reported balances to determine if there were other instances of subscription costs that extended past September 30, 2022 in addition to the items found through testing; and 3) request that North Dakota management conduct a general ledger detail reconciliation related to the interest income. Based on the results of this analysis, Treasury OIG should determine if the analysis supports the $6,651 difference between the interest earned per the general ledger and the interest claimed in the grants reporting portal.
Audit Memorandum The MSLPs Loan Losses Effect on Treasurys Investment in the Program
Desk Review of State of Arizona's Use of Coronavirus Relief Fund Proceeds
Office of Inspector General (OIG) request Arizona perform an assessment over whether there were any additional indirect costs claimed within its Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 CRF submission, and identify those for removal and repayment to Treasury, as applicable. In addition, Castro recommends that Treasury OIG request that Arizona management provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $55,413 of ineligible costs charged to the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds.
Treasury OIG follow-up with Arizona's management to confirm if the $117,614,002 noted as unsupported expenditures within the Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request Arizona's management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance. Further, based on Arizona management's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and management's ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace unsupported and ineligible transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Castro recommends Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type.
Treasury OIG request that Arizona management completes a reconciliation of its Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000 population utilizing state agency incurred expenditures at the invoice level. Based on Arizona management's ability to provide a sufficient general ledger detail reconciliation for Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000, we recommend Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of performing additional testing over Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000.
Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of performing additional follow-up with Arizona to determine if there were other instances of unsupported balances within the remaining untested balance of Substantially Dedicated Payroll costs. Castro further recommends that Treasury OIG follow-up with Arizona's management to confirm if the $18,133,411 noted as unsupported expenditures within the Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment type can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request Arizona's management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance. Further, based on Arizona management's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and management's ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace unsupported transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Castro recommends Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment type.
Request documentation of any additional annual leave payments that were earned prior to the CRF covered period were claimed as CRF expenses, and identify those for reversal and repayment to Treasury, as applicable. Additionally, request Arizona provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $18,631 of ineligible costs charged to the Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment type. If support is not provided, recoup the funds. Based on Arizona's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and Arizona's ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace ineligible transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment type.
Desk Review of the City of Fresno, California’s Use of Coronavirus Relief Fund Proceeds
Treasury OIG should confirm the transactions noted as unsupported expenditures within the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 and Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types are recouped or replaced by other eligible expenditures, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 and Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types. Treasury OIG should follow-up with Treasury's Office of Capital Access to ensure that management decision letters are issued on the CRF specific findings identified by the auditor in the Single Audit Act reports for fiscal years 2020 and 2021. Treasury OIG should follow-up with Treasury's Office of Capital Access to ensure that management decision letters are issued on the CRF specific findings identified by the auditor in these Single Audit Act reports. Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of performing additional follow-up with Fresno to determine if there were other instances of unsupported balances within the Save Our Small Business Grant Program and Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of performing additional follow-up with Fresno to determine if there were other instances of unsupported balances with the Central Valley Children Services Network Grant Program.
Desk Review of Dallas County, Texas’ Use of Coronavirus Relief Fund Proceeds
Treasury Office of Inspector General (OIG) follow-up with Dallas County's management to confirm the transactions noted as unsupported or ineligible expenditures within the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000, Grants greater than or equal to $50,000, Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000, and Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types are recouped or replaced by other eligible expenditures, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Based on Dallas County management's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and management's ability to provide sufficient documentation, Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000, Grants greater than or equal to $50,000, Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000, and Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types. Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of performing additional follow up with Dallas County to determine if there were other instances of unsupported balances with the untested amount of $12,874,460 in the substantially dedicated payroll portion of the Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment type.
Desk Review of the State of Mississippi’s Use of Coronavirus Relief Fund Proceeds
Treasury Office of Inspector General should follow-up with Mississippi's management to confirm if the $1,320,000 noted as unsupported expenditures within the Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury Office of Inspector General should recoup the funds or request Mississippi management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance. Further, based on Mississippi's responsiveness to Treasury Office of Inspector General's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace unsupported transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Treasury Office of Inspector General should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type.
Treasury Office of Inspector General should follow-up with Mississippi's management to confirm if the $4,066 noted as unsupported expenditures within the Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment type can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury Office of Inspector General should recoup the funds or request Mississippi management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance. Further, based on Mississippi's responsiveness to Treasury Office of Inspector General's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace unsupported transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Treasury Office of Inspector General should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment type.
For the Fiscal Year 2021 Single Audit report, Treasury Office of Inspector General should follow-up with Treasury's Office of Capital Access to ensure that management decision letters are issued on the findings identified by the auditor in the Single Audit report and should follow-up on any CRF related questioned costs.
Treasury Office of Inspector General should follow-up with Mississippi to determine the feasibility of conducting a limited scope review of its unemployment expenditures.
Desk Review of the State of Mississippi’s Use of Coronavirus Relief Fund Proceeds
COVID-19: Data Sharing Project Finds Billions Paid to Same Likely Fraudsters under Both the Unemployment Insurance and Economic Injury Disaster Loan Programs
We recommend the Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training to evaluate its authority to share data and develop fraud prevention resources and controls with other federal entities, including SBA, that include data sharing mechanisms to detect and mitigate fraud.
We recommend the Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training collaborate with SBA to conduct a joint study to assess and identify the UI claim data elements that should be shared for data matching with disaster program data elements for the purpose of detecting potentially fraudulent activities under both the UI and SBA disaster assistance programs.
Desk Review of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Use of Coronavirus Relief Fund Proceeds
Treasury OIG should follow-up with Pennsylvania management if the transactions noted as unsupported or ineligible expenditures within the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000, Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000, Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000, and Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000 payment types can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request that Pennsylvania management provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance. Further, based on Pennsylvania's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace unsupported and ineligible transactions charged to the CRF with valid expenditures, we recommend Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000, Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000, Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000, and Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000 payment types. Castro also identified seven Other Matters throughout the course of our desk review, which warrant recommendations to Treasury OIG for additional action.