Federal Reports

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) assessed VA’s compliance with mandated reporting of staffing and vacancy data on its public website and its clarity in related explanations. The MISSION Act of 2018 requires VA to publicly release this information each quarter to promote transparency in personnel management. VA must also report yearly on the steps taken to achieve full staffing capacity and improve the onboarding timeline for certain facilities. The MISSION Act further requires the OIG to review VA’s data-reporting website and make recommendations for improvement.The OIG found VA complied with staffing and vacancy reporting requirements by publishing data on onboard personnel, gains and losses, vacancies, and time-to-hire. However, in its 2023 annual report, VA did not address the steps it took to improve the onboarding process at medical facilities that exceeded time-to-hire metrics, as required by the Veterans Health Care and Benefits Improvement Act of 2020; VA agreed to ensure this is addressed in future reports. Furthermore, the OIG identified opportunities for VA to improve the staffing and vacancy information reported on its public website. The review team found that VA could clarify the reason for reporting vacancies as funded and unfunded, define the scope for data in its annual reports, and ensure that data sources are described consistently across written procedures and published reports.The OIG made one recommendation to the assistant secretary for human resources and administration/operations, security, and preparedness to ensure the annual reports to Congress include the steps VA is taking to improve the onboard timeline for facilities where the duration of the onboarding process exceeds the metrics laid out in the VHA time-to-hire model, or successor model, in accordance with the Veterans Health Care and Benefits Improvement Act of 2020.

DOI made progress in complying with 9 of the 13 responsibilities in the Geospatial Data Act. We found deficiencies impacting 4 responsibilities.

This report presents the results of our verification inspection of the U.S. Small Business Administration’s (SBA) corrective actions for the four recommendations from the Office of Inspector General audit report SBA’s Microloan Program (Report 17-19).The U.S. Small Business Administration’s Microloan Program provides loans to nonprofit intermediary lenders (microlenders) that subsequently lend funds, in amounts of $50,000 or less, to small businesses and startups. In fiscal year 2023, microlenders approved microloans totaling $86.4 million for over 5,500 small businesses.We initiated this verification inspection to follow up on the four recommendations and determine whether SBA’s corrective actions are still operating as intended. Accordingly, our objective was to determine the effectiveness of SBA’s actions for 1) improving the information system to include outcome-based performance measurements and ensuring the data captured could be used to effectively monitor Microloan Program compliance, performance, and integrity 2) implementing a site visit plan to comprehensively monitor microloan portfolio performance and ensuring program results could be evaluated program-wide 3) updating SOP 52 00A to clarify requirements regarding evidence for use of proceeds and credit elsewhere and 4) updating the microloan reporting system manual to reflect current technology capabilities.We determined that all four recommendations were implemented and still operating as intended. Additionally, to ensure microlenders comply with program requirements, we suggested SBA review microloan files during annual site visits for proper use of proceeds and no credit elsewhere documentation.

The OIG received hotline complaints from five EPA scientists who raised multiple allegations of misconduct, including that the Agency took retaliatory actions from 2019 through 2022 after each scientist expressed differing scientific opinions and after they filed hotline complaints with the EPA OIG. We issued five separate reports of investigation, which individually address the specific retaliation allegations made by each scientist. The investigations determined that three out of the five scientists were retaliated against in violation of the EPA's Scientific Integrity Policy after expressing differing scientific opinions. Of these three scientists, we found that one was also retaliated against after engaging in protected activities in violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act. These investigations underscore the indispensable role of the EPA OIG in protecting scientific integrity and whistleblowers at the EPA.

The OIG received hotline complaints from five EPA scientists who raised multiple allegations of misconduct, including that the Agency took retaliatory actions from 2019 through 2022 after each scientist expressed differing scientific opinions and after they filed hotline complaints with the EPA OIG. We issued five separate reports of investigation, which individually address the specific retaliation allegations made by each scientist. The investigations determined that three out of the five scientists were retaliated against in violation of the EPA's Scientific Integrity Policy after expressing differing scientific opinions. Of these three scientists, we found that one was also retaliated against after engaging in protected activities in violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act. These investigations underscore the indispensable role of the EPA OIG in protecting scientific integrity and whistleblowers at the EPA.