Federal Reports

HHS, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), is subject to Federal audits of its internal activities as well as Federal and non-Federal audits of activities performed by its grantees and contractors. As a followup to these audits, HRSA is responsible for resolving Federal and non-Federal audit report recommendations related to its activities, grantees, and contractors within 6 months after formal receipt of the audit reports. HHS, OIG, prepares and forwards to HRSA monthly stewardship reports that show the status of these reported audit recommendations.

The Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) program, which is overseen by HHS's Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), served between 7,000 and 8,000 children annually from fiscal year (FYs) 2005 through 2011. In FY 2012, the number of children served in the program increased to 13,625. In FY 2014, ORR served 57,496 children and in FY 2015, ORR served 33,726 children. In FY 2016, ORR served 59,170 children. Because of the rapid increase of vulnerable children entering ORR care, and the significant increases in program funding, we are conducting a series of reviews of ORR care providers across the Nation.

As part of HHS's Administration for Children and Families (ACF), the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) manages the Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) program. ORR awards funds, primarily through grants, to organizations to provide residential care to UAC.Our objective was to assess whether Southwest Key had implemented an adequate information systems security program to protect the personally identifiable information (PII) of UAC.

Historically, national Medicaid data—a collection of data submitted by all States—have not been complete, accurate, and timely. These data have not yet been adequate for national analysis and oversight, even though some States' data have been sufficient for individual State analysis. Because of concerns with the quality and completeness of the national Medicaid claims database-the Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System (T-MSIS)-we assessed the completeness of variables needed to monitor national opioid prescribing in Medicaid.

Seek link below for the full report, report summary, multimedia or any agency follow-up.

We performed the 23rd review of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation’s (LMDC) administration of the $2.783 billion in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Disaster Recovery funds awarded to the State of New York in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York City. This review was performed in response to a congressional mandate that we continuously audit the administration of these funds. The objective of the audit was to determine whether LMDC administered its Disaster Recovery-funded WTC Performing Arts Center activity under its WTC Site program in accordance with applicable requirements. We reviewed more than $47.2 million, or 100 percent, of the funds disbursed for the activity during our audit period.LMDC generally administered its Disaster Recovery-funded WTC Performing Arts Center activity under its WTC Site program in accordance with applicable requirements. For the more than $47.2 million in disbursements reviewed, LMDC ensured that disbursements were for eligible and supported costs. In addition, LMDC provided effective subrecipient and contractor oversight for the activity reviewed.There are no recommendations.

We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis, MD’s Housing Choice Voucher Program because we received a complaint alleging that the Authority (1) ignored discrepancies between income information for applicants and program participants and (2) did not properly administer its program. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its program in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements. We focused the audit on whether the Authority (1) accurately calculated and maintained support for housing assistance payments, (2) properly administered its waiting list and selected applicants from it, and (3) admitted only eligible applicants.The allegation regarding the Authority’s ignoring discrepancies between income information for applicants and program participants had no merit. However, the allegation that the Authority did not always properly administer its program had merit. Specifically, the Authority did not (1) properly administer its waiting list and select tenants from it and (2) maintain adequate documentation to show that it admitted eligible applicants into its program. These conditions occurred because the Authority (1) was unaware of some waiting list requirements, (2) lacked controls to ensure that it maintained documentation to show that it properly selected applicants from the waiting list, (3) lacked procedures to ensure that it maintained documentation to show that it admitted eligible families into the program, and (4) did not establish a reasonable timeframe before admitting applicants who had engaged in criminal activity. As a result, HUD lacked assurance that applicants admitted into the program (1) were properly placed on the waiting list, (2) were selected fairly from the waiting list, and (3) met all eligibility requirements.We recommend that HUD require the Authority to (1) update its administrative plan to clearly define the weights or rankings of its waiting list preference system; (2) develop and implement controls to ensure that it administers its waiting list according to the requirements in its administrative plan, including maintaining documentation to show that it properly selected applicants from the waiting list; (3) develop and implement procedures to ensure that it maintains documentation to show that it admitted eligible families into the program; and (4) update its administrative plan to establish the timeframe during which an applicant must not have engaged in criminal activity before it will admit the applicant into the program.