Federal Reports

The objectives of our audit were to determine whether (1) United Education Institute’s (doing business as UEI College) career pathway programs met the program eligibility requirements set forth in section 484(d)(2) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA); (2) students enrolled in UEI College’s career pathway programs met the student eligibility requirements set forth in section 484(d)(1)(A) of the HEA; and (3) UEI College excluded from students’ enrollment statuses and costs of attendance the component of its career pathway programs that enables a student to attain a high school diploma or its recognized equivalent. We concluded that all eight of UEI College’s career pathway programs satisfied all seven of the program eligibility requirements in section 484(d)(2) of the HEA. While we concluded that the school’s career pathway programs satisfied the program eligibility requirements, it did not always retain sufficient documentation to show that students received counseling to support them in achieving their career goals. In addition, we concluded that all students included in our sample received passing scores on a Department-approved ATB test, as required by section 484(d)(1)(A) of the HEA. We also concluded that the ATB tests for students included in our sample from 8 of UEI College’s 11 campuses were independently administered. However, we could not conclude whether the ATB tests taken by the students included in our sample from three campuses were independently administered in compliance with 34 C.F.R. section 668.151 and the ATB test publisher’s rules. Finally, we concluded that UEI College properly excluded the high school completion component of its career pathway programs from the enrollment statuses and costs of attendance for all students included in our sample.

We contracted with the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), an independent firm, to evaluate the U.S. Census Bureau's EAE operation. The original objective was to determine whether the bureau prepared adequate and timely operational assessments that included the appropriate metrics to support planning for the 2030 decennial’s research and testing. The scope of the objective was later expanded to include the other major EAE components, namely evaluations and experiments. IDA found that (1) 2020 operational assessments, evaluations, and experiments were not completed in time to formally inform the development of the Census Bureau’s 2030 research and testing agenda; (2) the 2020 census EAE research program failed to prioritize the evaluation of two of the four key 2020 innovation areas and the investigation of a potentially significant 2030 innovation; (3) the Census Bureau has put management processes and tools in place but does not always use them to their potential; (4) the Census Bureau should standardize the reporting of cost data across EAE products; (5) the Census Bureau should examine delays with respect to the originally planned schedule and not just the latest re-baselined schedule; and (6) the Census Bureau should resource-load the activities in the decennial census integrated master schedule.

We conducted an extensive review of foul time logs and bridge logs for two Connecticut bridges—the Thames River Bridge and the Shaw’s Cove Bridge—and found 17 occasions in 2022 when Buildings & Bridges employees potentially fouled the tracks by passing within four feet of the near running rail without requesting the required foul time. In addition, we confirmed this information through employee interviews. Our review supported assertions that the employees did not request foul time, as required, but we were unable to determine if the required safety job briefings were given. We received a response from company officials on February 5, 2024, describing corrective actions they plan to take in response to our review.

A Digital Technology employee based in Michigan violated company policies by failing to report outside employment with at least two other companies on her Certificate of Compliance she submitted on October 10, 2023. We also identified computer misuse related to the outside employment. She was terminated on February 2, 2024, and is ineligible for rehire.

The audit was performed under a contract with, and monitored by, the Office of Inspector General (OIG), in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and applicable provisions of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin No. 24-01, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements.