Federal Reports

We received an anonymous hotline complaint in January 2025 asking the Office of Inspector General to investigate a conflict of interest involving two senior CPSC officials at the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

The Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 (FISMA) directs Inspectors General to conduct an annual evaluation of the agency information security program. FISMA, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) establish information technology (IT) security guidance and standards for Federal agencies. We conducted this evaluation to assess the overall effectiveness of the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s information security (InfoSec) program, assess their compliance with Federal guidance, and respond to OMB reporting questions for the fiscal year 2025 annual assessment.  In FY 2025, we assessed HUD at maturity level 3, consistently implemented, for its overall InfoSec program.  HUD has made incremental progress across its InfoSec program and should continue to take steps to improve the security of its IT systems and assets, which will lead to an increase in its FISMA maturity level.  We assessed HUD’s maturity across 25 metrics.  HUD scored 3.13 in the 20 core metrics that we have assessed every year since FY 2022, and it scored 2.67 in the 5 supplemental metrics that were first assessed in FY 2025.

We contracted with the independent public accounting firm of Sikich CPA LLC to audit the financial statements of HUD as of and for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025, and to provide reports on HUD’s (1) internal control over financial reporting and (2) compliance with laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters, including whether financial management systems complied substantially with the requirements of the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 (FFMIA).  Our contract with Sikich required that the audit be performed in accordance with U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards, Office of Management and Budget audit requirements, and the Financial Audit Manual of the U.S. Government Accountability Office and the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. 

 In its audit of HUD, Sikich reported 

• A Disclaimer of Opinion on HUD’s financial statements as of and for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025.  Management indicated in its written representations that it cannot assert to the fair presentation of the FY 2025 HUD financial statements. Since management could not make this assertion, Sikich was unable to express an opinion on the fair presentation of HUD’s financial statements.
• Two significant deficiencies for fiscal year 2025 in internal control over financial reporting, based on the limited procedures performed.  The significant deficiencies were related to internal control deficiencies identified by the HUD AIR Program and internal control deficiencies over FHA’s loans receivables.   
• No reportable noncompliance issues for fiscal year 2025 with provisions of applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements or other matters.
• Due to the matter discussed in the Basis for Disclaimer of Opinion paragraph, Sikich was unable to obtain sufficient evidence to conclude whether HUD substantially complied with FFMIA. 

In connection with the contract, we reviewed Sikich’s reports and related documentation and questioned its representatives.  Our review, as differentiated from an audit of the financial statements in accordance with U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards, was not intended to enable us to express and we do not express opinions on HUD’s financial statements or conclusions about (1) the effectiveness of HUD’s internal control over financial reporting; (2) HUD’s compliance with laws, regulations, contracts,  and grant agreements or other matters; or (3) whether HUD’s financial management systems complied substantially with the three FFMIA requirements.  Sikich is responsible for the attached Independent Auditors’ Report, dated December 18, 2025, and the conclusions expressed therein.  Our review disclosed no instances in which Sikich did not comply, in all material respects, with U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards. 

HUD’s financial statements are included in HUD’s Agency Financial Report, which can be found at - https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/CFO/documents/afr2025.pdf.

We contracted with the independent public accounting firm Sikich CPA LLC to audit the financial statements of Ginnie Mae as of and for the years ending September 30, 2025 and 2024, and to provide reports on Ginnie Mae’s (1) internal control over financial reporting and (2) compliance with laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters. Our contract with Sikich required that the audit be performed in accordance with U.S. generally accepted auditing standards, Office of Management and Budget audit requirements, and the Financial Audit Manual of the U.S. Government Accountability Office and the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. 

In its audit of Ginnie Mae, Sikich reported 

• That Ginnie Mae’s financial statements as of and for the fiscal years ending September 30, 2025 and 2024, were presented fairly, in all material respects, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.
• No material weaknesses or significant deficiencies for fiscal year 2025 in internal control over financial reporting, based on limited procedures performed.
• No reportable noncompliance for fiscal year 2025 with provisions of applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements or other matters. 

 In connection with the contract, we reviewed Sikich’s reports and related documentation and questioned its representatives. Our review, as differentiated from an audit of the financial statements in accordance with U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards, was not intended to enable us to express and we do not express opinions on Ginnie Mae’s financial statements or conclusions about (1) the effectiveness of Ginnie Mae’s internal control over financial reporting and (2) Ginnie Mae’s compliance with laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements or other matters. Sikich is responsible for the attached Independent Auditors’ Report, dated December 18, 2025, and the conclusions expressed therein. Our review disclosed no instances in which Sikich did not comply, in all material respects, with U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards.

 When Ginnie Mae publishes its Annual Report, we will update this post to include this report and a link to Ginnie Mae's audited financial statements.

Opinion on the Reclassified Financial Statements

We have audited the accompanying Reclassified Financial Statements of the U.S. Postal Service, which comprises the Government-wide Treasury Account Symbol Adjusted Trial Balance System (GTAS) Reconciliation Report -Reclassified Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2025, and the related GTAS Reconciliation Reports -Reclassified Statement of Net Cost and Reclassified Statement of Operations and Changes in Net Position, for the year then ended (hereinafter referred to as the Reclassified Financial Statements) and accompanying Note 36. In our opinion, the Reclassified Financial Statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Postal Service as of September 30, 2025, and its net costs and changes in net position for the year then ended in accordance with United States (U.S.) Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).

Basis for Opinion

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards applicable to financial audits contained in the U.S. Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the U.S., and Office of Management and Budget (0MB) Bulletin Number 24-02, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements. Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditor's Responsibility section. We are required to be independent of the Postal Service and to meet our other ethical responsibilities in accordance with the relevant ethical requirements relating to our audit. We believe that the audit evidence.

We substantiated allegations that Signal Peak Energy submitted false invoices and information to ONRR.

The OIG’s Mental Health Inspection Program (MHIP) evaluates Veterans Health Administration’s (VHA’s) continuum of mental healthcare services. This inspection focused on inpatient care delivered at the Martinsburg VA Medical Center (facility) in West Virginia. 

The facility met some VHA requirements for inpatient mental health units, including aspects of a recovery-oriented physical environment, such as artwork and natural lighting, and a plan for continued transformation to recovery-oriented services. However, the facility did not include veteran representation on its Mental Health Executive Council and did not have a full-time local recovery coordinator. Recovery-oriented, interdisciplinary programming also did not consistently occur as scheduled.

The OIG identified ongoing communication issues between facility executive and mental health leaders, including executive leaders being unaware of pertinent information related to mental health staffing and processes. Staff did not perform involuntary holds or admissions due to leaders’ incorrect interpretation of West Virginia state law, and the Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) did not identify that the facility’s involuntary hospitalization policy was inconsistent with state laws.

Electronic health records indicated that reviewed safety plans did not consistently address making the veteran’s environment safer from potentially lethal means, and staff did not consistently document medication risk and benefit discussions. Discharge instructions were typically difficult to understand, lacking important details for medication management. 

The OIG observed safety hazards, such as unapproved window coverings in most bedrooms and potentially unsafe equipment in a shower room. The OIG also found shower room monitoring practices could compromise veterans’ privacy and dignity. 

VA concurred with the OIG’s 16 recommendations. The VISN Director committed to ensuring establishment of state-compliant involuntary hold procedures. The Facility Director agreed to implementing a range of corrective actions, including enhanced leadership oversight, expanded veteran engagement, strengthened staff training, and improved coordination and documentation practices to support safe, recovery-oriented mental health care.

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued this preliminary result advisory memorandum to report significant suicide hazards identified during an on-site inspection of inpatient mental health units at the VA Boston Healthcare System in Brockton, Massachusetts, conducted November 18–19, 2025. The inspection revealed multiple environmental risks that pose a serious threat to patient safety, particularly the presence of anchor points and other objects that could facilitate self-harm.

The OIG observed several high-risk features inconsistent with the safety standards outlined in VHA Directive 1167 and the Mental Health Environment of Care Checklist. These included:
     •    toilets not securely mounted to both floor and wall, with removable seats creating potential anchor points;
     •    exposed plumbing that could be used for hanging or other forms of self-harm;
     •    sink faucets and handles lacking required tapered or rounded designs, increasing risk of ligature use;
     •    cabinet door handles with protrusions that could serve as anchor points; and
     •    unsecured medical equipment and cords, which were long enough to pose strangulation hazards.

These deficiencies were identified across four inpatient mental health units housing 111 authorized beds. The presence of such hazards represents a critical vulnerability in the facility’s suicide prevention infrastructure.

Following immediate notification to facility leaders between November 18–20, 2025, interim mitigation measures were implemented. These included removal of select hazardous items, initiation of 15-minute patient safety checks, staff education on environmental risks, and enhanced observation protocols. Facility staff conducted a formal risk assessment to guide long-term corrective actions.

The OIG continues to oversee the facility’s response and will provide a full analysis in the final inspection report. Given the seriousness of the issue and similar concerns identified at other facilities, these findings are being shared broadly to prompt proactive hazard mitigation across other VHA facilities. 

Beginning in 2021, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General (OIG), conducted several audits to assess HUD’s anti-fraud efforts and to develop inventories of fraud risks in HUD programs. Our previous work found that HUD’s fraud risk management program was in its early stages of development, and we recommended that HUD perform program-specific fraud risk assessments and incorporate these assessments into an agency-wide plan to further advance its program.  To continue assisting HUD in improving its anti-fraud efforts, we conducted this work to identify potential fraud risks and schemes that that could negatively impact the Capital Fund formula grant program, HUD, and its public housing agencies (PHAs).  We identified four program-specific fraud risk factors that increase the chance of fraud occurring by increasing the incentive, opportunity, and likelihood that an individual will consider committing fraud.  We used these risk factors, along with the results of brainstorming sessions, interviews, and reviews of audit reports, investigations, and press releases from HUD OIG, and other agencies to develop an inventory of 73 fraud schemes.  The 73 fraud schemes include 58 that were listed in HUD’s fraud risk catalog and 15 schemes that we identified.  These fraud schemes can be used to defraud HUD and its PHAs and undermine the integrity of the Capital Fund program, which awarded $3.1 billion in formula grants in fiscal year 2024. We recommend that HUD use the fraud risks and schemes inventory in this report and involve relevant stakeholders to create a program-specific fraud risk inventory to support its anti-fraud efforts and enhance oversight of the Capital Fund program.  We also recommend that these fraud risks and schemes be communicated to all stakeholders, including public housing agencies.  Additionally, we recommend that HUD determine how data currently being collected can be leveraged to identify and mitigate fraud risks.