Federal Reports

The objective of this evaluation was to determine whether the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) was in compliance with the Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019 (PIIA) for the fiscal year (FY) ended September 30, 2024. The Office of Inspector General retained the services of KPMG, an independent public accounting firm, to evaluate the CPSC’s FY 2024 PIIA compliance. This evaluation was performed in accordance with the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency’s Quality Standards for Inspection and Evaluation.

Section 487(a)(17) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), requires postsecondary schools participating in Title IV programs to annually report data, including data relevant to students’ cost of attendance and financial aid and the schools’ graduation rates, to the U.S. Department of Education’s (Department) Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) to the satisfaction of the Secretary. The objective of our inspection was to determine whether Spring Hill College (Alabama) reported verifiable data to IPEDS for the 2021–2022 reporting period. We determined that Spring Hill College reported verifiable data to the Department’s IPEDS for the 2021–2022 reporting period. Specifically, all data elements that we selected and reviewed that the school reported through the Graduation Rates, Institutional Characteristics, and Student Financial Aid surveys for the 2021–2022 reporting period were supported by datasets, information system reports, or other records. Because all the data sets that we reviewed were verifiable, we do not make any recommendations in this report. However, our results are limited to the data sets we reviewed, and it is critical that Spring Hill College continue to report verifiable data to IPEDS. 

Why We Did This Report

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General conducted this audit to assess the EPA’s oversight of state subrecipient monitoring in the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program, including the monitoring of subrecipients of Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act funds.

Summary of Findings

While the annual review procedures for nondiscrimination laws, suspension and debarment, and single audit requirements follow statutory requirements, we found opportunities for the EPA to improve its oversight practices in the annual review steps devoted to subrecipient monitoring activities in these areas. The EPA provided CWSRF Program guidance that supported the three states that we reviewed in monitoring the subrecipients in their state CWSRF programs. The EPA could further support the states in their subrecipient monitoring activities by providing a guide of best practices for subrecipient monitoring and a best practices guide for helping equivalency subrecipients compliance.

We also made observations outside of our audit objective. The CWSRF capitalization grant terms and conditions could include a requirement that recipients and subrecipients must report violations of federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity violations to the OIG. The EPA could also encourage states to include a provision in their CWSRF loan agreements consistent with 2 C.F.R. § 200.113.

The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 (WPEA) was signed into law on November 27, 2012 (Public Law 112-199). The law strengthens protections for Federal employees who disclose evidence of waste, fraud, or abuse. The anti-gag provision, codified in the WPEA, requires all Federal agency nondisclosure policies, forms, or agreements to include an explicit statement notifying employees of their rights to report wrongdoing and make protected disclosures to an Inspector General, Office of Special Counsel, and to Congress. Our objective was to determine whether the Department includes the anti-gag provision statement, as required by the WPEA, in nondisclosure policies, forms, or agreements. We found that the Department did not include the anti-gag provision statement, required by the WPEA, in all applicable nondisclosure agreements and forms. Specifically, we identified 6 agreements or forms developed by or currently being used by 3 of the Department’s 17 principal offices that did not contain the required statement. This occurred because the Department does not have documented policies and procedures relating to the development of nondisclosure forms or agreements and has not developed a process to ensure that the anti-gag provision statement is included, when required, in nondisclosure policies, forms, and agreements.