Federal Reports

Background 

The U.S. Postal Service’s mission is to provide timely, reliable, secure, and affordable mail and package delivery to more than 160 million residential and business addresses across the country. The U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General (OIG) reviews delivery operations at facilities across the country and provides management with timely feedback in furtherance of this mission. 

This interim report presents the results of our self-initiated audit of delivery operations and property conditions at the Huntington Station in Shreveport, LA. The Huntington Station is in the Louisiana District of the Southern Area and serves about 55,444 people in ZIP Codes 71101, 71103, 71109, 71119, and 71129 which are considered predominately urban communities. Specifically, 51,619 (93.1 percent) were considered living in urban communities and 3,825 (6.9 percent) were considered living in rural communities.

Background

The U.S. Postal Service needs effective and productive operations to fulfill its mission of providing prompt, reliable, and affordable mail service to the American public. It has a vast transportation network that moves mail and equipment among approximately 308 processing facilities and 31,100 post offices, stations, and branches. The Postal Service is transforming its processing and logistics networks to become more scalable, reliable, visible, efficient, automated, and digitally integrated. This includes modernizing operating plans and aligning the workforce to meet marketplace needs; leveraging emerging technologies to provide world-class visibility and tracking of mail and packages in near real time; and optimizing the surface and air transportation network. The U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General (OIG) reviews the efficiency of mail processing operations at facilities across the country and provides management with timely feedback to further the Postal Service’s mission. 

This report presents the results of our self-initiated audit of the efficiency of operations at the Shreveport Processing and Distribution Center (P&DC) and Package Support Annex (PSA) in Shreveport, LA (Project Number 26-026). We judgmentally selected the Shreveport, LA, P&DC and PSA based on a review of Leg 1 and Leg 3 failures; workhours; scanning compliance; and late, canceled, and extra trips. The Shreveport P&DC and PSA are in the Gulf South Division. The P&DC processes letters, flats, and packages and the PSA processes packages. The Shreveport P&DC and PSA service multiple 3-digit ZIP Codes in urban and rural communities (see Table 1).

As of November 14, 2025, the Shreveport P&DC employee availability rate was 87.3 percent for processing and 99.1 percent for logistics. The Postal Service’s Employee Availability goal for fiscal year (FY) 2025 was 89 percent for processing and 92.9 percent for logistics.

Background

The U.S. Postal Service’s mission is to provide timely, reliable, secure, and affordable mail and package delivery to more than 160 million residential and business addresses across the country. The U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General (OIG) reviews delivery operations at facilities across the country and provides management with timely feedback in furtherance of this mission.

This interim report presents the results of our self-initiated audit of delivery operations and property conditions at the Southfield Station in Shreveport, LA (Project Number 26-027-3). The Southfield Station is in the Louisiana District of the Southern Area and serves about 50,519 people in ZIP Codes 71104, 71105, and 71115, which are considered a predominantly urban area (see Figure 1). Specifically, 49,571 (98.1 percent) live in urban communities and 948 (1.9 percent) live in rural communities.

Background

The U.S. Postal Service’s mission is to provide timely, reliable, secure, and affordable mail and package delivery to more than 160 million residential and business addresses across the country. The U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General (OIG) reviews delivery operations at facilities across the country and provides management with timely feedback in furtherance of this mission. 

This interim report presents the results of our self-initiated audit of delivery operations and property conditions at the Plantation Station in Bossier City, LA. The Plantation Station is in the Louisiana District of the Southern Area and serves about 34,644 people in ZIP Codes 71110 and 71112, which are considered a predominantly urban area. Specifically, 32,064 (92.6 percent) live in urban communities and 2,580 (7.4 percent) live in rural communities.

The audit objectives were to determine whether program funds were managed in accordance with the ARC and Federal grant requirements.

This is an annual report to Congress regarding the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) efforts to prevent and protect trafficking victims in 2025 in accordance with the Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Reauthorization Act of 2022.

Our objective was to determine whether the U.S. Census Bureau has implemented adequate data collection procedures to ensure that American Community Survey (ACS) estimates are reliable. We found that the bureau did not effectively implement its data collection and quality control procedures to ensure that ACS estimates were reliable. We also found that the bureau did not sufficiently monitor ISR data collection procedures and did not effectively implement personal visit data collection and quality control procedures.  

We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) oversight of the Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration program.  We also reviewed three of the 39 initial MTW public housing agencies (PHA) for compliance with the MTW program’s statutory requirements.  We selected the three PHAs for review based on our analysis of risk factors for initial MTW PHAs.  Our objective was to (1) assess HUD’s monitoring of initial MTW PHAs’ compliance with the statutory requirements of the MTW demonstration program, which includes HUD’s confirmation of PHAs’ activities and related outcomes and (2) determine whether the selected PHAs complied with three of the statutory requirements (creating a reasonable rent policy that encourages employment and self-sufficiency, continuing to assist substantially the same number of eligible families, and maintaining families of similar sizes as the PHA would have if it had not participated in the demonstration program).  Further, we reviewed the PHAs’ activities to assess their established metrics and reported outcomes related to the statutory objectives.

We found that HUD’s monitoring of PHAs’ MTW demonstration programs had weaknesses.  Specifically, HUD relied on PHA self-reported data and certifications to determine full compliance with the statutory requirements and did not confirm program activities.  We determined that two of the three selected PHAs complied with the statutory requirements that we reviewed.  However, (1) one PHA did not always comply with the statutory requirement of serving substantially the same number of families as it had before joining the program, which HUD had identified through its monitoring; and (2) two PHAs’ reporting of local non-traditional households (LNT), which impacts that same requirement, had errors and were not supported.  Further, all three PHAs did not always use appropriate metrics when assessing program activities and related outcomes.  Lastly, two PHAs did not consistently maintain support for their program activities.  

These issues occurred because HUD did not verify PHAs’ reported information due to limited resources and its systems did not capture PHA data needed to determine full compliance with the statutory requirements.  Further, PHAs relied on third-party contractors to administer programs for LNT households without providing sufficient oversight to ensure that data reported for their MTW programs were accurate.  Additionally, HUD's standard metrics did not always align with the PHAs’ program activities; therefore, the PHAs could not consistently meet benchmarks and accurately report outcomes to HUD.  The PHAs also did not consistently maintain support for activities reported in their MTW reports because they believed that documentation was not needed or had relied on third-party contractors to develop and implement MTW activities on their behalf. As a result, HUD did not have complete and accurate information to determine PHAs’ full compliance with the statutory requirements and evaluate their MTW activities to make program decisions that could impact assisted housing, increase housing choices, and encourage low-income families to gain self-sufficiency.

We make several recommendations in this report to address the improvements needed in HUD’s monitoring of initial MTW PHAs to ensure accuracy and reliability of the information PHAs report to HUD related to program activities and outcomes.  Specifically, we recommend that the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Housing Investments require the MTW Program Office to develop and implement a review and verification process to ensure that data provided by MTW PHAs is accurate, complete, and supported, and ensure corrections or updates to PHA information are reflected in either restated or subsequent MTW annual reports.  Further, establish a requirement for PHAs to retain supporting documentation for all data elements reported in their annual reports and program data not captured within HUD systems.  Based on the changes HUD made related to its reporting requirements and performance metrics during this audit, we recommend that HUD conduct an analysis to determine whether those changes will allow PHAs and HUD to appropriately measure the benefits and impacts of PHAs’ MTW program to include whether additional changes are warranted to appropriately evaluate results of the MTW program.  We also recommend that HUD develop and implement a review process to ensure that appropriate outcomes are assessed for each PHA’s local MTW program.