Federal Reports

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) initiated this review based upon an assessment of program risks. Our objective was to review the U.S. AbilityOne Commission’s (Commission) enterprise risk management (ERM) program to assess its maturity level, which will provide the Commission with an overall understanding as to where its current ERM program stands.

To answer our review objective, we 1) reviewed laws, regulations, policies, and procedures applicable to the ERM implementation, 2) conducted interviews with key personnel, 3) surveyed Commission leadership and staff to gain their perspectives of the Commission's ERM program for a more comprehensive view of the ERM program maturity, and 4) analyzed data, reports, and other supporting documentation related to ERM.  We conducted this review in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspection and Evaluation issued by the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency.

There are five levels in the model we used to assess the Commission’s ERM program.  The OIG assessment determined that the Commission’s ERM program maturity is between level 2, emerging, and level 3, integrated.  By conducting its own internal maturity assessment, it can periodically identify gaps in its ERM program and develop plans to mature the program, as necessary.

The OIG has no specific recommendations associated with this report.

We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Community Planning and Development’s (CPD) monitoring of grantees’ compliance with civil rights requirements. Our audit focused on the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME). Our audit objective was to assess the extent to which CPD monitored civil rights compliance in its program activities.

CPD could improve its civil rights compliance monitoring reviews. Specifically, CPD performed civil rights monitoring reviews for 2 percent of the CDBG and HOME grantees it monitored in fiscal year 2023. CPD suspended its limited civil rights monitoring in fiscal years 2021 and 2022 pending the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rules. In fiscal year 2023, it resumed its limited civil rights monitoring. However, guidance issued by management did not instruct staff to conduct civil rights monitoring, which led to confusion among field staff. In addition, CPD could improve its monitoring by requiring its field staff to fully complete the CPD Handbook 6509.2, chapter 22, civil rights monitoring checklists while conducting remote monitoring. Without clear guidance and in depth monitoring reviews, CPD could miss opportunities to identify errors in grantees’ policies, procedures, and practices related to nondiscriminatory responsibilities in CPD programs, thus overlooking the potential to communicate fair housing concerns to HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) for resolution.

We recommend that HUD’s General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development coordinate with FHEO to implement training for civil rights monitoring reviews. Additionally, CPD should (1) ensure that training on civil rights monitoring reviews is regularly provided to CPD staff (such as quarterly, semiannually, etc.); (2) implement updated guidance or protocols for monitoring civil rights compliance and require CPD staff to incorporate civil rights monitoring into the risk analysis process; and (3) develop guidance clarifying the use of the exhibit for on-site, hybrid, and remote monitoring to ensure a full review  of grantees’ compliance with civil rights requirements, and incorporate this guidance into training developed as a result of the first recommendation. HUD took steps during the audit to implement the second recommendation.

We reviewed the results of prior OIG and Government Accountability Office engagements that were relevant to the to the supplemental disaster funding provided by the American Relief Act, 2025. We identified areas with reported past weaknesses and recommendations that may provide the Forest Service (FS) insight when disbursing funds allotted by the Act.

We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Multifamily Housing Programs’ monitoring of civil rights compliance.  Robust monitoring for civil rights compliance is critical to HUD’s goals to support underserved communities.  Our audit objective was to assess the extent to which HUD monitored civil rights compliance in its program activities.

HUD and performance-based contract administrators (PBCA) perform minimal monitoring of civil rights compliance when conducting management and occupancy reviews (MOR) for multifamily properties due to (1) a lack of training and emphasis regarding civil rights monitoring and (2) contract issues with the PBCAs.  From April 1, 2021, through December 31, 2023, HUD and the PBCAs monitored civil rights compliance for only 12 multifamily properties from a statistical sample of 132 properties.  By performing minimal monitoring of civil rights compliance, HUD is missing opportunities to identify discriminatory practices or civil rights violations, thereby missing opportunities to report these concerns to the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity for resolution.

We recommend that HUD’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Multifamily Housing (1) implement training at the regional level to provide instruction on and stress the importance of monitoring civil rights compliance as part of the MORs conducted, (2) direct HUD staff to perform all required monitoring of civil rights compliance as part of the MORs conducted, (3) instruct the PBCAs to include the completion of the addendum B checklist as part of the MORs performed by the PBCAs, and (4) provide technical training to the multifamily property owners and management agents on monitoring for civil rights compliance as part of the MORs.

We reviewed the results of prior OIG and Government Accountability Office engagements that were relevant to the supplemental disaster and crop insurance funding provided by the American Relief Act, 2025. We identified areas with reported past weaknesses and recommendations that may provide Farm Production and Conservation (FPAC) agencies insight when disbursing funds allotted by the Act.