Federal Reports

DoD OIG has reviewed the system of quality control for the EPA OIG audit organization in effect for the year ended September 30, 2017.

The OIG investigated allegations that three supervisors in a Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) regional office were involved in a variety of incidents that included misusing and failing to properly account for the office’s specialized communications vehicles, misusing take-home Government-owned vehicles (GOVs), and improperly purchasing items with Government funds to give as gifts to local law enforcement agencies.We found no evidence that the office’s specialized communications vehicles had been misused, but the BIA did not consistently require operational plans for the vehicles’ use. We also found that after one of the three supervisors accidentally caused $10,500 in damage to one of the vehicles in 2016, his managers did not follow BIA property management policy, because they did not inquire about the accident.Our investigation identified one example of misuse of a take-home GOV, when one of the three supervisors acknowledged occasionally making personal stops in his GOV on his way home from work. U.S. Department of the Interior policy prohibits personal use of GOVs.Finally, we found no evidence that any of the supervisors used Government funds to purchase gifts to give to local law enforcement entities.

objectives of our audit were to assess (1) whether the U.S. Department of Education’s (Department) process for recognizing accrediting agencies ensured that agencies met the Federal recognition criteria and (2) the extent that the Department monitored agencies during the period of recognition. We found that as of June 2017, the Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) had a formal process for reviewing agency petitions for recognition that incorporated the petition review procedures required under Title 34, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 602.32 (34 C.F.R. § 602.32). However, OPE’s process did not provide reasonable assurance that the Department recognized only agencies meeting Federal recognition criteria. We also found that OPE’s post-recognition oversight is not adequate to ensure agencies consistently and effectively carry out their responsibilities. OPE does not have an adequate plan for the post-recognition oversight of agencies and does not regularly perform reviews of high-risk agencies during the recognition period. OPE takes a reactive approach to post-recognition oversight and performs oversight activities for an agency only if it is alerted that compliance or other issues may exist at that agency. This could result in no oversight for some agencies, including newly recognized or higher risk agencies, for up to 5 years. In addition, OPE’s oversight approach may not identify significant agency issues soon enough to mitigate or prevent potential harm to accredited schools, students, or taxpayers.