An official website of the United States government
Here's how you know
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock (
) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.
Brought to you by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency
Federal Reports
Report Date
Agency Reviewed / Investigated
Report Title
Type
Location
U.S. Agency for International Development
Financial Audit of USAID Resources Managed by mothers2mothers South Africa NPC in Multiple Countries Under Multiple Awards, January 1 to December 31, 2023
Financial Audit of the Education and Coexistence Project in El Salvador Managed by Fundacin Empresarial para el Desarrollo Educativo, Cooperative Agreement 72051918CA00003, January 1 to December 31, 2023
This report presents the results of our audit of Mail Theft Mitigation and Response at the Beechnut, Debora Sue Schatz, and T W House Stations in Houston, TX (Project Number 25-023). The stations are in Texas 2 District of the Retail and Delivery Operations, Southern Area. Our objective was to assess the U.S. Postal Service’s actions taken to mitigate and respond to mail theft in Houston, TX. This is one of a series of mail theft audits across the Postal Service.
The AmeriCorps Office of Inspector General investigated allegations that Movement of Youth, located in Durham, NC, improperly paid living allowances to AmeriCorps members before they were enrolled into the My AmeriCorps Portal and the AmeriCorps grants management system (eGrants).
The AmeriCorps Office of Inspector General investigated alleged whistleblower retaliation at an AmeriCorps grantee. Following receipt of AmeriCorps OIG's report summarizing the investigation, AmeriCorps did not substantiate the complaint or order relief.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General conducted this evaluation to determine whether the upgrade to the Superfund Enterprise Management System is likely to facilitate improved documentation of institutional controls in the “Institutional Controls” module.
Summary of Findings
Because of system limitations and insufficient guidance, the information in the classic SEMS “Institutional Controls” module is not complete and available for reporting, monitoring, and other oversight activities. The upgrade to SEMS 2.0 is unlikely to improve this condition. Specifically, classic SEMS and SEMS 2.0 do not track institutional controls as independent elements of a site remedy, and they do not allow users to track planned institutional controls. In addition to these system design limitations, at the time of our fieldwork, the Office of Land and Emergency Management had not mandated that the regions use the “Institutional Controls” module, nor had it issued guidance regarding the purpose and use of the module. Consequently, the regions do not use the “Institutional Controls” module consistently, so the data do not completely or accurately reflect actual site conditions.
