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. Capitol Police
United States Capitol Police Fiscal Year 2015 Management Letter
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of the United States Capitol Police (USCP or the Department) as of and for the year ended September 30, 2015 (FY 2015), in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, we considered USCP's internal control over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements and on internal control over financial reporting.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program Grants Awarded to the American Samoa Government, Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources, From October 1, 2011, Through September 30, 2013
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program Grants Awarded to the State of West Virginia, Division of Natural Resources, From July 1, 2011, Through June 30, 2013
Compliance Review of FHFA’s Implementation of Its Procedures for Overseeing the Enterprises’ Single-Family Mortgage Underwriting Standards and Variances
Of the $27.6 billion in Federal Medicaid funds that the California Department of Health Care Services (State agency) obtained for fiscal year (FY) 2010, $20.3 million was not supported by net expenditures. Specifically, the State agency (1) refunded less to its FY 2010 Payment Management System (PMS) accounts for certain adjustments to reduce its expenditures than it reported for those adjustments on the CMS 64s and (2) obtained funds for expenditures that it did not report on the CMS 64s. After reconciling the FY 2010 PMS accounts, the State agency did not take appropriate corrective actions for the $20.3 million because it did not have specific policies and procedures to resolve the differences identified or because it chose not to take action.
