Federal Reports

In accordance with our annual plan, the United States Capitol Police (USCP or the Department) Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted an audit of the Department’s financial statements for the years ended September 30, 2020 and 2019. Our objective was to express an opinion on the fairness of the financial statements in all material respects and render an opinion on controls over financial reporting and report on compliance with laws, regulations, and contracts. Our audit was conducted in accordance with Government Auditing Standards.

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, 2020, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, we considered USCP's internal control over financial reporting 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.

The Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA) Generation Projects and Fleet Services organization supports the execution of TVA’s strategic asset plan and outage plans through projects and services, including capital projects for the Power Operations (PO) organization to support equipment reliability at TVA’s coal, gas, and hydro plants. Due to the importance of effective project management to TVA’s mission and potential issues identified during Organizational Effectiveness evaluations, we performed an evaluation of project turnover to PO. The objective of our evaluation was to determine if TVA is effectively managing the turnover of projects to PO. The scope of our evaluation included capital projects for PO’s generation assets managed by the Generation Projects group. We limited our evaluation to the implementation and closure activities related to the turnover of those projects to PO. We determined TVA is not effectively managing the turnover of projects to PO because the project turnover processes were not aligned and the inconsistencies led to project issues related to (1) turnover and customer acceptance, (2) completion of the design change notice, and (3) project closure. In addition, we identified opportunities for improvement related to (1) time frames for completion of the design change notice process and (2) project ownership.

In response to congressional requests, the OIG investigated allegations of misconduct by the VA Secretary and senior leaders regarding a veteran’s complaint that she had been sexually assaulted at the Washington DC VA Medical Center. Requests included determining whether VA officials investigated or sought to undermine the veteran’s credibility.The OIG found that senior VA officials questioned the veteran’s credibility within hours of her complaint and expressed their views publicly when the criminal investigation closed without charges. Despite the inspector general’s caution not to infer the allegations lacked merit, VA mischaracterized the veteran’s allegations as “unsubstantiated” to nine media outlets. Senior officials’ initial engagement reportedly created pressure on VA police, who conducted a background check on the veteran before one on the individual she accused.However, the OIG did not identify conclusive evidence to support or refute that Secretary Wilkie investigated or asked others to investigate the veteran due to conflicting and unavailable witness testimony and limitations on tracking records access. Six senior officials did testify they heard the Secretary state the veteran made, or may have made, prior similar complaints. A senior official asked a journalist to look into whether the veteran had done this before, based on a comment the Secretary made. Officials testified the Secretary’s remarks implied prior complaints were unfounded. Other senior officials could not recall such statements, and the Secretary denied investigating the veteran, questioning her credibility, or knowing whether she had made prior complaints.The OIG told VA leaders following the criminal investigation they could take administrative action and suggested they review VA police files. VA’s files indicated the individual accused had a criminal history and prior complaint of sexual harassment. The OIG found leaders did not follow up or ensure the medical center had been implementing VA’s anti-harassment and anti-sexual assault efforts.

In response to congressional requests, the OIG investigated allegations of misconduct by the VA Secretary and senior leaders regarding a veteran’s complaint that she had been sexually assaulted at the Washington DC VA Medical Center. Requests included determining whether VA officials investigated or sought to undermine the veteran’s credibility.The OIG found that senior VA officials questioned the veteran’s credibility within hours of her complaint and expressed their views publicly when the criminal investigation closed without charges. Despite the inspector general’s caution not to infer the allegations lacked merit, VA mischaracterized the veteran’s allegations as “unsubstantiated” to nine media outlets. Senior officials’ initial engagement reportedly created pressure on VA police, who conducted a background check on the veteran before one on the individual she accused.However, the OIG did not identify conclusive evidence to support or refute that Secretary Wilkie investigated or asked others to investigate the veteran due to conflicting and unavailable witness testimony and limitations on tracking records access. Six senior officials did testify they heard the Secretary state the veteran made, or may have made, prior similar complaints. A senior official asked a journalist to look into whether the veteran had done this before, based on a comment the Secretary made. Officials testified the Secretary’s remarks implied prior complaints were unfounded. Other senior officials could not recall such statements, and the Secretary denied investigating the veteran, questioning her credibility, or knowing whether she had made prior complaints.The OIG told VA leaders following the criminal investigation they could take administrative action and suggested they review VA police files. VA’s files indicated the individual accused had a criminal history and prior complaint of sexual harassment. The OIG found leaders did not follow up or ensure the medical center had been implementing VA’s anti-harassment and anti-sexual assault efforts.