Federal Reports

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted a national review to examine the infrastructure and oversight of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) oncology programs.

The OIG found inconsistent implementation of VHA requirements for oncology programs. Not all Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) had an established multidisciplinary cancer committee, and none of the VISNs had submitted an inventory of oncology services or facility points of contact within the last year to the National Oncology Program Office.

Additionally, only 66 percent of facilities had an established cancer committee or had partnered with another facility or VISN to provide the required committee functions. Further, the OIG learned that a majority of VISNs did not fully comply with the requirement for complexity level 1 and 2 facilities to pursue membership in the National Cancer Institute, National Clinical Trials Network, or National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program.

The OIG found a lack of oversight contributed to the inconsistent implementation of oncology program requirements. Insufficient oversight occurred with the National Specialty Care Program Office’s oversight of National Oncology Program implementation, National Oncology Program Office’s oversight of VISN and facility oncology program implementation, and VISN oversight of cancer care at VA medical facilities. 

The OIG made five recommendations to the Under Secretary for Health related to VISN‑ and facility-level multidisciplinary cancer committees; annual VISN submissions of an inventory of oncology services and facility points of contact to the National Oncology Program Office; facility pursuit of membership in the National Cancer Institute, National Clinical Trials Network or National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program; and a review of oncology-related program offices to ensure the required oversight of VISN and facility oncology programs.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) did not clearly assign law enforcement roles to its program offices, which led to internal disagreements and friction between TSA’s Law Enforcement/Federal Air Marshal Service (LE/FAMS) Insider Threat Section (ITS) and TSA Investigations related to referring and investigating allegations of misconduct.  TSA’s conflicting management directives resulted in impeded collaboration and deconfliction of investigations into risks to the Nation’s transportation system, potentially jeopardizing TSA’s ability to mitigate insider threats. 

OIG reviewed Food and Nutrition Service's plans for reassessing the Thrifty Food Plan in 2026 and assessed how well FNS integrated recommendations from the GAO’s 2022 report into the planning process

To see our report, click on the link below

A red cap based in Tampa, Florida, was terminated from employment on August 14, 2025, following an administrative hearing. Our investigation found that the former employee violated company policy by not disclosing six criminal convictions on his employee background check during the hiring process and by being dishonest with our agents during his interview.

OIG assessed the adequacy of the CACFP meal reimbursement claims process in fiscal year 2023 for child care centers, the appropriateness of FNS approval of CACFP waivers over monitoring controls, and meal claims made at a sample of child care centers in a selected State.

Veterans can submit compensation claims for disabilities associated with active service, and if they disagree with VA’s decision on the claim, they may appeal it. The Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017 (AMA) was passed to improve the processing of these appeals. The AMA also required the VA Secretary to submit an initial comprehensive plan to Congress for implementing a new appeals system. To support this new appeals system, VA adopted a technology system called Caseflow. The VA OIG conducted this audit to assess the Office of Information and Technology’s (OIT) program management of Caseflow.

Overall, the OIG found VA lacked an enterprise-wide governance structure over Caseflow, which limited oversight during development and led to inefficiencies in reporting and functionality. This lack of clear direction made it difficult to implement requirements during development. Caseflow functionality was also affected by the contractor’s development process, which involved lengthy timelines and limited communication between developers and users. Furthermore, the team discovered contractor staffing was inconsistent with the requirements of the Caseflow contract. As a result of these program management concerns, some VA offices have either questioned using Caseflow or decided not to use it.

The OIG made one recommendation to the assistant secretary for enterprise integration, in conjunction with the assistant secretary for information and technology and chief information officer, to evaluate whether VA should establish an enterprise-wide governance structure for Caseflow development. The OIG also made two recommendations to the assistant secretary for information and technology and chief information officer to develop a roadmap for future Caseflow development and enforce contract requirements. VA concurred with these recommendations.

We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Public and Indian Housing’s (PIH) Housing Choice Voucher Program to assess public housing agencies’ (PHA) controls to prevent and combat source of income discrimination. In limited circumstances, Federal law and regulations prohibit source of income discrimination in certain HUD-assisted housing.  As of January 2025, 23 states and the District of Columbia had passed statewide laws prohibiting source of income discrimination by officially designating source of income as a protected class, with 16 of them explicitly prohibiting discrimination against housing choice voucher holders.  Meanwhile, 152 cities/counties in 27 states have passed local ordinances which prohibit source of income discrimination, including cities and counties in 19 states without a statewide law.  Our audit objective was to assess the extent to which PHAs with Housing Choice Voucher Programs in states with a statewide source of income discrimination law implemented controls to prevent and combat source of income discrimination.

PIH has no requirement for PHAs to document source of income discrimination complaints.  While PIH uses lease-up rates in overseeing PHAs, PIH does not task PHAs with investigating complaints of source of income discrimination.  In the 16 states with a statewide source of income discrimination law that explicitly includes housing choice voucher holders, PHAs reported receiving few source of income discrimination complaints, and most PHAs had guidance for staff and other processes to act on such complaints. Most PHAs’ policies and procedures contained detailed actions for responding to a complaint, while some PHAs only had general statements that the PHA would assist participants.  Varying degrees of training and education efforts for staff, program participants, and landlords were observed at the selected PHAs, which some PHA officials believed was an effective means of preventing and combating source of income discrimination.  Most PHAs did not have a method for documenting or recording the complaints they received, which PIH encourages as a way PHAs can track complaints and monitor for patterns of discrimination.  PIH also encourages PHAs to (1) work with landlords to resolve complaints and (2) inform voucher holders of their right to file a complaint with the appropriate local fair housing organization if complaints are not resolved.

The report contains no recommendations.