Federal Reports

What We Looked AtThe locks, channels, and accompanying infrastructure of the St. Lawrence Seaway are perpetual transportation assets that require periodic and regular capital reinvestment in order to continue to operate safely, reliably, and efficiently. The Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (GLS) Seaway Infrastructure Program (SIP), previously the Asset Renewal Program, addresses the long-term capital asset renewal needs of the U.S. seaway infrastructure. Adequate internal controls are critical for GLS to generate high-quality cost estimates for its SIP projects and accurately track accumulated SIP project costs. Previously, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) identified issues with GLS’ cost estimating process. Given GAO’s previous findings and the importance of complete and accurate cost estimates, we initiated this audit. Accordingly, our audit objective was to evaluate the reliability of GLS’ cost-estimating process for SIP projects completed during fiscal years 2021 and 2022. As part of our review, we also evaluated GLS’ controls for determining the costs of completed projects.What We FoundGLS has not established adequate internal controls to effectively manage its estimating process for SIP projects. Specifically, GLS does not follow a formal process for developing reliable cost estimates. Also, GLS does not have policies and procedures for ensuring cost estimates are performed when required. In addition, we determined that GLS lacks adequate documentation of controls over determining the total costs for completed SIP projects. Specifically, GLS does not have a suitable mechanism in place to track the accumulated costs of completed SIP projects.Our RecommendationsWe made four recommendations to improve GLS’ internal controls over the SIP cost estimating process. GLS concurred with our recommendations. We consider the recommendations resolved but open pending completion of planned actions. 

Our objective was to determine whether Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) managed its Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation (RDT&E) funds to align with Agency mission priorities and optimize their use. To achieve the objective, we conducted a review of RDT&E budget requests and assessed the alignment of funds with DIA strategy and mission priorities. Additionally, we reviewed DIA’s obligation and expenditure performance against Office of the Secretary of Defense goals and unliquidated obligations to assess fund optimization. We also conducted interviews with Agency officials to gain insight into DIA’s processes for monitoring funds. We issued the results of our evaluation, along with four recommendations, in a final report dated August 21, 2024.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) could not monitor the location and status of all unaccompanied migrant children (UCs) or initiate removal proceedings as needed. During our ongoing audit to assess ICE’s ability to monitor the location and status of UCs who were released or transferred from the custody of the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), we learned ICE transferred more than 448,000 UCs to HHS from fiscal years 2019 to 2023. However, ICE was not able to account for the location of all UCs who were released by HHS and did not appear as scheduled in immigration court. ICE reported more than 32,000 UCs failed to appear for their immigration court hearings from FYs 2019 to 2023.

The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 (PAEA) requires the U.S. Postal Service to produce an Annual Compliance Report (ACR) and provide the report to the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) within 90 days of the end of each fiscal year (FY). In support of the ACR, the Postal Service provides billing determinant spreadsheets to the PRC. Postal Service management prepares billing determinant spreadsheets quarterly and at the end of each fiscal year. Billing determinants report the volume by rate, weight, and calculated revenue and compares the result to the reported Revenue Pieces and Weight volume. In its annual report to the PRC, the Postal Service is required to use only accepted analytical principles.

We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles’ management of lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards in its public housing units. We selected the Authority based on our assessment of the risks of lead‐based paint in public housing agencies’ (PHA) housing developments, including the age of buildings, the number of units, household demographics, and reported cases of childhood lead poisoning. The audit objectives were to determine whether the Authority (1) complied with HUD’s requirements for children with elevated blood lead levels (EBLL) and (2) adequately managed lead‐based paint and lead‐based paint hazards in its public housing units. The Authority appropriately managed a case of a child with an EBLL. It also maintained lead-based paint inspection reports for the 69 units reviewed. However, the Authority did not adequately manage lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards in its public housing units. Specifically, for all 69 units reviewed, the Authority did not complete visual assessments in a timely manner. The Authority also did not conduct risk assessments and reevaluations for lead-based paint stabilization projects at 5 of the 10 developments reviewed, which included work at approximately 200 buildings. These issues occurred because the Authority (1) misapplied HUD’s waiver of the requirement for physical inspections during the coronavirus 2019 pandemic to visual assessments and (2) misinterpreted HUD’s requirements for visual assessments. The Authority also used standard treatments for remediating lead-based paint hazards; however, that method for remediating lead-based paint hazards does not apply to public housing, and it incorrectly believed that work performed was for lead maintenance in preparation for exterior painting rather than hazard reduction. Further, the Authority lacked adequate policies, procedures, and controls to ensure that it appropriately managed its housing units that contained lead-based paint. As a result, households that participated in the Authority’s program were at an increased risk of exposure to lead-based paint hazards, particularly families with children under 6 years of age.We recommend that the Director of the Los Angeles Office of Public Housing require the Authority to (1) implement adequate procedures and controls to ensure that visual assessments for lead-based paint are completed at least every 12 months; (2) implement adequate procedures and controls to ensure that risk assessments and reevaluations are conducted in accordance with HUD’s requirements; (3) obtain lead-based paint risk assessments and applicable reevaluations for its developments as applicable; and (4) coordinate with HUD’s Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes to obtain training for the Authority’s employees on the management of lead-based paint, including the requirements for visual assessments, risk assessments, reevaluations, and hazard reduction.