Federal Reports

In the last six months, we issued reports on the Open World Leadership Center’s FY13 financial statements audit and physical security at the Library’s Landover Warehouse facility. We also continued a facilities planning review; oversaw an audit of information technology system certification and accreditation efforts; worked with the United States Attorney’s Office on an investigation of a former Library contractor; and on July 28th, 2014, the Librarian appointed me as the new Inspector General.

We conducted extensive research and employed scenario planning to understand what the needs and expectations of future customers of the U.S. Postal Service might be, and how the Postal Service could effectively meet those changing needs. The project involved studying projections for more than 80 social, technological, and industrial trends; reviewing hundreds of articles; and interviewing numerous experts. Results include key insights related to future customer needs and potential Postal Service opportunities. This white paper notes that the Postal Service is uniquely positioned to strategically grow in both core and adjunct products and services.

We evaluated FSA’s process for ensuring the continued protection of Federal funds at Guaranty Agencies (GA), oversight of the GAs’ ability to perform their duties, and actions necessary for the GAs’ successful participation during the phase-out of the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP). We found weaknesses that included (1) FSA’s methodology for calculating a GA’s Federal Fund reserve ratio did not comply with Federal requirements, which, as a result, inflated the GA’s reserve ratio and understated the level of financial stress a GA may be under; (2) Although FSA monitored the GAs’ ability to perform their duties, it did not establish criteria for GAs to use to develop required financial projections, and FSA did not document the procedures for actions it should have taken on information that identified GAs under possible financial stress; and (3) FSA’s initial methodology and then the modified methodology it used to select successor GAs for GAs ending participation in the FFELP contained deficiencies related to projected fund balances, relied on subjective factors, and did not provide a rationale for why the variables FSA selected to predict GA financial solvency were the most relevant variables.