Federal Reports

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted a national review to evaluate the governance structure and responsibilities related to the Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) Chief Mental Health Officer (CMHO) role. 

The OIG found that VHA communicated inconsistent mandatory and discretionary VISN staffing requirements. Failure to provide consistent staffing requirements likely contributes to VISN leaders’ inadequate understanding of priority positions and lack of standardization.

VISN leaders did not consistently utilize the standardized organizational chart and used a variety of titles to represent the CMHO role; the OIG identified inaccuracies within VISN-provided organizational charts. The absence of consistent information regarding organizational governance structure and staffing may result in inequities in resources and oversight of VISN and facility mental health staff and services.

The OIG determined that Office of Mental Health leaders established multiple avenues to facilitate communication with CMHOs. 

The OIG found that CMHO functional statements varied in format and content and did not consistently align with performance plan elements. While flexibility based on unique VISN needs is important, the OIG would expect the inclusion of critical responsibilities to be identified consistently in both CMHO functional statements and performance plans.

All CMHOs reported providing oversight of specific mental health programs and services; however, half of the CMHOs described lack of authority as a major barrier to effectively overseeing and implementing actions for facility-level mental health services. Office of Mental Health and Office of Suicide Prevention leaders suggested that standardization of the CMHO position description would be helpful in increasing the effectiveness of the role. 

The OIG made five recommendations to the Under Secretary for Health related to VISN staffing requirements, the use of the VISN organizational chart, alignment of CMHO functional statements and performance plans, and CMHO role authority.

This review determined that the Peace Corps complied with the Payment Integrity Information Act for FY 2024. The agency provided payment integrity information through the Office of Management and Budget’s FY 2024 annual data call; published its improper payment information in the Agency Financial Report for FY 2024; and posted that report on the Peace Corps’ website.

We received a hotline complaint in April 2024 from an individual asking the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to investigate why their conditional offer of employment with the U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) was withdrawn. Based on what we learned during our initial investigation, we broadened our investigation to include a review of the CPSC’s compliance with
laws and regulations regarding all prescreen waivers accomplished during the time period defined below. 

This investigation covers events that occurred between July 2021 and June 2024. These events included the withdrawal of Complainant’s conditional offer of employment in October 2023.

The objective of our audit was to determine whether the U.S. Department of Education (Department) Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) implemented processes to provide reasonable assurance that it awarded School-Based Mental Health (SBMH) Grant Program grants in accordance with grant requirements and Department policy and monitored grantee performance. Our audit covered OESE’s processes for awarding grants during the fiscal year 2022 SBMH Grant Program competition and for monitoring the performance of the seven grantees included in the fiscal years 2020 and 2021 cohorts. We found that OESE generally implemented processes that provided reasonable assurance that it awarded SBMH Grant Program grants in accordance with grant requirements and Department policy. It completed processes for peer review in accordance with Department policy; however, OESE did not screen grant applications to ensure that they met all application requirements before entering them into the peer review process. Additionally, OESE assessed applicant risk before awarding grants; however, it did not retain all risk assessment records that Department policy requires. In addition, we found that OESE did not always implement post-award activities as designed. Specifically, OESE did not design, finalize, and implement SBMH Grant Program monitoring plans. Additionally, its reviews of grantees’ annual performance reports (APR) were limited to ensuring that the APRs included information in each section. Finally, while OESE designed risk mitigation strategies for fiscal year 2020 grantees with elevated risk, it did not keep records showing that it implemented the strategies as designed.

We performed this review to determine whether Douglas County School District (Nevada) expended Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) grant funds for allowable purposes in accordance with applicable requirements. We determined that of the 16 expenditures that we reviewed, 12 were allowable and in accordance with applicable requirements. Four expenditures totaling $5,416 were unallowable because they were for advertising and public relations costs prohibited under the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 Code of Federal Regulations part 200). 

Additionally, we found that the Douglas County School District complied with key Federal procurement requirements, including those covering the procurement methods to be followed and contract cost, price, and provisions, when procuring the goods or services associated with each ARP ESSER expenditure we reviewed.

We performed this review to determine whether Lincoln County School District (Lincoln) expended ESSER grant funds for allowable purposes in accordance with applicable requirements. We determined that all the ESSER expenditures we reviewed for Lincoln were allowable and in accordance with applicable requirements. We also found that Lincoln complied with key Federal procurement requirements, including those covering the procurement methods to be followed and contract cost, price, and provisions, when procuring the goods or services associated with each ARP ESSER expenditure we reviewed. Because we identified no exceptions for the ARP ESSER expenditures that we reviewed, our report does not include recommendations. 

We performed this review to determine whether Clark County School District (Clark) ESSER grant funds for allowable purposes in accordance with applicable requirements. We determined that all the ESSER expenditures we reviewed for Clark were allowable and in accordance with applicable requirements. We also found that Clark complied with key Federal procurement requirements, including those covering the procurement methods to be followed and contract cost, price, and provisions, when procuring the goods or services associated with each ARP ESSER expenditure we reviewed. Because we identified no exceptions for the ARP ESSER expenditures that we reviewed, our report does not include recommendations. 

We performed this review to determine whether Nye County School District (Nye) expended ESSER grant funds for allowable purposes in accordance with applicable requirements. We determined that all the ESSER expenditures we reviewed for Nye were allowable and in accordance with applicable requirements. We also found that Nye complied with key Federal procurement requirements, including those covering the procurement methods to be followed and contract cost, price, and provisions, when procuring the goods or services associated with each ARP ESSER expenditure we reviewed. Because we identified no exceptions for the ARP ESSER expenditures that we reviewed, our report does not include recommendations. 

To determine whether all the unexpended obligations of HUD are valid and meet funding guidelines, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) coordinates annually an Open Obligation Review (OOR) of all program and administrative funds. This review determines which funds are still needed and certifies to Treasury that the funds remaining in its obligation balance at the end of the fiscal year represent future obligations for the department. Historically, HUD OIG has audited the OOR as part of the annual financial statement audit. We have not reported findings in this area as part of the financial statement audit for the last six years because the amounts identified for deobligation have remained below the materiality set for audit.

We conducted our review to identify HUD’s open obligations marked for deobligation during the fiscal year 2024 OOR that had not been deobligated as of February 28, 2025. We found 835 administrative obligations totaling $38.5 million ($38,525,837) and 101 program obligations totaling just under $2 million ($1,967,991) were identified for deobligation but had not been deobligated.   

A careful review of open obligations strengthens HUD’s internal controls by removing balances from the accounting system that are no longer required for future payments, identifies funds that could be used for current requirements, and supports HUD’s formal year‐end certification to the Department of Treasury. While HUD has completed that careful review, the objective is not met if obligations that are no longer needed are not timely deobligated. While these amounts represent a small percentage of HUD’s total open obligations, it is important that all funds identified as no longer needed are promptly deobligated so they can be used to meet other HUD requirements or returned to Treasury for other needs.  We recommended HUD deobligate the 835 administrative obligations and the 101 program obligations identified for deobligation during the fiscal year 2024 OOR that had not been deobligated as of February 28, 2025.