Federal Reports

We audited the Housing Authority of the County of Alameda’s Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) conversion to the Section 8 Project-Based Voucher Program. We selected the Authority because reviews of RAD conversions were aligned with the goals of our annual audit plan. The objective of our review was to determine whether the Authority administered its RAD conversion in accordance with HUD requirements. Specifically, we wanted to determine whether the Authority (1) executed appropriate written agreements, (2) ensured that project financing sources were secured, (3) ensured that the required environmental reviews were accomplished, (4) maintained separate books and records for the RAD conversion, (5) complied with HUD occupancy requirements, and (6) complied with HUD requirements related to increases in tenant rental payments as a result of the conversion.The Authority generally administered its RAD conversion in accordance with HUD requirements. Specifically, the Authority ensured that it (1) executed proper written agreements, (2) secured project financing sources, (3) completed required environmental reviews, (4) maintained separate books and records for its RAD conversion, and (5) complied with HUD occupancy requirements, and (6) did not increase tenant rental payments as a result of the conversion complied with HUD requirements. This report contains no recommendations.

We audited the costs claimed by the State of Tennessee, Wildlife Resources Agency, under grants awarded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) through the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program. The audit included claims totaling approximately $95.4 million on 35 grants that were open during the State fiscal years that ended June 30, 2016, and June 30, 2017. The audit also covered the Division’s compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and FWS guidelines, including those related to collecting and using hunting and fishing license revenue and reporting program income.We found that the Agency generally complied with applicable grant accounting and regulatory requirements, but inaccurately reported program income, did not maintain oversight responsibilities over subawards, and did not submit required financial and performance reports timely.

We audited the costs claimed by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife under grants awarded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) through the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program. The audit included claims totaling approximately $66.9 million on 47 grants that were open during the State fiscal years that ended June 30, 2016, and June 30, 2017. The audit also covered the Department’s compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and FWS guidelines, including those related to the collection and use of hunting and fishing license revenues and the reporting of program income.We found that the Department generally complied with applicable grant accounting and regulatory requirements. We noted that the Department did not have a policy or process to formally conduct and document risk assessments and monitoring plans for subrecipients. We did not identify this as a finding, because we are going to ask the FWS to provide additional guidance to the States on oversight for subawards. We did not require a response to this audit report.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) requested that we audit costs claimed on the Crow Tribe’s Methamphetamine Initiative Program, under Agreement No. A12AV01171. We could not perform the audit because the Tribe did not provide the necessary documentation for its claim, such as contractor invoices, vendor invoices, payroll documentation, and internal journal entries. We therefore could not determine whether the Tribe’s claimed costs of $150,000 for fiscal years (FYs) 2015 and 2016 were allowable under Federal laws and regulations, allocable to the agreement and incurred in accordance with its terms and conditions, and reasonable and supported by the Tribe’s records. We question the entire claim of $150,000 for FYs 2015 and 2016.

Historically, only certain groups of individuals who had incomes and assets below certain thresholds were eligible for Medicaid (traditional coverage groups). After the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), many beneficiaries remained eligible under these traditional coverage groups. We refer to these beneficiaries as "non-newly eligible beneficiaries."