An official website of the United States government
Here's how you know
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock (
) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.
Brought to you by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency
Federal Reports
Report Date
Agency Reviewed / Investigated
Report Title
Type
Location
Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Years 2016 and 2015 Financial Statements for the Pesticide Registration Fund
Investigative Summary: Findings of Misconduct by a Chief Deputy U.S. Marshal for Having an Inappropriate Relationship With a Subordinate, Making False Statements to a Supervisor, and Submitting Misleading Statistics
Not all of the direct medical service costs that the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (State agency) claimed for Medicaid School Health and Related Services (SHARS) were reasonable, adequately supported, and otherwise allowable in accordance with applicable Federal and State requirements. Specifically, Fairbanks, LLC (the Contractor), coded random moments incorrectly. Of the 3,161 random moments coded as an Individualized Education Plan-covered direct medical service, 274 were coded incorrectly. As a result of these errors, the State agency received $18.9 million in unallowable Federal reimbursement for the Medicaid SHARS program during the period October 1, 2010, through September 30, 2011.
Alpine First Preston Joint Venture II, LLC, Alpine, UT, Did Not Always Comply With Its Contract With HUD and Its Own Requirements for the Marketing and Sale of HUD-Owned Properties in the State of IL
The Office of the Inspector General previously conducted an evaluation of Bull Run Fossil Plant (BRF) (Evaluation Report 2015-15357 issued March 30, 2016) to identify strengths and risks that could impact BRF's organizational effectiveness. Our final report identified several operational and cultural areas for improvement along with recommendations for addressing those issues. The objective of this follow-up evaluation was to assess management's actions in response to our recommendations from our initial organizational effectiveness evaluation. In summary, we determined the actions taken by BRF appear to address most areas for improvement identified during our initial organizational effectiveness evaluation, and for the most part, individuals reported seeing positive changes at BRF. Some concerns remain related to specific areas in the work management process, including planning of work and communication of work order and condition report statuses. However, resolution of these concerns relies on funding decisions that are generally outside of BRF's control.
