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
Department of Housing and Urban Development
HUD Subsidized 10,119 Units for Tenants Who Were Undercharged Flat Rents
Afghan Ministry of Interior Headquarters Project: Phase 2 Experienced Lengthy Delays, Increased Costs, and Construction Deficiencies that Need to Be Addressed
Arkansas did not always make the supplemental Medicaid payments in accordance with Federal requirements. Sixteen of the 120 supplemental payments in our stratified random sample were correct. For 88 of the remaining 104 supplemental payments, Arkansas incorrectly calculated the amount of the payments. An additional six supplemental payments were correctly calculated but were made to ineligible providers. The remaining 10 supplemental payments were both calculated incorrectly and were made to ineligible providers.
New York improperly claimed reimbursement for 36 of 100 payments made to Medicaid Managed Long-Term Care (MLTC) plans. Specifically, New York did not ensure that MLTC plans documented eligibility assessments of program applicants and reassessments of those already in the program, and conducted these assessments in a timely manner. New York also did not ensure that the plans provided services to beneficiaries according to a written care plan. Further, New York did not ensure that the plans enrolled and retained only those beneficiaries who required community-based services, and disenrolled beneficiaries who requested disenrollment in a timely manner.
The Wisconsin Department of Children and Families (DCF) did not always comply with Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) program requirements and the terms and conditions of the program's grants, resulting in unallowable expenditures totaling $275,175. Specifically, for the five subrecipients reviewed, DCF did not ensure that one subrecipient used grant funding for allowable purposes. We also found that for three of the five subrecipients, DCF did not ensure that subrecipients' time-and-effort reporting systems complied with Federal requirements. In addition, DCF did not have adequate procedures to monitor subrecipients, could not provide an approved budget for one of its subrecipient agreements, and did not comply with Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA) reporting requirements. We did not identify any unallowable expenditures at the State level.