Federal Reports

To see our report, click on the link below

The Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) and the Hardest Hit Fund (HHF) are two of the largest housing programs Treasury implemented under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA). Both programs were created to help families keep their homes and stabilize communities in the wake of the 2007-2008 financial crisis. As part of its oversight of EESA, SIGTARP has issued multiple audit and evaluation reports and other products on HAMP and HHF. These reports and products included numerous findings and recommendations to Treasury that aimed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the two programs; enhance transparency and accountability; and reduce the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse.The objectives for this evaluation were to summarize the findings and recommendations SIGTARP made in its reports and other products on HHF and HAMP, to assess the status of the recommendations, and to identify lessons learned for ongoing and future housing programs. SIGTARP’s products identified findings that led to 285 recommendations on the HHF (221) and HAMP (64) programs. SIGTARP organized its recommendations by three categories including (1) promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of the programs; (2) prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse; and (3) promote transparency and accountability. Nearly 50% of the recommendations aimed to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of HHF and HAMP, while 40% of the recommendations sought to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse. Treasury fully implemented 98, or 34 percent, of SIGTARP’s recommendations and partially implemented 105, or 37 percent. Treasury’s implementation of these recommendations resulted in program changes that enabled more eligible struggling homeowners to receive much needed assistance, recoveries of wasted program funds, and greater protections from fraud, waste, and abuse. Almost 30 percent of SIGTARP’s recommendations remain unimplemented, representing missed opportunities to further enhance the programs and lessons learned for future housing and federal programs.

In accordance with the Government Charge Card Abuse Prevention Act of 2012), AmeriCorps, a Federal grant-making agency, is responsible for establishing and maintaining safeguards and internal controls for its government card program. The government card program is composed of purchase cards used by AmeriCorps personnel to purchase commercial goods and services, and travel cards used for official government travel expenses. In FY 2021, AmeriCorps transitioned its financial operations to a shared service platform offered by the Administrative Resource Center (ARC) within the U.S. Treasury Department, which included changes in the internal controls and roles and responsibilities of AmeriCorps’ Government charge card program. Due to these changes, AmeriCorps Office of Inspector General (OIG) decided to initiate an audit and engaged CliftonLarsonAllen LLP (CLA) to assess AmeriCorps’ government charge card program. Although AmeriCorps has established and maintained internal controls for purchase and travel card programs through its engagement with ARC, its key controls are not operating effectively. The auditors identified deficiencies in AmeriCorps’ ability to verify transaction approvals, allowability of expenses, and training for cardholders because the relevant documents were not appropriately retained. In addition, the auditors found that purchase and travel card accounts were not always closed after employees left AmeriCorps. Effective internal controls over government charge cards are important to mitigate the risk of fraudulent, improper, and illegal transactions. AmeriCorps concurred with 12 of our 15 recommendations to assist it in developing an effective charge card program and plans to incorporate corrective actions. Sections V and VI of the report contain a summary and our auditor’s evaluation of AmeriCorps’ response to our report.

Interim Report: Audit of the Effectsthe Main Street Lending Program’sLoan Losses Have on Treasury’sInvestment in the Program