Federal Reports

We are pleased to present our report for the period April 1, 2022, to September 30, 2022. The information in this report shows firsthand the dedication and professionalism of the TVA OIG team and our understanding of the importance of providing independent oversight of TVA. We will continue to focus on making TVA better by identifying potential risks to TVA’s ability to achieve its mission of providing reliable power at the lowest feasible rates, environmental stewardship, and economic development to the Tennessee Valley.In this semiannual period, our audit, evaluation, and investigative activities identified more than $145 million in questioned costs; funds put to better use; recoveries; civil and criminal forfeitures; and opportunities for TVA to improve its programs and operations.

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted a review of Veterans Health Administration’s lethal means safety (LMS) training, firearms access and safe storage discussions within suicide risk assessments and safety plans, and clinicians’ perspectives on lethal means interventions.The OIG examined the electronic health records of 480 patients with firearm-related suicide behavior events. Among 15 patients with fatal firearm-related suicide behavior events, who required a comprehensive suicide risk evaluation (CSRE) prior to the event, three lacked required documentation. Six of the remaining 12 failed to assess firearms access and three of six CSREs that documented firearms access failed to include safe storage discussion. Among patients with a non-fatal firearm suicide behavior event, staff failed to include safe storage discussions in approximately 30 percent of CSREs and 21 percent of safety plans.One-third of Veterans Integrated Service Networks fell below an average of 90 percent compliance with one-time, mandatory LMS training completion. The OIG conducted a national survey of mental health, primary care, and emergency department clinicians. Among respondents who completed LMS training, 75 to 81 percent reported asking most or every patient about firearms access when assessing suicide risk and safety planning. However, only 50 to 56 percent of respondents who did not complete the LMS training reported asking most or every patient about firearms access. The same pattern emerged for safe storage discussions. Additionally, about 60 percent of clinicians who completed LMS training, and about a third of clinicians who did not complete the training, reported documenting firearms access and safe storage discussions. The OIG made seven recommendations to the Under Secretary for Health related to training compliance and oversight, one-time LMS training, CSRE and safety plan completion, and evaluation of staff barriers to conducting and documenting the suicide risk identification strategy, firearms access, and safe storage discussions.

We contracted with the independent public accounting firm of CliftonLarsonAllen LLP (CLA) to audit the financial statements of HUD as of and for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2022 and 2021, and to provide reports on HUD’s 1) internal control over financial reporting; and 2) compliance with laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters, including whether financial management systems complied substantially with the requirements of the Federal Financial ManagementImprovement Act of 1996 (FFMIA). Our contract with CLA required that the audit be performed in accordance with U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards, Office of Management and Budget audit requirements, and the Financial Audit Manual of the U.S. Government Accountability Office and the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency.In its audit of HUD, CLA reported:The financial statements as of and for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2022 and 2021, are presented fairly, in all material respects, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.One material weakness for fiscal year 2022 in internal control over financial reporting, based on the limited procedures performed. The material weakness was related to (a) Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA) financial accounting and reporting controls over borrowing authority and loan receivables and (b) HUD’s financial reporting controls over grant accruals and Public and Indian Housing’s cash management process.Two reportable matters for fiscal year 2022 of noncompliance with provisions of applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements or other matters.Noncompliance with federal financial management system requirements, federal accounting standards, and the U.S. Standard General Ledger at the transaction level.Noncompliance with the Single Audit Act.In connection with the contract, we reviewed CLA’s reports and related documentation and inquired of its representatives. Our review, as differentiated from an audit of the financial statements in accordance with U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards, was not intended to enable us to express, and we do not express, opinions on HUD’s financial statements or conclusions about 1) the effectiveness of HUD’s internal control over financial reporting; 2) HUD’s compliance with laws, regulations, contracts, grant agreements, or other matters; or 3) whether HUD’s financial management systems complied substantially with the three FFMIA requirements. CLA is responsible for the attached Independent Auditors’ Report, dated November 17, 2022, and the conclusions expressed therein. Our review disclosed no instances in which CLA did not comply, in all material respects, with U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards.HUD’s Agency Financial Report, which includes HUD’s audited financial statements, can be found at afr2022.pdf (hud.gov).

In keeping with its responsibilities under the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, the OIG monitored the audit of TVA's fiscal year 2022 financial statements performed by Ernst and Young LLP (EY) to assure their work complied with Government Auditing Standards. Our review of EY's work disclosed no instance in which the firm did not comply in all material respects with Government Auditing Standards.