Federal Reports

We contracted with the independent public accounting firm of CliftonLarsonAllen LLP (CLA) to audit the financial statements of FHA as of and for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2021 and 2020, and to provide reports on FHA’s 1) internal control over financial reporting; and 2) compliance with laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements in its financial reporting. 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 FHA, CLA reported:The consolidated financial statements as of and for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2021, are presented fairly, in all material respects, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.One material weakness and one significant deficiency in internal control over financial reporting, based on the limited procedures that it performed.A material weakness existed related to FHA controls over financial accounting and reporting. A significant deficiency existed related to FHA econometric modeling activities used to estimate the agency’s loan guarantee liability.No reportable noncompliance issues for fiscal year 2021 with provisions of applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements tested and no other matters.We will provide a replacement report for posting, once HUD publishes its Agency Financial Report, which will include this report and the audited financial statements.

The objectives of our review were to review States’ initial 45-day GEER Fund reports to determine how States plan to allocate funds to entities within the three authorized categories: local educational agencies (LEA), institutions of higher education (IHE), and education-related entities, and the criteria upon which these decisions were based; and review GEER Fund annual reports to identify changes to and progress made from the initial plans in the 45-day reports.We found that within the three authorized entity categories, 45 States (87 percent) planned to allocate GEER funds to LEAs, 39 States (75 percent) planned to allocate funds to IHEs, and 36 States (69 percent) planned to allocate funds to other education-related entities. Further, we found that 41 States (79 percent) planned to allocate GEER funds among more than one entity category. Of the remaining 11 States, 5 States (10 percent) planned to allocate funds to only LEAs, 3 States (6 percent) to only IHEs, and 2 States (4 percent) to only other education-related entities. One State did not include information that specified its intended allocation of funds by entity category.

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) audited the accuracy of data used to measure VA’s capacity to provide specialty health care to veterans. The data will be used to identify gaps in care and implement recommendations for modernizing or realigning VA facilities to fill those gaps, as required by the VA MISSION Act of 2018. Using data from interviews with over 1,800 officials, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Office of Strategic Planning and Analysis assessed the capacity to provide health care in each of VA’s 96 geographic market areas. The OIG looked for areas where the risk of materially inaccurate data was highest and focused its audit on the accuracy of three specialty care data components: workload, wait times, and provider clinical time allocations. The OIG concluded that only the workload data inaccuracies were significant enough to affect management decisions. The OIG estimated VHA’s reported fiscal year 2019 workload for 12 specialties across all care providers was overstated by 10.7 percent, which amounts to about 563 full-time equivalent physician positions based on the average workload. This overstatement of workload could result in an inefficient use of taxpayer dollars and diminish access to care for veterans if it leads VA officials to not place staffing resources where they are needed. Without a clear understanding of the work performed, VHA cannot be sure management decisions are based on verifiable, documented services provided that will result in the most efficient allocation of taxpayer funds. The OIG recommended that the acting under secretary for health perform additional analyses to ensure materially accurate specialty care workload data are used to implement recommendations from the Asset and Infrastructure Review Commission.

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) Vet Center Inspection Program provides a focused evaluation of aspects of the quality of care delivered at vet centers. This report focuses on Pacific district 5 zone 2 and four selected vet centers—Fresno, High Desert, and Santa Cruz County in California; and Honolulu, Hawaii. The OIG inspection focused on six review areas—leadership and organizational risks; quality reviews; COVID-19 response; suicide prevention; consultation, supervision, and training; and environment of care.Generally, district leaders were knowledgeable about healthcare quality improvement and shared actions taken during the past 12 months in response to VA All Employee Survey results. District 5 zone 2 Vet Center Service Customer Feedback survey results exceeded national scores in four of the six categories.The OIG conducted an analysis of vet center quality reviews required to ensure compliance with policy and procedures and made four recommendations for clinical and administrative quality reviews.The COVID-19 response review showed that supplies were adequate and safety practices, including wearing of masks and practicing safe social distancing, were used throughout the zone. Overall, employees’ responses indicated that communication from district leaders and Vet Center Directors was adequate to ensure the safety of clients and staff.The suicide prevention review included a zone-wide evaluation of electronic client records and a focused review of four selected vet centers. The OIG issued eight recommendations—seven specific to electronic client records and one for selected vet centers’ suicide prevention and intervention processes.The consultation, supervision, and training review evaluated the four vet centers. The OIG identified concerns with external clinical consultation, supervision, and training, and issued four recommendations.The environment of care review evaluated the four vet centers. The OIG made one recommendation.The OIG issued a total of 17 recommendations for improvement to the District Director.