Report Category
Submitting Agency
- AmeriCorps Office of Inspector General (1)
- Architect of the Capitol OIG (2)
- Arizona Auditor General (4)
- California State Auditor (2)
- Department of Agriculture OIG (12)
- Department of Education OIG (19)
- Department of Housing and Urban Development OIG (2)
- Department of Justice OIG (9)
- Department of Labor OIG (18)
- Department of the Interior OIG (7)
- Department of the Treasury OIG (98)
- Department of Veterans Affairs OIG (2)
- Department of War OIG (9)
- Federal Housing Finance Agency OIG (4)
- Federal Reserve Board & CFPB OIG (1)
- General Services Administration OIG (4)
- Government Publishing Office OIG (1)
- Mississippi Office of the State Auditor (1)
- New York, Ulster County Office of the Comptroller (2)
- New York State Comptroller (2)
- Office of Personnel Management OIG (1)
- Oregon, Multnomah County Auditor's Office (3)
- Pandemic Response Accountability Committee (24)
- Peace Corps OIG (1)
- Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation OIG (5)
- Railroad Retirement Board OIG (1)
- Small Business Administration OIG (7)
- Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery (10)
- Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (1)
- Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (1)
State (State and Local Reports)
Fraud Type
Agency Reviewed
- AmeriCorps (1)
- Architect of the Capitol (2)
- Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System & CFPB (1)
- Department of Agriculture (12)
- Department of Education (19)
- Department of Housing and Urban Development (2)
- Department of Justice (9)
- Department of Labor (18)
- Department of the Interior (7)
- Department of the Treasury (108)
- Department of Veterans Affairs (2)
- Department of War (9)
- Federal Housing Finance Agency (4)
- General Services Administration (4)
- Government Publishing Office (1)
- Internal Revenue Service (1)
- Multiple Agencies (22)
- Office of Personnel Management (1)
- Peace Corps (1)
- Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (5)
- Railroad Retirement Board (1)
- Small Business Administration (7)
- Troubled Asset Relief Program (1)
Related Organizations
Management Challenges
- Agency Operations (17)
- Data Transparency and Completeness (8)
- Financial Management of Relief Funding (61)
- Grants and Guaranteed Loan Management (26)
- Informing and Protecting the Public from Pandemic-Related Fraud (3)
- Preventing and Detecting Fraud against Government Programs (6)
- Protecting the Health and Safety of the Public (5)
Any Recommendations
Any Open Recommendations
Reports
Search for reports and investigative results.
Desk Review of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ (Massachusetts) Use of Coronavirus Relief Fund Proceeds
Treasury Office of Inspector General (OIG) should follow-up with Massachusetts management to confirm if the $21,342 noted as unsupported expenditures within the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request Massachusetts' management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previous charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance. Further, based on Massachusetts management's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace unsupported transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type, if support is not provided.
Treasury OIG should request Massachusetts management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $91,646,107 of fringe benefits and bonus payments ineligible costs charge to the Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment type. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds. Additionally, Treasury OIG should request that Massachusetts management perform an assessment to determine if there were any additional one-time bonus payments not related to hazardous duty included within its Aggregate Payments to Individuals claims and identify those for repayment to Treasury, as applicable. Further, based on Massachusetts management's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace ineligible transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types.
Treasury OIG should request Massachusetts perform an assessment to determine whether there was any additional advertising and marketing costs charged to CRF within its Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type and identify those for reversal and repayment to Treasury, as applicable. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request Massachusetts' management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $1,500,000 of ineligible costs charged to the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type. Based on Massachusetts management's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace ineligible transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type.
Treasury OIG should request Massachusetts management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $25,527 of ineligible costs charged to the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds. Based on Massachusetts management's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace ineligible transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment types.
Treasury OIG should follow-up with Massachusetts management to confirm if the $107,824 noted as unsupported expenditures within the Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request Massachusetts' management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previous charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance. Further, based on Massachusetts management's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace unsupported transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type.
Treasury OIG should request Massachusetts to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $59,225 of ineligible costs charged to the Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds. Based on Massachusetts management's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace ineligible transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000 payment types.
Treasury OIG should request Massachusetts to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $114,940 of ineligible costs charge to the Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds. Based on Massachusetts' responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and Massachusetts' ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace ineligible transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type.
Treasury OIG should request Massachusetts management perform an assessment over whether there were any additional indirect costs or negotiated rates claimed within its Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000 and Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment types, and to identify those costs for repayment to Treasury, as applicable.
Treasury OIG should request Massachusetts management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $70,625,069 of ineligible costs charge to the Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment type. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds. Additionally, Treasury OIG should request that Massachusetts management perform an assessment to determine if there were any additional one-time bonus payments not related to hazardous duty included within its Aggregate Payments to Individuals claims and identify those for repayment to Treasury, as applicable. Further, based on Massachusetts management's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace ineligible transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types.
Treasury OIG should request that Massachusetts management perform an assessment to determine if there were any additional one-time bonus payments not related to hazardous duty included within its Aggregate Payments to Individuals claims and identify those for repayment to Treasury, as applicable. Treasury OIG should request Massachusetts management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $991 of ineligible costs charge to the Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment type. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds. Based on Massachusetts management's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace ineligible transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types.
Desk Review of the State of Washington's Use of Coronavirus Relief Fund Proceeds
Treasury Office of Inspector General (OIG) follow-up with Washington's management to confirm if the $14,085,335 noted as unsupported expenditures within the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000, Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000, Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000, and Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request Washington management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance. In addition, Castro recommends that Treasury OIG request Washington management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $283,599 of ineligible costs charged to the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000, Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000, and Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds. Further, based on Washington management's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and management's ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace unsupported and ineligible transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Castro recommends Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000, Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000, Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000, and Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types.
Treasury OIG request Washington management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $283,599 of ineligible costs charged to the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000, Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000, and Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds. Further, based on Washington management's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and management's ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace unsupported and ineligible transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Castro recommends Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000, Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000, Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000, and Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types.
Treasury's Office of Capital Access ensure that management decision letters are issued on the CRF specific findings identified by the auditor in these Single Audit reports.
Treasury's Office of Capital Access follow-up on any CRF specific questioned costs reported in the fiscal year 2020, 2021, and 2022 Single Audit reports.
Desk Review of the Native Village of Selawik's Coronavirus Relief Fund Proceeds
Treasury OIG should follow-up with Selawik's management to confirm the transactions noted as unsupported or ineligible expenditures within the Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000, Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000, and Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types are recouped or replaced by other eligible expenditures not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Based on Selawik's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000, Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000, and Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types. Treasury OIG should also follow-up on these issues: 1) Based on the results of Castro's testing over $23,414 out of $857,576 in CRF payroll expenses claimed by Selawik, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of following up on the balance of $834,162, as the remaining balance may be similarly unsupported or ineligible since Castro found exceptions related to all payroll transactions tested; 2) Follow-up with Selawik to determine if there were additional costs, separate from those tested by Castro, claimed within the Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000, Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000, and Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types related to the construction of its "new store", and if so, determine if those amounts should be questioned as well; and 3) Since there were hardship payments misclassified in the Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type that should have been reported in the Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment type identified within the testing, Treasury OIG should follow-up with Selawik to determine if there were additional costs claimed within the Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000 and Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types related to hardship payment claims, and if so, determine if those amounts should be questioned as well.
Desk Review of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma's Use of Coronavirus Relief Fund Proceeds
Treasury Office of Inspector General (OIG) follow up with Oklahoma County's management to confirm if the $91,218 noted as unsupported expenditures within the Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000, Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000, and Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request Oklahoma County management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance.
Treasury OIG request Oklahoma County management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $326,664 of ineligible costs charged to the Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds. Further, based on Oklahoma County's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and management's ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace unsupported and ineligible transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Castro recommends that Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000, Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000, and Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types.
Treasury OIG follow-up with Oklahoma County to request that Oklahoma County management performs an assessment over the $1,288,109 in grants funds paid to the Oklahoma County Home Finance Authority, which were not tested by Castro, to determine if rental assistance payments and prepaid debit cards payments were made utilizing solely Oklahoma County's CRF proceeds, or if these expenses were paid with State of Oklahoma and Oklahoma City funding sources. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request Oklahoma County management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance.
Treasury OIG follow-up with Treasury's Office of Capital Access to ensure that management decision letters are issued on the findings identified by the auditor in the Single Audit report.
Desk Review of the State of New Hampshire’s Use of Coronavirus Relief Fund Proceeds
Castro recommends that Treasury Office of Inspector General (OIG) follow-up with New Hampshire's management to confirm if the $14,027,288 noted as unsupported expenditures within the Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request New Hampshire management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance. ' In addition, Castro recommends that Treasury OIG request New Hampshire management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $2,397,551 of ineligible costs charged to the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds. Further, based on New Hampshire management's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and management's ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace unsupported and ineligible transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Castro recommends Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 and Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000 payment types.
Desk Review of the State of Oklahoma's Use of Coronavirus Relief Fund Proceeds
Treasury OIG should follow-up with Oklahoma's management to confirm if the $35,499,181 noted as unsupported expenditures within the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000, Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000, Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000, Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000, and Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request Oklahoma management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. In addition, Treasury OIG should request Oklahoma management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $75,926 of ineligible costs charged to the Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000 and Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000 payment types. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds. Based on Oklahoma's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace unsupported and ineligible transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000, Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000, Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000, Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000, and Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types. Treasury OIG should follow-up with Treasury's Office of Capital Access to ensure that management decision letters are issued on the findings identified by the auditor in the Single Audit report. Treasury OIG should obtain and review Oklahoma's FY 2022 Single Audit report, as this was not available to Castro during our desk review planning procedures. Treasury OIG should follow-up with Oklahoma and request management to perform an analysis over all grants-reporting portal balances to determine if there were other instances, separate from those identified by Castro, of subscription costs that extended past the expenditure deadline of September 30, 2022.
Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA1) Program Notice of Recoupment – State of Alaska (Redacted)
This is a recoupment.
Desk Review of the State of Utah’s Use of Coronavirus Relief Fund Proceeds
Treasury OIG follow-up with Utah's management to confirm if the $40,308,738 noted as unsupported expenditures within the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000, Grants greater than or equal to $50,000, Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000, Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000, and Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request Utah management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance$50,000, Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000, Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000, and Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request Utah management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance.
Treasury OIG request Utah management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $6,852,799 of ineligible costs charged to the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000, Grants greater than or equal to $50,000, Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000, and Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds. Further, based on Utah's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace unsupported and ineligible transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Castro recommends Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000, Grants greater than or equal to $50,000, Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000, Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000, and Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types.
Treasury's Office of Capital Access should follow-up on any CRF specific questioned costs reported in the fiscal year 2020, 2021, and 2022 Single Audit reports.
Treasury OIG follow-up with Utah's management to determine the feasibility of performing additional follow-up with Utah to determine if there were other instances of unsupported costs within the $8,471,021 remaining, untested balance.
Treasury OIG follow-up with Utah's management to determine the feasibility of performing additional follow-up with Utah to determine if there were other instances of unsupported balances within the advertising campaigns created through a third-party vendor.
Treasury OIG follow-up with Utah and request Utah to perform an analysis over all of their GrantSolutions portal reported balances to determine if there were other instances of subscription costs included in the CRF reported expenditures and review those expenditures to determine if there were other instances of subscription costs that extended past September 30, 2022.
Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of performing additional follow-up with Utah to determine if there were other instances of unsupported costs within the other two awards issued under the Thrive 125 program.
Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of performing additional follow-up with Utah to determine if there were other instances of unsupported grants within the amount of $1,790,107 not tested by Castro.
Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of performing additional follow-up to determine if there were other instances of unsupported costs and ineligible bonuses within the remainder of the amount categorized as non-substantially dedicated payroll.
Desk Review of the District of Columbia’s Use of Coronavirus Relief Fund Proceeds
Treasury Office of Inspector General (OIG) should request DC to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $5,217,865 of ineligible costs charge to the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds.
Based on DC management's ability to respond to Treasury OIG's requests related to the health care contract's ineligible costs, Treasury OIG should request the details on the remainder of the contract balance. If DC management is unable to itemize the portion of the medical expenses that were COVID-19 related, Treasury OIG determine if the remaining contract balance was similarly ineligible and should be recouped or replaced by other eligible expenditures, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Based on DCs responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace ineligible transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type.
Treasury OIG should request DC's management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $202,695 of ineligible questioned cost reconciliation error (other matters charged to the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds. Based on DC management's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace ineligible transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment types.
Treasury OIG should request DC's management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $575,000 of ineligible questioned cost reconciliation error (other matters charged to the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds. Based on DC management's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace ineligible transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment types.
Treasury OIG should follow-up with the DC's management to confirm if the $30,107 noted as unsupported expenditures within Aggregate Payments to Individuals can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request DC's management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance. Further, based on the DC management's responsiveness to Treasury Office of Inspector General requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation, and/or replace unsupported transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Treasury Office of Inspector General should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment type.
Treasury OIG should request DC to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $6,117 of ineligible costs charged to the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds. Based on DC management's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and management's ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace ineligible transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment types.
Treasury OIG should request DC to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $148,721 of ineligible costs charged to the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds. Based on DCs management's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace ineligible transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment types.
Treasury OIG should follow-up with DC's management to confirm if the $39,384 unsupported expenditures within the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request DC management to provide replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance.
Treasury OIG should follow-up with DC's management to determine if the remaining grant balance was similarly unsupported and should be recouped or replaced by other eligible expenditures, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Based on DC's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation, and/or replace unsupported transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type.
Treasury OIG should follow-up with DC's management to confirm if the $24,261 noted as unsupported expenditures within the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request DC management to provide replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance.
Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of performing additional testing over portions of the remaining untested grant balance. If DC is unable to provide support Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request that DC management provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance. Further, based on DC's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation, and/or replace unsupported transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type.
Treasury OIG should request DC to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $8,290 of ineligible costs charge to the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds. Based on DC management's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and management's ability to provide sufficient documentation, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type.
Treasury OIG should request DC to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $14,000 of ineligible costs charged to the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds. Based on DC management's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace ineligible transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment types.
Treasury OIG should request DC management perform an assessment over the remaining balance of $861,000 within its Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment types to determine if there were other similarly ineligible expenses.
Treasury OIG should request DC to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $12,744 of ineligible costs charged to the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds. Based on DC management's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace ineligible transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment types.
Treasury OIG should request DC management perform an assessment over the remaining balance of $862,256 within its Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment types to determine if there were other similarly ineligible expenses.
Treasury OIG should request DC's management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $21,202,722 of ineligible costs (other matters) charged to the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds. Based on DC management's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace ineligible transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment types.
Desk Review of the State of North Dakota’s Use of Coronavirus Relief Fund Proceeds
Treasury OIG should follow-up with North Dakota's management to confirm the transactions noted as unsupported or ineligible expenditures within the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000, Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000, Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000, and Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types are recouped or replaced by other eligible expenditures, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Based on North Dakota management's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation, Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000, Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000, Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000, and Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types. Treasury OIG should follow-up with Treasury's Office of Capital Access to ensure that management decision letters are issued on the findings identified by the auditor in the Single Audit Report for fiscal years 2021/2022 (combined report). Treasury OIG should follow-up on any CRF specific questioned costs reported in the fiscal year 2021-2022 Single Audit report. 1) Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of performing additional follow-up with North Dakota to determine if there were other instances of unsupported balances within the DUC oil well grant program; 2) Follow-up with North Dakota management and request that management performs an analysis over all of their grants portal reported balances to determine if there were other instances of subscription costs that extended past September 30, 2022 in addition to the items found through testing; and 3) request that North Dakota management conduct a general ledger detail reconciliation related to the interest income. Based on the results of this analysis, Treasury OIG should determine if the analysis supports the $6,651 difference between the interest earned per the general ledger and the interest claimed in the grants reporting portal.
Treasury's Office of Capital Access should ensure that management decision letters are issued on the findings identified by the auditor in the Single Audit Report for fiscal years 2021/2022 (combined report). Treasury's Office of Capital Access should follow-up on any CRF specific questioned costs reported in the fiscal year 2021-2022 Single Audit report.