Report Type
Report Category
Submitting Agency
- Alaska Division of Legislative Audit (1)
- AmeriCorps Office of Inspector General (1)
- Amtrak (National Railroad Passenger Corporation) OIG (1)
- Architect of the Capitol OIG (6)
- Arizona Auditor General (7)
- California State Auditor (12)
- Connecticut Office of the Auditors of Public Accounts (1)
- Council of Inspectors General on Financial Oversight (4)
- Defense Intelligence Agency OIG (3)
- Department of Agriculture (1)
- Department of Agriculture OIG (25)
- Department of Commerce (1)
- Department of Commerce OIG (8)
- Department of Defense (1)
- Department of Defense OIG (55)
- Department of Education (1)
- Department of Education OIG (37)
- Department of Energy (1)
- Department of Energy OIG (2)
- Department of Health & Human Services (1)
- Department of Health & Human Services OIG (82)
- Department of Homeland Security (1)
- Department of Homeland Security OIG (30)
- Department of Housing and Urban Development (1)
- Department of Housing and Urban Development OIG (40)
- Department of Justice (2356)
- Department of Justice OIG (266)
- Department of Labor (2)
- Department of Labor OIG (68)
- Department of State (1)
- Department of State OIG (2)
- Department of the Interior (1)
- Department of the Interior OIG (35)
- Department of the Treasury (1)
- Department of the Treasury OIG (146)
- Department of Transportation (1)
- Department of Transportation OIG (11)
- Department of Veterans Affairs (1)
- Department of Veterans Affairs OIG (44)
- Election Assistance Commission (1)
- Election Assistance Commission OIG (23)
- Environmental Protection Agency (1)
- Environmental Protection Agency OIG (13)
- Farm Credit Administration OIG (1)
- Federal Communications Commission (1)
- Federal Housing Finance Agency OIG (4)
- Federal Reserve Board & CFPB OIG (11)
- General Services Administration (1)
- General Services Administration OIG (12)
- Government Accountability Office (1)
- Government Publishing Office OIG (1)
- Illinois Auditor General (2)
- Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit (5)
- Legal Services Corporation (1)
- Maryland State Legislative Audits (1)
- Mississippi Office of the State Auditor (2)
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration (1)
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration OIG (1)
- National Archives and Records Administration (1)
- National Endowment for the Arts (1)
- National Endowment for the Humanities (1)
- National Reconnaissance Office OIG (3)
- National Science Foundation (1)
- National Science Foundation OIG (14)
- National Security Agency OIG (1)
- New York, Ulster County Office of the Comptroller (4)
- New York State Comptroller (2)
- North Carolina, City of Charlotte Internal Audit Department (3)
- North Carolina State Auditor (1)
- Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1)
- Office of Management and Budget (4)
- Office of Personnel Management (1)
- Office of Personnel Management OIG (2)
- Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Fund (1)
- Oregon, Multnomah County Auditor's Office (5)
- Oregon Secretary of State, Audits Division (1)
- Pandemic Response Accountability Committee (40)
- Peace Corps (1)
- Peace Corps OIG (3)
- Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation OIG (7)
- Railroad Retirement Board OIG (8)
- Securities and Exchange Commission OIG (2)
- Small Business Administration (1)
- Small Business Administration OIG (58)
- Social Security Administration (1)
- Social Security Administration OIG (7)
- Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery (47)
- Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (2)
- State of Louisiana (1)
- Tennessee Valley Authority OIG (5)
- Texas, City of Austin Auditor (4)
- Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (50)
- U.S. Agency for International Development (1)
- U.S. Agency for International Development OIG (16)
- U.S. Postal Service OIG (16)
- Virginia Auditor of Public Accounts (1)
- Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau (13)
State (State and Local Reports)
- Alabama (4)
- Alaska (16)
- Arizona (17)
- Arkansas (9)
- California (159)
- Colorado (16)
- Connecticut (30)
- Delaware (12)
- District Of Columbia (14)
- Florida (202)
- Georgia (61)
- Guam (2)
- Hawaii (8)
- Idaho (7)
- Illinois (42)
- Indiana (12)
- Iowa (23)
- Kansas (6)
- Kentucky (20)
- Louisiana (66)
- Maine (8)
- Maryland (104)
- Massachusetts (124)
- Michigan (63)
- Minnesota (21)
- Mississippi (18)
- Missouri (102)
- Montana (2)
- Nebraska (6)
- Nevada (44)
- New Hampshire (11)
- New Jersey (112)
- New Mexico (3)
- New York (182)
- North Carolina (78)
- North Dakota (2)
- Northern Mariana Islands (1)
- Ohio (48)
- Oklahoma (14)
- Oregon (38)
- Pennsylvania (98)
- Puerto Rico (22)
- Rhode Island (30)
- South Carolina (19)
- South Dakota (3)
- Tennessee (16)
- Texas (76)
- Utah (24)
- Vermont (19)
- Virginia (36)
- Washington (80)
- West Virginia (53)
- Wisconsin (21)
Fraud Type
Agency Reviewed
- AmeriCorps (1)
- Amtrak (National Railroad Passenger Corporation) (1)
- Architect of the Capitol (6)
- Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System & CFPB (9)
- Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (2)
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2)
- Department of Agriculture (25)
- Department of Commerce (8)
- Department of Defense (50)
- Department of Education (36)
- Department of Health & Human Services (45)
- Department of Homeland Security (30)
- Department of Housing and Urban Development (33)
- Department of Justice (262)
- Department of Labor (59)
- Department of State (2)
- Department of the Interior (35)
- Department of the Treasury (145)
- Department of Transportation (10)
- Department of Veterans Affairs (41)
- Election Assistance Commission (23)
- Environmental Protection Agency (9)
- Farm Credit Administration (1)
- Federal Housing Finance Agency (4)
- General Services Administration (10)
- Government Publishing Office (1)
- Internal Revenue Service (45)
- Multiple Agencies (24)
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration (1)
- National Reconnaissance Office (2)
- National Science Foundation (14)
- National Security Agency (1)
- Office of Personnel Management (2)
- Peace Corps (3)
- Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (7)
- Railroad Retirement Board (6)
- Securities and Exchange Commission (2)
- Small Business Administration (55)
- Social Security Administration (7)
- Tennessee Valley Authority (5)
- Troubled Asset Relief Program (1)
- U.S. Agency for International Development (16)
- U.S. Postal Service (16)
Related Organizations
- AmeriCorps Office of Inspector General (2)
- Amtrak (National Railroad Passenger Corporation) OIG (8)
- Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System & CFPB (4)
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (1)
- Department of Agriculture OIG (10)
- Department of Army/US Army Corps of Engineers (1)
- Department of Defense (2)
- Department of Defense OIG (9)
- Department of Education OIG (3)
- Department of Energy (1)
- Department of Energy OIG (12)
- Department of Health & Human Services (58)
- Department of Health & Human Services OIG (97)
- Department of Homeland Security (68)
- Department of Homeland Security OIG (62)
- Department of Housing and Urban Development (2)
- Department of Housing and Urban Development OIG (25)
- Department of Justice (5)
- Department of Justice OIG (4)
- Department of Labor (53)
- Department of Labor OIG (586)
- Department of State (1)
- Department of State OIG (2)
- Department of the Treasury (12)
- Department of the Treasury OIG (1)
- Department of Transportation (1)
- Department of Transportation OIG (1)
- Department of Veterans Affairs (1)
- Department of Veterans Affairs OIG (45)
- Environmental Protection Agency (1)
- Environmental Protection Agency OIG (2)
- Federal Bureau of Investigation (845)
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (7)
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation OIG (2)
- Federal Housing Finance Agency (2)
- Federal Housing Finance Agency OIG (2)
- Federal Reserve Board & CFPB OIG (2)
- Federal Trade Commission (1)
- General Services Administration OIG (1)
- Internal Revenue Service (767)
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration OIG (5)
- National Endowment for the Humanities OIG (1)
- Pandemic Response Accountability Committee (23)
- Postal Inspection Service (107)
- Railroad Retirement Board OIG (2)
- Small Business Administration (417)
- Small Business Administration OIG (479)
- Social Security Administration (1)
- Social Security Administration OIG (125)
- Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery (33)
- Texas, City of Dallas Auditor (75)
- Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (223)
- U.S. Agency for International Development (2)
- U.S. Agency for International Development OIG (1)
- U.S. Postal Service (3)
- U.S. Postal Service OIG (2)
- United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (1)
Management Challenges
- Agency Operations (64)
- Data Transparency and Completeness (18)
- Federal Workforce Safety (3)
- Financial Management of Relief Funding (114)
- Grants and Guaranteed Loan Management (119)
- Informing and Protecting the Public from Pandemic-Related Fraud (4)
- IT Management and Security (8)
- Preventing and Detecting Fraud against Government Programs (34)
- Protecting the Health and Safety of the Public (31)
Any Recommendations
Any Open Recommendations
Reports
Desk Review of the State of Nebraska’s Use of Coronavirus Relief Fund Proceeds
Treasury OIG should confirm if the transactions noted as unsupported expenditures within 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 can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request that Nebraska provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance. Further, based on Nebraska's responsiveness to Treasury OIG's requests and its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace unsupported transactions charged to the CRF with valid expenditures, we recommend 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, Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000, and Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types. Castro also identified other matters throughout the course of the desk review which warrant recommendations to Treasury OIG for additional action. Castro recommends Treasury OIG follow-up on these issues: 1) Request that Nebraska perform an assessment over whether there were any additional indirect costs claimed within its Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000 CRF submission, in addition to those tested by Castro. Castro recommends Treasury OIG determine if these costs should be recouped or replaced by other eligible expenditures, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance; and 2) Castro tested $6,075 out of the total amount of $1,597,068 in Substantially Dedicated Payroll [1] costs claimed by Nebraska. Since Castro identified ineligible questioned costs within these Aggregate Payments to Individuals Substantially Dedicated Payroll expenditures tested, Castro recommends Treasury OIG determine if there were other instances of ineligible balances within the remaining portion of this balance.
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.
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.
Missouri Man Accused of $284,000 Pandemic Rental Assistance Fraud
False Claims Act Lawsuits Filed Against Three Individuals for Fraudulently Obtaining Pandemic Relief Funds
Desk Review of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma's Use of Coronavirus Relief Fund Proceeds
Treasury Office of Inspector General (OIG) should 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. In addition, Treasury OIG should 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, Treasury OIG should 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 should 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.
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.