Report Type
Report Category
Submitting Agency
- AmeriCorps Office of Inspector General (1)
- Amtrak (National Railroad Passenger Corporation) OIG (1)
- Architect of the Capitol OIG (4)
- Department of Agriculture OIG (24)
- Department of Commerce OIG (5)
- Department of Defense OIG (50)
- Department of Education OIG (36)
- Department of Health & Human Services OIG (44)
- Department of Homeland Security OIG (30)
- Department of Housing and Urban Development OIG (33)
- Department of Justice OIG (29)
- Department of Labor OIG (50)
- Department of State OIG (2)
- Department of the Interior OIG (35)
- Department of the Treasury OIG (95)
- Department of Transportation OIG (8)
- Department of Veterans Affairs OIG (41)
- Election Assistance Commission OIG (23)
- Environmental Protection Agency OIG (11)
- Farm Credit Administration OIG (1)
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation OIG (154)
- Federal Housing Finance Agency OIG (4)
- Federal Reserve Board & CFPB OIG (11)
- General Services Administration OIG (10)
- Government Publishing Office OIG (1)
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration OIG (1)
- National Reconnaissance Office OIG (2)
- National Science Foundation OIG (13)
- National Security Agency OIG (1)
- Office of Personnel Management OIG (2)
- Pandemic Response Accountability Committee (26)
- Peace Corps OIG (2)
- Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation OIG (7)
- Railroad Retirement Board OIG (6)
- Securities and Exchange Commission OIG (1)
- Small Business Administration OIG (45)
- Social Security Administration OIG (7)
- Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery (45)
- Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (2)
- Tennessee Valley Authority OIG (4)
- Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (45)
- U.S. Agency for International Development OIG (15)
- U.S. Postal Service OIG (16)
State/Local Agency
State (State and Local Reports)
Fraud Type
Agency Reviewed
- AmeriCorps (1)
- Amtrak (National Railroad Passenger Corporation) (1)
- Architect of the Capitol (4)
- 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 (24)
- Department of Commerce (5)
- 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 (29)
- Department of Labor (50)
- Department of State (2)
- Department of the Interior (35)
- Department of the Treasury (140)
- Department of Transportation (9)
- Department of Veterans Affairs (41)
- Election Assistance Commission (23)
- Environmental Protection Agency (9)
- Farm Credit Administration (1)
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (154)
- Federal Housing Finance Agency (4)
- General Services Administration (10)
- Government Publishing Office (1)
- Internal Revenue Service (45)
- Multiple Agencies (22)
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration (1)
- National Reconnaissance Office (2)
- National Science Foundation (13)
- National Security Agency (1)
- Office of Personnel Management (2)
- Peace Corps (2)
- Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (7)
- Railroad Retirement Board (6)
- Securities and Exchange Commission (1)
- Small Business Administration (46)
- Social Security Administration (7)
- Tennessee Valley Authority (4)
- Troubled Asset Relief Program (1)
- U.S. Agency for International Development (15)
- U.S. Postal Service (16)
Related Organizations
Management Challenges
Any Recommendations
Any Open Recommendations
Reports
A Review of Pandemic Relief Funding and How It Was Used In Six U.S. Communities: Marion County, Georgia
Management Alert: Concerns Regarding the Obligation of Rescinded Pandemic Funds and Grant Process Documentation
Desk Review of the State of Connecticut’s Use of Coronavirus Relief Fund Proceeds
<p>Treasury Office of Inspector General (OIG) should follow-up with Connecticut's management to confirm if the $56,991,521 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 Connecticut management provide support for other eligible replacement expenses, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Further, based on Connecticut'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.</p>
<p>Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of performing additional procedures on the remaining untested amounts reported in the GrantSolutions portal for the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type. Based on Connecticut'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, determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type.</p>
<p>Treasury OIG should follow up with Connecticut to confirm if the $10,144,090 noted as other matters unsupported expenditures within the Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment type can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request Connecticut management provide support for other eligible replacement expenses, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Further, based on Connecticut'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 Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment type.</p>
<p>Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of performing additional procedures on the remaining untested amounts reported in the GrantSolutions portal for the Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment type.</p>
<p>For the Fiscal Year 2020 Single Audit report, 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 and should follow-up on any CRF related questioned costs.</p>
<p>For the Fiscal Year 2021 Single Audit report, 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 and should follow-up on any CRF related questioned costs.</p>
<p>For the Fiscal Year 2022 Single Audit report, 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 and should follow-up on any CRF related questioned costs.</p>
<p>Treasury OIG should follow-up with Connecticut's management to determine whether the $172,000 unsupported amount identified within the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type were duplicate payments. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request Connecticut management provide support for other eligible replacement expenses, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Further, based on Connecticut'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.</p>
<p>Treasury OIG should request Connecticut's management provide support for the $2,748,079 of other matters unsupported expenditures charged to the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request Connecticut management provide support for other eligible replacement expenses, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Further, based on Connecticut'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.</p>
<p>Treasury OIG should follow-up with Connecticut's management to confirm if the $57,586,446 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 Connecticut management provide support for other eligible replacement expenses, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Further, based on Connecticut'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 Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type.</p>
<p>Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of performing additional procedures on the remaining untested amounts reported in the GrantSolutions portal for the Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type. Based on Connecticut'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 Grants greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type.</p>
<p>Treasury OIG should follow up with Connecticut to confirm if the $258,659 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 Connecticut management provide support for other eligible replacement expenses, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Further, based on Connecticut'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.</p>
<p>Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of performing additional procedures on the remaining untested amounts reported in the GrantSolutions portal for the Transfers greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type. Further, based on Connecticut'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.</p>
<p>Treasury OIG should follow up with Connecticut to confirm if the $18,082,583 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 Connecticut management provide support for other eligible replacement expenses, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Further, based on Connecticut'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 Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type.</p>
<p>Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of performing additional procedures on the remaining untested amounts reported in the GrantSolutions portal for the Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type. Based on Connecticut'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 Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type.</p>
<p>Treasury OIG should request Connecticut's management provide support for the $494,492 noted as unsupported expenditures within the Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request Connecticut management provide support for other eligible replacement expenses, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Further, based on Connecticut'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 Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type.</p>
<p>Treasury OIG should follow up with Connecticut to confirm if the $36,500 noted as unsupported expenditures within the Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000 payment type can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request Connecticut management provide support for other eligible replacement expenses, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Further, based on Connecticut'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 Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000 payment type.</p>
<p>Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of performing additional procedures on the remaining untested amounts reported in the GrantSolutions portal for the Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000 payment type.</p>
<p>Treasury OIG should follow up with Connecticut to confirm if the $21,118,862 noted as unsupported expenditures within the Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment type can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request Connecticut management provide support for other eligible replacement expenses, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Further, based on Connecticut'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 Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment type.</p>
<p>Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of performing additional procedures on the remaining untested amounts reported in the GrantSolutions portal for the Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment type.</p>
Desk Review of the Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma's Use of Coronavirus Relief Fund Proceeds
<p>Treasury OIG should follow-up with Kiowa's management to confirm if the $6,919,819 in Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type are recouped or replaced by other eligible expenditures, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Further, based on Kiowa'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.</p>
<p>Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of following up with Kiowa over the $579,443 of additional hardship payments to determine whether these amounts charged to the CRF included previously budgeted expenditures and, if so, Castro recommends Treasury OIG recoup the funds or request that Kiowa's management provide support for eligible expenditures, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance.</p>
<p>Treasury OIG should follow-up with Kiowa's management to request they perform an analysis over its Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000 payment type claimed costs to determine if there are any additional hardship payments included within that payment type. Based on the results of this assessment, Treasury OIG should consider the feasibility of performing additional testing over these balances.</p>
<p>Treasury OIG should determine the feasibility of performing additional follow-up with Kiowa to determine if there were other instances of ineligible or unsupported hardship balances within all four of the hardship payment types claimed within its Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment type.</p>
<p>Treasury OIG should follow-up with Kiowa's management to confirm if the $62,744 in Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type are recouped or replaced by other eligible expenditures, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Further, based on Kiowa'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.</p>
<p>Treasury OIG should follow-up with Kiowa's management to confirm if the $727,002 in Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type are recouped or replaced by other eligible expenditures, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Further, based on Kiowa'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.</p>
<p>TOIG should follow-up with Kiowa's management to confirm if the $124,535 noted as ineligible expenditures within the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000, payment type are recouped or replaced by other eligible expenditures, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Further, based on Kiowa'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.</p>
<p>Treasury OIG should follow-up with Kiowa's management to confirm if the $1,832 in Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000 payment type are recouped or replaced by other supported expenditures, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Further, based on Kiowa'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 Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000 payment type.</p>
<p>Treasury OIG should follow-up with Kiowa's management to confirm if the $38,162 noted as unsupported expenditures within the Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment type are recouped or replaced by other eligible expenditures, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Further, based on Kiowa'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 Aggregate Payments to Individuals.</p>
<p>Treasury OIG should follow-up with Kiowa's management to confirm if the $1,860 noted as ineligible expenditures within the Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment type are recouped or replaced by other eligible expenditures, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Further, based on Kiowa'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 Aggregate Payments to Individuals.</p>
<p>Treasury OIG should follow-up with Kiowa's management to confirm if the $654,200 noted as ineligible expenditures within the Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment type are recouped or replaced by other eligible expenditures, not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of performance. Further, based on Kiowa'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.</p>
<p>Treasury OIG should follow-up with Kiowa's management regarding the remaining $12,678 of attorney's fees expenses within the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 payment type not tested during Castro's desk review to determine if there are additional unsupported or ineligible questioned costs.</p>
Desk Review of the State of Nebraska’s Use of Coronavirus Relief Fund Proceeds
<p>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.</p>
Desk Review of the Native Village of Selawik's Coronavirus Relief Fund Proceeds
<p>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.</p>
Desk Review of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ (Massachusetts) Use of Coronavirus Relief Fund Proceeds
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
Desk Review of the State of Washington's Use of Coronavirus Relief Fund Proceeds
<p>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.</p>
Desk Review of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma's Use of Coronavirus Relief Fund Proceeds
<p>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.</p>
Desk Review of the State of New Hampshire’s Use of Coronavirus Relief Fund Proceeds
<p>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.</p>