A letter report issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "Federally funded at about $5 billion a year, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) provides financial assistance to low-income households for heating and cooling costs. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) awards LIHEAP funds based on low-income populations and other factors. Grantees--states, the District of Columbia, territories, and Indian tribes and tribal organizations--then provide energy assistance payments to low-income households. GAO was asked to audit (1) the risk of fraud and abuse in LIHEAP in selected states; (2) case studies of fraudulent, improper, and abusive LIHEAP activity; and (3) key weaknesses in the design of LIHEAP's internal controls framework. To meet these objectives, GAO analyzed LIHEAP data from seven states for fraud indicators, interviewed federal and state officials, performed investigations, and conducted proactive testing in two states using a bogus company, individuals, addresses, and documents. The seven states were primarily selected based on size of LIHEAP grant and availability of centralized database."

A letter report issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "Almost all public housing authorities (PHA) met their spending deadlines for the Public Housing Capital Fund formula and competitive grant programs. As mandated, all but one PHA spent 100 percent of their formula grants by March 17, 2012. According to Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) officials, PHAs with competitive grants were on track to meet their September 2012 spending deadlines. PHAs we interviewed cited various challenges to meeting the grant deadlines, such as the tight time frames and many attributed their ability to meet deadlines to good planning within their organizations and help from HUD. According to analyses of HUD data, about 3,100 PHAs planned to undertake improvements with their formula grants that affected about 495,000 housing units. Many used their grants to make improvements that enhanced energy efficiency, such as installing energy-efficient windows and appliances. GAO determined that HUD’s monitoring strategy for these programs incorporated key internal controls, such as developing and implementing measures that allowed HUD staff to compare actual with planned results. At specific sites that GAO visited, PHAs were able to demonstrate work was under way or had been completed."

Correspondence issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "The Department of Justice (DOJ) awards an array of law enforcement and criminal justice grants to states, localities, and private and not-for-profit organizations to help prevent crime in their communities. From fiscal years 2008 through 2009, DOJ's Office of Justice Programs (OJP) awarded over 7,900 grants totaling over $4.2 billion. Some DOJ grant programs emphasize the prevention of crime and juvenile delinquency, and in some instances, DOJ's grant funds have been used, in part, to support recreational activities for youth involving various sports programs and field trips. In addition, DOJ grant recipients, such as a state's department of juvenile justice services, may provide grant funds to a subgrantee, like the Boys and Girls Club of America, to carry out various activities, such as mentoring or antigang initiatives, within the overall parameters of the grant program. However, no DOJ grant programs are designed to fund recreational activities exclusively. This letter responds to a congressional request to determine (1) the extent to which DOJ tracks grant funds spent on recreational activities, and how, if at all, DOJ assesses the impact of federally funded recreational activities on crime prevention and reduction; …

A letter report issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "As of March 31, 2013, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) had obligated $293 million (45 percent) and disbursed $204 million (31 percent) of $651 million in funding for Haiti from the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010 (the Act). The Department of State (State) submitted four of five periodic reports to Congress, as required by the Act. The reports included information on funding obligated and disbursed and anecdotal information on outputs and outcomes of some activities, as the Act required. The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its Committee Report accompanying the Act, had also directed State to report more detailed information on funding and sector activities in Haiti, which State did not include in the reports. Although most funds have not been disbursed, State's reporting requirement ended in September 2012. As a result, Congress lacks information on the amounts of funds obligated and disbursed and program-by-program progress of U.S. reconstruction activities."

Testimony issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "This statement today highlights the key findings of GAO's May 8, 2013, report on the TWIC program, which addressed the extent to which the results from the TWIC reader pilot were sufficiently complete, accurate, and reliable for informing Congress and the TWIC card reader rule."

A letter report issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has not developed a process to identify and analyze program risks since assuming responsibility for the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) in 2003, in accordance with internal controls standards and risk management guidance. Within ICE, officials from SEVP and the Counterterrorism and Criminal Exploitation Unit (CTCEU), which tracks, coordinates, and oversees school fraud investigations, have expressed concerns about the fraud risks posed by schools that do not comply with requirements. Investigators said that identifying and assessing risk factors, such as the type of school, are critical to addressing potential vulnerabilities posed across the more than 10,000 SEVP-certified schools. However, SEVP does not have processes to (1) evaluate prior and suspected cases of school noncompliance and fraud and (2) obtain and assess information from CTCEU and ICE field offices on school investigations and outreach events. For example, ICE reported that it has withdrawn at least 88 schools since 2003 for non-compliance; however, ICE has not evaluated schools’ withdrawals to determine potential trends from their noncompliant actions because case information is not well-organized, according to SEVP officials. Without a process to …