The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.

The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.

The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.

The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.

The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.

The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.

The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.

The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.

The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.

The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.

The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.

The OIG has determined that the contents of this recommendation would not be appropriate for public disclosure and has therefore limited its distribution to selected officials.

Review the 17 travel cardholders with purchases that occurred without a travel authorization and the 6 travel cardholders with purchases that were not supported to determine whether the purchases were allowable, proper, and paid in full by the cardholder, taking appropriate administrative actions as necessary. These unsupported purchases totaled $6,407. However, a total of $5,780 remains after deducting the duplicate amount of $627 addressed in Recommendation 1C.

Perform an analysis of the 3,045 travel card purchases with indications that they were unauthorized or ineligible to identify potential violations and to address any unauthorized purchases identified. OCFO should perform a review of identified transactions to determine whether they were allowable, proper, and paid in full by the cardholder, taking appropriate administrative actions as necessary.

Refer the 15 ineligible travel card transactions totaling $5,393 to the appropriate program office and obtain a response regarding what administrative actions were taken to resolve the violations. If no actions were taken, OCFO should request support to show why no corrective actions were taken.

Strengthen internal monitoring efforts regarding government travel card use to identify potentially improper, illegal, or erroneous transactions. Such efforts should include data mining to detect instances of delinquency, fraud, and misuse.

Designate an unclaimed asset recovery official as required by the Treasury Financial Manual.

Work with Treasury to identify and obtain reimbursement for FHA’s and Ginnie Mae’s portion of the $1.9 million in HUD funds that Treasury collected.

Establish and implement policies and procedures to ensure that all of its unclaimed funds are claimed and the money is appropriately routed to put $2.2 million to better use. At a minimum, these policies and procedures should address what constitutes FHA and Ginnie Mae funds, ensure that these funds are returned to FHA or Ginnie Mae as appropriate, and include policies to claim co-owned funds with any appropriate thresholds or limitations.

We recommend that the Chief Financial Officer determine whether the summary expenditures totaling $160,360,714, which exceeded the grant round obligations for the two grantees, were ADA violations. If the transactions were violations, action should be taken as required by the ADA.