The scandal-plagued Office of Information and Technology at the Department of Veterans Affairs is under a microscope again. Earlier investigations uncovered misspent travel funds, use of government property for pornography, and an illicit office romance that resulted in one official being placed on leave, with pay, for nearly two years. A new inspector general’s report reveals tens of thousands of dollars improperly spent on excess wages and travel perks.

The redacted report from October 2010, released after a Freedom of Information Act request from iWatch News, details how Charles L. Gephart was promoted to a higher-paying position in Washington, D.C., even though he continued to live in Fayetteville, Ark. This allowed Gephart, the director of IT field security operations in the Office of Information and Technology, to collect $41,330.80 more in wages than he was rightfully allowed and led him to rack up many thousands more in travel expenses for regular flights to and from D.C.

The VA’s office of inspector general has not responded to requests for a complete tally of Gephart’s travel expenses, which covered his lodging, meals, transportation, parking, taxes, and fees. But an iWatch News tally of a year’s worth of trips listed in the report found that he was reimbursed a total of $34,320.39 from August 2009 to July 2010 for his regular three- to four-day visits to Washington. Gephart was promoted into his D.C.-based director position in September 2006, so the total cost of his commute was likely much higher. His trips to Washington cost $1,800 on average, the inspector general noted.

As political leaders struggle to reduce federal spending, a Veterans Affairs Department watchdog investigation shows there may still be some easy cuts to make. One example:  a senior official in the Veterans Health Administration who spent more than $130,900 taxpayer dollars flying to work each week in Washington.

The tab was run up by a Senior Executive Service employee after he was appointed to a Washington-based job on Jan. 20, 2008 "for commuting to and from his personal residence to Washington, D.C. to avoid relocating," the VA’s inspector general found.

For privacy reasons, the employee’s name and where he lives were not included in the report. Senior Executive Service jobs are typically held by administrators within a federal department or agency, with annual salaries ranging from $119,554 up to $179,700.

Like most employers, the federal government pays approved business travel expenses, but commuting costs must be paid by employees, the IG said. Yet for two and a half years, VA bosses signed off on the unnamed official’s frequent airfare plus week night hotel costs in Washington and a daily food allowance or per diem.

That has some Congressional watchdogs concerned.  Billing the government for commuting to work is “cause for alarm,” Sen. Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican, told iWatch News.  “This raises questions about the soundness of basic management decisions.”

Flying to D.C. was a part of the VA official’s regular routine, and about 65 percent of his work days were spent there. “He usually arrived in Washington, D.C., on Mondays at about 8:00 a.m. and departed for home on Fridays at about 2:00 p.m.,” the inspector general’s report noted.

Over the past 20 years, federal grants to state and local governments have increased by $465 billion, close to one-fifth of the federal budget. The Government Accountability Office has repeatedly found weaknesses in management of federal grants, placing billions of taxpayer dollars at risk.

Just 10 federal programs account for 94 percent of the $125.4 billion in estimated improper payments reported for 2010; five of those were grant programs. Medicaid topped out at $22.5 billion in estimated improper payments, followed by unemployment insurance with $17.5 billion, nutrition assistance programs with $2.2 billion, the school lunch program with $1.5 billion and Pell education grants with $1 billion.

The government currently requires audits for states, local governments and nonprofit organizations spending more than $500,000 in federal awards. But GAO says the federal oversight is not set up to monitor organizations through single audits and the time consuming nature of the audits does not identify immediate concerns. Furthermore, federal agencies do not systematically use audits to identify and understand grant programs problems and how funds are used. Several state auditors have complained about single audit findings remaining unaddressed by the recipient or federal agency years after the problems were first identified.

“Under the current time frames for identifying and correcting audit findings provided by the Single Audit Act…it could take years to correct significant deficiencies and material weaknesses that expose federal funds to misuse or fraud,” GAO said.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner notified members of Congress this week that, until they raise the federal debt limit, he would tap one of their retirement funds — known as the “G Fund”— to keep the government running.

The lawmakers need not fear for their golden years, however. The threat is hollow: Once the debt showdown is over, the Treasury will by law restore all contributions and earnings.

The G Fund is guaranteed to earn money for members of Congress and other federal employees. The $128 billion fund is an oft-overlooked perk of congressional service. It offers the return of long-term Treasury bonds, at no risk.

The average American taxpayer guarantees the G Fund but can’t buy a share.

“What possible justification could there be for establishing a special class of higher-paying U.S. Treasuries, available only to federal employees? On top of a too-generous pension plan? On top of a too-generous thrift plan? There is none,” said Jim MacDougald, president of The Free Enterprise Nation, a group of free market conservatives.

In addition to their congressional pensions, and Social Security payments, members of Congress qualify for the federal Thrift Savings Plan, which is similar to a private sector 401(k). The government match to the TSP is 5 percent, and costs are low because much of the program is administered by federal employees.

Yet the truly unique feature of the TSP is the Government Securities Investment Fund—or G Fund—which offers, as the U.S. government puts it, “the opportunity to earn rates of interest similar to those of long-term Government securities but without any risk of loss.”

The G Fund is invested in non-marketable short-term US Treasury securities “specially issued” to the TSP, the government notes. “Payment of principal and interest is guaranteed by the U.S. Government.”

U.S. food aid provides emergency life-saving calories to 46.5 million people around the globe. But with some food emergencies now lingering for years, the USAID food program faces challenges such as nutrient deficiencies, higher costs for specialized food supplements and inadequate packaging for rugged conditions during shipment.

Last year, the U.S. government spent almost $2.3 billion to provide 2.5 million metric tons of food aid around the globe. The majority of the funding went to USAID-administered emergency programs, which fed more than 46 million people. USAID estimates demand for food aid will increase by 50 percent in the next 20 years.

The Government Accountability Office found the USAID program designed for food emergencies now spends more than half of its funding to cover multi-year shortages that have become the norm. About 96 percent of the food aid supplied in 2010 went to 21 countries that have received U.S. food aid for four years or more.

During prolonged food shortages, recipients run the risk of developing serious nutrient deficiencies. All food program partners reported at least one nutrient deficiency in their beneficiaries such as iron, Vitamin A and iodine, the report said.

Special, fortified food can be shipped to those most vulnerable -- children under five, pregnant women and women who are nursing. But that food is more expensive, costing up to $0.24 per daily ration, or more than twice as much as the typical grain food rations supplied for short-term emergencies.

“Failure to effectively target more costly specialized food aid products to intended beneficiaries can undermine U.S. agencies’ and implementing partners’ efforts to improve beneficiaries’ nutritional status,” the GAO report said.

Missouri has been prosecuting an increasingly disproportionate number of African-American juveniles in adult courts, despite an unusual state law that requires judges to consider racial disparity when deciding whether to transfer such cases.

In 2009, 64 percent of juveniles statewide prosecuted as adults were African Americans, nearly double the 2001 level of 36 percent. Black youth make up 15 percent of the state's population between 10 and 17 that falls under the jurisdiction of juvenile courts.

St. Louis has sent the largest number of black juveniles into regular courts, where the felony charges against them can lead to imprisonment with adults, followed by St. Louis County. Together, those two judicial circuits with the largest black populations account for almost 70 percent of the 485 cases sent to adult courts during those nine years. Jackson County, with a sizable black population in Kansas City, originated just 6 percent of the prosecutions.

Only a small fraction of the 40,000 offenses that juveniles are accused of committing each year in Missouri wind up being pursued in adult courts. A conviction in adult court, even in a plea bargain, can make it especially difficult for black juveniles, once released, to find a job for years into adulthood, studies have shown.

The Grants.gov grant application system is responsible for over 1,000 federal grant programs worth about $500 billion. But the system, managed by the Department of Health and Human Services, has struggled to manage the funding and operation challenges, deeply affecting the performance of the system and leading some agencies to rely on their own application systems.

Due to the high number of grant applications federal agencies must handle, the Office of Management and Budget created Grants.gov in 2002 to simplify and streamline the federal grant process. But in 2009, OMB described the Grants.gov system performance as “noticeably degraded” and at “serious risk for failure”. OMB was so concerned about the Grants.gov ability to handle the onslaught of stimulus grant applications that it instructed agencies to find alternatives.

Grants.gov encompasses 26 agencies for activities like training, research, planning, construction and services in health care, education, transportation and homeland security. In 2010, 246,631 grant applications were submitted.

Participating agencies contribute to the cost of administrating Grants.gov, based on the size of grants available. But the model Grants.gov uses has come under scrutiny, due to the uneven distribution of costs among uses and recurring collection delays. The contribution calculation results vary greatly for agencies with similar usage profiles. The Department of Housing and Urban Development posted 40 grant opportunities, received 4,817 applications through the website and paid $414,422 in contributions. However, the National Endowment for the Humanities posted roughly the same amount of grants and received a similar number of applications, but only contributed $155,159.

As Congress and the White House wrestle with spending cuts, one stubborn problem running up the deficit is improper government payments—$125.4 billion in 2010.

Presidential memos and a new law have drawn attention to improper payments, with some success, but agencies have a long way to go before reaching President Obama’s goal of reducing them to $50 billion by 2012.

Obama issued two memos last year to increase efforts to recover overpayments and created a Do Not Pay list to prevent improper payments. In July 2010, the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act was enacted, which amended a similar law and increased requirements for federal agencies to identify, report and recover improper payments.

An analysis by the Government Accountability Office found that the majority of the improper payments were concentrated in 10 federal programs which held 94 percent of the total estimated improper payments in 2010, about $118 billion. The big spenders in improper payments came from four major programs: Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance and the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) program.

Of the 28 programs that reported payment error rates, 17 agency programs have reduced improper payment rates compared with their initial or baseline error rates from 2004. Health and Human Services reported that the Head Start program’s estimated improper payments decreased from $213 million in 2009 to $123 million in 2010. The U.S. Department of Agriculture saw a decrease in the estimated improper payment amount for the Marketing Assistance Loan program by $55 million since 2009