Unnamed: 0
int64 0
4.52k
| report
stringlengths 7
512
|
|---|---|
4,100 | t changes over ½ inch. Doorway threshold does not exceed ½ inch in height. Single- or double-door openings are 32 inches or more wide. Therefore, the percentage of polling places cited as having one or more potential impediments was based on whether a polling place was found to have at least one feature that might impede access to voting in any of the four locations we examined and does not include potential impediments associated with the voting area itself. While features of the voting area were not inclu |
4,101 | ded in our summary measure of whether a polling place had a potential impediment, we did look for features that might facilitate or impede private and independent voting inside the voting area. We identified the types of voting methods available to voters with and without disabilities and took measurements of the voting station or table used by people with disabilities to determine whether wheelchairs could fit inside the station or under the table and whether equipment was within reach for wheelchair users |
4,102 | . We collected information on the accessible voting systems required under HAVA to determine the extent to which the system had features that might facilitate voting for people with disabilities and allow them to vote privately and independently. We also briefly interviewed chief poll workers at most of the polling places we visited to find out whether curbside voting was available and how the poll workers would handle voter requests for assistance from a friend, relative, or election official. All sample s |
4,103 | urveys are subject to sampling error, which is the extent to which the survey results differ from what would have been obtained if the whole universe of polling places had been observed. Measures of sampling error are defined by two elements—the width of the confidence interval around the estimate (sometimes called precision of the estimate) and the confidence level at which the interval is computed. The confidence interval refers to the range of possible values for a given estimate, not just a single point |
4,104 | . This interval is often expressed as a point estimate, plus or minus some value (the precision level). For example, a point estimate of 75 percent plus or minus 5 percentage points means that the true population value is estimated to lie between 70 percent and 80 percent, at some specified level of confidence. The confidence level of the estimate is a measure of the certainty that the true value lies within the range of the confidence interval. We calculated the sampling error for each statistical estimate |
4,105 | in this report at the 95- percent confidence level and present this information throughout the report. To learn more about states’ actions to facilitate voting access and perspectives on Justice’s oversight of HAVA voting access provisions, we administered a Web-based survey of officials responsible for overseeing elections from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 4 U.S. territories (American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands). Survey topics included (1) state requirements and |
4,106 | policies for early voting, absentee voting, and voter identification; (2) state voting accommodations for people with disabilities; (3) state funding and experiences implementing HAVA voting access requirements; (4) level of interaction with Justice officials and usefulness of Justice guidance; and (5) state and local actions to facilitate voting in long-term care facilities. The survey was conducted using a self-administered electronic questionnaire posted on the Web. We collected the survey data between D |
4,107 | ecember 2008 and February 2009. We received completed surveys from all 50 states, 4 territories, and the District of Columbia, for a 100-percent response rate. Because this was not a sample survey, there are no sampling errors. However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce nonsampling errors, such as variations in how respondents interpret questions and their willingness to offer accurate responses. To minimize nonsampling errors, we pretested draft survey instruments with state |
4,108 | election officials in Kansas, Virginia, and Wisconsin to determine whether (1) the survey questions were clear, (2) the terms used were precise, (3) respondents were able to provide the information we were seeking, and (4) the questions were unbiased. We made changes to the content and format of the questionnaire on the basis of pretest results. Because respondents entered their responses directly into our database of responses from the Web-based surveys, possibility of data entry errors was greatly reduce |
4,109 | d. We also performed computer analyses to identify inconsistencies in responses and other indications of error. In addition, a second independent analyst verified that the computer programs used to analyze the data were written correctly. We also searched state election Web sites to illustrate their respective approaches, and obtained and reviewed relevant documentation for selected states. The scope of this work did not include contacting election officials from each state and local jurisdictions to verify |
4,110 | survey responses or other information provided by state officials. In addition, we did not analyze states’ requirements to determine what they require, but instead relied on the states’ responses to our survey. To specifically determine what actions Justice has taken to enforce HAVA voting access provisions, we interviewed Justice officials and reviewed relevant federal laws, guidance, and other documentation. Specifically, we spoke with Justice officials in the Voting and Disability Rights Sections of the |
4,111 | Civil Rights Division to document Justice’s internal process for handling HAVA matters and cases and to review the department’s actions to monitor and enforce HAVA voting access provisions (see app. IV for an overview of this process). We reviewed the Americans with Disabilities Act: ADA Checklist for Polling Places and informal guidance, such as letters responding to state election officials’ requests for additional guidance on HAVA voting access requirements. We also reviewed citizen complaints from Elec |
4,112 | tion Day 2008 that were provided to us by Justice and all three complaints containing a HAVA voting access claim that Justice has filed against states or election jurisdictions since HAVA was enacted in 2002. In addition, to learn more about the federal role in providing assistance and funding to states under HAVA, we interviewed officials from the EAC, HHS, the National Association of Secretaries of State, and the National Association of State Election Directors. Washington, D.C. Within Justice, the Voting |
4,113 | Section’s internal process for initiating HAVA- related matters and handling cases consists of four phases: initiation, investigation, complaint justification, and litigation. While the Voting Section generally does not receive referrals from other federal agencies, many matters are initiated by allegations from a variety of sources, including citizens, advocacy and community organizations, Members of Congress, U.S. Attorney’s Offices, and news articles or through election monitoring. The Voting Section al |
4,114 | so sometimes initiates matters to monitor private lawsuits and to observe elections. The matter is assigned to an attorney under the supervision of a deputy chief or special litigation counsel for review to determine if further action is warranted. If so, a memorandum is prepared for the section chief and final approval from the Assistant Attorney General or his or her designee is required before an investigation can begin. Once the decision is made to investigate a matter, the section chief will assign a t |
4,115 | rial attorney, who conducts an investigation. When the investigation is complete, the trial attorney makes a recommendation to the section chief on whether Justice should file a lawsuit, close the matter, or participate in some other manner. The section chief is responsible for making the final decision about closing an investigation authorized by the Assistant Attorney General or recommending a lawsuit or other participation to the Assistant Attorney General. If a referral or allegation of a HAVA violation |
4,116 | is not pursued, all appropriate parties are notified, and the matter is closed. If a decision is made to pursue a matter and recommend filing a formal complaint to initiate a lawsuit, then the trial attorney prepares a justification package. An attorney manager and the section chief are responsible for reviewing and approving the justification package. A Deputy Assistant Attorney General reviews the justification package, which is then forwarded to the Assistant Attorney General for final review and approv |
4,117 | al. The justification package is also sent to the U.S. Attorney’s office for the district where the lawsuit is to be filed for review and concurrence. If the justification package is not approved, the trial attorney generally prepares a closing memorandum and notifies the charging party, respondent, and/or referring agency, as appropriate, that Justice is not filing a lawsuit. The matter is then closed. If the justification package is approved, the Civil Rights Division notifies the defendant by letter of J |
4,118 | ustice’s intent to file a lawsuit. After the defendant has been notified, the trial attorney and the defendant often have presuit settlement discussions. If a presuit settlement is reached, a settlement document stating the points of agreement is prepared, reviewed, and approved by the Office of the Assistant Attorney General and signed by all parties. If the presuit settlement discussions do not result in a settlement, the complaint is filed in federal district court and the parties engage in litigation. F |
4,119 | iling a complaint and the beginning of legal proceedings do not preclude the trial attorney and defendant from continuing negotiations and reaching a settlement. According to Voting Section officials, defendants often settle prior to, or during, a trial. If a trial is held, the plaintiff or defendant can often appeal the decision. If the decision is appealed, the Voting Section works closely with the Appellate Section of Civil Rights Division, which assumes responsibility for the appeal stage of the case. ( |
4,120 | LB) (UB) No designated parking for people with disabilities One or more unramped or uncut curbs <36 inches wide Other potential impediments in parking lot Path from parking area to building entrance Unpaved or poor surface in parking lot or route to building entrance Ramp in path from parking area to building entrance is steeper than 1:12 No sidewalk/path from parking area to building entrance Ramps in path from parking area to building entrance do not have a level landing at the top and bottom of each sect |
4,121 | ion is < 60 inches long Leaves, snow, litter in path from parking area to building entrance Sidewalk/path from parking area to building entrance <36 inches wide Ramps in path from parking area to building entrance is < 36 inches wide Steps required in path from parking area to building entrance Other potential impediments in path from parking area to building entrance Doorway threshold exceeds ½ inch in height Single doorway opening is < 32 inches wide Doors that would be difficult for a person using a whee |
4,122 | lchair to open Double door opening is <32 inches wide, including situations in which one of the doors cannot be opened Other potential impediments at the building entrance Path from building entrance to voting area Doorway threshold exceeds ½ inch in height Single doorway opening is < 32 inches wide Corridors that do not provide an unimpeded width of at least 36 inches, but can go down to 32 inches for two feet. Location of features that might impede access to voting in a polling place (LB) (UB) We did not |
4,123 | measure these items in 2000. We collected data on this item in 2008, following our review based on the Americans with Disabilities Act: ADA Checklist for Polling Places and per interviews with experts. We based this measurement on Justice’s ADA Standards for Accessible Design, 28 C.F.R. Part 36, Appendix A, which states that any part of an accessible route with a slope greater than 1:20 shall be considered a ramp and the maximum slope of a ramp is 1:12, except in certain cases where space limitations prohib |
4,124 | it the use of 1:12 slope or less. Brett Fallavollita, Assistant Director, and Laura Heald, Analyst-in-Charge managed this assignment. Carolyn Blocker, Katherine Bowman, Ryan Siegel, and Amber Yancey-Carroll made significant contributions to this report in all aspects of the work. Jason Palmer, Susan Pachikara, Gretta Goodwin, Matthew Goldstein, and numerous staff from headquarters and field offices provided assistance with Election Day data collection. Carl Barden, Cathy Hurley, Stu Kaufman, George Quinn, a |
4,125 | nd Walter Vance provided analytical assistance; Alex Galuten provided legal support; Paula Moore provided technical support; Jessica Orr provided assistance on report preparation; Mimi Nguyen developed the report’s graphics; and Anna Bonelli, Caitlin Croake, Kim Siegal, and Paul Wright verified our findings. Voters with Disabilities: More Polling Places Had No Potential Impediments Than In 2000, But Challenges Remain. GAO-09-685. Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2009. Elections: States, Territories, and the Distr |
4,126 | ict Are Taking a Range of Important Steps to Manage Their Varied Voting System Environments. GAO-08-874. Washington, D.C.: September 25, 2008. Elections: 2007 Survey of State Voting System Programs. GAO-08-1147SP. Washington, D.C.: September 25, 2008. Elections: Federal Program for Certifying Voting Systems Needs to Be Further Defined, Fully Implemented, and Expanded. GAO-08-814. Washington, D.C.: September 16, 2008. Election Assistance Commission—Availability of Funds for Purchase of Replacement Voting Equ |
4,127 | ipment. B-316107. Washington, D.C.: March 19, 2008. Elderly Voters: Some Improvements in Voting Accessibility from 2000 to 2004 Elections, but Gaps in Policy and Implementation Remain. GAO-08-442T. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2008. Elections: All Levels of Government Are Needed to Address Electronic Voting System Challenges. GAO-07-741T. Washington, D.C.: April 18, 2007. Elections: The Nation’s Evolving Election System as Reflected in the November 2004 General Election. GAO-06-450. Washington, D.C.: June |
4,128 | 6, 2006. Elections: Federal Efforts to Improve Security and Reliability of Electronic Voting Systems Are Under Way, but Key Activities Need to Be Completed. GAO-05-956. Washington, D.C.: September 21, 2005. Elections: Electronic Voting Offers Opportunities and Presents Challenges. GAO-04-975T. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2004. Elections: A Framework for Evaluating Reform Proposals. GAO-02-90. Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001. |
4,129 | The federal government uses grants to achieve national priorities through nonfederal parties, including state and local governments, educational institutions, and nonprofit organizations. While there can be significant variation among different grant programs, most federal grants share a common life cycle for administering the grants: pre-award, award, implementation, and closeout (see fig. 1). During the award stage, the federal awarding agency enters into an agreement with grantees stipulating the terms a |
4,130 | nd conditions for the use of grant funds including the period of time funds are available for the grantee’s use. Also in the award stage, the awarding agency opens accounts in one of several payment management systems through which grantees receive payments. During the post-award stage, the grantee carries out the requirements of the agreement and requests payments, while the awarding agency approves payments and oversees the grantee. Once the grantee has completed all the work associated with a grant agree |
4,131 | ment or the end date for the grant has arrived, or both, the awarding agency and grantee close out the grant. Closeout procedures ensure that grantees have met all financial requirements, provided their final reports, and returned any unspent balances. Grant closeout procedures, like other stages of the grant cycle, are subject to a wide range of requirements derived from a combination of OMB guidance, agency regulations, agency policy, and program-specific statutes. OMB Circular No. A-110, Uniform Administ |
4,132 | rative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations, and OMB Circular No. A-102, Grants and Cooperative Agreements with State and Local Governments, provide OMB guidance to federal agencies on grant administration. These circulars apply only to federal awarding agencies; they do not apply directly to grantees. Each federal agency that awards and administers grants and agreements that are subject to the guidance in Circulars A-110 |
4,133 | and A-102 is responsible for issuing regulations, with which grantees must comply, that are consistent with the circulars, unless different provisions are required by federal statute or are approved by OMB. Agency regulations issued under the circulars typically impose closeout procedures upon both the awarding agency and the grantee. Generally, within 90 days after the completion of the award, grantees must submit all financial, performance, and other reports as required by the terms and conditions of the |
4,134 | award. Also within this 90-day period, grantees generally are to liquidate all obligations incurred under the award. Grantees then are to promptly refund any remaining cash balances to the awarding agency. Awarding agencies must make prompt payments, often defined as within 90 days, to grantees for allowable reimbursable costs under the award being closed out.conditions of the award, the awarding agency must make a settlement for any upward or downward adjustment to the federal share of costs after the clo |
4,135 | seout reports are received. Some federal agencies’ grant policies, such as HHS’s, further specify that grants are to be closed out within 180 days of the end of the grant funding period. Also, if allowed by the terms and While there can be substantial variation among grant programs, figure 2 illustrates how closing out grants could allow an agency to redirect resources toward other projects and activities or return unspent funds to Treasury. Generally, if the undisbursed balances that are deobligated from c |
4,136 | losed grant accounts are still available for incurring new obligations, the agency may use the funds to enter into new grant agreements.may allow the federal agencies to use existing resources to fund new grant projects. If the undisbursed amounts are returned to expired appropriation accounts, the agency may not use the deobligated funds to make new grants. However, the agency may use the deobligated funds to make adjustments to obligations that were incurred before the appropriations account expired. Expi |
4,137 | red appropriations accounts remain available for 5 years to make adjustments, after which, the undisbursed balances are canceled and returned to the Treasury. In other words, the funds are no longer available for use by the agency. This helps ensure that federal agency resources are not improperly spent and helps agencies maintain accurate accounting of their budgetary resources. It may also reduce future federal outlays relative to the federal government’s original estimated amount of spending for these pr |
4,138 | ograms. We found that more than $794 million in undisbursed balances remained in expired PMS accounts, including undisbursed balances that remained in accounts several years past their expiration date. Roughly three-fourths of all undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts were from grants issued by HHS, the largest grant-making agency in the federal government. Although this represents only a small share (2.7 percent) of the total funding that was made available for these grants, department officials t |
4,139 | old us they are taking action to improve timely closeout. We also found that more than $126 million in undisbursed balances remained in dormant grant accounts—accounts for which there had been no activity for 2 years or more—in ASAP, another large federal payment system. As of September 30, 2011, we found that $794.4 million in undisbursed balances remained in PMS, the largest federal civilian payment system in 10,548 expired grant accounts. These are accounts that were more than 3 months past the grant end |
4,140 | date and had no activity for 9 months or more. Undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts were spread across numerous federal agencies and almost 400 different programs. (See app. II for a list of PMS customers.) For comparison, the total amount of undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts in PMS is more than $200 million less than the amount we previously reported for calendar year 2006, while the overall amount of grant disbursements through PMS increased by about 23 percent during this time, fr |
4,141 | om $320 billion in fiscal year 2006 to $415 billion in fiscal year 2011. Overall, total undisbursed balances as of September 30, 2011, represent roughly 3.3 percent of the total amount of funds made available for these grants, down from 7.4 percent at the end of calendar year 2006. However, at the department or agency level, the total amount of undisbursed balances in expired accounts as of September 30, 2011, varied from 2.7 percent to 34.8 percent of the total funding made available for these grant accoun |
4,142 | ts during this period. OMB guidance and agency regulations generally require grantees to submit all financial and performance reports and liquidate all obligations incurred under the award within 3 months (or 90 days) after the completion of the award; awarding agencies must then make prompt payments to grantees for allowable reimbursable costs for the award being closed out. Therefore, based on the information in PMS, these expired grant accounts should be considered for grant closeout. Failure to close ou |
4,143 | t a grant in the payment system and deobligate any unspent balances can allow grantees to continue to draw down federal funds in the payment system even after the grant’s period of availability to the grantee has ended, making these funds more susceptible to waste, fraud, or mismanagement. As figure 3 shows, we found that undisbursed balances remained in grant accounts several years past their expiration date. We found that 991 expired grant accounts were more than 5 years past the grant end date; they cont |
4,144 | ained a total of $110.9 million in undisbursed funding. Of these, 115 expired grant accounts containing roughly $9.5 million remained open more than 10 years past the grant end date. Federal regulations generally require that grantees retain financial records and other documents pertinent to a grant for a period of 3 years from the date of submission of the final report. The risk increases after several years that grantees will not have retained the financial documents and other information for these grants |
4,145 | that are needed by federal agencies to properly reconcile financial information and make the necessary adjustments to the grant award amount and the amount of federal funds paid to the recipient, potentially resulting in the payment of unnecessary and unallowable costs. While the amount of funds remaining in individual expired grant accounts ranged from less than $1 to more than $19 million, a small percentage (a little more than 1 percent) of grant accounts with undisbursed balances of $1 million or more |
4,146 | accounted for more than a third of the total undisbursed funds in expired grant accounts. Overall, 123 accounts from eight different federal agencies had more than $1 million in undisbursed balances at the end of fiscal year 2011. These expired grant accounts had a combined total of roughly $316 million in undisbursed balances, or 40 percent of the total undisbursed funding in expired grant accounts as of September 30, 2011 (see fig. 4). Accounts with undisbursed balances remaining at the end of the agreed- |
4,147 | upon grant end date can indicate a potential grant management problem. Data showing grantees that have not expended large amounts of funding such as $1 million or more by the specified grant end date raise concern that grantees have not fully met the program objectives for the intended beneficiaries within the agreed- upon time frames. Roughly three-fourths of all undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts ($594.7 million) in PMS as of September 30, 2011, were from 8,262 HHS-issued grants. HHS is the la |
4,148 | rgest grant-making agency in the federal government in terms of total dollars awarded and disbursed. Overall, the total undisbursed balances in expired HHS grant accounts represented 2.7 percent of the total amount authorized for these accounts, which is the lowest percentage for any federal department with undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts included on the September 30, 2011 PMS closeout report. This indicates that the grantees have typically spent the vast majority of the funds awarded. Howeve |
4,149 | r, the remaining funds add up to hundreds of millions of dollars that the agency could potentially redirect toward other projects and activities or return to Treasury. Furthermore, 85 of the 123 expired grant accounts with $1 million or more remaining at the end of fiscal year 2011 discussed earlier in this report were HHS-issued grants. Of the 10 HHS operating divisions with accounts in PMS, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had the |
4,150 | largest undisbursed balances at the end of fiscal year 2011 with roughly $321.7 million and $110.1 million, respectively. While HHS policy generally requires that grants be closed out within 180 days after the grant’s end date, we found more than $265 million in undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts that remained open 3 or more years past the grant end date. This includes more than $86 million in expired grant accounts that were 5 years or more past the grant end date, of which more than $7 million |
4,151 | remained unspent 10 years after the grant end date (see fig. 5). $70.8 million in undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts that were 5 years or more past the grant end date, including $6.1 million that remained unspent 10 years after the grant end date. HHS Grants Policy Directive 4.02 outlines the department’s grants management requirements for closeout. In response to past audit reports, officials from HHS’s Division of Grants In February said that they have increased monitoring of grant closeout.2 |
4,152 | 011, HHS established an interagency workgroup—the Accelerated Closeout Team—led by the Office of Grants and Acquisition Policy and Accountability to coordinate a departmentwide response in strengthening financial controls and accelerating the number of grant and contract closeouts. The Accelerated Closeout Team for grants reviewed and analyzed PMS data from previous years and used the data to develop a list of eligible grant awards—focusing specifically on those from fiscal year 2008. They have a near-term |
4,153 | goal of closing out all eligible grants with a grant end date of 2008. According to HHS, they have identified tens of millions of dollars in undisbursed balances in PMS available for deobligation through this initiative. The initiative will conclude later this year at which point HHS will re-evaluate any additional areas requiring specific attention. HHS officials said that they are drafting a departmentwide grants closeout policy to improve the grant closeout process going forward. HHS officials said that |
4,154 | attention on timely grant closeout in PMS increased in response to previous audits. Both the HHS Office of Inspector General and the HHS independent auditor have reported a backlog of expired HHS grant accounts with undisbursed balances in PMS. The HHS Inspector General issued four reports from 2008 to 2009 on grant closeout in PMS at four selected operating divisions. Using PMS data from March 30, 2006, to March 31, 2007, the HHS Inspector General found between $174 million and $1.3 billion in undisbursed |
4,155 | balances at the four operating divisions in grant accounts that had not been closed within 180 days of the grant end date as specified in agency policy. The HHS Inspector General attributed the backlog in grant closeout in part to lack of staff and resources, inconsistent guidance, and a lack of supporting documentation and recommended that the agency use the information in the audit reports to ensure that grants are closed out in a timely manner and to eliminate the backlog of grants eligible for closeout. |
4,156 | The operating divisions generally concurred with the Inspector General’s recommendations and described actions that they planned to take to improve timely closeouts in response. Findings from HHS’s independent auditor as reported in the agency’s PARs over several years indicate that timely closeout of grants has been a long-standing issue at HHS but that the agency has been making progress. From fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2011, the HHS independent auditor routinely reported on concerns with management |
4,157 | controls over grant closeout, including a backlog of HHS grant accounts in PMS that were already beyond what the auditor considered a reasonable time frame for closeout. For example, during its review of fiscal year 2009 grant activity provided from PMS as of March 31, 2009, the independent auditor identified approximately 644 grant obligations totaling $40.3 million that were dated prior to fiscal year 2002 that had not been closed out. The independent auditor concluded at that time that HHS management ne |
4,158 | eded to increase its emphasis on closeout in order to reduce the backlog and ensure consistency between PMS and HHS operating divisions’ separate grant tracking systems, and, as part of the department’s fiscal year 2011 PAR, the independent auditor noted significant improvements in this and other financial management processes. Promptly closing out grants in the payment management system after the grant end date would help agencies minimize the amount that they are charged in monthly service fees. PSC, whic |
4,159 | h operates PMS, does not close out a grant account in PMS until instructed to by the awarding agency and continues to charge service fees to the awarding agencies. PMS fees are calculated to allow PSC to fully recover the cost of its PMS operations. In addition to payment services, PMS also provides a number of other services to assist users, such as standardized electronic forms for meeting federal grant reporting requirements, audit support, and collection services on overdrawn grants and disallowed costs |
4,160 | . PSC provides these additional services for all open accounts, regardless of the grant account balance. PSC charges federal grant-making agencies based on two billing rates: a hybrid rate referred to as the “Type I” rate, which is generally applied to grants awarded to state, local, and tribal governments, and a flat rate referred to as the “Type II” rate, which is generally applied to grants awarded to nonprofit agencies, hospitals, and universities. We identified more than 28,000 expired grant accounts i |
4,161 | n PMS with no undisbursed balances remaining as of the end of fiscal year 2011 for which the grant-making agency was charged a fee. More than 21,000 of these expired grant accounts with no undisbursed funds remaining— approximately 79 percent of all such accounts—were for HHS grants with the remaining amount spread across 11 other federal agencies. The closeout report made available to PMS users identifies these accounts using a special status symbol, which indicates that the awarding agency only needs to s |
4,162 | ubmit the closeout code to finalize grant closeout. Until the code is submitted, these grant accounts continue to cost the awarding agency through accumulated monthly service fees. According to data provided by PSC, PMS users were charged a total of roughly $173,000 per month to maintain the more than 28,000 expired grant accounts with zero dollar balances listed on the yearend closeout report. Roughly $137,000 of this was charged to HHS operating divisions. Overall, the total charges for all expired grants |
4,163 | with a zero dollar balance would represent roughly $2 million in fees if agencies were billed for these accounts for the entire year. While the fees are small relative to the size of the original grant awards, they can accumulate over time. We found roughly 9,770—about 34 percent—of the expired grant accounts with no undisbursed balances remained open 3 or more years past the grant expiration date. If the grant has otherwise been administratively and financially closed out, then agencies paying fees for ex |
4,164 | pired accounts with zero dollar balance are paying for services that are not needed instead of providing services to grant recipients. The presence of expired grant accounts with no undisbursed funds remaining also raises concerns that administrative and financial closeout—the final point of accountability for these grants, which includes such important tasks as the submission of financial and performance reports—may not have been completed. As of the end of fiscal year 2011, we found that $126.2 million in |
4,165 | undisbursed balances remained in dormant grant accounts in ASAP, another large federal payment system. These balances remained in 1,094 dormant grant accounts—accounts for which there had been no activity for 2 years or more. According to the dormant account report, this represents roughly 15 percent of the cumulative authorized funding made available for these accounts. Grant accounts for eight federal departments and other federal entities that use the ASAP system for payment services appeared on the rep |
4,166 | ort, with undisbursed balances ranging from roughly $41,000 to more than $40 million, per entity. (See app. III for a list of ASAP customers.) Individual accounts in the ASAP system can include multiple grant agreements between a federal agency and a grantee; therefore, these reports cannot be used to identify individual grants eligible for closeout or the amount of funds that remain undisbursed for an individual grant agreement. However, the existence of undisbursed balances in inactive accounts can indica |
4,167 | te the need for increased attention. This is particularly true of accounts where there has been no activity for a prolonged period of time. While nearly three-quarters of the undisbursed balances in dormant accounts were inactive for 3 years or less, we found roughly $33 million in 430 accounts that had been inactive for 3 years or more. Of that $33 million, $11 million in 179 accounts had been inactive for 5 years or more (see fig. 6). FMS officials first began issuing “dormant account reports” to all ASAP |
4,168 | users in 2009 in response to the findings in our 2008 report that using federal payment systems to track undisbursed balances in grant accounts could help reduce unused funding. ASAP dormant account reports have evolved over time to improve their usability. Currently, accounts with undisbursed balances are included in dormant account reports if (1) the grantee has not drawn down funds for 2 years or more and (2) the awarding agency has made no changes to the authorized amount of funding available to the gr |
4,169 | antee in 2 years or more. Dormant account reports are generally provided twice a year—once in the fall or winter followed by a second report in the spring or summer. The first report lists all of the dormant accounts as of a specific date, and the second report shows the status of these same accounts several months later, allowing agencies to track progress toward addressing the dormant accounts that appeared on the first report. The amounts reported for the end of fiscal year 2011 represent the first phase |
4,170 | of this two-phase cycle. Unlike PMS, the ASAP system does not provide grant management operations for users; therefore, it is the agencies’ responsibility to maintain grant management information such as the grant end date. However, as with PMS, the separation of grant management and payment functions makes it is possible for agencies to closeout a grant in a separate grant management system but fail to close out the grant in the ASAP system. According to FMS officials, if an ASAP account remains open, gra |
4,171 | ntees may be able to continue to draw funds so long as there are funds available in the account. ASAP accounts that have no balances remaining but remain open are not included in dormant account reports regardless of their period of inactivity. FMS has encouraged agencies to close these accounts, but it does not charge users for these accounts or for other payment system services provided by the ASAP system. Instead, Congress appropriates funds to FMS to cover the cost of its operations. In addition to the |
4,172 | HHS audits described earlier, we and agency IGs have continued to raise concerns about timely grant closeout in federal agencies and grant programs. As part of our previous report on undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts issued in 2008, we reviewed 7 years of past audits and found that both we and federal IGs issued numerous reports indentifying specific grant programs or awarding agencies that had undisbursed funding in grants eligible for closeout. Since that time, we have issued additional repor |
4,173 | ts identifying challenges related to timely closeout of grants, and the Inspectors General at the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Education, Energy (DOE), HHS, Homeland Security (DHS), and Labor (Labor) have all issued reports identifying similar challenges in offices or programs within their respective agencies. These reports identified a lack of adequate systems or policies in place to properly monitor grant closeout and inadequacies in awarding agencies’ grant management processes, in part because clo |
4,174 | seouts are a low management priority. While they focused on expired grants in specific offices or grant programs, when taken together, these report findings indicate that the timely closeout of grants continues to be an issue for multiple programs and grant-making agencies across the federal government. We found that agencies did not have adequate systems and policies in place to properly monitor grant closeout. For example, in 2011, we reported that USDA’s draft grant closeout policies for the McGovern-Dol |
4,175 | e Food for Education Program did not include time frames for when grant agreements should be closed. As a result, this put USDA at risk that grant agreements will not be closed out in a timely fashion, preventing USDA from ensuring that grantees of the McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program have met all financial requirements and that unused or misused funds are promptly reimbursed to USDA. We recommended that the Secretary of Agriculture formalize policies and procedures for closing out grant agreements |
4,176 | and establishing guidance to determine when agreements should be closed. USDA agreed with our recommendations and said it will take steps to address them. Similarly, in 2011 we found that roughly $24 million in Farm Labor Housing program loan and grant obligations remained undisbursed more than 5 years after the funds were obligated and that the Rural Housing Service had no guidelines for deobligation in force.since issued guidance, as we had recommended. The Rural Housing Service has We also found that age |
4,177 | ncies did not deobligate funds from grants eligible for closeout in a timely manner. For example, in 2012, we reported that Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Bulletproof Vest Partnership program had not deobligated about $27 million in balances from grants awarded from fiscal years 2002 through 2009 whose terms have ended and whose grantees are no longer eligible for reimbursement. DOJ agreed with our recommendation that the department deobligate undisbursed funds from Bulletproof Vest Partnership program grant |
4,178 | s that have closed and said that in the absence of statutory restrictions stating otherwise, it intends to use the deobligated, undisbursed funds to supplement appropriations in fiscal years 2012 and 2013. In another example, we reported in 2010 that recipients of 58 percent of Department of the Interior’s Office of Insular Affairs project grants failed to submit final closeout reports on time, which can delay the deobligation of any unspent grant funds from the project account. The Department of Interior a |
4,179 | greed with our recommendations to improve the Office of Insular Affairs’ ability to manage grants. Federal IGs identified similar issues at their agencies. For example, in September 2009 the Inspector General at Labor reported that funds were not deobligated when a grant expired because of delays in grant closeouts. Also, grants from the Employment and Training Administration and the Veteran’s Employment and Training Service were not closed within 12 months of their expiration because of a large backlog of |
4,180 | grants in need of close out. Service reported in April 2009 that it deobligated the $2.75 million in response to a finding from the department’s inspector general, making the funds available for other research projects and preventing the potential misuse of funds. IGs also reported that system updates and a lack of timely information led to problems at DHS and the Department of Education, respectively. Department of Labor, Office of the Inspector General, Management Advisory Comments Identified in an Audit |
4,181 | of the Consolidated Financial Statements for the Year Ended September 30, 2009, 22-10-006-13-001 (Washington, D.C.: 2010). Federal IGs reported that grant closeout procedures have been viewed as a low priority for federal agencies and that agencies have devoted limited staff resources to other grant management functions, including the issuance of new grant awards. Lack of attention and staffing contribute to delays in grant closeout and the timely deobligation of funds. For example, DOE’s Inspector General |
4,182 | found that one of DOE’s regional offices was not closing out Small Business Innovation and Research Phase II grants in a timely manner in part because staff focused their attention instead on active awards. The Inspector General found expired grants had been completed for more than 3 years but had not been closed out. In addition, the Inspector General found questionable or unallowable costs during their review of grant closeout. Because grantees are only required to maintain annual audit and expense report |
4,183 | s to support progress on projects and costs incurred and other information for 3 years, the supporting cost data may not be available for review, resulting in the payment of unnecessary and unallowable costs. These findings are consistent with the results of a survey of IGs and other investigative agencies by the National Procurement Fraud Task Force’s Grant Fraud Committee, a committee chaired by the Inspector General for DOJ, which aims to detect and prevent grant fraud. Many respondents to the survey sug |
4,184 | gested that grant awarding agencies are often focused on awarding grant money and do not devote sufficient resources to the oversight of how those funds are spent. Survey respondents noted that awarding agencies often inadequately monitor grantee activities by, among other things, not properly closing out grants in a timely manner. OMB has not issued governmentwide guidance on tracking or reporting undisbursed balances for grants eligible for closeout, as we recommended in 2008. OMB did issue instructions f |
4,185 | or tracking and reporting on undisbursed grant balances to a small number of affected federal agencies in 2010 and 2011 as required by law. However, this guidance included grant accounts that were still available for disbursement and was not limited only to those grant accounts eligible for closeout. We found that agencywide information on undisbursed balances in grant accounts eligible for closeout is largely lacking. In 2008, we recommended that OMB instruct all executive departments and independent agenc |
4,186 | ies to annually track the amount of undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts and report on the status and resolution of the undisbursed funding in their annual performance reports. In our report, expired grant accounts were defined as the grants that remained open after the end of the grant period and were eligible for closeout. Our previous work found that reporting on the status of grant closeouts in annual performance reports, such as agency PARs, can raise the visibility of the problem within fede |
4,187 | ral agencies, lead to improvements in grant closeouts, and reduce undisbursed balances. These reports enable the president, Congress, and the American people to assess agencies’ accomplishments for each fiscal year by comparing agencies’ actual performance against their annual performance goals, summarizing the findings of program evaluations completed during the year, and describing the actions needed to address any unmet goals, among other things. OMB responded at the time that it supported the intent of |
4,188 | our recommendations to strengthen grants management by explicitly requiring federal agencies to track and report the amount of undisbursed grant funding remaining in expired grant accounts and that it believed agencies should design processes with strong internal controls to promote effective funds management for all types of obligations. OMB’s comments did not indicate a commitment to implement our recommendations. OMB stated that, during its regular review, it would consider revising the grant management |
4,189 | guidance in Circulars No. A-102 and No. A-110 to include such instructions. As of December 2011, these Circulars, as well as No. A-11, Preparation, Submission and Execution of the Budget, and No. A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements, do not include any guidance or instructions to agencies on tracking or reporting on undisbursed balances in grants eligible for closeout in agencies’ performance reports. Section 537 of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010 required |
4,190 | that the Director of OMB instruct departments, agencies, and other entities receiving funds under the act to track undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts. The legislation specifically required that OMB instruct affected agencies to report on the following information: 1. details on future action the department, agency, or instrumentality will take to resolve undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts, 2. the method that the department, agency, or instrumentality uses to track undisbursed balance |
4,191 | s in expired grant accounts, 3. identification of undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts that may be returned to the Treasury of the United States, and 4. in the preceding 3 fiscal years, details on the total number of expired grant accounts with undisbursed balances (on the first day of each fiscal year) for the department, agency, or instrumentality and the total finances that have not been obligated to a specific project remaining in the accounts. These legislative reporting requirements were sim |
4,192 | ilar to what we recommended in 2008. Subsequently, the same reporting requirements were carried forward for fiscal year 2011 by the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 and for fiscal year 2012 by Section 536 of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012, affecting select agencies 2012 PAR and AFR submissions due in November 2012. In 2010 and 2011, as required by these laws OMB issued implementing instructions to affected federal agencies’ financial officers and b |
4,193 | udget officers. Four agencies—the Department of Commerce (DOC), DOJ, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and National Science Foundation (NSF)—provided responses in their annual performance reports. However, in its instructions, OMB equated “expired grant accounts” with expired appropriation accounts. Specifically, OMB’s guidance referenced the definition of expired appropriations found in Circular No. A-11 in defining expired grant accounts as “including budget authority that is no longer |
4,194 | available for new obligations but is still available for disbursement.” The performance period for active grant agreements can last multiple years during which time authorized disbursements may be made from expired appropriation accounts. Under OMB’s definition, agencies were instructed to report all undisbursed funding in expired appropriation accounts which could include active grant accounts as well as grant accounts eligible for closeout. In contrast, in this and other reports, we defined expired grant |
4,195 | accounts as accounts that remain open after the specified grant end date, or expiration date, and are eligible for close out. government has obligated by entering into a grant agreement but that should no longer be disbursed to grantees because the period of availability to the grantee has ended. See GAO-08-432 and GAO, Federal Grants: Improvements Needed in Oversight and Accountability Processes, GAO-11-773T (Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2011). appropriations in the agency’s two research-related appropriati |
4,196 | ons accounts. The amount reported included funds available for disbursement on only active grant agreements. Similarly, officials from DOJ and NASA also confirmed to us that the number they reported in their 2010 performance reports represented balances in expired appropriations accounts and not the amount of funding that remained in grant accounts eligible for close out. Furthermore, according to DOJ officials, most DOJ grants, with the exception of grants funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestm |
4,197 | ent Act (Recovery Act), are funded with no-year appropriations that do not enter into an expired phase and therefore fall outside the scope of OMB’s guidance. Agency officials told us that the purpose of gathering information on grants funded with expired appropriations was unclear. Federal agencies are generally required to include detailed information on the overall budgetary resources made available to the agency, including amounts in expired appropriation accounts, as well as the status of those resourc |
4,198 | es at the end of the fiscal year. Agency officials said that the information on undisbursed balances reported in their PAR or AFR was derived at least in part from these publicly available budgetary reports and is generally readily available; however, information on undisbursed balances in grant accounts that have reached their end date and are eligible for closeout is generally not publicly available or otherwise provided to OMB and Congress. OMB issued largely identical instructions to select agencies for |
4,199 | reporting on undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts in their 2011 performance reports. While NASA and NSF took different approaches in reporting compared to the prior year, DOJ reported on the amount of undisbursed funding in expired appropriations. DOC reported undisbursed balances, but could not confirm whether all of its grant- making bureaus reported expired appropriations or grant accounts. NASA officials said that the number reported in their 2011 PAR represented the amount of undisbursed bal |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.