Assessment of Lessons Learned Could Improve Grants Administration (GAO-22-104313)

Summary

A GAO report to congressional committees, GAO-22-104313, dated November 2021, on the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC). It reports that during the 2020 federal elections the EAC administered $400 million in grant funds provided by the CARES Act to help states prepare for and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. GAO states that the EAC, a national clearinghouse of information on election administration, shared information to help state and local election officials conduct elections during the pandemic, including on in-person voting and absentee and mail voting. Its title states that an assessment of lessons learned could improve grants administration.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

United States Government Accountability Office
Report to Congressional Committees

ELECTION
November 2021

ASSISTANCE
COMMISSION

Assessment of
Lessons Learned
Could Improve Grants
Administration

GAO-22-104313
November 2021

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION
Assessment of Lessons Learned Could Improve
Grants Administration
Highlights of GAO-22-104313, a report to
congressional committees

Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found
During the 2020 federal elections, the The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC)—established to serve as a
EAC administered $400 million in grant national clearinghouse of information on election administration, among other
funds provided by the CARES Act to responsibilities—shared information on a range of topics to help state and local
help states prepare for and respond to election officials conduct elections during the COVID-19 pandemic. For example,
the COVID-19 pandemic.
it shared information on in-person voting, absentee/mail voting, and contingency
The CARES Act included a provision planning. It also established National Poll Worker Recruitment Day and
for GAO to report on its ongoing developed graphics as part of a related public awareness campaign (see fig.).
monitoring and oversight efforts related
to the COVID-19 pandemic. This report U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) National Poll Worker Recruitment Day Graphic
(1) describes information that the EAC
provided to state and local election
officials for conducting elections during
the pandemic, (2) describes how the
EAC administered CARES Act grant
funding, and (3) examines the extent to
which the EAC assessed its CARES
Act grants administration. GAO
reviewed information on the EAC’s
website on conducting elections during
the pandemic and interviewed EAC
officials regarding processes for
developing and distributing this The EAC administered CARES Act grants by obligating funds and overseeing
information. GAO obtained and how states spent the funds, in part by reviewing states’ grant reports to check
reviewed the EAC’s data on CARES how states spent funds to respond to the pandemic. It also reported information
Act grant expenditures, grant guidance to Congress on how states spent approximately $326 million in grant funds, and
for states on expending and reporting to a committee overseeing the response to the pandemic on the specific activities
funding, and materials the EAC used to undertaken by states using these funds.
review state reports. GAO also
interviewed EAC officials regarding The EAC identified and addressed some issues with its administration of CARES
grant administration procedures. Act grants. For example, while administering CARES Act grants, the EAC revised
required grant reporting forms to more clearly align with requirements and to
What GAO Recommends address difficulties some states were having with narrative questions on the
GAO recommends that the EAC forms. The EAC and GAO identified other issues with administration of the
assess its administration of CARES grants. For example, GAO found issues with how states and the EAC
Act grants to document any lessons categorized expenditures involving nearly 20 percent of the total reported
learned and, to the extent practicable, spending nationwide. As a result, in the EAC’s annual grant expenditure report to
implement applicable lessons. The Congress, states’ expenditures for similar or the same items or activities could be
EAC identified ongoing and planned included under multiple categories, making it difficult to consistently determine,
steps to assess and implement lessons by category, how states spent the grant funds.
learned from its administration of
CARES Act grants. However, the EAC has not yet assessed its administration of CARES Act grants
and documented lessons learned. According to EAC officials, assessing the
administration of these grants could identify lessons learned beyond those that
officials identified while administering the grants. Additionally, the EAC could
document and implement any lessons learned. This could help improve the
EAC’s administration of ongoing or future grant programs, particularly in the
View GAO-22-104313. For more information,
contact Rebecca Gambler at (202) 512-8777
event of a future emergency.
or gamblerr@gao.gov.

United States Government Accountability Office
Contents

Letter 1
Background 4
EAC Shared Information to Help States Prepare for and Conduct
the 2020 Elections 5
EAC Oversaw and Reported to Congress on CARES Act Grant
Spending 9
EAC Addressed Some Issues but Has Not Yet Assessed CARES
Act Grants Administration 15
Conclusions 17
Recommendations for Executive Action 18
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 18

Appendix I Comments from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission 22

Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 25

Figures
Figure 1: Time Line of CARES Act Grant Requirements for the
U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and States 5
Figure 2: U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) National
Poll Worker Recruitment Day Graphic 7
Figure 3: Financial Section of the U.S. Election Assistance
Commission’s (EAC) Progress Report Form for CARES
Act Grants 12

Page i GAO-22-104313 Election Assistance Commission
Abbreviations

COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease 2019
EAC U.S. Election Assistance Commission
HAVA Help America Vote Act of 2002

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety
without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain
copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be
necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.

Page ii GAO-22-104313 Election Assistance Commission
Letter

441 G St. N.W.
Washington, DC 20548

November 8, 2021

Congressional Committees

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), established by the Help
America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), is to serve as a national clearinghouse
of information on the administration of federal elections. 1 Under HAVA,
the EAC also administers grant funding for states to improve election
administration. 2 In these roles, the EAC provided information and grant
funds to state and local election officials to assist with planning for and
conducting elections in 2020 during the Coronavirus Disease 2019
(COVID-19) pandemic.

The CARES Act provided $400 million in HAVA grant funds for states to
use to prevent, prepare for, and respond to COVID-19 for the 2020
federal election cycle. 3 Under the CARES Act, the EAC was to obligate
grant funding to the states no later than 30 days after the date of
enactment (March 27, 2020). This emergency funding supplemented the
$380 million and $425 million appropriated in the Consolidated
Appropriation Acts of 2018 and 2020, respectively. These funds were to
help states improve the administration of federal elections, including
enhancing election technology and improving election security. 4 In total,
the EAC oversaw $1.205 billion in HAVA grant funding—including
CARES Act grants—for activities to improve the administration of federal
elections since 2018.

The CARES Act also included a provision for us to report on our ongoing
monitoring and oversight efforts related to the COVID-19 pandemic. 5 This
report is a part of our body of work related to the CARES Act and focuses

1See generally Pub. L. No. 107-252, 116 Stat. 1666 (codified as amended at 52 U.S.C. §§
20901-21145).
2See 52 U.S.C. § 20901. The EAC administers grant funding to all 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and the five U.S. territories—American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana
Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. For the purposes of this report, we refer
to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the five U.S. territories as “states.”
3See Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281, 530 (2020).

4See Pub. L. No. 116-93, 133 Stat. 2317, 2461 (2019); Pub. L. No. 115-141, 132 Stat.
348, 561-62 (2018).
5Pub. L. No. 116-136, § 19010, 134 Stat. at 579-81.

Page 1 GAO-22-104313 Election Assistance Commission
on the federal government’s efforts to support state and local election
officials during the pandemic. 6 This report (1) describes the information
that the EAC provided to state and local election officials for conducting
elections in 2020 during the pandemic, (2) describes how the EAC
administered CARES Act grant funding, and (3) examines the extent to
which the EAC has assessed its CARES Act grant administration.

To describe the information the EAC provided to state and local election
officials, we reviewed the content and organization of information on its
website related to conducting elections in 2020 during the pandemic. The
information on the site included documents, webinars, and other
materials, such as examples of how election officials implemented voting
changes for the 2020 primary elections that could help other election
officials prepare for the general election. Further, we interviewed EAC
officials regarding their efforts to provide states with information to
prepare for the 2020 elections and the processes for producing and
distributing this information. In addition, to understand how the EAC
coordinated with other entities to develop information on election
administration during the pandemic, we interviewed officials from the
Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure
Security Agency, a federal partner with the EAC in the Joint COVID
Working Group.

To describe how the EAC administered CARES Act grant funding and
examine the extent to which it assessed its grant administration, we
obtained and reviewed EAC’s data on grant expenditures by state. 7
Specifically, we obtained and reviewed data that showed the total amount
of grant funding spent by each state and the amount of grant funding
spent by each state by expenditure category. This enabled us to examine
how the EAC calculated states’ expenditures used in its annual grant
expenditure report to Congress, as well as describe the extent to which
the expenditure categories used by the EAC consistently capture

6We regularly issue government-wide reports on the federal response to COVID-19. For
the latest report, see GAO, COVID-19: Additional Actions Needed to Improve
Accountability and Program Effectiveness of Federal Response, GAO-22-105051
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 27, 2021). Our next government-wide report will be issued in
January 2022 and will be available on GAO’s website at https://www.gao.gov/coronavirus.
7Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. at 530. The CARES Act made available grant funding to
all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the five U.S. territories, including American
Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Page 2 GAO-22-104313 Election Assistance Commission
spending by states. 8 To determine the reliability of these data, we
compared the EAC’s data with information submitted by states in grant
progress reports to the EAC and interviewed officials about how they
compiled and reviewed the accuracy of the data. 9 Based on these steps,
we determined the EAC’s CARES Act expenditures data to be sufficiently
reliable for the purpose of reporting on how the EAC calculated and
reported on nationwide spending of grant funding. We discuss other
issues related to EAC’s reporting of expenditures later in this report.

Further, we reviewed the EAC’s CARES Act guidance on the use of grant
funding and reporting requirements, such as the HAVA Progress Report
Guidance that included guidance to states for submitting CARES Act
grant progress reports to the EAC. We reviewed the EAC’s materials
used by officials to review states’ grant reports, such as a checklist to
compare expenditure information from different types of grant reports. We
also interviewed EAC officials to learn about the procedures related to
administering CARES Act grants, including any efforts taken to assess its
grants administration. We then compared the EAC’s plans and activities
to assess its grant administration against our prior work identifying
leading practices for assessing, documenting, and applying lessons
learned to federal programs. 10

We conducted this performance audit from May 2020 to November 2021
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that

8U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2020 Grant Expenditure Report (Washington,
D.C.: July 2021).
9We also reviewed postelection reports and federal financial reports submitted by states to
the EAC.
10See GAO, Grants Management: OMB Should Collect and Share Lessons Learned from
Use of COVID-19-Related Grant Flexibilities, GAO-21-318 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31,
2021); DOD Utilities Privatization: Improved Data Collection and Lessons Learned Archive
Could Help Reduce Time to Award Contracts, GAO-20-104 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 2,
2020); Project Management: DOE and NNSA Should Improve Their Lessons-Learned
Process for Capital Asset Projects, GAO-19-25 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 21, 2018);
Recovery Act: Grant Implementation Experiences Offer Lessons for Accountability and
Transparency, GAO-14-219 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 24, 2014); and Federal Real
Property Security: Interagency Security Committee Should Implement a Lessons-Learned
Process, GAO-12-901 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10, 2012).

Page 3 GAO-22-104313 Election Assistance Commission
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.

HAVA was enacted in 2002 to make reforms to the nation’s voting
Background processes, including improving voting systems and voter access. 11 HAVA
established the EAC to serve as a national clearinghouse and resource
for the compilation of information and review of procedures with respect
to the administration of federal elections. In addition, HAVA charged the
EAC with developing voluntary voting system guidelines. Among its
responsibilities, the EAC is to administer HAVA grants to states to
improve the administration of elections for federal office.

CARES Act Grant Funding In March 2020 the CARES Act was enacted, which provided $400 million
in HAVA grant funding to states. The CARES Act required that these
grant funds be used to prevent, prepare for, and respond to COVID-19 for
the 2020 election cycle. It also required the EAC to administer the grants
and obligate grant funds to the states no later than April 27, 2020. 12

In addition to setting requirements for the EAC, the CARES Act included
requirements for states on how to spend and report on grant funding. For
instance, states were required to obligate all grant funds by December 31,
2020, and obtain a 20 percent match of state funding that they needed to
spend by March 27, 2022. 13 In addition, states receiving funds were
required to submit a postelection report to the EAC within 20 days of each
election in the 2020 election cycle. 14 The EAC was then required to
provide states’ postelection reports to Congress within 23 days after each
election. The reports were to include a full accounting of the state’s grant
expenditures and an explanation of how the expenditures allowed the
state to prevent, prepare for, and respond to COVID-19. Since the
CARES Act grants were authorized under HAVA, they are also subject to

11Pub. L. No. 107-252, 116 Stat. 1666 (2002).

12An obligation is a definite commitment that creates a legal liability of the government for
the payment of goods and services ordered or received. An expenditure is an amount
paid, by cash or cash equivalent, to liquidate government obligations. For the purposes of
this report, an expenditure represents the actual spending by a state government of
money obligated by the federal government.
13See Pub. L. No. 116-93, 131 Stat. at 2461. The 20 percent state match is a requirement
for all HAVA grant program funds appropriated in fiscal year 2020, including the additional
$400 million appropriated in the CARES Act. The territories of American Samoa, Guam,
Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are exempt from the state match
requirement.
14Postelection reports are also known as 20-day reports.

Page 4 GAO-22-104313 Election Assistance Commission
certain existing HAVA grant financial and progress reporting
requirements. See figure 1 for a time line of CARES Act grant
requirements.

Figure 1: Time Line of CARES Act Grant Requirements for the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and States

a
The territories of American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands
were exempt from the state match requirement.

Through documents, recorded videos, and webpages, the EAC provided
EAC Shared information on a range of topics to help state and local election officials
Information to Help prepare for and conduct the 2020 elections during the COVID-19
pandemic. Most of this information was provided publicly on the EAC’s
States Prepare for website on its COVID-19 Resources webpage. According to EAC officials,
and Conduct the they used the website to share information with as many state and local
election officials as possible who were responsible for implementing
2020 Elections changes to how they conducted elections due to the pandemic.
Specifically, the website provided information on in-person voting,
absentee/mail voting, poll worker recruiting and training, and contingency
planning, among other things.

• In-person voting. Through its website, the EAC shared information
on how state and local election officials could ensure a safe voting
environment at polling locations for in-person voting. For example, the
site included documents on how election officials could select polling
locations that allowed for COVID-19 safety measures, such as social

Page 5 GAO-22-104313 Election Assistance Commission
distancing. The site also included information that highlighted the
steps that some jurisdictions took to improve the safety of in-person
voting for their primary elections during the pandemic. These included
creating a ticketing or reservation system so voters did not have to
stand in line while waiting to vote, and using a “teller” window to
separate the voter and poll worker. Additionally, the site had a
webpage containing voting equipment manufacturers’ guides for
disinfecting voting equipment.
• Absentee/mail voting. Through its website, the EAC shared
information on how state and local election officials could prepare for
increases in absentee/mail voting. According to EAC officials, they
focused on providing documents about establishing or increasing
absentee/mail voting because many state and local election officials
did not have experience with or systems in place for more voters to
vote by mail rather than at polling locations. In addition, EAC officials
said that such changes to absentee/mail voting systems required
additional time to implement, so they wanted to share information as
quickly as possible. To try to meet these needs, the EAC shared
information about, for example, establishing time lines for ramping up
an absentee/mail voting system and managing out-bound and in-
bound ballots, ensuring the security of electronic ballot delivery and
return systems, and using drop boxes to receive ballots. The site also
highlighted how some jurisdictions prepared for increases in absentee
voting by using public buildings, such as libraries—that were familiar
to voters, closed due to the pandemic, and that had security
measures already in place—as additional ballot drop box locations. In
addition, the site provided examples of how some jurisdictions
educated voters about changes to absentee voting. These included
providing a list of ballot drop box locations with each mailed ballot and
developing informational graphics about the absentee voting process
that voters could review on a local jurisdiction’s website.
• Poll worker recruiting and training. The EAC established the first
National Poll Worker Recruitment Day, a public awareness campaign
designed to help states and localities recruit younger poll workers who
were at lower risk of developing severe symptoms from COVID-19,
according to EAC officials. The EAC created graphics and a website
for the campaign that directed state and local election officials to
information on recruiting and training poll workers. In addition, it
created social media accounts to help share information on becoming
a poll worker. The website and social media accounts described the
role of poll workers and directed interested members of the public to
contact their jurisdiction’s election office for more information about

Page 6 GAO-22-104313 Election Assistance Commission
becoming a poll worker. Figure 2 shows a graphic the EAC developed
for National Poll Worker Recruitment Day.

Figure 2: U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) National Poll Worker Recruitment Day Graphic

• Contingency planning. According to EAC officials, the EAC created
a webpage that provided links to documents and information from
prior work with election officials on preparing for the continuance of
elections during natural disasters and previous pandemics that could
help election officials prepare for elections during the COVID-19
pandemic. For example, the EAC provided examples of how some
states planned and prepared for the possibility of the H1N1 pandemic
affecting their elections. These plans defined the roles and
responsibilities of state and local election officials and described how
poll workers could safely dispose of used cleaning supplies.

Page 7 GAO-22-104313 Election Assistance Commission
The EAC developed some of the information on its website in response to
the pandemic. The EAC also collaborated with other entities to create and
share pertinent information on its website. Specifically, the EAC served as
the chair of the Joint COVID Working Group, which consisted of
representatives from federal, state, and local government agencies and
private entities. The working group developed, for example, information
on in-person voting, absentee/mail voting, and poll worker recruitment
and training. 15

The EAC also posted information produced by other federal agencies on
its website. For example, it posted safety and security information created
by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Cybersecurity
and Infrastructure Security Agency. It also shared documents on such
topics as election emergency statutes and policies produced by
nongovernmental organizations such as the National Association of
Secretaries of State, the National Association of State Election Directors,
and the National Conference of State Legislatures. Further, it provided
relevant election-related information produced by selected state or local
agencies.

In addition to sharing information on its website, EAC officials said they
responded individually to questions from state and local election officials
and the media. These officials said they did not distribute this type of
information publicly on their website because of the highly individualized
type of information requested. For example, according to officials, they
provided the contact information of personal protective equipment
distributors to state and local election officials to help them facilitate the
distribution of personal protective equipment. In addition, officials said
they used data from the EAC’s Election Administration and Voting Survey
to answer questions from the media and election officials on various

15The Joint COVID Working Group included members from the election infrastructure
subsector’s Government Coordinating Council–consisting of federal, state, and local
government partners, such as the EAC and the Department of Homeland Security’s
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency–and its Sector Coordinating Council–
consisting of private sector companies, such as voting equipment vendors.

Page 8 GAO-22-104313 Election Assistance Commission
election administration topics, such as how many voters had used
different methods of voting—including voting by mail—in prior elections. 16

The EAC administered CARES Act grants by obligating funding and
EAC Oversaw and overseeing how states spent the funds. It also reported information to
Reported to Congress Congress, as well as to the Pandemic Response Accountability
Committee, on states’ use of CARES Act grants. 17
on CARES Act Grant
Spending
Obligating Grant Funding The EAC obligated CARES Act grant funds to states in response to state
requests. The CARES Act required the EAC to obligate grant funding to
states by April 27, 2020. To meet this requirement, the EAC asked states
to request grant funding by April 14, 2020. EAC officials said they helped
states request funding by creating a grant funds request letter template
and providing related guidance. For the request letters, the EAC asked
state election officials to describe how they planned to spend grant
funding consistent with grant requirements. Officials said they
subsequently reviewed each request letter to confirm that it was from an
authorized representative, that the state agreed to follow requirements,
and that the letter detailed how the state would spend funds. Further,
officials said they checked how much grant funding the state requested to
ensure that it was not more than the amount available for the state. 18
Following the EAC’s approval of a state’s request, officials said they
authorized the disbursement of obligated grant funds. According to EAC
officials, they authorized the disbursement of funds within 4 days of
receiving a funding request for over 90 percent of states’ requests.

16The EAC’s Election Administration and Voting Survey collects information related to
election administration, registration, and voting from all 50 states, the District of Columbia,
and U.S. territories on a biennial basis following each federal election. For example, the
survey includes national, state, and local data on voter registration, uniformed and
overseas voting, voting equipment usage, and absentee voting, among other topics.
17The Pandemic Response Accountability Committee was established by the CARES Act
to, among other responsibilities, provide oversight of CARES Act funding and pandemic
response. See Pub. L. No. 116-136, § 15010(b), 134 Stat. at 534.
18The EAC was required to use a formula applicable to certain HAVA grants to calculate
how much each state could have requested from the $400 million in the CARES Act. The
formula establishes a minimum amount of grant funding available for request by each
state and territory and generally directs that the remainder of the available funding be
distributed based on voting age population proportion of the state to the national total. See
52 U.S.C. § 20901(d).

Page 9 GAO-22-104313 Election Assistance Commission
Overseeing States’ The EAC oversaw how states spent grant funding by providing guidance
Spending of Grant on allowable expenses and reporting requirements, reviewing states’
grant reports, and conducting the grant closeout process.
Funding
Provide guidance on CARES Act requirements. The EAC developed
and provided guidance to help grant recipients understand allowable
expenses and reporting requirements for CARES Act grants. Among
other things, it hosted a webinar, created a webpage, and developed and
distributed various documents. EAC officials said the guidance they
developed was based on requirements in the CARES Act and questions
they received from states. According to these officials, the EAC hosted a
webinar after the passage of the CARES Act to provide information about
grant requirements and allow state election officials opportunities to ask
questions. EAC officials added that they created a grant webpage where
they provided answers to questions that state officials had asked. In
addition to the webpage, the EAC developed and distributed guidance
documents on grant requirements and reporting. It also developed
guidance for states on the grant closeout process.

Review of states’ grant reports. The EAC reviewed three types of
reports submitted by states: (1) postelection reports filed during the 2020
election cycle, (2) progress reports, and (3) federal financial reports that
were due starting in February 2021.

• Postelection reports. EAC officials said they reviewed postelection
reports to oversee how states spent grant funding for each election
during the 2020 election cycle. The CARES Act required states to
submit postelection reports to the EAC within 20 days of each election
in which grant funds were spent. The EAC was then required to
provide such reports to Congress within 23 days after each election.
The reports were to include a full accounting of the state’s grant
expenditures and an explanation of how the expenditures allowed the
state to prevent, prepare for, and respond to COVID-19. The EAC
required states to use an electronic system to complete and submit
postelection reports. Almost all states submitted their last required
postelection report for the general election held on November 3, 2020.
According to EAC officials, one state submitted a postelection report
for a runoff election held after the general election.
EAC officials said they reviewed states’ postelection reports within a
week of receipt, sometimes after sending the reports to Congress
because of the CARES Act requirement to submit the reports within
23 days after an election. These officials told us that if a state reported
spending funds on unallowable expenses in the postelection report,

Page 10 GAO-22-104313 Election Assistance Commission
they would inform the state of the unallowable expense and review
the state’s subsequent grant reports to ensure that the state removed
the expense. For example, one state described spending grant
funding on legal fees, an unallowable expense under CARES Act
requirements. According to EAC officials, in this case they met with
the state’s election officials to discuss why legal fees were not an
allowable expense. Officials then reviewed the state’s progress report
and federal financial report filed in February 2021 to check if the state
continued to list the unallowable expense. EAC officials said the state
had removed the expense in these subsequent grant reports.

• Progress reports. The EAC reviews progress reports to oversee how
states spent grant funds, starting from when states initially received
funds until the deadline to obligate grant funding by December 31,
2020. The first progress reports were due on February 28, 2021, and
then semiannually thereafter until the state met the state matching
funds requirement and indicated it was ready to start the grant
closeout process. The progress report consists of a narrative section
and a financial section.
In the narrative section of the progress report, states are asked to
describe in written responses any issues they faced in relation to
conducting elections during the pandemic. The narrative section also
asks states to describe how they spent grant funds to address the
pandemic. For instance, one state described challenges in
communicating with voters about changes to the state’s voting
processes. That state then described how it spent grant funding on a
public awareness campaign to inform voters about the process
changes.
In the financial section of the progress report, states are to input total
grant expenditures for the reporting period as well as a breakdown of
expenditures by category. The EAC developed five categories by
which to track grant expenditures: (1) voting processes, (2) staffing,
(3) security and training, (4) communications, and (5) supplies. In its
guidance to states, the EAC included examples of expenses to
include in each of the five categories and directed states to categorize
expenditures for the reporting period in the categories. The guidance
also noted that states could add new expenditure categories to report
expenses. Figure 3 shows the financial section of the progress report
form.

Page 11 GAO-22-104313 Election Assistance Commission
Figure 3: Financial Section of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s (EAC)
Progress Report Form for CARES Act Grants

a
The territories of American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are
exempt from the state match requirement.
b
States have the option to create their own expenditure category or categories but are not required to
do so.

• Federal financial reports. The EAC reviews federal financial reports
to oversee high-level financial information for each state, such as the
total amount of grant funds received, expended, and not expended as
of the filing of the report. Federal financial reports are standard federal
government forms, not created specifically for HAVA or CARES
grants by the EAC. The first federal financial reports for CARES Act
grant funds were due along with the first progress reports on February
28, 2021, then semiannually thereafter until the state indicated it was
ready to start the grant closeout process.

EAC officials said that they use a checklist to review each state’s
progress reports and federal financial reports. Using the checklist, officials
told us they compare a state’s progress report and federal financial report
to identify any discrepancies between the financial information included in

Page 12 GAO-22-104313 Election Assistance Commission
both reports. For the progress report, these officials said they use the
checklist to review if a state sufficiently explains how it spent grant funds
in accordance with CARES Act requirements. For example, if a state
enters an amount into the supplies expenditure category in the financial
section of the progress report, then EAC officials checked that the state
sufficiently described in the narrative section how the supplies were used
in response to the pandemic. For the federal financial report, the EAC is
to use the checklist to review whether states entered the required high-
level financial information. For example, the EAC is to check if the
expenses were made during the reporting period covered in the federal
financial report.

EAC officials said they asked states to submit corrected progress reports
or federal financial reports if, for example, a state did not complete a
section of a report, submitted a report using the wrong template or with
incorrect reporting dates, did not total the expenditures in the financial
section of the progress report, or listed potentially unallowable
expenditures in the progress report. Officials would then review the
corrected report and, if the requested corrections had been made, the
officials would approve the report. Officials told us that in cases where a
progress report or federal financial report was complete but certain
information provided in the report was unclear, they would approve the
report once they obtained email clarification from the state reporting
official.

Grant closeout. After a state informs the EAC that it is ready to close out
its grant, the EAC starts the grant closeout process to confirm that the
state met all grant requirements, such as obtaining and spending the
required amount of state matching funds. 19 Officials review the state’s
final progress report; final federal financial report; list of purchased
equipment; list of unused residual supplies; and documentation of the
return of unspent grant funding, if any. For the final progress report,
according to officials, states are asked to describe their accomplishments
and lessons learned from administering elections during the pandemic to
help identify best practices for addressing challenges that could be helpful
to other election officials, among other reasons. Officials told us they also
review each state’s list of and plans for voting equipment purchased with
grant funds to ensure that the state would continue to use the

19The territories of American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands were not required to obtain matching funds from their territorial
governments.

Page 13 GAO-22-104313 Election Assistance Commission
equipment. 20 In addition, they will check if the state reported any unused
residual supplies (such as personal protective equipment). If the state
does not have plans to use the voting equipment for future elections or
residual supplies had a current fair market value over $5,000, then the
EAC determines whether states need to return the equivalent of grant
funding for the equipment or unused supplies. The EAC closes the grant
after approving the state’s final reports and confirming the receipt of
unspent federal grant funding, if any. 21 As of October 2021, officials said
they have completed grant closeout for 31 states and anticipate
completing grant closeout for additional states by the end of 2021.The
remaining states will need to fulfill any remaining grant requirements and
start the grant closeout process by March 27, 2022.

Reporting How States The EAC reported on how states spent CARES Act grant funding in
Spent $326 Million in several ways. The EAC annually reports to Congress on expenditures for
all HAVA grants that the agency had administered in the previous year. In
Grant Funding
July 2021, the EAC provided to Congress its annual grant expenditure
report covering almost $326 million in CARES Act grant expenditures
from 2020. 22 The report contained information on the amount of
expenditures nationwide, by state, and by expenditure category. As
discussed later in this report, the EAC reported nationwide grant
expenditures using the five expenditure categories it developed for state
progress reporting purposes, and two categories it developed to reflect
expenditures from some state-created categories.

In addition, the EAC submitted quarterly reports to the Pandemic
Response Accountability Committee. These reports also contained
information on each states’ expenditures but additionally described how
each state reported using grant funding. For example, the July 2021
quarterly report described how one state used grant funding to purchase

20According to the EAC’s grant closeout guidance, states would need to describe how
they would continue to use the equipment for HAVA purposes, such as ensuring the
continued security of voting.
21The EAC Office of the Inspector General also conducts audits of a subset of states to
check for state compliance with HAVA grant requirements. An audit determines if the state
was compliant with the requirements for reporting financial information to the EAC on
federal financial reports and progress reports, accounting for property, and purchasing
related goods and services.
22U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2020 Grant Expenditure Report. The report
included expenditure information for the period March 28, 2020 through December 31,
2020.

Page 14 GAO-22-104313 Election Assistance Commission
personal protective equipment for poll workers and cleaning services for
polling locations. 23

EAC officials told us that they identified issues and made adjustments,
EAC Addressed when needed, as they administered CARES Act grants. For example,
Some Issues but Has while administering the grant funds, officials told us they identified that
some states had difficulty answering certain questions in the narrative
Not Yet Assessed section of the progress report form. EAC officials said they altered the
CARES Act Grants narrative questions to more clearly align with CARES Act requirements,
which they said addressed the issues that states experienced.
Administration
EAC officials identified other issues while administering CARES Act
grants. For instance, officials told us that the electronic system that it
used for states to submit progress reports allowed states to omit or
miscalculate expenditure totals. In the financial section of the progress
report, officials told us that the system does not have the capability to
automatically calculate a state’s total expenditures based on the
expenditures listed in the categories. Officials added that, as a result,
some states did not include an amount for total expenditures. These
officials also told us that among the states that did include total
expenditures, some states entered incorrect total expenditures that did
not equal the sum of the expenditures listed by category. As a result,
officials had to ask these states to revise and resubmit their progress
reports.

In addition to the issues that EAC officials identified, we found issues with
how states and the EAC categorized expenditures involving nearly 20
percent of the total reported nationwide spending. States were not
required to categorize expenditures using the five broad categories
developed by the EAC and could create additional expenditure categories
in their progress reports. EAC officials told us that they provided this
flexibility to states because they recognized there could be allowable
expenses that may not fit into one of the five categories.

On the basis of our analysis of state progress reports, we found that
states differed in how they categorized similar expenditures. Overall,
states had created 60 additional expenditure categories, making it difficult
to determine how grant funds were spent across states. For example, in
its progress report, one state created a category it called “personal

23U.S. Election Assistance Commission, CARES Act Quarterly Report to the Pandemic
Response Accountability Committee (Washington, D.C.: July 10, 2021).

Page 15 GAO-22-104313 Election Assistance Commission
protective equipment and equipment for polling locations” rather than
inputting these expenditures into the EAC’s categories of “voting
processes” or “supplies,” as other states did. Similarly, another state
created a category it called “contract services” rather than inputting these
expenditures into one of the five existing categories based on the type of
contract services provided. In both of these examples, the EAC included
these expenditures in a broad “other” category of spending in its annual
grant expenditure report to Congress. As a result, states’ expenditures for
similar or the same items, activities, or services could be included under
multiple categories in the EAC’s annual grant expenditure report, making
it difficult to consistently determine, by category, how states spent grant
funds.

Another example of an issue related to the categorization of expenditures
involves subgrants to local jurisdictions. Thirty-five states reported
providing grant funding to local jurisdictions in the form of subgrants. Of
these 35 states, 23 states used the EAC’s five categories to report how
local jurisdictions spent the subgrants, and the other 12 states created a
new category, entitled “subgrants,” to report the amount local jurisdictions
spent using the subgrants. 24 In its annual grant expenditure report, the
EAC included a “subgrants” category comprised of expenditures from
states that listed expenditures under a state-created subgrant category.
The total of the subgrant category in the annual grant expenditure report
represented approximately 17 percent of expenditures nationwide. For
expenditures included in this category, the EAC was unable to
differentiate how much subgrant money was used by local jurisdictions for
expenses that could have been distributed across the EAC’s five
categories—for example, for expenses related to staffing or supplies.
Thus, as noted above, the EAC’s reporting on nationwide expenditures
within its five categories is not complete or consistent, as some states
that made subgrants to local jurisdictions reported the jurisdictions’
expenditures under those categories, while other states that made
subgrants did not.

Our prior work has found that assessing and documenting lessons
learned can help agencies collect and analyze information to determine

24Ten of the 12 states that created a subgrants category also reported expenses in one or
more of the EAC’s five categories. However, two of the 12 states did not report any
expenses in the EAC’s five categories. Instead, these two states reported the entirety of
the states’ CARES Act grant expenses within the subgrants category these states created.

Page 16 GAO-22-104313 Election Assistance Commission
operational or programmatic changes. 25 Collecting information after an
event or at the close of a program allows agencies to identify, for
example, positive practices that resulted in improvements or negative
practices that resulted in undesirable outcomes. The agency can analyze
the information collected to determine root causes and identify
appropriate actions and necessary resources to resolve the issues.
Management can then determine whether to invest resources to act upon
the results of the assessment. Furthermore, agencies that identify,
document, and apply lessons learned can ensure that they factor
beneficial information into planning for future efforts and limit the chance
of the recurrence of challenges.

EAC officials initially told us that they were not planning to assess their
administration of CARES Act grants to document lessons learned
because they had limited personnel to conduct such an assessment while
continuing to administer other grants. In July 2021, these officials told us
that they intended to conduct an assessment and document lessons
learned. However, they did not specify how or when the assessment
would occur.

According to EAC officials, assessing their administration of CARES Act
grants would be beneficial because they could identify additional lessons
learned in how they administered the grants. Indeed, the EAC is uniquely
positioned to identify and determine the cause of issues faced during
CARES Act grants administration. By assessing how it administered
these grants, the EAC could identify, document, and implement
applicable lessons learned for other grant programs, as well as determine
the resources and steps needed to implement those lessons. Additionally,
by assessing and documenting its administration of a grants program
established and overseen during a time of national emergency, and
applying lessons learned to its administration of other grant programs, the
EAC would be better prepared to administer grant programs during any
future crises.

The EAC has identified and addressed some issues related to its
Conclusions administration of CARES Act grants but has not yet assessed and
documented lessons learned. By assessing its experience administering
CARES Act grants, the EAC could collect and document valuable
information on the benefits and challenges associated with its approach
to grants administration. Implementing applicable lessons learned could

25See GAO-21-318, GAO-20-104, GAO-19-25, GAO-14-219, and GAO-12-901.

Page 17 GAO-22-104313 Election Assistance Commission
also help improve the administration of ongoing and future grants
programs, particularly in the event of future emergencies.

We are making the following two recommendations to the Executive
Recommendations for Director of the EAC:
Executive Action
The EAC should assess its administration of CARES Act grants to
document any lessons learned and resources needed for improving
grants administration. (Recommendation 1)

The EAC should implement any applicable lessons learned, to the extent
practicable, arising from assessing its administration of CARES Act
grants. (Recommendation 2)

We provided a draft of this report to DHS and the EAC for review and
Agency Comments comment. DHS did not provide written comments. The EAC provided
and Our Evaluation formal, written comments, which are reproduced in full in appendix I.

In its comments, the EAC stated that the agency is dedicated to
continuously improving the administration of its grant programs. The EAC
noted that it has regularly assessed and plans to continue to assess its
administration of the CARES Act grant program to identify and address
issues that arise. For example, the EAC noted that it is exploring options
for implementing an updated grants management system that will
address some of the issues identified with progress reports, for example,
by automatically totaling expenditures entered by each state. Additionally,
the EAC noted that it plans to pilot changes to the format of its progress
reports, including how states are to report subgrant expenditures, with the
goal of more clearly identifying how states spend subgrant funds across
expenditure categories. Moreover, the EAC noted that it will be reviewing
all of its grants policies and procedures in preparation for implementing its
proposed grants management system. According to the EAC, these
efforts will prevent future recurrence of identified issues and help it plan
for upcoming needs for its administration of grants.

The EAC’s ongoing and planned efforts align with our recommendations
that it assess its administration of CARES Act grants and implement any
lessons learned. As noted in our report, it will also be important for the
EAC to document any lessons learned and resources needed for
improving grants administration identified through its assessment efforts.

Page 18 GAO-22-104313 Election Assistance Commission
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees, the Executive Director of the EAC, the Secretary of
Homeland Security, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is
available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact
Rebecca Gambler at (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov. Contact
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may
be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major
contributions to this report are listed in appendix II.

Rebecca Gambler
Director, Homeland Security and Justice

Page 19 GAO-22-104313 Election Assistance Commission
List of Committees

The Honorable Patrick Leahy
Chairman
The Honorable Richard Shelby
Vice Chairman
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate

The Honorable Ron Wyden
Chairman
The Honorable Mike Crapo
Ranking Member
Committee on Finance
United States Senate

The Honorable Patty Murray
Chair
The Honorable Richard Burr
Ranking Member
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
United States Senate

The Honorable Gary C. Peters
Chairman
The Honorable Rob Portman
Ranking Member
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
United States Senate

The Honorable Rosa L. DeLauro
Chair
The Honorable Kay Granger
Ranking Member
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives

The Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr.
Chairman
The Honorable Cathy McMorris Rodgers
Republican Leader
Committee on Energy and Commerce
House of Representatives

Page 20 GAO-22-104313 Election Assistance Commission
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson
Chairman
The Honorable John Katko
Ranking Member
Committee on Homeland Security
House of Representatives

The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney
Chairwoman
The Honorable James Comer
Ranking Member
Committee on Oversight and Reform
House of Representatives

The Honorable Richard Neal
Chair
The Honorable Kevin Brady
Republican Leader
Committee on Ways and Means
House of Representatives

Page 21 GAO-22-104313 Election Assistance Commission
Appendix I: Comments from the U.S.
Appendix I: Comments from the U.S. Election
Assistance Commission

Election Assistance Commission

Page 22 GAO-22-104313 Election Assistance Commission
Appendix I: Comments from the U.S. Election
Assistance Commission

Page 23 GAO-22-104313 Election Assistance Commission
Appendix I: Comments from the U.S. Election
Assistance Commission

Page 24 GAO-22-104313 Election Assistance Commission
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff
Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments

Rebecca Gambler, (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov
GAO Contact
In addition to the contact named above, Tom Jessor (Assistant Director),
Staff Meghan Squires (Analyst-in-Charge), Brad Crofford, Benjamin Crossley,
Acknowledgments Aaron Gluck, Peter Haderlein, Serena Lo, Amanda Miller, Heidi Nielson,
Kevin Reeves, and Jeff Tessin made key contributions to this report.

(104313)
Page 25 GAO-22-104313 Election Assistance Commission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative
GAO’s Mission arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the
federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public
funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed
oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government
is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is
Obtaining Copies of through our website. Each weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly
GAO Reports and released reports, testimony, and correspondence. You can also subscribe to
GAO’s email updates to receive notification of newly posted products.
Testimony
Order by Phone The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and
distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether
the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering
information is posted on GAO’s website, https://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard,
Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.
Connect with GAO Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or Email Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at https://www.gao.gov.

Contact FraudNet:
To Report Fraud,
Website: https://www.gao.gov/about/what-gao-does/fraudnet
Waste, and Abuse in
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7700
Federal Programs
A. Nicole Clowers, Managing Director, clowersa@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, U.S.
Congressional Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, Washington,
Relations DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
Public Affairs U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, DC 20548

Stephen J. Sanford, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707
Strategic Planning and U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814,
External Liaison Washington, DC 20548

Please Print on Recycled Paper.

File and source

File: gao-22-104313.pdf
Size: 1,377,620 bytes
SHA-256: 7d8ded47e19e8754a602e36edce863586c39f115df6713c974b8ebccfe49ea29
Our copy: gao-22-104313.pdf
Original: www.gao.gov