COVID-19: The Employment and Training Administration Needs to Improve Oversight of Grants Awarded in New York
Summary
A U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General audit report to the Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Report Number 19-25-008-03-391, issued September 26, 2025, on oversight of grants awarded in New York. The OIG analyzed grant funding data and Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act eligibility requirements for grants issued before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, reviewed guidance and documentation, and interviewed ETA, state and grantee staff. It found that ETA did not ensure grant recipients and subrecipients used funds for their intended purposes during the pandemic, resulting in recipients not accurately reporting enrollment levels, among other findings.
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
REPORT TO THE
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
ADMINISTRATION
COVID-19: THE EMPLOYMENT AND
TRAINING ADMINISTRATION NEEDS TO
IMPROVE OVERSIGHT OF GRANTS
AWARDED IN NEW YORK
DATE ISSUED: SEPTEMBER 26, 2025
REPORT NUMBER: 19-25-008-03-391
To answer this question, we analyzed grant recipient and
subrecipient funding data and Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act eligibility requirements for select grants issued
prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, we
reviewed federal, state, and grant recipients’ guidance and
policies and procedures, as well as supporting documentation for
grant recipients and subrecipients. We also interviewed ETA,
state, and grant recipients’ and subrecipients’ staff.
BRIEFLY… What We Found
COVID-19: The Employment and ETA’s grant recipients and their subrecipients received
Training Administration Needs to Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act grant funds to provide
Improve Oversight of Grants Awarded career, training, and supportive services. However, we found
in New York ETA did not ensure grant recipients and subrecipients utilized
grant funds for the intended purposes during the COVID-19
Why We Did the Audit pandemic, resulting in grant recipients and their subrecipients
not: (1) accurately reporting enrollment levels and serving only
The Employment and Training eligible participants, (2) awarding contracts in compliance with
Administration (ETA) awards grants to federal regulations, (3) maintaining proper documentation to
states, local governments, and other support claimed costs, and (4) avoiding conflicts of interest in
entities to provide individuals with executing grant terms.
significant barriers to employment the
opportunity to enter into high-quality jobs These issues occurred partly because of incorrect reporting,
and careers, as well as to help employers missing or insufficient documentation, and the lack of an
hire and retain skilled workers. established conflict of interest policy. As a result, ETA cannot
provide reasonable assurance that the more than $740 million
ETA awarded approximately $16 billion to awarded in New York was used in the best interest of the award
grant recipients in all 50 states, the District programs. Furthermore, in our review of statutory and
of Columbia, and U.S. territories from discretionary grant funds awarded before and during the
October 2018 through September 2021. pandemic, we identified a total of $25,391,220 in questioned
During this time, the COVID-19 pandemic costs associated with contractual services as well as payroll and
created many challenges for ETA job non-payroll costs.
training programs across the nation, such
as the suspension of in-person services Reported outcomes for the statutory and discretionary grant
and the transition to providing services programs may have created a false sense of success, as the
remotely, which impacted its ability to programs might not have served the intended population or
provide services to the public. reached those truly in need.
For this audit, we focused on the State of What We Recommended
New York because it was allotted the third
highest amount of statutory employment We made six recommendations to ETA to improve grant
and training grant funds associated with verification and monitoring capabilities, increase technical
the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity assistance to funding recipients, and remedy the questioned
Act to answer the following question: costs identified during this audit. While the Draft Report was
provided to ETA in August 2025, ETA has not yet provided a
Did ETA grant recipients and response. When ETA provides a response, we will post it, along
subrecipients utilize grant funds for the with our analysis, to our website.
intended purposes during the COVID-19
pandemic? Read the Full Report
For more information, go to:
https://www.oig.dol.gov/public/reports/oa/2025/19-25-008-03-
391.pdf.
U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INSPECTOR GENERAL’S REPORT .................................................................... 1
RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 3
ETA Did Not Ensure Grant Recipients and Subrecipients Accurately
Reported Enrollment Levels and Served Eligible Participants ................... 4
ETA Did Not Ensure Grant Recipients and Subrecipients Awarded
Contracts in Compliance with Federal Regulations .................................. 10
ETA Did Not Ensure Grant Recipients and Subrecipients
Maintained Proper Documentation to Support the Reasonableness,
Allowability, and Allocability of Payroll and Non-Payroll Costs ................. 12
ETA Did Not Ensure Grant Recipients and Subrecipients Avoided
Conflicts of Interest .................................................................................. 14
OIG’S RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ 16
Analysis of Agency’s Comments .............................................................. 17
EXHIBIT 1: EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING GRANTS AWARDED TO
ENTITIES IN NEW YORK ................................................................................... 18
EXHIBIT 2: QUESTIONED COSTS .................................................................... 22
APPENDIX: SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY ..................................................... 23
-i-
U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General
Washington, DC 20210
INSPECTOR GENERAL’S REPORT
Lori Frazier Bearden
Acting Assistant Secretary
for Employment and Training
U.S. Department of Labor
200 Constitution Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20210
This report presents the results of the U.S. Department of Labor (Department or
DOL) Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) audit of the Employment and Training
Administration’s (ETA) employment and training funds awarded to grant
recipients and subrecipients located in the State of New York before and during
the COVID-19 pandemic. This report is one of three audits we conducted across
selected states. 1 0F
ETA awards employment and training grants to states, local governments, and
other entities to provide individuals with significant barriers to employment the
opportunity to enter into high-quality jobs and careers, as well as to help
employers hire and retain skilled workers. The grants are either: (1) statutory
grants, which are noncompetitive grants required by law to be given to the state
or outlying area based on statistical criteria, or (2) discretionary grants awarded
based on competitive selection and eligibility. Recipients of ETA’s grant awards,
such as states, can allocate some or all of these funds to other entities known as
subrecipients. 2 1F
In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic created many challenges for ETA’s job
training programs across the nation. Grant recipients and subrecipients
experienced barriers, which included stay-at-home orders and mandated safety
protocols to reduce the spread of the virus. These barriers impacted grant
recipients’ and subrecipients’ abilities to provide services to eligible participants
until alternative methods, such as online and virtual services, were established.
ETA also used enhanced desk monitoring reviews when on-site reviews were not
feasible or cost effective. Despite the alternative methods, these barriers
1 This audit addresses New York; the other audits, respectively, address New Jersey and Texas.
2 A subrecipient is a non-federal entity that receives a subaward from a pass-through entity to
carry out part of a federal program. It does not include an individual who is a beneficiary of the
program. A subrecipient may also be a recipient of other federal awards directly from a federal
awarding agency.
COVID-19: ETA NY GRANTEES AND SUBRECIPIENTS
-1- NO. 19-25-008-03-391
U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General
persisted during the audit scope. For this audit, we focused on New York—
allotted the third highest amount of statutory grant funds associated with the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA)—to answer the following
question:
Did ETA grant recipients and subrecipients utilize grant funds for
the intended purposes during the COVID-19 pandemic?
To answer this question, we focused on grant recipient and subrecipient funding
and WIOA grant eligibility requirements from October 1, 2018, through
September 30, 2021. Our scope covered select grants issued prior to and during
the COVID-19 pandemic. 3 During this timeframe, ETA awarded approximately
2F
$16 billion through 2,093 grants in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and
U.S. territories. This included approximately 77 employment and training grants
amounting to more than $740 million awarded to organizations within New York
(see Exhibit 1). Our audit examined three statutory grants and one discretionary
grant totaling more than $520 million, or 70 percent of those awards made in
New York. See Appendix for additional details on scope and methodology.
Grant Awards Selected for Review
For our review, we judgmentally 4 selected three WIOA statutory grants awarded
3F
to the New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) and one discretionary
Scaling Apprenticeship Through Sector-Based Strategies (Scaling
Apprenticeship) grant awarded to a nonprofit. These four grants totaled more
than $520 million (see Table 1).
Table 1: Selected Grants Awarded within Scope Period, 2018–2021
Project Title Grant Type Period Award Amount
WIOA Formula Grants Statutory 4/1/19–6/30/22 $174,098,018
WIOA Formula Grants Statutory 4/1/20–6/30/23 $162,250,201
WIOA Formula Grants Statutory 4/1/21–6/30/24 $177,194,707
Scaling Apprenticeship Discretionary 7/15/19–7/14/23 $7,999,226
Total $521,542,152
Source: Grant data provided by ETA
3 The U.S. government declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency beginning on
March 1, 2020, and a presidential declaration ended this on April 10, 2023.
4 Judgmental sampling is a non-probability sampling technique in which the sample members are
chosen based on the auditor’s knowledge and judgement.
COVID-19: ETA NY GRANTEES AND SUBRECIPIENTS
-2- NO. 19-25-008-03-391
U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General
The WIOA statutory grants to NYSDOL were intended to provide employment,
education, training, support services, and to match participants with employers
offering high-quality positions. These services included assistance in improving
literacy skills, skill upgrading and retraining, childcare, transportation, mental
health services, and career planning. Statutory grants like these are distributed to
states based on a formula that considers state size and population, among other
items, and the period of performance for these grants was typically 3 years.
The primary goal of the Scaling Apprenticeship grants is to accelerate the
expansion of apprenticeships to new industry sectors reliant on H-1B visas, such
as information technology (IT) and IT-related industries, advanced
manufacturing, and health care. ETA competitively awards discretionary grants to
applicants based on factors described in the funding opportunity announcements.
The selected grant for this audit focused on advanced manufacturing.
Grant Recipient and Subrecipient Oversight
According to the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Circular No. A-123,
agencies are ultimately responsible for the services and processes provided by
third party service organizations and “must monitor the process as a whole to
make sure it is effective”. 5
4F
As the federal awarding agency, ETA was responsible for ensuring the more than
$520 million in funds it disbursed to grant recipients were used as intended. In
turn, the statutory and discretionary grant recipients were required to meet grant,
program, and government-wide requirements, as well as have systems, policies,
and procedures in place for subrecipients to similarly meet these requirements. 6 5F
RESULTS
ETA’s grant recipients and subrecipients received WIOA grant funds to provide
career, training, and supportive services. However, we found ETA did not ensure
grant recipients and subrecipients utilized grant funds for the intended purposes
during the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in grant recipients and subrecipients
not: (1) accurately reporting enrollment levels and serving only eligible
participants, (2) awarding contracts in compliance with federal regulations,
5 OMB Circular No. A-123, Management’s Responsibility for Enterprise Risk Management and
Internal Control, dated July 15, 2016, last accessed October 3, 2023, available at:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/memoranda/2016/m-
16-17.pdf
6 2 C.F.R. § 200.332
COVID-19: ETA NY GRANTEES AND SUBRECIPIENTS
-3- NO. 19-25-008-03-391
U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General
(3) maintaining proper documentation to support claimed costs, and (4) avoiding
conflicts of interest in executing grant terms.
These issues occurred, in part, due to incorrect reporting, missing or insufficient
documentation, and lack of an established conflict of interest policy. As a result of
these issues, ETA cannot provide reasonable assurance that the more than
$740 million awarded in New York was used in the best interest of the award
programs. Furthermore, in our review of statutory and discretionary grant funds
awarded before and during the pandemic, we identified a total of $25,391,220 in
questioned costs associated with contractual services as well as payroll and
non-payroll costs (see Exhibit 2).
Reported outcomes for the statutory and discretionary grant programs may have
created a false sense of success, as the programs might not have served the
intended population or reached those truly in need.
ETA Did Not Ensure Grant Recipients and
Subrecipients Accurately Reported
Enrollment Levels and Served Eligible
Participants
Our review of the three statutory grants and one discretionary grant found issues
with reported enrollment levels and documentation of eligibility. For the three
statutory grants, recipients did not properly count participants and did not
accurately maintain documentation to demonstrate individuals were eligible for
the program. For the discretionary grant, recipients did not maintain
documentation to demonstrate enrollees were eligible for the program. As a
result, these programs may have created a false sense of success and might not
have served the intended population or reached the ones truly in need.
ETA administers federal government job training and worker dislocation
programs through the awarding of grants. Each grant program identifies the
purpose of the program and the population of individuals who are eligible to
receive services. During the intake process, grant recipients and subrecipients
must ensure individuals meet the specific eligibility requirements and maintain
the proper documents to support eligibility.
COVID-19: ETA NY GRANTEES AND SUBRECIPIENTS
-4- NO. 19-25-008-03-391
U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General
Overstatements in New York’s Statutory Grant
Program Participant Reporting
For Program Year (PY) 2019 through PY 2021, NYSDOL reported serving more
than 500,000 WIOA participants, including adults, youths, and dislocated workers
(see Table 2). We found at least 29,497 participants had been double-counted
(12,661) or had not been exited from the program after the required 90 days of
no services (16,836).
Table 2: WIOA Participants Served, PY 2019 through PY 2021
PY 2019 PY 2020 PY 2021
WIOA Program
Participants Participants Participants
Dislocated Worker 134,698 76,222 127,213
Youth 8,045 6,343 9,450
Adult 66,701 45,174 64,157
Totals 209,444 127,739 200,820
Source: ETA Statewide Performance Reports (ETA-9169s)
To determine the accuracy of this reporting, we analyzed New York’s annual
performance reports, compared New York’s participant data with national data,
and reviewed eligibility documentation. States must submit an annual
performance report for each of the core workforce programs administered under
WIOA. Furthermore, ETA guidance 7 explains the necessity of calculating the
6F
unique number of participants being served each PY by each core program. As
such, states must:
1. develop systems to track multiple periods of participation within a PY,
2. calculate a unique count of individual participants across multiple periods
of participation in any given PY, and
3. establish a unique identification number that will be retained by the same
individual across multiple programs.
7 Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No 10-16, Change 1, dated August 23, 2017
COVID-19: ETA NY GRANTEES AND SUBRECIPIENTS
-5- NO. 19-25-008-03-391
U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General
Based on our calculations, 8 we identified NYSDOL overstated its individual
7F
participants served by at least 29,497. Our review revealed NYSDOL did not
account for 12,661 participants who were counted as being served more than
once.
ETA’s guidance 9 also offered guidance on performance accountability for WIOA
8F
core programs, such as the calculation and reporting of performance data. Each
update indicated DOL had determined it necessary to calculate the unique
number of participants being served each PY by each core program.
As a result, many states and programs likely needed to modify their data systems
and processes to be able to track each period of participation (i.e., a duplicate
count) while also retaining the ability to calculate a unique count of individual
participants across multiple periods of participation within a given PY. NYSDOL
included participants who were enrolled, exited the program, and were then
re-enrolled, contrary to ETA guidance provided in the TEGL.
In addition, NYSDOL failed to exit participants after 90 days of non-service. Our
review revealed that there were 16,836 participants 10 who were not exited,
9F
despite 20 C.F.R. Part 677 requiring participants to be exited from WIOA
programs once 90 days have elapsed since the participant last received services.
NYSDOL has controls to exit participants after 90 days without services but not
all service types qualify for the automated exiting, including self-service,
informational activities, or follow-up services. 11 ETA officials stated they
10F
developed the Quarterly Reporting Analysis, a report issued quarterly to each
state that tracks its progress toward data quality targets to encourage oversight
of such data integrity issues. Officials explained that one of the measures
included in the Quarterly Reporting Analysis identifies the percentage of
participants reported whose records lacked entry of a service in that current
quarter. ETA’s goal is to keep the number of records lacking the entry of a
service in the current quarter to less than 2 percent.
ETA stated exit data accuracy is assessed by its staff during participant file
reviews as part of its regular monitoring. ETA also stated it issued a finding to
NYSDOL identifying inaccurate exit dates in Fiscal Year 2020 that was resolved
in March 2021. However, participant data provided by NYSDOL contained
8 We used ETA’s Participant Individual Record Layout data to identify individuals in the adult,
dislocated worker, and youth programs.
9 TEGL No. 10-16, Change 1, and its updates, including Change 3, issued on June 11, 2024
10 To calculate this, we used 2 years as some training programs take several months to complete.
11 Self-service is a service accessed directly by the participant in a physical location (resource
room) or remotely by electronic technologies. Informational activities provide readily available
information about the labor market to assist in identifying and/or achieving employment goals.
COVID-19: ETA NY GRANTEES AND SUBRECIPIENTS
-6- NO. 19-25-008-03-391
U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General
individuals who were in the system for more than 2 years. The data included an
individual who was enrolled in the system for 7,708 days, or over 21 years.
Therefore, we found ETA’s monitoring of NYSDOL’s controls was not effective.
Disparities in New York’s Statutory Grant Program
Participant Reporting when Compared to Other
States
A comparison of New York data to data from other states also suggests
New York’s reported performances numbers are overstated. In 2023, ETA’s
Office of Policy Development and Research made public a data book 12 that 11F
provides information on the characteristics, services, and outcomes of persons
served by the WIOA adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs and the
Wagner-Peyser Act program in all 50 states. 13 12F
Using the data book, we compiled the PY 2021 summary data for participants
and exiters for the five states identified as receiving the highest WIOA statutory
funding within our audit scope: New York, California, Texas, Florida, and Illinois
(see Table 3).
Table 3: Comparison of PY 2021 Program Participants and Exiters for
Top 5 Funded States
Dislocated Dislocated
Adult Adult Youth Youth
State Worker Worker
Participants Exiters Participants Exiters
Participants Exiters
New York 61,477 46,326 125,276 98,092 9,432 3,533
California 37,086 25,668 15,253 12,872 14,698 10,111
Texas 11,803 8,186 11,073 4,470 6,164 3,767
Florida 8,105 25,267 1,861 4,460 5,479 9,074
Illinois 8,442 4,048 6,300 3,955 6,654 3,116
Source: PY 2021 State Data Book New York
12 ETA, PY 2021 State Data Book New York, February 1, 2023, last accessed April 23, 2025,
available at:
https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/Performance/pdfs/PY2021/PY%202021%20WIOA%20
and%20Wagner-Peyser%20State%20Data%20Book_NY.pdf
13 The data book draws primarily from the Participant Individual Record Layout data that states
submitted to ETA to meet their PY 2021, Quarter 4, reporting requirements.
COVID-19: ETA NY GRANTEES AND SUBRECIPIENTS
-7- NO. 19-25-008-03-391
U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General
When compared to other states, such as California and Texas, New York
reported disproportionately high participant counts in the dislocated worker and
adult categories. For example, California reported 25,668 exiting adults and
12,872 exiting dislocated workers in PY 2021 while New York reported
46,326 exiting adults and 98,092 exiting dislocated workers. New York reported
about 8 times more dislocated workers exiting than California and almost twice
the number of adults exiting than California.
ETA officials explained New York’s numbers are higher than other states
because its WIOA service design includes universal co-enrollment (also referred
to as functional alignment). This model mandates the co-enrollment of
Wagner-Peyser customers into WIOA Title I programs. Few states adopt this
service design model, which resulted in New York’s increased number of WIOA
Title I customers served. ETA stated staff engaged in discussions with the
NYSDOL regarding the benefits and challenges of this service model. While
NYSDOL’s approach may expand access to services and improve overall
integration of employment support, ETA needs to assess the impact of the model
used by NYSDOL sooner than later as cross-state comparisons are necessary to
make informed decisions on improving program effectiveness on a national level.
The concern regarding the overstated participants is heightened when comparing
New York’s number to the national data. ETA’s data book reported a count of
98,092 New York exiting dislocated worker, more than half of the 172,265 exiting
dislocated workers nationwide (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Percentage of National Total Exiting Dislocated Workers,
New York and All Other States, PY 2021
Source: PY 2021 State Data Book New York
COVID-19: ETA NY GRANTEES AND SUBRECIPIENTS
-8- NO. 19-25-008-03-391
U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General
This overstatement of New York’s enrollment data is also attributed to
New York’s One Stop Operating System automatically co-enrolling participants
into the dislocated worker program whenever an individual files for
unemployment insurance benefits. The One Stop Operating System Guide
requires records for staff-assisted adult and dislocated worker career center
customers to be entered into the system during initial assessment.
However, not all individuals who seek unemployment insurance benefits seek
services through WIOA adult and dislocated worker programs. Because the
system automatically creates and updates records, participants are incorrectly
reported as having received adult and dislocated worker program services,
leading to the overstatement in participant and exiter data. While co-enrollment is
designed to maximize resources and minimize duplication, a significant risk
exists that program performance may be overstated if participants are recorded
as co-enrolled but do not actually receive services across the programs.
Ineligible Participants Served by Statutory and
Discretionary Grant Programs
We sampled 413 of 51,279 total participants served by the three sampled
statutory grants. We found the subrecipients were unable to demonstrate that
199 participants of the 413 (48 percent) were eligible due to missing
documentation to support participant age, WIOA dislocated worker classification,
or selective service enrollment. For the discretionary grant, we sampled 200 of
2,771 total participants. We found 63 of the 200 (32 percent) participants were
ineligible due to missing documentation to support out-of-school status or
employment status.
The missing documentation occurred because ETA did not provide sufficient
oversight to ensure grant recipients and subrecipients assessed and enrolled
eligible individuals. OMB Circular No. A-123 requires federal agencies to monitor
the process as a whole (which would include subrecipient activity) to make sure it
is effective. In response, ETA stated:
[S]ubrecipient monitoring is primarily a grant recipient responsibility;
however, ETA tests the grant recipient’s subrecipient monitoring
and oversight controls by including the review of a sample of
subrecipients as part of its monitoring of the grant recipient.
During the audit period, ETA monitored at the grant recipient and subrecipient
level. However, ETA’s reviews did not identify any findings concerning the
accuracy of reported participants or correct documentation and retention of
participant eligibility. As a result, the reported outcomes for the statutory and
COVID-19: ETA NY GRANTEES AND SUBRECIPIENTS
-9- NO. 19-25-008-03-391
U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General
discretionary grant programs may have created a false sense of success, as the
programs might not have served the intended population or reached those truly
in need.
ETA Did Not Ensure Grant Recipients and
Subrecipients Awarded Contracts in
Compliance with Federal Regulations
Our testing found $19,639,718 in statutory grant funds were spent on contractual
services for direct service providers, office space, and cleaning services that
were not competitively awarded in accordance with 2 C.F.R. § 200.319. To
comply with this regulation, all procurement transactions for the acquisition of
property or services required under a federal award must be conducted in a
manner that provides for full and open competition. ETA did not ensure the grant
recipient, NYSDOL, and subrecipients complied with federal guidelines when
paying for services. Therefore, the full amount of $19,639,718 may not have
been spent to secure the best quality and service at the lowest cost.
Specifically, NYSDOL awarded $16,301,211 over a 3-year period to one of its
subrecipients. The subrecipient then designated a nonprofit to staff the
Workforce Development Board in addition to providing career services to
participants enrolled in the WIOA adult, youth, and dislocated worker programs.
However, the subrecipient did not provide documentation showing the nonprofit
was selected as a direct service provider, nor did it supply the written justification
required for non-competitive selection. 14 The absence of the necessary
13F
documentation also raises concern that the funds may not have been spent on
the best services at the lowest cost.
In addition, the nonprofit paid $16,854 for cleaning services in PY 2020. 15 14F
NYSDOL noted the total shared cost for the service was below the simplified
annual acquisition threshold and below the local policy micro-purchase threshold
of $10,000; therefore, competition was not required. However, 48 C.F.R. Part 2,
Subpart 2.1, states a micro-purchase is an acquisition of supplies or services
using simplified acquisition procedures, the aggregate amount of which does not
exceed the micro-purchase threshold. The amount of $16,854 paid for cleaning
services exceeded the $10,000 micro-purchase threshold. Also, without
competitive procurement, these costs were not awarded in accordance with
federal requirements.
14 48 C.F.R. § 6.302
15 We do not separately question the amount of $16,854 as it is already included in the
subrecipient’s total operating cost and award of $16,301,211.
COVID-19: ETA NY GRANTEES AND SUBRECIPIENTS
-10- NO. 19-25-008-03-391
U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General
Another NYSDOL subrecipient paid a total of $3,338,507 over a 3-year period for
rent and did not provide documentation to demonstrate the lease agreement was
procured using full and open competition or the justification for continuing to
lease the current space was in the best interest of the WIOA program. The
subrecipient stated lease renewals are negotiated verbally, without formal
documentation. However, federal regulations require maintaining documentation.
2 C.F.R. § 200.318 states:
(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented
procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal
laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the
acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award
or subaward. The non-Federal entity’s documented procurement
procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified
in §§ 200.317 through 200.327.
[…and…]
(i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail
the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not
necessarily limited to, the following: Rationale for the method of
procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or
rejection, and the basis for the contract price.
Without documentation, the subrecipient did not comply with federal
requirements or demonstrate funds were used appropriately for rental expenses.
Due to the lack of documentation from subrecipients verifying compliance with
the federal competitive bidding processes for contractual services, we
determined ETA did not ensure NYSDOL and subrecipients properly procured
contracts leading to their noncompliance with federal requirements. As a result,
we questioned the full amount of $19,639,718 because the statutory grant funds
may not have been used to obtain the best services at the lowest cost,
jeopardizing program efficiency and accountability. 16 15F
16 The questioned amount of $19,639,718 is the total sum of the $16,301,211 and
$3,338,507 spent by the subrecipients.
COVID-19: ETA NY GRANTEES AND SUBRECIPIENTS
-11- NO. 19-25-008-03-391
U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General
ETA Did Not Ensure Grant Recipients and
Subrecipients Maintained Proper
Documentation to Support the
Reasonableness, Allowability, and
Allocability of Payroll and Non-Payroll Costs
ETA did not ensure grant recipients and subrecipients maintained proper
documentation to support the reasonableness, allowability, and allocability of
$5,751,502 in grant costs. This occurred because ETA did not provide sufficient
oversight to ensure grant recipients and subrecipients complied with
2 C.F.R. Part 200, OMB’s “Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost
Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards.” As a result, we also
questioned $5,751,502 in statutory and discretionary grant funds spent on payroll
and non-payroll costs.
Recipients of federal awards are required to adhere to applicable federal
requirements when administering grants. Costs must be reasonable, allowable,
and allocable to be considered eligible for reimbursement under a federal award.
In addition, grant recipients and subrecipients must retain all federal award
records for 3 years from the date of submission of their final financial report.
Furthermore, grant recipients and subrecipients must provide auditors with
access to personnel, accounts, books, records, supporting documentation, and
any other information needed for the auditor to perform the audit.
During the performance period for the four sampled grants, ETA conducted
on-site reviews to determine whether grant programs were operating in
compliance with all federal laws, regulations, policies, and other grant
management requirements. This included reviewing procurement policies and
performing applicable testing. However, ETA’s reviews did not identify any
findings in the areas of maintaining documentation and retention of financial
transactions.
Statutory Grants
For the three statutory grants, we performed testing at NYSDOL and six of its
subrecipients. We sampled 952 financial transactions with a net 17 total of
16F
$45,628,679. For payroll transactions, we reviewed personnel service and fringe
benefits, indirect cost allocation policies, time sheets, paycheck support, and
allocation methodologies. For non-payroll, we reviewed invoices and cost
17 Some of the transactions reviewed during testing were reversals.
COVID-19: ETA NY GRANTEES AND SUBRECIPIENTS
-12- NO. 19-25-008-03-391
U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General
allocation methodology, journal entries/corrections, and payment documentation.
Our review found the recipient and subrecipients did not provide sufficient
supporting documentation for 171 transactions with a net total of $1,889,022.
NYSDOL’s and its subrecipients’ missing documentation included invoices, cost
allocation documentation, and payment information.
In addition, one of NYSDOL’s subrecipients claimed $3,423,617 in payroll costs
without requiring staff to track actual time worked. Our review of payroll records
showed staff completed timesheets for the first half of the month but did not
complete the timesheets from the 16th through the end of the month for each of
the 3 months we tested. 18 This occurred because the subrecipient only required
17F
full-time employees to track their work hours for the first half of each month and
not the second half of the month. NYSDOL noted “[t]he ADP system is utilized
daily by each employee recording the actual hours worked by clocking in at the
beginning of the day and clocking out at the end of the day.”
During our review of payroll records for the second half of the month, we noted
many of the staff’s timesheets showed a pattern of employees beginning and
ending the workday at the same exact time every day, which is unlikely. These
records are inconsistent with the subrecipient’s explanation that each employee
records the actual hours worked by clocking in at the beginning of the day and
clocking out at the end of the day. When clocking in and out, there is typically a
variation in the start and end times. Therefore, this calls into question the
authenticity of the timesheets as an accurate reflection of the time worked.
Discretionary Grant
For the discretionary grant, a Scaling Apprenticeship nonprofit was awarded
$7,999,226 in discretionary grant funds, for a project intended to place
3,200 New Yorkers in good-paying apprenticeships while creating a statewide
training network that helps employers and community colleges form a sustained
partnership. During the audit period, the Scaling Apprenticeship nonprofit
partnered with 15 other organizations to achieve its program goals.
To review this grant, we performed testing at the Scaling Apprenticeship
nonprofit—the grant recipient—and three of its subrecipients. We sampled
191 financial transactions with a net total of $1,804,928. 19 For payroll
18F
transactions, we reviewed grant agreements, time and effort reporting policies,
timesheets, paycheck support, and allocation methodologies. For non-payroll, we
reviewed invoices and cost allocation methodology, journal entries/corrections,
18 Since the timesheets were not completed for all 3 months tested, the team determined it was a
systematic issue and questioned the amount charged for the audit period.
19 The 191 transactions included some reversal transactions.
COVID-19: ETA NY GRANTEES AND SUBRECIPIENTS
-13- NO. 19-25-008-03-391
U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General
and payment documentation. In total, the grant recipient and subrecipients did
not provide sufficient supporting documentation for 12 transactions with a net
total of $362,599. This missing documentation included invoices, payment
records, and participant eligibility documentation. In addition, the nonprofit
claimed an additional $76,264 in payroll costs that exceeded the budgeted
amount. As a result, we questioned $438,863.
ETA Did Not Ensure Grant Recipients and
Subrecipients Avoided Conflicts of Interest
ETA did not ensure grant recipients and subrecipients administered training and
employment programs in an unbiased manner. This occurred because ETA had
not established a conflict of interest policy to mitigate the risk of grant recipients
and employees operating in a way that may put into question whether their
actions, judgment, or decision-making is unbiased. As a result, ETA cannot
provide reasonable assurance that the more than $740 million awarded to
New York was used in the best interest of the award programs.
A conflict of interest occurs when an entity or individual’s objectivity becomes
impaired because there is a conflict between personal or self-serving interests
and professional duties or responsibilities. Conflict of interest policies help avoid
the appearance or actuality of private benefit to an entity or individual.
2 C.F.R. § 200.112 requires federal awarding agencies to establish conflict of
interest policies for federal awards. The guidance is applicable to statutory grants
awarded under WIOA as well as discretionary grants awarded under the
American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998. In addition,
the non-federal entity must disclose in writing any potential conflict of interest to
the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in accordance with the
applicable federal awarding agency policy.
During the audit, we found one of NYSDOL’s subrecipients did not provide
supporting documentation that the selection of a nonprofit to serve as both the
fiscal agent and direct service provider was done in the best interest of the WIOA
program. Federal regulation 20 allows local organizations to function
19F
simultaneously in a variety of roles, including local fiscal agent, local workforce
development board staff, one-stop operator, and direct provider of services.
However, the organization selected or otherwise designated to perform more
than one of these functions must develop a written agreement with the local
workforce development board and chief elected official. This agreement must
clarify how it will carry out its responsibilities while demonstrating compliance
20 20 C.F.R. § 679.430
COVID-19: ETA NY GRANTEES AND SUBRECIPIENTS
-14- NO. 19-25-008-03-391
U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General
with WIOA and corresponding regulations, relevant OMB circulars, and the
state’s conflict of interest policy.
Our audit revealed one of NYSDOL’s subrecipients selected a nonprofit to serve
as the fiscal agent as well as to perform additional duties. These duties included:
• staffing the Local Area Workforce Development Board;
• providing WIOA adult and dislocated worker career services;
• providing WIOA Youth Design Framework services and other program
elements;
• managing one comprehensive career center and one affiliate career
center; and
• providing other federally, state, or locally funded services.
The nonprofit provided us with the most up‐to‐date version of its board-approved
WIOA functions firewall policy. Its officials stated the policy outlines the firewalls
and internal controls established to demonstrate compliance with WIOA. The
policy stated that, in partnership with the chief elected officials for the local area,
the nonprofit would:
• conduct oversight of youth workforce investment activities authorized
under Section 129(c) of WIOA, adult and dislocated worker employment
and training activities under Section 134(c) and (d) of WIOA, and the
entire one-stop delivery system in the local area;
• ensure the appropriate use, and management of the funds provided under
Subtitle B of WIOA for the youth, adult, and dislocated worker activities
and one-stop delivery system in the local area; and
• ensure the appropriate use, management and investment of funds to
maximize performance outcomes under Section 116 of WIOA.
However, the subrecipient did not provide any documentation demonstrating the
chief elected officials for the local area had approved the agreement. In addition,
it did not provide documentation demonstrating the selection of the nonprofit was
done in a manner to be certain the decision was made in the best interest of the
WIOA program. Furthermore, the subrecipient did not demonstrate it was able to
act impartially in conducting the grant activities involving this nonprofit.
As stated on the nonprofit’s website, the local workforce development board’s
responsibilities included overseeing the activities of one-stop career centers and
COVID-19: ETA NY GRANTEES AND SUBRECIPIENTS
-15- NO. 19-25-008-03-391
U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General
approving the spending of WIOA funds. With the staff of the nonprofit, the
subrecipient could not ensure that overseeing the performance of the nonprofit
grant activities could be done objectively and impartially. In fact, during the audit
process, the OIG identified issues with the nonprofit’s supporting documentation
for participants and financial transactions as well as contracting services.
As a result of this audit, in May 2024, ETA updated its standard grant terms and
conditions template for WIOA formula grants to require grant recipients and
subrecipients of federal assistance to have a written policy in place on conflicts of
interest, including organizational conflicts of interest. The revised terms required
grant recipients’ policies to specify the process the grant recipient or subrecipient
will follow to identify, avoid, remove, and remedy conflicts of interest. In addition,
ETA stated it has incorporated conflict of interest terms for all active grants as of
June 2025.
However, ETA actions have not fully satisfied federal requirements. The
Government Accountability Office’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal
Government requires agencies to implement control activities through policies.
Establishing grant terms only covers the recipient’s responsibility. ETA has not
established procedures for monitoring, identifying, and resolving conflict of
interest issues.
OIG’S RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend the Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training:
1. Establish and implement data verification checks to ensure participants
reported are unique individuals who obtained services through
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act programs while strengthening
controls to properly exit participants after 90 days without services.
2. Establish and implement a plan to improve monitoring activities to ensure
grant recipients and subrecipients are properly documenting eligibility and
ensuring participant-level services are delivered by each program in which
the participant is co-enrolled.
3. Remedy the $19,639,718 in questioned costs associated with the
contractual service contracts awarded in non-compliance with federal
requirements.
4. Remedy the $5,751,502 in questioned costs associated with payroll and
non-payroll costs.
COVID-19: ETA NY GRANTEES AND SUBRECIPIENTS
-16- NO. 19-25-008-03-391
U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General
5. Establish and implement a plan to increase the level of technical
assistance and monitoring for grant recipients and subrecipients to ensure
they comply with the general procurement standards.
6. Develop and implement a formal comprehensive conflict of interest policy
to ensure staff are actively monitoring, identifying and resolving conflict of
interest issues.
Analysis of Agency’s Comments
The OIG issued a draft of this report to ETA officials for comment in August 2025.
However, ETA has not yet provided a response. As such, we are issuing the final
report without ETA’s response. Upon receipt of ETA’s response, we will post it,
along with our analysis of agency’s comments, on our website. We appreciate
the cooperation and courtesies ETA extended to us during this audit.
Laura B. Nicolosi
Assistant Inspector General for Audit
COVID-19: ETA NY GRANTEES AND SUBRECIPIENTS
-17- NO. 19-25-008-03-391
U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General
EXHIBIT 1: EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING GRANTS AWARDED
TO ENTITIES IN NEW YORK
Table 4: List of 77 Employment and Training Grants Awarded in New York
Total Obligation
Count Grant Number Grant Project Type 21
Amount
20F
1 AA-33247-19-55-A-36 WIOA Formula Grants* $174,098,018.00
2 AA-34785-20-55-A-36 WIOA Formula Grants* $162,250,201.00
3 AA-36336-21-55-A-36 WIOA Formula Grants* $177,194,707.00
Native American Cultural
4 AB-33772-19-60-A-36 Center PY 2019 INA Section $200,145.00
166 Programs
Native American Cultural
5 AB-33960-19-60-A-36 Center PY 2019 INA Section $150,941.00
166 Programs
Native American Cultural
6 AB-34972-20-60-A-36 Center PY 2020 INA Section $354,623.00
166 Programs
Native American Cultural
7 AB-36644-21-60-A-36 Center PY 2021 INA Section $359,230.00
166 Programs
National Farmworkers Job
8 AC-35422-20-60-A-36 $602,990.00
Program
National Farmworkers Job
9 AC-35437-20-60-A-36 $1,485,920.00
Program
National Farmworkers Job
10 AC-35439-20-60-A-36 $1,417,710.00
Program
National Farmworkers Job
11 AC-35440-20-60-A-36 $2,420,800.00
Program
National Farmworkers Job
12 AC-35444-20-60-A-36 $185,768.00
Program
National Farmworkers Job
13 AC-35446-20-60-A-36 $1,574,968.00
Program
National Farmworkers Job
14 AC-36401-21-60-A-36 $2,169,172.00
Program
21 Grant Project Type with an (*) denotes sampled grants.
COVID-19: ETA NY GRANTEES AND SUBRECIPIENTS
-18- NO. 19-25-008-03-391
U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General
Total Obligation
Count Grant Number Grant Project Type 21
Amount
20F
National Farmworkers Job
15 AC-36402-21-60-A-36 $769,856.00
Program
National Farmworkers Job
16 AC-36403-21-60-A-36 $1,762,208.00
Program
National Farmworkers Job
17 AC-36404-21-60-A-36 $2,346,090.00
Program
National Farmworkers Job
18 AC-36405-21-60-A-36 $204,723.00
Program
National Farmworkers Job
19 AC-36409-21-60-A-36 $1,437,210.00
Program
National Farmworkers Job
20 AC-36711-21-60-A-36 $517,673.00
Program (Maine)
Senior Community Service
21 AD-35220-20-60-A-36 $13,884,518.00
Employment Program
Senior Community Service
22 AD-35231-20-60-A-36 $5,286,118.00
Employment Program
Senior Community Service
23 AD-36246-21-60-A-36 $5,305,523.00
Employment Program
Senior Community Service
24 AD-36271-21-60-A-36 $13,946,927.00
Employment Program
Apprenticeship State
25 AP-33500-19-60-A-36 $4,445,188.86
Expansion
Building State Capacity to
26 AP-35132-20-60-A-36 $450,000.00
Expand Apprenticeship
Trade and Economic
27 DW-32566-18-60-A-36 Transition National $8,000,000.00
Dislocated Worker Grants
Disaster Recovery National
28 DW-33018-19-60-A-36 Dislocated Worker Grants to $3,727,630.00
Address the Opioid Crisis
Covid-19-NY-Disaster
29 DW-34651-20-60-A-36 $12,000,000.00
Recovery
National Dislocated Worker
30 DW-35478-20-60-A-36 $12,000,000.00
Grants Program Guidance
Career Dislocated Worker
31 DW-36861-21-60-A-36 $3,000,000.00
Grants
Career Dislocated Worker
32 DW-36862-21-60-A-36 $50,000.00
Grants
COVID-19: ETA NY GRANTEES AND SUBRECIPIENTS
-19- NO. 19-25-008-03-391
U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General
Total Obligation
Count Grant Number Grant Project Type 21
Amount
20F
Career Dislocated Worker
33 DW-37017-21-60-A-36 $950,495.00
Grants
Scaling Apprenticeship
34 HG-33042-19-60-A-36 Though Sector-Based $7,999,226.00
Strategies*
Apprenticeships: Closing The
35 HG-34341-20-60-A-36 $4,000,000.00
Skills Gap
H-1b One Workforce Grant
36 HG-35915-21-60-A-36 $3,206,002.00
Program
H-1b Rural Healthcare Grant
37 HG-35926-21-60-A-36 $2,500,000.00
Program
Workforce Opportunity For
38 MI-34030-19-60-A-36 $566,521.00
Rural Communities
Workforce Opportunity For
39 MI-34042-19-60-A-36 $1,962,182.00
Rural Communities
Workforce Pathways For
40 MI-36501-21-60-A-36 $5,000,000.00
Youth Grant Program
Workforce Opportunity For
41 MI-37023-21-60-A-36 $1,484,675.00
Rural Communities
Fidelity Bonding
42 PE-33445-19-60-A-36 $100,000.00
Demonstration Grants
43 PE-35044-20-60-A-36 Pathway Home $849,892.00
44 PE-36557-21-60-A-36 Pathway Home 2 $3,999,906.00
45 PE-36558-21-60-A-36 Pathway Home 2 $4,000,000.00
46 PE-36567-21-60-A-36 Pathway Home 2 $1,960,133.00
Trade Adjustment Assistance
47 TA-32668-19-55-A-36 $8,821,330.00
Program
Trade Adjustment Assistance
48 TA-34460-20-55-A-36 $15,383,748.00
Program
Trade Adjustment Assistance
49 TA-36066-21-55-A-36 $12,645,785.00
Program
50 YB-32936-18-60-A-36 YouthBuild $1,100,000.00
51 YB-32957-18-60-A-36 YouthBuild $1,100,000.00
52 YB-32983-18-60-A-36 YouthBuild $1,100,000.00
53 YB-32988-18-60-A-36 YouthBuild $1,100,000.00
54 YB-33000-18-60-A-36 YouthBuild $1,100,000.00
COVID-19: ETA NY GRANTEES AND SUBRECIPIENTS
-20- NO. 19-25-008-03-391
U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General
Total Obligation
Count Grant Number Grant Project Type 21
Amount
20F
55 YB-34317-19-60-A-36 YouthBuild $1,500,000.00
56 YB-34318-19-60-A-36 YouthBuild $1,500,000.00
57 YB-34319-19-60-A-36 YouthBuild $987,881.00
58 YB-34321-19-60-A-36 YouthBuild $1,100,000.00
59 YB-34322-19-60-A-36 YouthBuild $1,500,000.00
60 YB-34329-19-60-A-36 YouthBuild $1,134,000.00
61 YB-34334-19-60-A-36 YouthBuild $1,254,060.00
62 YB-34335-19-60-A-36 YouthBuild $1,500,000.00
63 YB-36438-21-60-A-36 YouthBuild $1,000,000.00
64 YB-36448-21-60-A-36 YouthBuild $1,258,127.00
65 YB-36453-21-60-A-36 YouthBuild $1,197,000.00
66 YB-36458-21-60-A-36 YouthBuild $1,500,000.00
67 YB-36490-21-60-A-36 YouthBuild $1,499,999.00
68 YF-33511-19-60-A-36 Reentry Projects $4,500,000.00
69 YF-33600-19-60-A-36 Reentry Projects $1,499,948.00
70 YF-33601-19-60-A-36 Reentry Projects $560,000.00
71 YF-33605-19-60-A-36 Reentry Projects $1,499,747.00
72 YF-33611-19-60-A-36 Reentry Projects $1,500,000.00
73 YF-33612-19-60-A-36 Reentry Projects $1,500,000.00
Young Adult Reentry
74 YF-35056-20-60-A-36 $4,500,000.00
Partnership
Young Adult Reentry
75 YF-35058-20-60-A-36 $4,500,000.00
Partnership
Young Adult Reentry
76 YF-36572-21-60-A-36 $3,999,999.00
Partnership
Young Adult Reentry
77 YF-36574-21-60-A-36 $4,500,000.00
Partnership
Total -- -- $740,019,513.86
Source: OIG analysis based on information obtained from ETA
COVID-19: ETA NY GRANTEES AND SUBRECIPIENTS
-21- NO. 19-25-008-03-391
U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General
EXHIBIT 2: QUESTIONED COSTS
Table 5: Questioned Costs 22 21F
Description Amount
Contractual services $19,639,718
Unsupported payroll and non-payroll costs $5,751,502
Total Questioned Costs $25,391,220
Source: OIG analysis based on information collected during the audit
22 As defined by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, “questioned costs” include
alleged violations of law, regulations contracts, grants, or agreements; costs not supported by
adequate documentation; or the expenditure of funds for an untended purpose that was
unnecessary or unreasonable.
COVID-19: ETA NY GRANTEES AND SUBRECIPIENTS
-22- NO. 19-25-008-03-391
U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General
APPENDIX: SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
Scope
The audit scope covered grant recipient and subrecipient funding and grant
eligibility requirements from October 1, 2018, through September 30, 2021. Our
scope included select grants issued prior to the COVID-19 pandemic
(March 1, 2020, to April 10, 2023). We obtained a list of employment and training
grants from ETA and performed a risk assessment identifying the highest value
grants awarded, highest discretionary awards, total grants awarded by state, and
entities within the state receiving the most awards.
We selected New York for our audit because it was one of the highest states in
total awards of all recipients of federal grant funds, receiving 77 employment and
training grants totaling more than $740 million. From this universe, we
judgmentally selected three WIOA formula grants to NYSDOL and one
discretionary grant to a nonprofit totaling more than $520 million (70 percent) to
review:
• Statutory: NYSDOL received 3 WIOA grants for the period of
April 1, 2019, to June 30, 2024, totaling $514 million (98 percent of grants
reviewed).
• Discretionary: A nonprofit received a $7.9 million grant (2 percent of grants
reviewed) for the Scaling Apprenticeship through Sector Based Strategies
for the grant period of July 15, 2019, to July 14, 2024. The goal of the
grant was to serve 3,500 participants in obtaining apprenticeship training
in advanced manufacturing. Examples of the types of apprenticeship
areas included electronics and food processing.
As this audit is part of a series, we also selected these grants to ensure
alignment in testing methodology. In our other two audits, one focusing on Texas
and the other on New Jersey, we selected WIOA grants awarded to the state
labor department and a discretionary scaling apprenticeship grant. This audit
used the same selection process to maintain consistency.
In addition to performing grant analysis, we interviewed ETA personnel including
from within ETA headquarters, Office of Workforce Investment, and Office of
Grants Management. We interviewed the New York State Auditor and personnel
among the two grant recipients and nine subrecipients. We also reviewed
supporting documentation for the grant recipients and subrecipients as well as
information provided by ETA.
COVID-19: ETA NY GRANTEES AND SUBRECIPIENTS
-23- NO. 19-25-008-03-391
U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General
Methodology
We conducted this performance audit 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 objective.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
To answer our audit objective, we:
• reviewed public laws, United States Code, and ETA guidance related to
grants;
• interviewed ETA headquarters and regional office personnel to learn about
the formula grant program and the Scaling Apprenticeship grant program;
• obtained the listing of ETA employment and training grants and analyzed
the subject matter to obtain the number of grants that were awarded
during the audit period;
• interviewed NYSDOL formula and discretionary grant recipients and
subrecipients regarding their positions within each entity and their
experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic pertaining to serving the
participants;
• analyzed data in the grant recipients’ reporting systems to determine the
financial and performance activities of the selected grants; and
• analyzed requirements for enrolling participants and entering in
partnerships as specified in the Scaling Apprenticeship grants.
Data Reliability Assessment
We assessed the reliability of both the statutory and discretionary grant
recipients’ and subrecipients’ financial and participant data by: (1) performing
electronic testing, (2) reviewing existing information about the data and the
system that produced them, and (3) interviewing agency officials knowledgeable
about the data. We determined the data was sufficiently reliable for the purposes
of this report.
COVID-19: ETA NY GRANTEES AND SUBRECIPIENTS
-24- NO. 19-25-008-03-391
U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General
Internal Controls and Risk Assessment
In planning and performing our audit, we considered ETA’s internal controls
relevant to our audit objective by obtaining an understanding of those controls
and assessing control risks relevant to our objective. We considered the internal
control elements of control environment, risk assessment, control activities,
information and communication, and monitoring during our planning and
substantive phases and evaluated relevant controls. The objective of our audit
was not to provide assurance of the internal controls; therefore, we did not
express an opinion on ETA’s internal controls. Our consideration of internal
controls for administering the accountability of the program would not necessarily
disclose all matters that might be significant deficiencies. Because of the inherent
limitations on internal controls, or misstatements, noncompliance may occur and
not be detected.
Selection of Grants
We applied a non-statistical sampling approach in selecting 4 of the 77 grants
awarded to organizations within New York. This method was used to ensure
consistency with a related OIG report: COVID-19: The Employment and Training
Administration Needs to Improve Oversight of Grants Awarded in New Jersey,
Report No. 19-23-016-03-391, issued September 28, 2023.
Selection of Subrecipients
We applied non-statistical sampling in selecting nine subrecipients. We analyzed
the subrecipients’ funding and participants’ service levels. We selected the
entities that reported a high percentage of funds awarded or a high percentage of
participants served.
Participant and Transaction Sampling
We applied non-statistical sampling to select financial transactions to verify
compliance with Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles,
and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. We applied non-statistical sampling
to select financial transactions to verify eligibility as stated in WIOA for the
statutory participants and the American Competitiveness and Workforce
Improvement Act of 1998 for the discretionary participants.
Criteria
• Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, March 27, 2020
• Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, January 3, 2014
• American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998,
October 21, 1998
COVID-19: ETA NY GRANTEES AND SUBRECIPIENTS
-25- NO. 19-25-008-03-391
U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General
• 2 C.F.R. Part 200, amended October 18, 2021
• 20 C.F.R. Chapter V, Parts 678, 679, 681, and 683 (April 1, 2017, Edition);
U.S.C. Title 5 – Government Organization and Employees, Inspector
General Act of 1978, October 12, 1978
• OMB Circular No. A-11, Revised, Preparing, Submitting, and Executing
the Budget, Section 200.2, August 15, 2022
• OMB Circular No. A-123, Management’s Responsibility for Enterprise Risk
Management and Internal Control, M-16-17, July 15, 2016
• Appendix A to OMB Circular No. A-123, Management of Reporting and
Data Integrity Risk, M-18-16, June 6, 2018
• GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
September 2014
• ETA, Employment and Training Order No. 3-21, Enhanced Desk
Monitoring Review Guidance, November 3, 2020
• ETA, Training and Employment Order No. 02-21, Grants Management
Policies and Responsibilities, November 3, 2020
• ETA, Core Monitoring Guide, August 2018
• ETA, Effectively Managing Competitive Grants, Grantee Handbook,
June 2020
• ETA, Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 10-16, Change 1,
August 23, 2017
• ETA, Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 10-16, Change 3,
June 11, 2024
• ETA, Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 17-18, Availability of
Program Year 18 Funding for State Apprenticeship Expansion,
May 3, 2019
• Scaling Apprenticeship through Sector-Based Strategies, Funding
Opportunity Announcement, FOA-ETA-18-08, Amendment One, dated
August 22, 2018, and Amendment Two, dated September 11, 2018
Prior Relevant Coverage
During the last 10 years, the OIG has issued 3 reports of significant relevance to
the subject of this report. Those reports are the following:
1. ETA Needs to Improve Awarding of Year-End National Emergency Grants
Report No. 02-15-205-03-390 (September 30, 2015), available at:
https://www.oig.dol.gov/public/reports/oa/2015/02-15-205-03-390.pdf;
2. ETA’s Management of Workforce Development Grants: Key Concerns,
Report No. 09-22-001-03-001 (March 31, 2022), available at:
https://www.oig.dol.gov/public/reports/oa/2022/09-22-001-03-001.pdf; and
COVID-19: ETA NY GRANTEES AND SUBRECIPIENTS
-26- NO. 19-25-008-03-391
U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General
3. COVID-19: The Employment and Training Administration Needs to
Improve Oversight of Grants Awarded in New Jersey,
Report No. 19-23-016-03-391 (September 28, 2023), available at:
https://www.oig.dol.gov/public/reports/oa/2023/19-23-016-03-391.pdf.
COVID-19: ETA NY GRANTEES AND SUBRECIPIENTS
-27- NO. 19-25-008-03-391
REPORT FRAUD, WASTE, OR ABUSE
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Online
https://www.oig.dol.gov/hotline.htm
Telephone
(800) 347-3756 or (202) 693-6999
Fax
(202) 693-7020
Address
Office of Inspector General
U.S. Department of Labor
200 Constitution Avenue NW
Room S-5506
Washington, DC 20210
File and source
- File
- Signed-Final-Report---Revise-page-13-from-to-place-3500-to-place-3200_-AIGA-sig.pdf
- Size
- 717,120 bytes
- SHA-256
- 80fb9924f049fb0ec65dc190d591f76aaecb6f0c34b5ad9a929c442e14ec20fc
- Original
- www.oversight.gov