Florida Department of Education's Administration and Oversight of Emergency Assistance to Nonpublic Schools Grant Funds (ED-OIG/A23GA0135)
Summary
Final report ED-OIG/A23GA0135 of the U.S. Department of Education Office of Inspector General, dated September 23, 2024, on the Florida Department of Education's administration and oversight of Emergency Assistance to Nonpublic Schools grant funds, with a transmittal letter from Selina Boyd, Regional Inspector General for Audit. The report states that FDOE's actions to assess nonpublic schools' eligibility for CRRSA EANS services were generally adequate, but that its ARP EANS application did not ensure application data could adequately assess eligibility. It states that FDOE allocated $34,309,398 in ARP EANS funds to 73 schools that may not have been eligible. It states that the OIG made four recommendations and that FDOE did not state whether it agreed or disagreed with them.
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
- Issuer
- U.S. Department of Education, Office of Inspector General
- Document type
- Report
- Date
- 2024-09-23
Cite this document
“Florida Department of Education's Administration and Oversight of Emergency Assistance to Nonpublic Schools Grant Funds (ED-OIG/A23GA0135).”
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Inspector General, dated 2024-09-23. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/florida-eans-administration-oversight/
, SHA-256 ffd51835d193e365cbdd12f9b84f99a6ffbfccdb5fea78c99caeadd0e4eeec50.Full text
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
Florida Department of
Education’s Administration and
Oversight of Emergency
Assistance to Nonpublic Schools
Grant Funds
September 23, 2024
ED-OIG/A23GA0135
ED OIG Oversight of Coronavirus Response Funds
NOTICE
Statements that managerial practices need improvements, as well as other conclusions
and recommendations in this report, represent the opinions of the Office of Inspector
General. The appropriate Department of Education officials will determine what
corrective actions should be taken.
In accordance with Freedom of Information Act (Title 5, United States Code,
Section 552), reports that the Office of Inspector General issues are available to
members of the press and general public to the extent information they contain is not
subject to exemptions in the Act.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Audit Services
September 23, 2024
Office of Governor Ron DeSantis
State of Florida
The Capitol
400 S. Monroe Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
Manny Diaz, Jr.
Commissioner
Florida Department of Education
325 West Gaines Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Dear Governor DeSantis and Commissioner Diaz:
Enclosed is our final report, “Florida Department of Education’s Administration and Oversight of
Emergency Assistance to Nonpublic Schools Grant Funds,” Control Number ED-OIG/A23GA0135. This
report incorporates the comments you provided in response to the draft report. The U.S. Department of
Education’s policy is to expedite resolution by timely acting on findings and recommendations.
Therefore, if you have any additional comments or information that you believe may have a bearing on
the resolution of this audit, you should send them directly to the following Department of Education
official, who will consider them before taking final Departmental action on this:
Adam Schott
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Delegated the Authority to Perform the Functions and
Duties of the Assistant Secretary, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C.
We appreciate your cooperation during this review. If you have any questions, please contact me at
(404) 974-9424 or Selina.Boyd@ed.gov.
Sincerely,
/s/
Selina Boyd
Regional Inspector General for Audit
Enclosure
400 MARYLAND AVENUE, S.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20202-1510
Promoting the efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity of the Department’s programs and operations.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Inspector General
Results in Brief
Florida Department of Education’s Administration and Oversight of
Emergency Assistance to Nonpublic Schools Grant Funds
Why the OIG Performed What Did the OIG Find?
this Audit? The actions that FDOE took to assess nonpublic schools’ eligibility for CRRSA EANS-funded
In response to the coronavirus disease services and assistance and comply with other applicable requirements were generally
2019 pandemic (COVID-19), Congress adequate; however, it did not have written procedures for its CRRSA EANS application
passed three relief acts within a 1-year review and approval processes. Regarding FDOE’s administration of ARP EANS, we found
period that provided more than $276 that the application that FDOE developed for nonpublic schools to apply for services and
billion for an Education Stabilization assistance did not ensure that it could use the application data to adequately assess
Fund to prevent, prepare for, and nonpublic schools’ eligibility. The ARP EANS application was not adequate because it
respond to the COVID-19, including included instructions that allowed nonpublic schools to use proportionality data as one of
$5.5 billion for the Emergency five data source options for estimating the number of students enrolled in their school
Assistance to Nonpublic Schools that were from low-income families.
(EANS) program. The purpose of the
FDOE’s oversight of its CRRSA and ARP EANS expenditure and inventory processes needs
EANS programs, authorized under the
strengthening. Specifically, FDOE did not have formal written procedures for its
Coronavirus Response and Relief
expenditure review and approval processes. Also, FDOE’s processes did not ensure that it
Supplemental Appropriations Act
obtained prior approval from the Department before funding nonpublic school equipment
(CRRSA) and American Rescue Plan
purchases with a per unit cost of $5,000 or more. Additionally, FDOE did not ensure that it
(ARP), is to provide services or
inventoried or tracked items, such as supplies, that were purchased with a per unit cost
assistance to eligible nonpublic schools
under $5,000.
to address educational disruptions
caused by the COVID-19 emergency. What Is the Impact?
FDOE’s improper use of proportionality data resulted in it allocating $34,309,398 in ARP
Effective application and oversight
EANS funds for services and assistance to 73 schools that may not have been eligible to
processes help ensure that EANS funds
receive ARP EANS services or assistance.
are appropriately allocated and used
for allowable purposes in order to help Not having formal written policies and procedures for expenditure review and approval
eligible nonpublic schools address the processes could lead to missed opportunities to identify unallowable or questionable
needs of students, families, and expenditures. Additionally, not having a process for obtaining prior approval increases the
educators. Florida was awarded about risk that Federal funds could be used for unallowable equipment or capital expenditure
$434 million in EANS funds. purchases. Finally, without a process for tracking and periodically checking on the use of
EANS-funded purchases, FDOE does not have public control of all equipment and supplies
The objectives of our audit were to
purchased with EANS funds.
determine whether the Florida
Department of Education (FDOE) What Are the Next Steps?
designed and implemented We made four recommendations to FDOE to improve the administration and oversight of
(1) application processes that the EANS programs. FDOE did not state whether it agreed or disagreed with our
adequately assessed nonpublic recommendations, but described corrective actions related to three of our four
schools’ eligibility for EANS-funded recommendations.
services or assistance and complied
with other applicable requirements
and (2) oversight processes to ensure
that EANS-funded services or
assistance were used for allowable
purposes.
Final Report ED-OIG/A23GA0135
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................ 1
Finding 1. FDOE Generally Had Adequate Application Processes to Assess
Nonpublic School’s CRRSA EANS Eligibility ................................................. 5
Finding 2. FDOE’s ARP EANS Application Processes Allowed Nonpublic
Schools to Use Unallowable Data to Determine Low-Income Student
Eligibility ............................................................................................... 10
Finding 3. FDOE’s Oversight of its EANS Expenditure and Inventory
Processes Needs Strengthening ............................................................... 18
Appendix A. Scope and Methodology ....................................................... 28
Appendix B. Allowable Uses of EANS Funds .............................................. 33
Appendix C. Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................ 35
FDOE’s Comments .................................................................................. 36
Introduction
Background
On March 13, 2020, the President declared a national emergency due to the coronavirus
disease 2019 pandemic (COVID-19). In response, Congress passed three COVID-19 relief
acts within a 1-year period that provided more than $276 billion for an Education
Stabilization Fund to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the COVID-19, including
$5.5 billion for the Emergency Assistance to Nonpublic Schools (EANS) program.
• The Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (CRRSA),
enacted on December 27, 2020, provided $2.75 billion in funding for nonpublic
schools to provide services and assistance addressing educational disruptions
caused by COVID-19, as part of the Governor’s Emergency Education Relief
Fund.
• The American Rescue Plan (ARP), enacted on March 11, 2021, provided another
$2.75 billion in funding to the EANS program, bringing the total amount of EANS
funding to $5.5 billion.
Purpose of the EANS Programs
The purpose of the EANS programs is to provide services or assistance to eligible
nonpublic schools to address educational disruptions caused by the COVID-19
emergency. Under the CRRSA and ARP EANS programs, governors apply to the U.S.
Department of Education (Department) for formula grants for the purpose of providing
emergency services or assistance to nonpublic schools. Although a Governor applies for
EANS funds and has oversight responsibilities as the grantee, the statutes require that
the State educational agency (SEA) administer the programs. An SEA can use up to one-
half of 1 percent of its total EANS allocation for administrative costs. SEAs can hire
contractors to assist in administering and overseeing a State’s EANS programs.
Importantly, nonpublic schools are not recipients of grant awards under the EANS
programs but, instead, receive services or assistance provided by the SEA as requested
in their application, to the extent resources are available.
SEA Administrative Responsibilities
According to CRRSA section 312(d), an SEA’s responsibilities to administer the EANS
program include the following:
• Distributing information about the EANS program promptly to nonpublic schools
in the State.
• Creating an application with which any eligible nonpublic school in the State
may apply for services or assistance.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 1
• Ensuring that eligible nonpublic schools provide the information required by
section 312(d)(3)(B) related to enrollment of students from low-income families
and a description of the emergency services requested from the SEA.
• Making an application easily available to nonpublic schools in the State as soon
as possible but no later than 30 days after receipt of the EANS funds.
• Approving or denying each nonpublic school application promptly but no later
than 30 days after the SEA receives the application from a nonpublic school.
• Determining what services or assistance the SEA will provide directly or through
local educational agencies (LEA), other public entities, or contractors to each
nonpublic school, as informed by an approved application and consultation, as
appropriate, with the nonpublic school or its representatives.
• Ensuring the control of funds for the services or assistance provided to a
nonpublic school, and title to materials, equipment, and property purchased
with EANS funds, are in a public agency and a public agency administers the
funds, services, assistance, materials, equipment, and property.
• Ensuring that all services or assistance provided, including any materials,
equipment, and any other items used to provide such services or assistance, are
limited to secular, neutral, and nonideological purposes.
• Obligating all EANS funds in an expedited and timely manner, to the extent
practicable; however, obligating all EANS funds not later than 6 months after
receiving the funds.
• Administering the EANS program in accordance with all applicable
requirements.
Additionally, on or before the date it makes its ARP EANS applications for services or
assistance available to nonpublic schools, an SEA must publish on its website (1) the
minimum percentage it will use to determine whether a nonpublic school enrolls a
significant percentage of students from low-income families, (2) the source(s) of poverty
data it will use to determine counts of students from low-income families in a nonpublic
school, and (3) the factors it will use to identify nonpublic schools as most impacted by
COVID-19.1
1
Final Requirements for ARP EANS, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 131, (July 13, 2021).
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 2
Nonpublic School EANS Programs Eligibility
For purposes of the EANS programs, an eligible nonpublic school is an elementary or
secondary school that
• is a nonprofit;
• is accredited, licensed, or otherwise operates in accordance with State law;
• was in existence prior to the date COVID-19 was declared a national emergency
(March 13, 2020);
• did not, and will not, apply for and receive a loan under the Small Business
Administration’s Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) that is made on or after
December 27, 2020. This limitation applies for as long as the nonpublic school is
a participant in the EANS program under the CRRSA or the ARP Act.
The CRRSA and ARP Act also established separate criteria that SEAs were required to use
to determine whether nonpublic schools were eligible to receive services or assistance.
Under CRRSA EANS, SEAs were required to prioritize services or assistance to nonpublic
schools that enrolled low-income students and were most impacted by the qualifying
emergency (COVID-19). The ARP Act further restricted eligibility for services or
assistance to nonpublic schools that enrolled a significant percentage of low-income
students and were most impacted by the qualifying emergency. Because the ARP Act did
not identify what constituted a significant percentage of low-income students, the
Department established through a notice of final requirements in the Federal Register
that, to be eligible for ARP EANS-funded services or assistance, the percentage of low-
income students in a nonpublic school must be at least 40 percent, unless a State
requested and received approval from the Department to use an alternate percentage
based on circumstances in the State.
Allowable Uses of EANS Funds
The EANS programs allow a nonpublic school to receive services and assistance from the
State’s SEA or its contractors to address educational disruptions resulting from
COVID-19. These services and assistance can include supplies to sanitize and clean
school facilities, educational technology, and reasonable transportation costs, among
many others. For a full list of services and assistance covered under the EANS programs,
see Appendix B.
Florida’s EANS Programs Administration
Florida was awarded $212,978,041 in CRRSA funds and $221,188,900 in ARP EANS funds
to provide services and assistance to nonpublic schools affected by the pandemic. The
Florida Department of Education’s (FDOE) Office of Independent Education and Parental
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 3
Choice (IEPC) 2 is responsible for the administration and oversight of the EANS programs.
IEPC made $211,913,151 in CRRSA funds available to 514 nonpublic schools and
$220,082,956 in ARP EANS funds available to 490 nonpublic schools that it deemed
eligible to receive services and assistance. IEPC used the remaining $2,170,835 for
administrative expenses, such as hiring vendors to assist with program administration.
IEPC contracted with a vendor to use its financial payment system for processing
nonpublic schools’ EANS requests for services and assistance for both EANS programs. 3
IEPC also contracted with another vendor to develop and process the ARP EANS
application data, and to develop a Statewide inventory of equipment and information
technology devices with a unit cost over $5,000 that nonpublic schools purchased with
EANS funds. 4
2
IEPC is responsible for overseeing FDOE’s non-traditional schools (nonpublic, charter, virtual, and home
school education).
3
FDOE paid this vendor $608,271 for each EANS contract.
4
FDOE paid the vendor $18,680.10 to develop the ARP EANS application and process the application
data. FDOE will pay the vendor a total of $765,710 over 3 years from CRRSA and ARP EANS funds for the
inventory management services.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 4
Finding 1. FDOE Generally Had Adequate
Application Processes to Assess Nonpublic
School’s CRRSA EANS Eligibility
We found that the actions that FDOE took to assess nonpublic schools’ eligibility for
CRRSA EANS-funded services and assistance were generally adequate; however, FDOE
did not have written procedures for its CRRSA EANS application review and approval
processes. FDOE’s lack of such written policies and procedures weakens its assurance
that procedures are applied consistently. Regarding FDOE’s compliance with other
applicable requirements, we found that for the CRRSA EANS program, FDOE met the
timelines required for the availability of nonpublic school applications, review and
approval of the applications, and notification to the nonpublic schools regarding their
application approval status. We also found that the technical assistance and guidance
that FDOE provided to the nonpublic schools was timely and accurate. Because FDOE is
no longer accepting or approving CRRSA EANS program applications, we are not making
any recommendations for this finding.
Technical Assistance and Guidance Provided to Nonpublic
Schools Regarding CRRSA EANS Applications
FDOE provided timely and accurate technical assistance and guidance to nonpublic
schools as it relates to the CRRSA EANS program. FDOE accomplished this, in part,
through email communication, its website, 5 and webinars. The technical assistance
provided information necessary for nonpublic schools to participate in FDOE’s CRRSA
EANS program. The technical assistance and guidance covered various topics, including
the purpose and goal of the program, eligibility criteria, and the application process.
FDOE also developed its own EANS Frequently Asked Questions guidance document.
FDOE provided most of this technical assistance and guidance to nonpublic schools in
February 2021, which was during the time that nonpublic schools were required to
submit their applications. We determined that FDOE communicated clear, accurate, and
timely technical assistance and guidance to nonpublic schools about the purpose of the
CRRSA EANS program; eligibility, including how FDOE planned to determine the schools
most impacted by the COVID-19 emergency; and how and when to submit their
application.
5
FDOE’s website included links to the Department’s EANS FAQ guidance document, FDOE’s EANS FAQ
guidance document, a payment system user’s guide, and the presentation slides from FDOE’s four EANS
webinars.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 5
Adequacy of FDOE’s CRRSA EANS Application Processes and Its
Compliance with Related Requirements
To be eligible to receive services and assistance under CRRSA EANS, nonpublic schools
had to meet five eligibility requirements, including (1) be nonprofit; (2) be accredited,
licensed, or otherwise approved to operate in accordance with State law; (3) exist and
operate before March 13, 2020; (4) not have applied for or received a Small Business
Administration PPP loan on or after December 27, 2020; and (5) not have had PPP loan
support for the services it requested in the CRRSA EANS application.
In describing its application review and approval processes, FDOE officials explained that
they used the sample application provided in the Department’s EANS frequently asked
questions (FAQ) guidance document to create the CRRSA EANS application, which
captured data that FDOE used to determine nonpublic schools’ eligibility. In the
application, schools provided overall enrollment and low-income enrollment data from
the 2019–2020 school year (grades K–12), indicated whether they received a PPP loan
prior to December 27, 2020, included a statement on the impact COVID-19 had on
school operations and education achievement, discussed current concerns and potential
challenges and issues they had encountered while responding to COVID-19, and
specified the categories of services and assistance that the school might request. 6 In
addition, schools were required to include the sources of the data they reported in their
application, which could be from free and reduced-price lunch eligibility data,
scholarship eligibility data, proportionality data, 7 or parent surveys. 8 Nonpublic school
officials also had to sign the application that included affirmations relating to the truth
and accuracy of the application data, the school meeting the five eligibility
requirements, and the school’s understanding that FDOE will assume ownership and
title to all materials, equipment, and property purchased using EANS funds. FDOE
officials made the CRRSA EANS application available to nonpublic schools within 30 days
of FDOE’s receipt of its EANS allocation from the Department (as required by Federal
regulations), and it was available to them from February 2021 to March 2021.
6
The schools could select from 12 categories related to supplies to sanitize, disinfect, and clean school
facilities; physical barriers to facilitate social distancing; and educational technology. See Appendix B for
a full list of categories.
7
Proportionality is a method of deriving low-income data that was only permitted under CRRSA EANS.
8
Schools could use parent surveys that identify students whose household income does not exceed
185 percent of the Federal poverty level or parent surveys identifying students eligible for services
under the Title I.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 6
FDOE officials further explained that the nonpublic schools submitted their applications
via email. FDOE’s information technology department compiled all the data from the
nonpublic schools’ applications into an Excel spreadsheet. FDOE’s IEPC reviewed the
spreadsheet and determined an applicant to be eligible if the eligibility criteria were met
and the applicant’s data pertaining to the eligibility criteria were verified as accurate
through comparison of information in other databases. For example, FDOE officials
stated that they checked the Small Business Administration’s PPP website to determine
whether the applicant had received a PPP loan, and that they checked FDOE’s Private
School Scholarship databases, which contain data that schools submit in Florida’s annual
school survey, 9 to determine the accuracy of the number of enrolled students and count
of low-income students that the school put in its application.
FDOE officials went on to explain that an IEPC official notified each of the nonpublic
schools of their application’s approval or denial 10 via email, within 30 days of receiving
the applications (as required by the Department). For those schools that were approved,
FDOE explained that they prioritized the schools by COVID-19 impact score, which FDOE
calculated based on the applicant’s data, 11 and then made funds available for all of the
approved schools using a formula that took into consideration impact score and number
of low-income students. 12 An FDOE official notified all of the approved schools that
EANS funds had been made available to provide them with services and assistance.
IEPC’s former executive director then provided the contractor with the funding
information for upload into the payment processing system.
We concluded that the processes FDOE officials described to assess nonpublic schools’
eligibility for CRRSA EANS-funded services and assistance were generally adequate. We
tested a nonstatistical, random sample of 10 CRRSA EANS applications (of 579 total
9
The scholarship databases include income-based thresholds that prioritize families with incomes at or
below 185 percent of the Federal poverty level.
10
FDOE denied EANS applications for reasons such as the nonpublic school did not have any enrolled
students, the school was not open as of March 13, 2020, or the school was for-profit.
11
Seventeen items in Part E of the CRRSA EANS application quantified the impacts on school operations
and instruction. Options in each item were assigned a numerical value, and the sum of those values
became the impact score used in the methodology to make funds available to eligible schools.
12
We did not perform a detailed review of the process used to make funds available to the schools
because it was not within the scope of our audit.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 7
applications), 13 and determined that FDOE followed the processes they described and
accurately assessed the eligibility status of the 10 (100 percent) nonpublic schools we
sampled. However, it is still a good practice to document such procedures to ensure that
the procedures are applied consistently.
A non-Federal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over its
Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that it is managing its award in
compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of its award
(2 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) section 200.303(a)). These internal controls
should be compliant with the Comptroller General of the United States guidance in U.S.
Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) Standards for Internal Control in the Federal
Government or the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission’s Internal Control Integrated Framework, May 2013 (COSO Report).
According to the COSO Report, a component of internal control is control activities. One
principle of control activities is that an organization implements control activities
through policies that establish what is expected and procedures that put policies into
action. Further, the internal control responsibilities of the organization should be
documented.
In addition, GAO Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, principles
12.02–12.04 state that management policies should document, in the appropriate level
of detail to allow it to effectively monitor the control activity, the internal control
responsibilities of the organization and its responsibility for an operational process’s
objectives and related risks and control activity design, implementation, and operating
effectiveness. Additionally, management documents policies. Management
communicates to personnel the policies and procedures so that personnel can
implement the control activities for their assigned responsibilities.
IEPC’s former deputy executive director stated that FDOE probably did not document
the application review and approval processes for the CRRSA EANS program because of
the short timeframe to make the funds available. An FDOE official stated that FDOE
followed the criteria in the Department’s FAQ document to create and conduct the
application review and deem a school eligible or ineligible. However, having formal
written policies and procedures to guide reviewers through review and approval
processes helps to ensure that procedures are applied consistently. FDOE’s lack of such
written policies and procedures for the CRRSA EANS program weakens such assurance.
Despite FDOE’s lack of written procedures for its application review and approval
13
Our random sample of 10 CRRSA EANS applications included 5 (of the 514) that were approved and
5 (of the 65) that were denied.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 8
processes, we are not making any recommendations for this finding because FDOE met
all CRRSA EANS program application requirements, and because applications are no
longer being accepted.
FDOE’s Comments
FDOE did not provide any comments on Finding 1.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 9
Finding 2. FDOE’s ARP EANS Application
Processes Allowed Nonpublic Schools to Use
Unallowable Data to Determine Low-Income
Student Eligibility
The application that FDOE developed for nonpublic schools to apply for ARP EANS
services and assistance did not ensure that FDOE could use the application data to
adequately assess nonpublic schools’ eligibility. The ARP EANS application was not
adequate because it included instructions that allowed nonpublic schools to use
proportionality data 14 as one of five data source options for estimating the number of
students enrolled in their school that were from low-income families (schools could use
any one or a combination of the five options). Proportionality data is a data source that
the Department does not allow States to consider when determining if a nonpublic
school is eligible for services and assistance under ARP EANS. Of the 490 nonpublic
schools that FDOE determined were eligible to receive services and assistance using the
$220,082,956 in ARP EANS funds that it was awarded from the Department,
73 (15 percent) of the schools reported in their applications a low-income count that
was based in whole or in part on proportionality data. FDOE made available a total of
$34,309,398 in ARP EANS funds to provide services and assistance to those 73 schools.
Additionally, like FDOE’s CRRSA EANS processes, FDOE did not have written procedures
that described its ARP EANS application review and approval processes. However,
because FDOE is also no longer accepting or approving ARP EANS program applications,
we are not recommending that it develop such procedures.
Regarding FDOE’s compliance with other applicable requirements, we found that for the
ARP EANS program, FDOE met the timelines required for the availability of nonpublic
school applications, review and approval of the applications, and notification to the
nonpublic schools regarding their application approval status. We also found that the
technical assistance and guidance FDOE provided to the nonpublic schools was timely
and accurate, and that FDOE posted to its website the ARP EANS eligibility
requirements, including allowable low-income data sources that schools could use for
determining low-income student enrollment, except as it pertains to the use of
proportionality data in the ARP EANS application.
14
In its application, FDOE defined proportionality data as the number of students enrolled in a nonpublic
school who reside in a Title I school attendance area multiplied by the percentage of public-school
students in that same attendance area who are from low-income families.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 10
Technical Assistance and Guidance Provided to Nonpublic
Schools Regarding ARP EANS Applications
FDOE provided ARP EANS technical assistance and guidance to nonpublic schools that
was very similar to what was provided for CRRSA EANS, as it pertains to applications for
the program. FDOE provided most of this technical assistance and guidance to nonpublic
schools in October 2021, which was during the time that nonpublic schools were
required to submit their applications. FDOE posted to its website the ARP EANS
eligibility requirements, including allowable low-income data sources schools could use
for determining low-income student enrollment (as required). As it pertains to FDOE’s
ARP EANS application processes, we did not identify any issues with the technical
assistance and guidance except for FDOE allowing nonpublic schools to use
proportionality data in the ARP EANS application.
Inadequacy of FDOE’s ARP EANS Application Processes and Its
Compliance with Related Requirements
We found that the application that FDOE developed for nonpublic schools to apply for
ARP EANS-funded services and assistance did not ensure that FDOE could use the
application data to adequately assess nonpublic schools’ eligibility. FDOE used in its ARP
EANS application the same four eligibility requirements that it used for CRRSA EANS.
FDOE officials explained that they contracted with a vendor to develop the ARP EANS
application. Nonpublic schools completed the ARP EANS application online. The
application had four sections and included most but not all of the same data as the
CRRSA EANS application. Unlike the CRRSA EANS application, the ARP EANS application
did not require schools to indicate the impact that the COVID-19 had on school
operations and educational achievement and did not include an expense category
option to request reimbursement of expenses incurred. 15 Similar to the CRRSA EANS
application, in the ARP EANS application, nonpublic schools were required to provide
overall enrollment and low-income enrollment data from the 2019–2020 or 2020–2021
school years (grades K–12), and they were required to use the same five sources of data
that were included in the CRRSA EANS application, which included proportionality data.
However, this should not have been permitted because for ARP EANS, the Department
explicitly prohibited the use of proportionality data for obtaining low-income
enrollment counts.
Out of 624 nonpublic schools that applied 89 (14 percent) schools submitted an ARP
EANS application that incorrectly used proportionality data as a data source for
15
Reimbursement was not allowed under ARP EANS. All ARP EANS expenditures were direct payments
to vendors.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 11
estimating the number of students enrolled in their school that were from low-income
families. A formula was built into the application that calculated the school’s percentage
of low-income students based on the enrollment and low-income data included in the
application. Because ARP EANS restricted the eligibility of nonpublic schools to those
with a significant percentage 16 of students from low-income families most impacted by
COVID-19, a count of such students in a nonpublic school’s application based on an
unallowable data source could cause the applicant to appear as eligible when they were
not. Of the 89 nonpublic schools that included in their applications an estimated
number of students from low-income families that was based, in whole or in part, on
proportionality data, FDOE made ARP EANS funds available to 73 of them. Therefore, for
those 73 nonpublic schools, it is unknown whether the schools were eligible for ARP
EANS-funded services and assistance since data from a prohibited data source were
used, in whole or in part, to determine the schools’ eligibility. FDOE made available a
total of $34,309,398 in ARP EANS funds to provide services and assistance to those
73 schools.
FDOE officials made the ARP EANS application available to nonpublic schools within
30 days of FDOE’s receipt of its ARP EANS allocation from the Department (as required),
and it was available to them from October 2021 to November 2021. FDOE officials
explained that they reviewed nonpublic schools’ ARP EANS applications similarly to
CRRSA EANS applications, with only two differences. First, a contractor compiled the
applicant data into a spreadsheet for IEPC officials to review instead of FDOE’s
information technology department. Second, instead of the approved applications being
ranked by impact score based on COVID-19’s impact on the school’s operations and
instruction, the impact score was based on the enrolled percentage of students from
low-income families 17 that were most impacted by COVID-19 and the number of COVID-
19 infections per capita in the community served by the nonpublic schools.
FDOE officials stated that they did not have written procedures for the ARP EANS
application review and approval processes described to us. We tested a nonstatistical,
random sample of 10 (2 percent rounded up) ARP EANS applications (of 624 total
16
The Department defined “significant percentage” as at least 40 percent. A State could have requested
and received approval from the Department to use a lesser threshold percentage.
17
FDOE used the 40-percent threshold established by the Department in its notice of final requirements
for the ARP EANS program to determine whether a nonpublic school enrolled a significant percentage of
students from low-income families.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 12
applications) 18 to determine whether FDOE followed its processes and accurately
assessed nonpublic school eligibility. We determined that FDOE followed the described
processes and accurately assessed the eligibility status for 9 (90 percent) of the
10 applications we sampled. For the one (10 percent) remaining application, FDOE
followed the described processes, but because its processes erroneously allowed the
use of proportionality data to estimate low-income family count, which was used in this
nonpublic school’s application, the nonpublic school’s eligibility was not accurately
assessed. FDOE made available a total of $37,508 in ARP EANS funds for that school to
request services and assistance. 19
Regarding the use of proportionality data for ARP EANS funds, the Final Requirements
for ARP EANS, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 131, (July 13, 2021), provides a list of
allowable data sources for obtaining a count of students from low-income families
(proportionality data is not a source that is listed), and states that
[t]o obtain a count of students from low-income families enrolled in a
nonpublic school under paragraph (c)(1), an SEA may use one or more
of the following sources of data, provided the poverty threshold is
consistent across sources—
(i) Data on student eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch under the
Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (43 United States Code
(U.S.C.) 1751 et seq.);
(ii) Data from the E-rate program administered by the Federal
Communications Commission (47 C.F.R. 54.500, 54.505(b));
(iii) Data from a different source, such as scholarship or financial
assistance data; or
(iv) Data from a survey developed by the SEA.
In addition, the Department held an ARP EANS webinar on February 24, 2022, during
which it stated that proportionality data is not an acceptable data source for ARP EANS.
The Department also sent a letter to States entitled “ARP EANS and the Use of
Proportionality to Determine Non-Public School Eligibility” (July 29, 2022), which stated
18
Our random sample of 10 ARP EANS applications included 5 that were approved and 5 that were
denied.
19
This is one of the 73 nonpublic schools (that used proportionality data) that FDOE made available a
total of $34,309,398 in ARP EANS funds.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 13
that because proportionality is a methodology to derive an estimate and is not based on
actual income data from the families of students enrolled in a nonpublic school, it
cannot be used to determine school eligibility for ARP EANS. The letter also stated that if
a State had mistakenly used proportionality or another proxy measure to determine the
eligibility of nonpublic schools under the ARP program, it should contact the
Department so that it could work with the State on a path forward to correct the error.
When we asked FDOE why the ARP EANS application included proportionality as an
allowable data source, IEPC’s current executive director stated that FDOE allowed
nonpublic schools to use proportionality source data where student scholarship or free
and reduced-price lunch data were not available. He also stated that FDOE believed that
since proportionality data was allowed under CRRSA EANS and that it was consistent
with statutory language, regulations, and prior data uses, FDOE would be able to use it.
FDOE also believed that the Department’s guidance on proportionality was not provided
in a timely manner. According to the executive director, communication regarding
proportionality was not sent directly to States until August 1, 2022—more than
6 months after FDOE had completed the application process.
Regarding FDOE’s lack of written procedures for the ARP EANS application review and
approval processes, as stated in Finding 1, Federal regulations require a non-Federal
entity to establish and maintain effective internal control over its Federal award
(2 C.F.R. section 200.303(a)), and that management documents in policies, its
responsibility for an operational process’s objectives and related risks, and control
activity design, implementation, and operating effectiveness (GAO’s Standards for
Internal Control in the Federal Government, Principles 12.02–12.04).
When we asked FDOE why its ARP EANS application review and approval procedures
were not documented, IEPC’s former deputy executive director stated that they
probably were not documented because of the short timeframe for making the funds
available.
Because of the proportionality data error in FDOE’s ARP EANS application, it is unknown
whether the $34,309,398 in ARP EANS funds that FDOE made available to 73 schools for
services and assistance was allowable. Additionally, regarding FDOE’s lack of written
procedures for its ARP EANS application and approval processes, having such
documentation helps to ensure that procedures are applied consistently. FDOE’s lack of
written policies and procedures for its ARP EANS program weakens such assurance.
Recommendation
We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education require FDOE, in consultation with the Governor of Florida, to—
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 14
2.1 Obtain a revised ARP EANS application from the 73 nonpublic schools that used
proportionality data (in whole or in part) to estimate its low-income student
count and ensure that the schools include a revised low-income student count
that is based on a proper data source. FDOE should use the revised counts to
reassess the eligibility of the 73 schools and any EANS funds used to provide
services to ineligible nonpublic schools must be reverted to Florida’s Governor
to be used for allowable purposes under the Governor’s Emergency Education
Relief Fund as authorized by the CRRSA Act or returned to the Department.
Alternatively, FDOE could de-obligate EANS funds used to provide services or
assistance to ineligible nonpublic schools and identify another allowable source
of funds for such services or assistance.
FDOE’s Comments
FDOE disagreed with Finding 2 and did not state whether it agreed or disagreed with the
related recommendation. FDOE stated that some schools without available student
scholarship[s] or free and reduced-price lunch data were permitted to use
proportionality data consistent with CRRSA EANS. FDOE’s application permitted this
data source because FDOE officials believed it to be consistent with the statutory
language, regulations, and prior uses of such data. FDOE stated that the application was
published prior to informal, non-binding guidance by the Department’s Office of
Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), which indicated OESE’s interpretation that
the use of proportionality would not be “data from a different source” and that it would
not be permissible for ARP EANS. FDOE further stated that OESE’s guidance on the issue
was not timely to allow the State to modify allocations accordingly. FDOE explained that
the first indication that OESE did not consider proportionality to be allowable was in a
webinar it hosted on February 24, 2022. FDOE further explained that additional
communication regarding proportionality was not sent directly to States until August 1,
2022—more than 6 months after FDOE had completed its application process.
FDOE also stated that proportionality data is a reasonable allocation methodology
supported by prior guidance and regulations and is explicitly permitted in CRRSA EANS.
FDOE stated that the statutory language makes no distinction between CRRSA EANS and
ARP EANS that would indicate allowable data sources would change. FDOE explained
that section 312(d) of CRRSA EANS lays out the application requirements for nonpublic
schools, including “the number and percentage of students from low-income families
enrolled by such nonpublic school in the 2019–2020 school year.” FDOE further
explained that in section 2002(a) of ARP, Congress simply appropriates additional
funding for the EANS program and does not change application requirements, thereby
implying that allocation should follow the same process as CRRSA.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 15
FDOE went on to explain that the preamble to the final requirements for ARP EANS
states that “except for the two exceptions noted in the statute, all of the requirements
in the CRRSA EANS program apply to ARP EANS funds.” FDOE believes that this indicated
that the programs should be treated similarly. FDOE also believes that the ARP EANS
final requirements indicated that allowable data sources included
(i) Data on student eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch under the
Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (43 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.);
(ii) Data from the E-rate program administered by the Federal
Communications Commission (47 CFR 54.500, 54.505(b)); (iii) Data from
a different source, such as scholarship or financial assistance data; or
(iv) Data from a survey developed by the SEA.
FDOE stated that because not all of Florida’s nonpublic schools participate in school
meal or E-rate programs, and because surveys are time-consuming and can yield
inaccurate or approximate data, FDOE used the option of “data from another source,”
which it read to include proportionality data.
FDOE further stated that Florida did what Congress asked and allocated services to
private schools promptly and consistent with a reasonable interpretation of Federal law
and the program’s final requirements. FDOE stated that even if staff had been notified
of the new interpretation prior to August of 2022, contacting private schools for
additional data and reallocating ARP EANS at that late date would have been
unworkable as well as inconsistent with the requirement to obligate funds within 6
months.
OIG’s Response
As stated in the finding, the Final Requirements for ARP EANS, Federal Register, Vol. 86,
No. 131 (July 13, 2021), did not include proportionality data as an allowable data source
for obtaining a count of students from low-income families. Also, as stated in the
finding, the Department informed States in its February 2022 ARP EANS webinar that
proportionality data was not an acceptable data source for ARP EANS. In addition, the
July 2022 letter that the Department sent to States regarding the use of proportionality
data to determine nonpublic schools’ eligibility for ARP EANS explained that because
proportionality is a methodology to derive an estimate and is not based on actual
income data from the families of students enrolled in a nonpublic school, it cannot be
used to determine school eligibility for ARP EANS. The letter also stated that if a State
had mistakenly used proportionality or another proxy measure to determine the
eligibility of nonpublic schools under the ARP EANS program, it should contact the
Department so that it could work with the State on a path forward to correct the error.
As such, FDOE should have contacted the Department to assist it in identifying an
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 16
alternative data source that the 73 schools that incorrectly used proportionality data
could use to determine their low-income student counts for ARP EANS eligibility
purposes.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 17
Finding 3. FDOE’s Oversight of its EANS
Expenditure and Inventory Processes Needs
Strengthening
We found that FDOE’s oversight of its CRRSA and ARP EANS expenditure and inventory
processes needs strengthening. Specifically, FDOE did not have formal written
procedures for its expenditure review and approval processes; however, the actions
FDOE took to review and approve EANS expenditures generally ensured that both ARP
and CRRSA EANS funds were used for allowable services and assistance, except for a
specific category of expenditures that required prior approval from the Department.
FDOE’s processes did not ensure that nonpublic schools’ equipment purchases with a
per unit cost over $5,000 received prior approval from the Department before making
the purchases (as required by Federal regulations).
Regarding other requirements applicable to CRRSA and ARP EANS expenditures, we
found that although FDOE inventoried nonpublic schools’ equipment and information
technology device purchases over $5,000 (in order to maintain public control of those
purchases), FDOE did not ensure that it inventoried or tracked supplies that were
purchased for under $5,000 per unit cost in adherence with Department guidance.
Additionally, we found that, generally, FDOE communicated clear, accurate, and timely
technical assistance and guidance to nonpublic schools regarding expenditure payment
requests and allowable uses of funds, but the guidance and instructions did not inform
the nonpublic schools that FDOE was required to obtain prior approval for some of the
nonpublic schools’ purchases that it funded, and that FDOE would be inventorying or
tracking supply purchases for under $5,000, as explained above.
We also reviewed Florida’s drawdowns from the Department’s G5 grants management
system and determined that Florida complied with cash management requirements.
Expenditure and Inventory-Related Technical Assistance and
Guidance that FDOE Provided to Nonpublic Schools Was
Generally Accurate but Did Not Cover All Requirements
FDOE provided technical assistance and guidance to nonpublic schools on expenditure
payment requests, allowable uses of funds, and public control of equipment and
supplies. The guidance and technical assistance were provided, in part, through FDOE’s
website and webinars. FDOE also developed its own FAQ guidance document for the
EANS programs and included expenditure-related information. FDOE provided most of
this technical assistance and guidance to nonpublic schools in April and October 2021,
which was before the schools could access their EANS funds. We determined that,
generally, FDOE communicated clear, accurate, and timely technical assistance,
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 18
guidance, and instructions to nonpublic schools regarding expenditure payment
requests and allowable uses of funds; however, the guidance did not inform the
nonpublic schools that FDOE was required to obtain prior approval for some of the
nonpublic schools’ purchases, and that FDOE should be tracking the nonpublic schools’
use of supplies purchased with a per unit cost under $5,000, as explained in the sections
below.
Issues with FDOE’s EANS Expenditure Review and Approval
Processes
FDOE officials stated that they do not have formal written procedures that specify how
they review and approve expenditures for the two EANS programs, but the processes
that they described to us, as well as the actions that they took, generally ensured that
funds were used for allowable services and assistance. However, we found that FDOE’s
processes did not ensure that nonpublic schools’ equipment purchases with a per unit
cost over $5,000 received prior approval from the Department before funding the
purchases (as required by Federal regulations).
In describing its EANS expenditure review and approval processes, FDOE explained that
eligible nonpublic schools did not have direct access to EANS funds. The schools could
either use their own funds for allowable expenditures and then request FDOE to
reimburse them from their available amount (for CRRSA EANS only); or they could order
services or assistance through FDOE-approved vendors included in the contractor
payment request system, 20 and either the nonpublic school or the vendor would submit
a payment request to have the funds sent directly to the vendor (for both CRRSA and
ARP EANS). The contractor payment request system was used for both reimbursements
and direct payments. The system required the nonpublic school to provide the name of
the vendor, the category of service or assistance received, and whether the funds were
to come from CRRSA or ARP EANS. To support a payment request relating to
reimbursements, the school had to submit supporting documentation such as vendor
invoices, a purchase justification statement, and proof of payment. To support a
payment request relating to a direct payment to a vendor, either the school or the
vendor had to submit an invoice and a justification statement.
20
Before nonpublic schools started submitting expenditure payment requests, FDOE provided the
contractor with a list of its existing approved vendors. An IEPC program specialist approves any new
vendor that is added to the payment system.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 19
FDOE officials further explained that two IEPC program specialists (reviewers) 21
reviewed all expenditure payment requests directly in the payment request system,
using informal procedure documents that each reviewer had developed. Payment
requests were approved if they were able to verify that the total amount requested for
payment agreed with the invoice total, the delivery address was the school’s address,
the bill to address was the vendor’s address, the invoice was fully itemized, 22 the
expenditure was for an approved category, 23 the expenditure was made on or after
March 13, 2020 (for CRRSA EANS only), and the request included a justification
statement, if applicable.
FDOE officials explained that on a weekly basis, the contractor submitted an invoice to
IEPC for the total amount of all nonpublic school requests that had been approved by
the reviewers. A program specialist reviewed the contractor’s invoice and supporting
documentation in the system to ensure that the invoice period was correct, the invoice
totals matched the approved payment request, and the invoice included a line item for
reimbursements (for CRRSA EANS only) and a line item for direct payments, and then
submitted it to the executive director for approval. The program specialist then
submitted the approved invoice package to Florida’s Comptroller Office for payment to
the contractor. The Comptroller’s office drew down the EANS funds from G5 for the
amount listed on the weekly invoice and sent the funds to the contractor, who paid the
nonpublic schools (for reimbursements) and vendors (for direct payments) via electronic
funds transfers.
We found that the processes FDOE officials described generally ensured that both ARP
and CRRSA EANS funds were used for allowable services and assistance except for a
specific category of expenditures that required prior approval from the Department.
None of the processes FDOE described included a requirement to obtain prior approval
from the Department for nonpublic schools’ equipment purchases over $5,000 per unit
cost, which is a Federal requirement.
We tested nonstatistical random samples of EANS expenditures totaling 60 expenditures
(30 funded by CRRSA and 30 funded by ARP EANS; each expenditure was at least
21
On an as-needed basis, another IEPC staff member helps with the reviewing and approving of
payment requests.
22
The invoice must show what was being purchased, the quantity, the unit price, the extended price,
and the ship to and bill to entity addresses.
23
Approved categories are one of the 12 allowable EANS categories, such as supplies to sanitize,
disinfect, and clean school facilities, and educational technology (see Appendix B).
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 20
$5,000) 24 that amounted to about $1.9 million, to determine whether FDOE followed
the processes that it described to us and whether the expenditures were allowable. We
found that FDOE followed its described processes and the expenditures we sampled
were for allowable purposes. However, five (8 percent) of the expenditures 25 we
sampled contained equipment with a per unit cost of $5,000 or more, and we
determined that FDOE did not seek prior approval from the Department before funding
these purchases, nor does it have a process or policy to request prior approval. The
applicable equipment purchases in the five expenditures totaled $187,660.
According to 2 C.F.R. section 200.439(b), equipment and other capital expenditures with
a unit cost of $5,000 or more must have prior written approval of the Federal awarding
agency or pass-through entity. According to 2 C.F.R. section 200.1, “equipment” is
defined as tangible personal property having a useful life of more than one year and a
per-unit acquisition cost that equals or exceeds the lesser of the capitalization level
established by the non-Federal entity for financial statement purposes or $5,000.
Also, regarding written policies and procedures, as stated in Findings 1 and 2, Federal
regulations require a non-Federal entity to establish and maintain effective internal
control over its Federal award (2 C.F.R. section 200.303(a)). In doing so, management
should document in policies its responsibility for an operational process’s objectives and
related risks, and control activity design, implementation, and operating effectiveness
(GAO’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, Principles 12.02–
12.04).
When we asked FDOE why it did not obtain prior approval for equipment purchases
over $5,000, IEPC’s current executive director stated that the statute allows the pass-
through entity to provide for the written approval of all proposed expenditures,
including those of $5,000 or more. He considered FDOE to be the pass-through entity
for EANS and stated that its approval process has been documented. However,
according to Department officials, FDOE is not acting as a pass-through entity for EANS.
A pass-through entity is a non-Federal entity that provides a subaward to a subrecipient
to carry out part of a Federal program (2 C.F.R. 200.74). Department officials further
stated that, under the EANS programs, an SEA is not permitted to make subawards,
therefore FDOE’s approval of payments would not constitute prior written approval for
the purpose of 2 C.F.R. 200.439(b).
24
Our sample included expenditures for items such as service contracts, laptops, printers, and smart
board displays.
25
The five expenditures were EANS direct payments to vendors.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 21
When we asked FDOE about its lack of formal written procedures for its expenditure
review and approval processes, FDOE’s former IEPC deputy executive director stated
that staff developed some informal 26 written procedure documents for their review and
approval processes, therefore FDOE did not believe that it needed to develop or
document any additional policy and procedures.
Regarding the lack of prior written approval, because FDOE did not obtain prior written
approval from the Department for five equipment purchases that had unit costs of
$5,000 or more, it may have used EANS funds to purchase unallowable equipment
totaling $187,660. Furthermore, without a process to obtain prior written approval,
there is a risk that Federal funds will be used for unallowable equipment or capital
expenditure purchases of $5,000 or more.
Regarding the lack of written policies and procedures, without formal documented
policies and procedures for reviewing nonpublic school and vendor payment requests,
reviewers may not fully understand what is expected of them or what they should be
reviewing. This could result in inconsistencies in how FDOE personnel perform these
reviews and in missed opportunities to identify unallowable or questionable
expenditures that should be analyzed more closely.
Weaknesses in FDOE’s EANS Inventory Process
We found that although FDOE had processes in place to inventory nonpublic schools’
EANS-funded equipment and information technology device purchases with a per unit
cost over $5,000 (in order to maintain public control of those items), it did not have a
process to inventory or track items that were purchased with a per unit cost under
$5,000, which is necessary to comply with Department guidance.
FDOE explained that it maintains a record of all EANS-funded purchases (regardless of
price). However, it only inventories nonpublic schools’ equipment and information
technology device purchases over $5,000. For such inventoriable items, FDOE explained
that in February 2023, it contracted with a vendor (contractor) to develop a Statewide
inventory system of equipment and information technology devices (such as computers,
projectors, and televisions) with a unit cost of $5,000 or more that nonpublic schools
purchased with EANS funds. FDOE developed an inventory form that nonpublic schools
were required to complete and submit to the contractor for equipment and information
technology devices it purchased with a per unit cost of $5,000 or more. The form
required nonpublic schools to provide information such as the make, model, and serial
26
FDOE staff that reviewed the expenditures developed their own notes to guide them through the
expenditure review process.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 22
number of the item; the use of the item; the payment processing system’s order
number; purchase price; purchase condition (new or old); purchase date; received date;
current location; and disposal information if applicable. The form also required a
nonpublic school official’s signature affirming that the inventoried item had been
properly labeled. Via email, the contractor provided instructions to all EANS-funded
nonpublic schools regarding the use of the form, a link to access the inventory system to
submit the form, and an inventory tag 27 template that the nonpublic schools are
required to use to tag the equipment purchases.
Once the forms are received from the schools, the contractor matches the items
included on the form to the related invoices in the EANS payment processing system.
The contractor contacts (via phone or email) the school if they need clarification about
the information included on the form or if any items are missing. If a school does not
submit their inventory, the contractor will contact them and notify FDOE if the inventory
is not received. If the nonpublic school fails to respond, FDOE notifies the school that
future EANS payments will be on hold until they provide an accounting of their
inventoried items. When the contractor determines that the school’s submission is
complete, they send the school an email notifying them that their submission is
complete, along with a copy of their final inventory list. The contractor compiles the
inventory data into a spreadsheet and provides it to FDOE, as well as copies of each
school’s individual inventory form. 28 The contractor is also required to provide FDOE
with monthly reports on its progress. According to the contract, the contractor will
update the inventory listing every 4 to 6 months until June 30, 2025.
None of the instructions that FDOE provided to nonpublic schools indicated that it
would inventory or track these schools’ use of supplies purchased with EANS funds with
a per unit cost under $5,000. Additionally, FDOE did not provide us with policies or
procedures indicating that it had or has any plans to inventory or track nonpublic
schools’ use of supplies purchased with EANS funds with a unit cost under $5,000.
Under some program statutes, a public agency (usually the subgrantee) must keep title
to and exercise continuing administrative control of all equipment and supplies that the
subgrantee acquires with program funds (34 C.F.R. section 76.661(a)). These equipment
27
The inventory tag states that the equipment is owned by FDOE.
28
For schools that are non-responsive or whose inventory the contractor is unable to reconcile, FDOE
requires the contractor to compile and provide them with a spreadsheet listing the schools, along with a
call and email log showing the correspondence between the school and the contractor.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 23
and supplies may be temporarily placed in a private (for example, nonpublic) school if
used for a project and removed when no longer needed.
According to 2 C.F.R. section 200.1, “supplies” refers to all tangible personal property
other than equipment and could refer to a computing device if the cost is less than the
lesser of the cost valued on the non-Federal entity’s financial statement or $5,000,
regardless of the length of its useful life.
According to section E-1 of the Department’s September 2021 EANS FAQ guidance
document, to maintain control of EANS funds, an SEA must maintain records of the
equipment and supplies it has provided to each nonpublic school. To maintain control
over the EANS funds it uses to reimburse a nonpublic school, an SEA must ensure that
the SEA or another public agency gains title to materials, equipment, and property for
which it provides reimbursement.
Further, in a January 2023 Addendum to the EANS FAQ guidance document, 29 the
Department stated that an SEA must maintain an inventory of all supplies placed in a
nonpublic school and should implement periodic checks on the use of the supplies to
determine whether the supplies are still in use and being used for allowable purposes.
Periodic checks could include emails and surveys to collect needed information.
When we asked FDOE why it did not have a process to inventory or track items that
were purchased with a per unit cost under $5,000, IEPC’s current executive director
provided a written response stating that FDOE developed the contract to inventory
equipment following guidance in 2 C.F.R. section 200.313 and definitions in section
200.1. Therefore, FDOE believes that it is in compliance with section 312(d)(7) of
CRRSA. 30 FDOE also stated that it maintains a record of every item that it approved for
purchase, and that applicants were required to acknowledge in their applications that
FDOE would assume ownership and title to all materials, equipment, and property
purchased using EANS funds, including reimbursements.
Further, FDOE asserted that the Department’s EANS FAQ guidance document is
nonbinding to the extent that it adds a requirement (e.g., requiring an inventory),
especially where the guidance conflicts with the express language of existing
29
FAQ, Disposition of Equipment and Supplies, EANS Program (January 23, 2023).
30
This section requires that control of funds for the services or assistance provided to a nonpublic
school, and title to materials, equipment, and property purchased with EANS funds, must be in a public
agency, and that a public agency must administer the funds, services, assistance, materials, equipment,
and property.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 24
regulations. The Department’s guidance describes how SEAs might maintain
administrative control of both equipment and supplies that continue to be used in a
nonpublic school after the EANS performance period ends; however, it is equally
relevant during the performance period. FDOE is responsible for administering the EANS
programs in accordance with all applicable requirements. This extends to understanding
if and how items purchased with EANS program funds are being used in nonpublic
schools. Without a process for tracking and periodically checking on the use of EANS-
funded supply purchases with a unit cost under $5,000, there is an increased risk of
supplies being lost, unused, or used for unallowable purposes.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education require FDOE, in consultation with the Governor of Florida, to—
3.1 Formally document its expenditure review and approval procedures to guide
FDOE personnel through the expenditure review and approval processes. The
procedures should be designed to ensure compliance with applicable
requirements, including those pertaining to EANS in both CRRSA and ARP EANS
as well as the regulations at 2 C.F.R. Part 200 (Uniform Guidance).
3.2 Retroactively obtain prior written approval from the Department for the
5 equipment expenditures or return the $187,660 expended for those
equipment purchases and perform a review of the remaining equipment
expenditures to determine whether there are additional purchases that require
prior written approval. FDOE should also incorporate into its grants
management policies and procedures a step to determine whether it is required
to obtain prior approval from the Department for certain expenditures related
to any Department grants, or whether it can provide prior approval for
subrecipients.
3.3 Develop a process to track and periodically check on the use of EANS-funded
supply purchases with a unit cost under $5,000 to ensure that all supplies are
accounted for and used for allowable purposes.
FDOE’s Response
FDOE did not state whether it agreed or disagreed with Finding 3 and the related
recommendations. However, FDOE stated the corrective actions that it is taking or plans
to take to address the recommendations. Regarding Recommendation 3.1, FDOE stated
that it is developing procedures to guide personnel through the expenditure review and
approval process and will utilize these procedures in the remaining weeks of ARP EANS.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 25
Regarding Recommendation 3.2, FDOE stated that it will work with the Department’s
Office of State and Grantee Relations to comply with applicable statute and rule.
Regarding Recommendation 3.3, FDOE stated that it will work with the Department’s
Office of State and Grantee Relations to comply with applicable statute and rule. FDOE
also stated that the Department’s guidance relating to inventorying and performing
periodic checks on the use of supplies purchased using EANS funds is non-binding and
cannot be the basis for a finding.
OIG’s Response
FDOE’s proposed corrective action to address Recommendation 3.1 is responsive to the
recommendation if the procedures it is developing are designed to ensure compliance
with applicable requirements, including those pertaining to EANS as well as the
regulations at 2 C.F.R. Part 200.
FDOE’s proposed corrective action to address Recommendation 3.2 is partially
responsive to the recommendation if it includes working with the Department to
retroactively obtain prior written approval for the five equipment expenditures or
returning the $187,660 expended for those equipment purchases and reviewing the
remaining equipment expenditures to determine whether prior approval is warranted.
FDOE did not state a corrective action relating to the inclusion of steps into its grants
management policies and procedures that addresses prior approvals for certain
expenditures involving Department grant funds.
FDOE’s proposed corrective action to address Recommendation 3.3 is responsive to the
recommendation if the process it develops is designed to ensure EANS-funded supply
purchases with a unit cost under $5,000 are accounted for and used for allowable
purposes.
We agree with FDOE’s statement that the Department’s guidance relating to
inventorying and periodically checking supplies purchased using EANS funds is non-
binding; however, as noted in the report, the finding is based on Federal regulation and
internal control standards. The Department provides guidance to assist grantees with
interpretating the law and it was used in the finding to clarify the requirements. As
stated in the finding, 34 C.F.R. section 76.661(a) states that, “Under some program
statutes, a public agency (usually the subgrantee) must keep title to and exercise
continuing administrative control of all equipment and supplies that the subgrantee
acquires with program funds. These equipment and supplies may be temporarily placed
in a private (for example, nonpublic) school if used for a project and removed when no
longer needed.” The ARP EANS program is applicable to such statute. In addition, 2
C.F.R. section 200.314 states that if there is a residual inventory of unused supplies
exceeding $5,000 in total aggregate value upon termination or completion of the
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 26
project or program and the supplies are not needed for any other Federal award, the
non-Federal entity must retain the supplies for use on other activities or sell them. If
FDOE does not keep an inventory of all EANS-funded supply purchases with a unit cost
under $5,000, it does not have public control of the funds and cannot determine the
aggregate value of the supplies purchased with EANS funds when the EANS programs
have ended.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 27
Appendix A. Scope and Methodology
Our audit covered FDOE’s processes for reviewing and approving nonpublic schools’
applications and overseeing nonpublic schools’ use of EANS funds for the period
March 13, 2020, through June 30, 2023.
To achieve our objectives, we reviewed and gained an understanding of the following
laws, regulations, and guidance relevant to CRRSA and ARP EANS:
• CRRSA (P.L. 116-260, December 27, 2020), section 312 (“Governor’s Emergency
Education Relief Fund”);
• ARP (P.L. 117-2, March 11, 2021), section 2002, (“Emergency Assistance to Non-
Public Schools”);
• Department guidance, including the Certification and Agreement for Funding
EANS Program under CRRSA; ARP EANS Webinar (February 24, 2022); FAQ,
EANS Program as authorized by CRRSA and ARP (Updated September 17, 2021);
Addendum to FAQ, EANS Program as authorized by CRRSA and ARP (January 23,
2023): FAQ, Disposition of Equipment and Supplies, EANS Program (January 23,
2023); the Department’s EANS Monitoring Protocol; Final Requirements for ARP
EANS Federal Register Vol. 86, No. 131 (July 13, 2021); and the Department’s
letter to States on ARP EANS and the Use of Proportionality to Determine
Nonpublic School Eligibility (July 29, 2022);
• Florida’s Grant Award Notification for the CRRSA and ARP EANS programs;
• GAO’s Standards for Control in the Federal Government (September 2014);
• 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and
Audit Requirements for Federal Awards; and
• 34 C.F.R. Part 76, State Administered Programs.
We gained an understanding of FDOE’s application and oversight processes through
interviews with key FDOE and contractor officials who had knowledge of or were
responsible for establishing, administering, or overseeing the CRRSA and ARP EANS
programs. To assess the reliability of the testimonial evidence, we compared
information obtained from interviews with records related to FDOE’s application and
oversight activities when provided by the interviewees. We concluded that the
testimonial evidence we obtained was sufficiently reliable within the context of our
audit objectives.
We assessed the adequacy of FDOE’s application and nonpublic school eligibility
determination processes by (1) reviewing the applications that FDOE developed for the
CRRSA and ARP EANS programs to determine whether they contained data fields that
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 28
would allow FDOE to properly assess a school’s eligibility and prioritize schools as
required by law, (2) assessing the timeliness of FDOE’s dissemination of EANS program
information and related applications, and (3) testing a sample of nonpublic schools’
applications to determine whether FDOE properly determined the schools’ eligibility.
We also gained an understanding and assessed the adequacy of FDOE’s oversight
processes through reviews of relevant documents and records. We reviewed documents
identifying FDOE’s offices and staff who had a role in establishing, administering, or
overseeing the CRRSA and ARP EANS programs. We reviewed and evaluated the
guidance and technical assistance (such as FDOE’s FAQ document, webinars, and emails)
that FDOE provided to nonpublic schools regarding use of CRRSA and ARP EANS funds.
We also reviewed the informal procedure documents developed by reviewers to further
our understanding of how FDOE reviewed and approved EANS payment requests for
services and assistance.
We assessed the implementation of FDOE’s oversight processes by testing samples of
CRRSA and ARP EANS expenditures to determine whether they complied with applicable
requirements. Specifically, we reviewed each expenditure to determine whether it was
(a) connected to the pandemic, (b) authorized under applicable law and regulations,
(c) reasonable and necessary in accordance with the Uniform Guidance, and
(d) sufficiently supported. We also determined whether purchased equipment and
supplies in the samples were properly approved and inventoried, if applicable.
Lastly, we reviewed Florida’s drawdowns from the Department’s G5 grants
management system to determine whether Florida complied with cash management
requirements.
Sampling Methodology
To determine whether FDOE designed and implemented application processes that
adequately assessed nonpublic schools’ eligibility for EANS-funded services or assistance
and complied with other applicable requirements, we selected nonstatistical, random
samples of applications for both CRRSA and ARP EANS—a total of 10 approved
applications and 10 rejected applications from the universe of 1,203 nonpublic schools
that applied for both programs. Specifically, we sampled 10 (2 percent) of the
579 nonpublic schools that applied to participate in the CRRSA EANS program. This
consisted of 5 (1 percent) of the 514 nonpublic schools that applied and were deemed
eligible and 5 (8 percent) of the 65 nonpublic schools that applied and had their
applications rejected. For ARP EANS, we sampled 10 (2 percent) of the 624 nonpublic
schools that applied. This consisted of 5 (1 percent) of the 490 nonpublic schools that
applied and were deemed eligible and 5 (4 percent) of the 134 nonpublic schools that
applied and had their applications rejected.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 29
To determine whether FDOE’s oversight processes ensured that EANS funds were used
for allowable purposes and that FDOE maintained public control of the assets acquired
with those funds, we selected nonstatistical, random samples of nonpublic schools’
expenditures of CRRSA and ARP EANS funds of $5,000 or more. We sampled a total of
60 (1 percent) of the 8,878 expenditures of $5,000 or more that were charged to both
EANS programs. For the CRRSA EANS program, we sampled 15 (1 percent) of the
1,564 expenditures that were reimbursement payments to nonpublic schools and
15 (< 1 percent) of the 4,377 expenditures that were direct payments to vendors. For
the ARP EANS program, we sampled 30 (1 percent) of the 2,937 expenditures that were
direct payments to vendors.
To determine whether FDOE complied with cash management requirements, we
selected a nonstatistical sample using a systematic sampling design of the weekly
invoices that the payment processing system vendor submitted to FDOE for both the
CRRSA and ARP EANS programs during our audit period. For both EANS programs, we
sampled the 3 weekly invoices that included the first, tenth, and twentieth orders of
products or services that pertain to the sample of 30 expenditures we had previously
selected to determine expenditure allowability. 31 For CRRSA EANS, the sample
represented 3 percent of the 110 weekly invoices that the vendor submitted for CRRSA
EANS expenditures during the audit period. 32 For ARP EANS, the sample represented
5 percent of the weekly invoices submitted for ARP EANS expenditures during the audit
period. 33
The results of our testing apply only to the samples selected and cannot be projected.
Internal Controls
We obtained an understanding of all five areas of internal control (control environment,
risk assessment, control activities, information and communication, and monitoring) as
they related to FDOE’s processes for ensuring that nonpublic schools were eligible and
used CRRSA and ARP EANS funds in accordance with applicable requirements. We
31
We judgmentally selected the intervals of selection with no known patterns in the invoices with these
intervals.
32
The 3 CRRSA EANS invoices represent $5,497,853 of the total $172,467,347 in expenditures included
on the 110 weekly invoices.
33
The 3 ARP EANS invoices represent $5,933,546 of the total $96,778,170 in expenditures included on
the 62 weekly invoices.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 30
limited our internal control work to the two areas we deemed significant to the audit
objective: information and communication and control activities.
Information and communication—identification of information requirements and
communication throughout the entity.
Control activities—design of appropriate types of control activities, design of control
activities at various levels, and documentation of responsibilities through policies.
As discussed in the findings, we concluded that FDOE’s application process (control
activities) for assessing nonpublic schools’ eligibility for CRRSA EANS-funded services
and assistance was adequate except for a lack of documented procedures (See
Finding 1), its ARP application process did not ensure that FDOE could use the
application data to adequately assess nonpublic schools’ eligibility (See Finding 2), and
its oversight processes for its expenditure review and inventory system need
strengthening (See Finding 3).
Use of Computer-Processed Data
We relied, in part, on computer-processed data (spreadsheets) provided by FDOE to
select and review the CRRSA and ARP EANS nonpublic school applications that we
sampled. Data provided by the applicants were summarized in spreadsheets. We
obtained these computer-processed application data and a copy of the electronic
applications. To assess the reliability and completeness of the data, we compared the
fields in the applications to the fields in the spreadsheets and found that the fields
matched, and that all fields contained in the applications were included in the
spreadsheets. 34 Some of the fields included were total student enrollment, the data
source used to determine the number of students from low-income families, and
whether the school indicated that it received a PPP loan prior to December 27, 2020.
Based on this assessment, we concluded that the data were sufficiently reliable for their
intended use.
We obtained the universes of expenditures for both CRRSA and ARP EANS for the audit
period. We used the universes to select samples of expenditures for detailed testing to
determine whether FDOE’s oversight processes ensured that EANS funds were used for
allowable purposes. To assess the completeness of the data, we compared total CRRSA
and ARP EANS expenditures to amounts drawn down by FDOE from the Department’s
G5 grants management system for the audit period. To assess the reliability of the
expenditure data, we traced the expenditures to supporting documentation, such as
invoices and reviewers’ notes for our sample of 60 expenditures (30 expenditures for
34
We performed these steps for the applications that we sampled.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 31
each EANS program). We did not identify any issues and concluded that the data were
sufficiently reliable for their intended use.
We also relied on computer-processed data (inventory listing) provided by FDOE to
determine whether FDOE maintained public control over EANS-funded assets. We
assessed the reliability and completeness of these data by comparing the expenditures
in our CRRSA and ARP EANS samples to the inventory listing. Based on this assessment,
we concluded that the data were sufficiently reliable for their intended use.
Finally, we relied, in part, on computer-processed data (weekly invoices) provided by
FDOE, and the Department’s G5 grants management system to determine whether
FDOE complied with cash management requirements. The G5 grants management
system is the official system of record for the Department's grants data. As a result, we
considered it to be the best available data for its intended purpose. To assess the
reliability of the data, we traced payment amounts from the weekly invoices to FDOE’s
drawdowns from the Department’s G5 grant management system during our audit
period. To assess the completeness of the data, we compared total CRRSA and ARP
EANS expenditures to amounts drawn down by FDOE from the Department’s G5 grants
EANS management system for the audit period. Based on this assessment, we
concluded that the computer-processed data were sufficiently reliable for their
intended use.
Compliance with Standards
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 objective.
We remotely conducted our audit from June 2023 through April 2024. We discussed the
results of our audit with FDOE officials on April 2, 2024.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 32
Appendix B. Allowable Uses of EANS Funds
According to section D-1 of the Department’s September 2021 EANS FAQ guidance
document, a nonpublic school may apply to receive services and assistance from the
SEA or its contractors to address educational disruptions resulting from the COVID-19
emergency. These services and assistance include:
1. Supplies to sanitize, disinfect, and clean school facilities.
2. Personal protective equipment (PPE).
3. Improving ventilation systems, including windows or portable air purification
systems.
4. Training and professional development for staff on sanitization, the use of PPE,
and minimizing the spread of infectious diseases.
5. Physical barriers to facilitate social distancing.
6. Other materials, supplies, or equipment recommended by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention for reopening and operation of school facilities
to effectively maintain health and safety.
7. Expanding capacity to administer coronavirus testing to effectively monitor and
suppress the virus.
8. Educational technology (including hardware, software, connectivity, assistive
technology, and adaptive equipment) to assist students, educators, and other
staff with remote or hybrid learning.
9. Redeveloping instructional plans, including curriculum development, for remote
or hybrid learning, or to address learning loss.
10. Leasing sites or spaces to ensure safe social distancing, including guidelines and
recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
11. Reasonable transportation costs.
12. Initiating and maintaining education and support services or assistance for
remote or hybrid learning or to address learning loss.
Under CRRSA EANS, but not ARP EANS, reimbursement is allowed for the expenses of
any services or assistance described above that a nonpublic school incurred on or after
March 13, 2020, except for:
• Improvements to ventilation systems (including windows), except for portable
air purification systems, which may be reimbursed.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 33
• Staff training and professional development on sanitization, the use of PPE, and
minimizing the spread of the COVID-19.
• Redeveloping instructional plans, including curriculum development, for remote
or hybrid learning or to address learning loss.
• Initiating and maintaining education and support services or assistance for
remote or hybrid learning or to address learning loss.
• Any expenses reimbursed through a loan guaranteed under the PPP
(15 U.S.C. 636(a)) prior to December 27, 2020.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 34
Appendix C. Acronyms and Abbreviations
ARP American Rescue Plan
C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations
COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease 2019
CRRSA The Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental
Appropriations Act
Department U.S. Department of Education
EANS Emergency Assistance to Nonpublic Schools
FAQ frequently asked questions
FDOE Florida Department of Education
GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office
IEPC Florida’s Office of Independent Education and Parental
Choice
LEA local educational agency
PPE personal protective equipment
PPP Paycheck Protection Program
SEA State educational agency
U.S.C. United States Code
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 35
FDOE’s Comments
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 36
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 37
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 38
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A23GA0135 39
File and source
- File
- florida-eans-administration-oversight.pdf
- Size
- 2,205,111 bytes
- SHA-256
- ffd51835d193e365cbdd12f9b84f99a6ffbfccdb5fea78c99caeadd0e4eeec50
- Original
- oig.ed.gov