Kentucky's Oversight of Local Educational Agency ARP ESSER Plans and Spending (ED-OIG/A22CA0095)
Summary
Final audit report Kentucky's Oversight of Local Educational Agency ARP ESSER Plans and Spending, Control Number ED-OIG/A22CA0095, issued October 12, 2023 by the U.S. Department of Education Office of Inspector General, Audit Services, in a letter to Commissioner of Education Dr. Jason E. Glass. The report states that Kentucky had adequate processes to ensure that LEA ARP ESSER plans met applicable requirements and approved the plan narratives for all 171 LEAs. It states that Kentucky's process for reviewing reimbursement requests should be documented and could be strengthened, and that at Warren County one expenditure of $9,200 for a golf cart was unallowable and equipment purchases totaling $149,882 lacked prior written approval. It makes recommendations to the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
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
- 2023-10-12
Cite this document
“Kentucky's Oversight of Local Educational Agency ARP ESSER Plans and Spending (ED-OIG/A22CA0095).”
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Inspector General, dated 2023-10-12. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/kentucky-arp-esser-oversight/
, SHA-256 b0a583428e3081b287bd4b474bc082200785460a0308943cc46fdd7b21d501c2.Full text
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
Kentucky’s Oversight of Local
Educational Agency ARP ESSER
Plans and Spending
October 12, 2023
ED-OIG/A22CA0095
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
October 12, 2023
Dr. Jason E. Glass
Commissioner of Education
Kentucky Department of Education
300 Sower Blvd., 5th Floor
Frankfort, KY 40601
Dear Commissioner Glass:
Enclosed is our final report, “Kentucky’s Oversight of Local Educational Agency ARP ESSER Plans and
Spending,” Control Number ED-OIG/A22CA0095. 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 audit:
Adam Schott
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Programs
Delegated the Authority to Perform the Functions and Duties of the Assistant Secretary
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20202
We appreciate your cooperation during this review. If you have any questions, please contact me at
(916) 213-7630 or Ben.Sanders@ed.gov.
Sincerely,
/s/
Ben C. Sanders
Regional Inspector General of Audit
Enclosure
400 MARYLAND AVENUE, S.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20202-1510
Promoting the efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity of the Department’s programs and operations.
Table of Contents
Results in Brief .................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 5
Finding 1. Kentucky Had Adequate Processes to Ensure That LEA ARP ESSER Plans Met
Applicable Requirements .................................................................................................. 12
Finding 2. Kentucky’s Process for Reviewing LEA ARP ESSER Reimbursement Requests
Should Be Documented and Could Be Strengthened in a Key Area ................................. 18
Appendix A. Scope and Methodology............................................................................... 30
Appendix B. Allowable Uses of ESSER Funds .................................................................... 36
Appendix C. Acronyms and Abbreviations........................................................................ 39
Kentucky Comments ......................................................................................................... 40
Results in Brief
What We Did
The objectives of the audit were to determine whether the Kentucky Department of
Education (Kentucky) had an adequate oversight process in place to ensure that (1) local
educational agencies’ (LEA) American Rescue Plan (ARP) Elementary and Secondary
School Emergency Relief (ESSER) plans met applicable requirements and (2) LEAs use
ARP ESSER funds in accordance with applicable requirements and their approved LEA
ARP ESSER plans. Our review covered Kentucky’s processes for reviewing and approving
LEA ARP ESSER plans and overseeing LEAs’ use of ARP ESSER funds from March 24, 2021,
through July 31, 2022.
For both objectives, we gained an understanding of Kentucky’s processes through
interviews with key Kentucky officials and reviews of relevant documents and records,
such as written procedures and guidance and technical assistance documents that
Kentucky provided to LEAs. For the first objective, we reviewed the summary results of
Kentucky’s review of LEA ARP ESSER plan narrative submissions to verify that Kentucky
approved the plan narratives for all 171 LEAs and gain an understanding of how often
and why plan reviewers did not approve plans. We also reviewed the ARP ESSER plans
for two LEAs, Warren County Public Schools (Warren County) and Jefferson County
Public Schools (Jefferson County), to determine whether the plans met applicable
requirements and verify that Kentucky was consistent in how it reviewed and approved
the two plans. For the second objective, we reviewed samples of ARP ESSER
expenditures at Warren County and Jefferson County to determine whether they used
ARP ESSER funds in accordance with applicable requirements and their approved LEA
ARP ESSER plans.
What We Found
Kentucky had adequate processes to ensure that LEA ARP ESSER plans met applicable
requirements (Finding 1). It communicated clear, accurate, and timely guidance and
technical assistance to LEAs regarding how and when to submit their ARP ESSER plans
and what to include in those plans. Kentucky reviewed and approved the ARP ESSER
plan narratives for all 171 LEAs. We determined that the ARP ESSER plans for Warren
County and Jefferson County met applicable requirements and that Kentucky was
consistent in how it reviewed and approved the two plans. Kentucky also designed a
process to annually review and approve updated LEA ARP ESSER plans that, if
implemented properly, is adequate to ensure that updated plans meet applicable
requirements.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 1
Kentucky’s process for reviewing LEA ARP ESSER reimbursement requests should be
documented and could be strengthened to provide additional assurance that LEAs use
ARP ESSER funds for allowable purposes (Finding 2). While Kentucky has been consistent
in how it oversees LEAs’ use of ARP ESSER funds, it does not request a listing of
expenditures or review any supporting documentation from LEAs as part of its review of
LEA reimbursement requests. Without supporting documentation to verify that the
expenditures are allowable and properly accounted for, there is an increased risk that
Kentucky will not identify or become aware of significant compliance issues involving
the ARP ESSER program. Additionally, Kentucky does not have written policies and
procedures to guide personnel through the reimbursement process. Without
documented processes for reviewing LEA reimbursement requests, Kentucky officials
might not fully understand what is expected of them or what they should be reviewing.
This could result in inconsistencies in how Kentucky personnel perform these reviews
and missed opportunities to identify unallowable or questionable expenditures that
should be analyzed more closely.
The ARP ESSER program was considered a higher risk program for 2022 according to
2 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) section 200.519(c)(2) and the Office of
Management and Budget’s 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Appendix XI, Compliance Supplement
(April 2022). The Pandemic Response Accountability Committee, located within the
Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, stated that the
unprecedented amount of money made available for pandemic relief and quick
distribution of most funds put the money at a higher risk for fraud. We reviewed a total
of 26 ARP ESSER expenditures for Warren County and Jefferson County (13 expenditures
for each LEA) and identified issues at Warren County. 1 For Warren County, we identified
one expenditure ($9,200 for a golf cart) that was unallowable because it did not meet
the overall purpose of the ARP ESSER program and four expenditures (equipment
purchases totaling $149,882) for which Warren County did not obtain prior written
approval from Kentucky, contrary to 2 C.F.R. section 200.439(b) and Kentucky policy.
Given the issues identified at Warren County and ARP ESSER’s designation as a higher
risk program, it is important for Kentucky to document and strengthen its processes for
overseeing LEA ARP ESSER expenditures.
As of the end of our fieldwork, Kentucky had designed but not yet started additional
monitoring of selected LEAs based on their overall risk (ARP ESSER monitoring). After
the exit conference, Kentucky provided us with written policies and procedures for its
ARP ESSER monitoring process. We reviewed those policies and procedures and
1
Jefferson County’s ARP ESSER expenditures were in accordance with applicable requirements
(allowable) and aligned with its approved plan.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 2
concluded that they were designed in a way that should enable Kentucky to identify and
select high-risk LEAs for review and detect instances of noncompliance during
monitoring reviews.
What We Recommend
We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education require Kentucky to—
• Design and document procedures to guide Kentucky personnel through the LEA
reimbursement request process. The procedures should be in the form of
written policies and procedures or protocols, and designed to ensure
compliance with applicable requirements, including those covered in 2 C.F.R.
Part 200 (Uniform Guidance) and ARP.
• In order to address the heightened risk associated with ARP ESSER funds, design
and incorporate into its documented procedures for reviewing LEA
reimbursement requests, protocols to sample LEA expenditures charged to ARP
ESSER and review supporting documentation to ensure that applicable Federal,
State, and local requirements are met.
• Implement its ARP ESSER monitoring policies and procedures, as designed, to
provide additional assurance that LEAs use ARP ESSER funds in accordance with
applicable requirements and their approved ARP ESSER plans.
Kentucky’s Comments and Our Response
We provided a draft of this report to Kentucky for comment. We summarize Kentucky’s
comments at the end of Finding 2 and provide the full text of the comments at the end
of the report (Kentucky Comments).
Kentucky neither agreed nor disagreed with the findings and with recommendation 2.2.
Kentucky agreed with recommendation 2.1, but requested that the recommendation be
removed or amended to reflect the actions it has already taken to address the
recommendation. Kentucky disagreed with the phrasing of recommendation 2.3 and
proposed alternative phrasing to clarify that its monitoring work is underway. Kentucky
described the actions it has taken or plans to take in response to recommendations 2.1,
2.2, and 2.3. Kentucky’s described actions were partially responsive to
recommendations 2.1 and 2.2. To address recommendation 2.1, Kentucky developed
and provided us with its written policies and procedures for the Federal Cash Request
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 3
review process. 2 Kentucky’s development of those written policies and procedures is
partially responsive to recommendation 2.1. However, the policies and procedures did
not include steps for Kentucky personnel to sample LEA expenditures charged to the
ARP ESSER grant and review supporting documentation to ensure that applicable
Federal, State, and local requirements are met, as discussed in recommendation 2.2. To
address recommendation 2.2, Kentucky stated that it will work with the Department to
enhance its ARP ESSER reimbursement request review process by determining an
appropriate increased level of review and adding steps to the reimbursement request
review process. This is a good first step and if sampling LEA ARP ESSER expenditures and
reviewing supporting documentation become part of Kentucky’s increased level of
review, Kentucky’s proposed actions are responsive to our recommendation.
Kentucky disagreed with the phrasing of recommendation 2.3, stating that it has already
begun implementing its ARP ESSER monitoring process. Kentucky noted that it began
preparing for the ARP ESSER monitoring cycle in spring 2023, its monitoring formally
started in June 2023, and its first monitoring site visits will occur in September 2023. We
disagree with Kentucky’s implication that the phrasing of recommendation 2.3 does not
adequately acknowledge that some activities were already underway because we
include in the report much of what Kentucky provided in its response. For example, in
Finding 2, we note that Kentucky planned to start its ARP ESSER monitoring in June 2023
and that towards the end of our fieldwork, Kentucky had performed a risk assessment
to select LEAs for ARP ESSER monitoring. We did not make any changes to the report or
recommendations in response to Kentucky’s comments. However, we did make
clarifying edits to the report and recommendation 2.2 in response to technical
comments provided by the Department.
2
Kentucky also developed and provided us with its written policies and procedures for the
Comprehensive District Improvement Plan Expenditure Report review process. We discussed this
process in Finding 2 of the report but did not make any recommendations regarding the process.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 4
Introduction
Background
On March 13, 2020, the President declared a national emergency due to the coronavirus
pandemic. In response, Congress passed three coronavirus relief acts within a 1-year
period that provided more than $275 billion for an Education Stabilization Fund to
prevent, prepare for, and respond to the coronavirus, including $189.5 billion for the
Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER).
• The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), enacted on
March 27, 2020 (Public Law 116-136), provided about $13.2 billion for ESSER to
address the impact that the coronavirus had and continues to have on
elementary and secondary schools.
• The Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act
(CRRSAA), enacted on December 27, 2020 (Public Law 116-260), provided an
additional $54.3 billion for ESSER to help State educational agencies (SEA) and
local educational agencies (LEA) safely reopen schools, measure and effectively
address significant learning loss, and take other actions to mitigate the impact
of the coronavirus on the students and families who depend on elementary and
secondary schools.
• The American Rescue Plan Act (ARP), enacted on March 11, 2021 (Public Law
117-2), provided the remaining $122 billion for ESSER to help SEAs and LEAs
safely reopen and sustain the safe operation of schools and address the impact
of the coronavirus pandemic on students.
ARP ESSER
On March 24, 2021, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) awarded about
$81 billion in ARP ESSER funds to SEAs, about two-thirds of each SEA’s total allocation.
To receive the remaining funds, each SEA was required to submit a plan to the
Department’s Office of Elementary and Secondary Education for approval that described
how the SEA would use ARP ESSER funds to safely reopen schools, support sustained
access to in-person instruction, and address the academic, social, emotional, and mental
health needs of students. By December 2021, the Department had approved all SEA
plans and awarded the remaining $41 billion in ARP ESSER funds to SEAs. The Kentucky
SEA plan was submitted in June 2021 and approved by the Department in August 2021.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 5
State Educational Agency Reserve
Under ARP, SEAs were allowed to reserve up to 10 percent of their total ARP ESSER
allocation for use by the SEA. 3 Section 2001(f) of ARP required the SEA to set aside funds
for certain activities and interventions that respond to students’ academic, social, and
emotional needs and address the disproportionate impact of the coronavirus on student
subgroups, with Department guidance emphasizing that SEAs should focus their efforts
on underserved student subgroups in particular. Specifically, from its total ARP ESSER
allocation, the SEA was required to spend at least
• five percent for the implementation of evidence-based interventions aimed
specifically at addressing learning loss, such as summer learning or summer
enrichment, extended day, comprehensive afterschool programs, or extended
school year programs;
• one percent for evidence-based summer enrichment programs; and
• one percent for evidence-based comprehensive afterschool programs.
Additionally, an SEA could use up to one-half of 1 percent of its total ARP ESSER
allocation for administrative costs and up to 2.5 percent of its total ARP ESSER allocation
for emergency needs as determined by the State to address issues related to the
coronavirus pandemic.
Subgrants to Local Educational Agencies
Section 2001(d)(1) of ARP required SEAs to allocate at least 90 percent of their total ARP
ESSER allocation to LEAs in the State to help meet a wide range of needs arising from
the coronavirus pandemic, including reopening schools safely, sustaining their safe
operation, and addressing students’ social, emotional, mental health, and academic
needs resulting from the pandemic. SEAs were required to allocate ARP ESSER funds to
LEAs based on their respective shares of funds received under Title I, Part A of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) in fiscal year (FY) 2020.
Additionally, SEAs were required to allocate ARP ESSER funds to LEAs in an expedited
and timely manner and, to the extent practicable, no later than 60 days after receiving
their ARP ESSER funds.
Local Educational Agencies’ ARP ESSER Plans
The interim final requirements (IFR) for the ARP ESSER Fund, effective April 22, 2021,
require each LEA receiving ARP ESSER funds to develop and submit to the SEA a plan for
the LEA’s use of ARP ESSER funds. 4 The LEA must submit the plan in accordance with the
3
ARP sections 2001(d) and (f).
4
Federal Register, IFR for ARP ESSER, 86 FR 21198.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 6
procedures and deadline established by the SEA 5 and make the plan publicly available
on the LEA’s website. At minimum, the LEA ARP ESSER plan must describe
• the extent to which and how the funds will be used to implement prevention
and mitigation strategies that are, to the greatest extent practicable, consistent
with the most recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance
on reopening schools, in order to continuously and safely open and operate
schools for in-person learning;
• how the LEA will use the funds it reserves under section 2001(e)(1) of ARP to
address the academic impact of lost instructional time through the
implementation of evidence-based interventions, such as summer learning or
summer enrichment, extended day, comprehensive afterschool programs, or
extended school year;
• how the LEA will spend its remaining ARP ESSER funds consistent with
section 2001(e)(2) of ARP; and
• how the LEA will ensure that the interventions it implements, including but not
limited to the interventions implemented under section 2001(e)(1) of ARP to
address the academic impact of lost instructional time, will respond to the
academic, social, emotional, and mental health needs of all students, and
particularly those students is proportionately impacted by the coronavirus
pandemic, including students from low-income families, students of color,
English learners, children with disabilities, students experiencing homelessness,
children in foster care, and migratory students.
The IFR for ARP ESSER required an LEA to engage in meaningful consultation with
stakeholders when developing its plan. These stakeholders include but are not limited to
students, families, teachers, school and district administrators, and unions. An LEA was
also required to consult with the following stakeholders to the extent present in or
served by the LEA: tribes, civil rights organizations (including disability rights
organizations), and those representing the interests of children with disabilities, English
learners, children experiencing homelessness, children and youth in foster care,
migratory students, children who are incarcerated, and other underserved students.
Additionally, an LEA needed to provide the public with an opportunity to provide input
on the plan and consider that input as it developed the plan. Lastly, the IFR for ARP
ESSER required that LEA ARP ESSER plans be accessible, including to parents with limited
5
Per Federal Register, IFR for ARP ESSER, 86 FR 21199, the SEA must establish a deadline for an LEA to
submit its plan that is reasonable and should be no more than 90 days after receiving its ARP ESSER
allocation.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 7
English proficiency and individuals with a disability. The Kentucky Department of
Education required LEAs to submit their ARP ESSER plan by July 31, 2021. Beginning in
November 2022, it required LEAs to submit (at least annually) updated ARP ESSER plans
for its review and approval.
Local Educational Agencies’ Use of ARP ESSER Funds
Section 2001(e)(1) of ARP requires an LEA to reserve at least 20 percent of its ARP ESSER
allocation to address the academic impact of lost instructional time (learning loss)
through the implementation of evidence-based interventions—for example by providing
intensive or high-dosage tutoring or accelerating learning. LEAs must ensure that the
interventions respond to students’ academic, social, and emotional needs and address
the disproportionate impact of the coronavirus on underrepresented student
subgroups.
An LEA may use the other 80 percent of its ARP ESSER allocation for a broad range of
activities, including any activities allowed under the ESEA, Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century
Act, and the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act.
For example, an LEA may use ARP ESSER funds to
• implement coronavirus prevention strategies to safely reopen schools, maximize
in-person instruction, and align with public health guidance, including upgrading
school facilities for healthy learning environments;
• address the mental health needs of students, including by using funds to hire
counselors and other staff;
• provide integrated student support services, including by using full-service
community schools and assisting homeless children and youth in attending and
participating in school activities;
• connect elementary and secondary education students to high-quality home
internet and devices; and
• stabilize and diversify the educator workforce.
LEAs can also use ARP ESSER funds for any activity deemed allowable under section
18003(d) of the CARES Act and section 313(d) of CRRSAA. See Appendix B for a summary
of allowable uses of ESSER funds under the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARP.
Maintenance of Equity
Section 2004(b) and (c) of ARP includes new equity requirements, called maintenance of
equity (MOEquity), that are a condition for SEAs and LEAs receiving ARP ESSER funds.
MOEquity provisions help ensure that schools and LEAs serving large proportions of
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 8
historically underserved groups of students receive an equitable share of State and local
funds. MOEquity requirements ensure that in FYs 2022 and 2023 an SEA does not
disproportionately reduce per-pupil State funds to high-need LEAs or reduce per-pupil
State funding to the highest-poverty LEAs below their FY 2019 level, and that an LEA
does not disproportionately reduce State and local per-pupil funding in high-poverty
schools or disproportionately reduce the number of full-time-equivalent staff per pupil
in high-poverty schools. 6
According to the Department’s Frequently Asked Questions on ARP ESSER MOEquity
Requirements (July 26, 2022), MOEquity exceptions for LEAs may be granted by the SEA
or Department for various reasons, including those listed under section 2004(c)(2) of
ARP. Section 2004(c)(2) of ARP states that an LEA does not need to maintain equity if
the LEA meets one or more of the following:
1. Has a total enrollment of less than 1,000 students.
2. Operates a single school.
3. Serves all students within each grade span with a single school.
4. Demonstrates an exceptional or uncontrollable circumstance, such as
unpredictable changes in student enrollment or a precipitous decline in the
financial resources of the LEA as determined by the Department’s Secretary.
Additionally, the Department determined that timing and implementation challenges
due to the pandemic (specifically related to LEA budgeting) are examples of exceptional
or uncontrollable circumstances that justify a limited exception to the local MOEquity
requirements for FYs 2022 and 2023. An LEA experiencing these circumstances may
demonstrate that it is excepted from the requirements for a given year by certifying to
the SEA that it will not implement an aggregate reduction in combined State and local
per-pupil funding in that year. Per the final requirements for the ARP ESSER Fund,
effective June 8, 2022, 7 each State must publish the names of the LEAs that are
excepted under each exception category. Each State must determine the most
appropriate way to publish and list this information so that parents, families, and the
general public in the State will be able to access and understand the information.
6
Section 2004(d)(4)(A) of ARP defines a high-poverty school as a school that is in the highest quartile of
schools served by the LEA based on the percentage of economically disadvantaged students served.
7
Federal Register, Final Requirements for ARP ESSER Fund, 87 FR 34790.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 9
Kentucky Department of Education
The Kentucky Department of Education (Kentucky), which is led by an appointed
Commissioner of Education, is charged with overseeing public preschool–12 education
in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Kentucky’s Office of Continuous Improvement and
Support (OCIS) and Office of Finance and Operations (OFO) are responsible for the
administration and oversight of ARP ESSER subgrants to LEAs. The Commonwealth of
Kentucky has 171 LEAs 8 and 1,477 public schools that collectively serve about
648,000 students. As of July 31, 2022 (the end of our audit period), Kentucky had drawn
down about $418.8 million (21 percent) 9 of its $2 billion ARP ESSER allocation. As part of
the audit, we selected two Kentucky LEAs for review: Jefferson County Public Schools
and Warren County Public Schools.
Jefferson County Public Schools
Jefferson County Public Schools (Jefferson County), located in Louisville, Kentucky, is the
largest LEA in the State with 165 schools that serve about 96,000 students. Jefferson
County was allocated approximately $384 million in ARP ESSER funds. As of
July 31, 2022, Jefferson County had spent about $200.3 million (52 percent) of its
$384 million ARP ESSER allocation. Of the $200.3 million, Jefferson County spent about
$165 million (82 percent) to address learning loss and $35.3 million (18 percent) in other
areas. In its approved ARP ESSER plan, Jefferson County stated that it planned to use its
20 percent learning loss reserve, in part, for continuous and extended learning, student
learning centers, and mental health and special education support for students and the
remainder of its funds for workforce and leadership development and equitable access
to technology.
Warren County Public Schools
Warren County Public Schools (Warren County), located in Bowling Green, Kentucky, is
the fourth largest LEA in the State with 23 schools that serve about 18,000 students.
Warren County was allocated approximately $34.4 million in ARP ESSER funds. As of
July 31, 2022, Warren County had spent about $16.2 million (47 percent) of its
$34.4 million ARP ESSER allocation. Of the $16.2 million, Warren County spent about
$2.9 million (18 percent) to address learning loss and $13.3 million (82 percent) in other
areas. In its approved ARP ESSER plan, Warren County stated that it planned to use its
20 percent learning loss reserve, in part, for instructional coaches, the development of a
preschool academy, extended school services in the summer, and technology for virtual
8
Of the 171 LEAs, 120 are county school districts and 51 are independent districts, meaning they are
controlled by local municipalities.
9
In this report, we round all percentages to the nearest whole number.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 10
learning and the remainder of its funds for technology (such as hotspot devices and
audio and video equipment), mental health providers, and arts education (such as
music, band, and physical education).
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 11
Finding 1. Kentucky Had Adequate Processes to
Ensure That LEA ARP ESSER Plans Met
Applicable Requirements
Kentucky had adequate processes to ensure that LEA ARP ESSER plans met applicable
requirements. Kentucky communicated clear, accurate, and timely guidance and
technical assistance to LEAs regarding how and when to submit their ARP ESSER plans
and what to include in those plans. Its process for reviewing and approving plans was
rigorous and designed to ensure that the plans adequately addressed applicable
requirements. Kentucky used a checklist to guide its review and approval of LEA ARP
ESSER plans. The checklist adequately addressed all applicable plan requirements and
was used by Kentucky’s plan reviewers for all 171 LEAs. We found that Kentucky
approved an LEA ARP ESSER plan narrative for all 171 LEAs. We reviewed the ARP ESSER
plans and related plan approval documents for two LEAs (Warren County and Jefferson
County) and determined that both plans met applicable requirements and that Kentucky
was consistent in how it reviewed and approved the two plans. Both LEAs submitted
their ARP ESSER plans timely, properly posted the plans on their websites, and included
all required information in the plans. Kentucky designed a process to annually review
and approve updated LEA ARP ESSER plans that, if implemented properly, is adequate to
ensure that updated plans meet applicable requirements.
Technical Assistance, Guidance, and Training Provided to LEAs
Kentucky provided technical assistance and guidance to LEAs, in part, through
dissemination of Frequently Asked Questions documents (prepared by the Department),
its website, weekly newsletters, and webcasts. The technical assistance and guidance
provided to LEAs covered various topics, including ARP ESSER plan narrative
requirements, plan submission instructions and deadlines, meaningful consultation
under ARP ESSER, and spending plan budget and signed assurances form submission
requirements. Kentucky also provided resources and training to LEAs on relevant topics
such as the ARP ESSER awarding process, LEA ARP ESSER plans, and evidence-based
practices. Kentucky provided a large portion of this technical assistance, guidance, and
training to LEAs in April, May, and June 2021, which was 1 to 3 months before LEAs were
required to submit their ARP ESSER plans (July 31, 2021). We determined that Kentucky
communicated clear, accurate, and timely guidance and technical assistance to LEAs
regarding how to develop and submit their LEA ARP ESSER plans and what to include in
those plans.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 12
Kentucky’s Review and Approval of LEA ARP ESSER Plans
In accordance with the IFR for ARP ESSER, 10 Kentucky established a deadline for LEAs to
submit their ARP ESSER plan (July 31, 2021) that was reasonable. The deadline was also
no more than 90 days after LEAs received their ARP ESSER allocation, which followed
guidance that the Department provided in its IFR and State plan template. Kentucky
required LEAs to submit, within 32 days of receiving their ARP ESSER allocation,
narratives for how the LEAs planned to spend their ARP ESSER funds. 11 LEAs were also
required to submit a spending plan budget and assurances form 12 for review. Kentucky’s
OCIS was responsible for reviewing and approving the LEA ARP ESSER plan narratives
and its OFO was responsible for reviewing the LEA spending plan budgets and
assurances forms in Kentucky’s Grant Management Application and Planning (GMAP)
system. 13 Kentucky’s process for reviewing and approving plans is summarized in Figure
1 and further described in the sections that follow.
Figure 1. Summary of Kentucky’s Processes for Reviewing and Approving Plans
OCIS Review of LEA Plan Narratives
The OCIS Policy Advisor and 10 OCIS Title I consultants (collectively, plan reviewers)
reviewed the LEA ARP ESSER plan narratives to ensure that they included required
information in key areas and otherwise met all applicable requirements, and
10
Federal Register, IFR for ARP ESSER, 86 FR 21199.
11
Kentucky notified LEAs of their ARP ESSER allocations on June 29, 2021, via LEA Award Notification
letters.
12
The ARP ESSER Assurances form lists the required actions an LEA must implement throughout the life
of the ARP ESSER grant. It also includes a statement that the LEA assures that it will use ARP ESSER funds
for activities allowable under section 2001(e) of ARP and will reserve at least 20 percent to address
learning loss.
13
GMAP is a web-based system that Kentucky uses to manage its grants.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 13
summarized the results of their reviews. 14 We reviewed the summary results to verify
that Kentucky approved an ARP ESSER plan for all 171 LEAs and to assess the rigor of
Kentucky’s review and approval process, including how often and why it did not approve
plans. We determined that Kentucky approved an ARP ESSER plan for all 171 LEAs. We
concluded that Kentucky’s review and approval process was of sufficient rigor based on
the high number of reviews performed, the various reasons for not initially approving
plan narratives, and the overall scrutiny that plan reviewers applied for each
requirement. Kentucky performed a total of 357 reviews for the 171 LEAs, an average of
more than 2 reviews per LEA. Only 24 (14 percent) of 171 LEAs had their plan narratives
approved by Kentucky on the first review. One LEA had its plan narrative reviewed five
times before Kentucky approved it, further demonstrating the rigor of Kentucky’s review
and approval process.
The OCIS plan reviewers used a checklist, comprised of yes or no questions for each
applicable requirement, to guide their reviews. The plan reviewers checked yes if the
narrative met a requirement or no if the narrative did not meet a requirement. If there
was a no response for any question on the checklist, the plan reviewer returned the plan
to the LEA and provided detailed feedback on what needed to be corrected or added.
The LEA then refined its narrative until the plan reviewer was satisfied that it met all
applicable requirements. During their reviews, the plan reviewers were primarily
focused on verifying that the LEA ARP ESSER plan narratives included sufficient
information in the following six areas, as required by the IFR for ARP ESSER, 15 Kentucky,
or both:
1. The extent to which and how the funds will be used to implement prevention
and mitigation strategies that are, to the greatest extent practicable, in line with
the most recent CDC guidance, in order to continuously and safely operate
schools for in-person learning.
2. How the LEA will use the funds it reserves under section 2001(e)(1) of ARP to
address the academic impact of lost instructional time through the
implementation of evidence-based interventions (20 percent learning loss).
3. How the LEA will ensure that the interventions it implements, including but not
limited to the interventions under section 2001(e)(1) of ARP to address the
14
The OCIS Policy Advisor trained the Title I consultants on how to review and approve the LEA plan
narratives. The training included an overview of Kentucky’s review and approval process for LEA ARP
ESSER plans, plan narrative requirements, evidence-based practices, and meaningful consultation.
15
Federal Register, IFR for ARP ESSER, 86 FR 21198-21199.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 14
academic impact of lost instructional time, will respond to the academic, social,
emotional, and mental health needs of all students.
4. Relevant citations for evidence-based practices.
5. How the LEA will engage in meaningful consultation and seek public input as it
develops the LEA ARP ESSER plan.
6. How the LEA will spend its remaining ARP ESSER funds consistent with
section 2001(e)(2) of ARP.
Reasons why Kentucky did not approve LEA plan narratives included, but were not
limited to, missing or incomplete information regarding how the LEA would use funds
reserved for learning loss, how the LEA conducted meaningful consultation and
incorporated stakeholder feedback when developing its plan, and relevant evidence-
based citations. The most common reason why Kentucky did not approve LEA ARP
ESSER plan narratives on the first review was missing or incomplete information
regarding meaningful consultation and stakeholder feedback. In fact, 141 (82 percent)
of the 171 LEAs did not provide adequate information in this area the first time they
submitted their plan narrative. The vast majority (111, or 79 percent) of these LEAs
provided sufficient information in their narratives to meet this requirement on the next
submission. The remaining 30 LEAs (21 percent) had to submit their plan narratives up
to 3 more times before Kentucky approved them.
Warren County and Jefferson County ARP ESSER Plans
We reviewed the ARP ESSER plans and related plan approval documents for Warren
County and Jefferson County and determined that both plans met applicable
requirements. Both LEAs submitted their ARP ESSER plans timely, properly posted the
plans on their websites, and included all required information in the plans. Kentucky
was consistent in how it reviewed and approved the plans for both LEAs and both plans
were approved on the first review.
During our review of Warren County, we noticed that although its website included
accessibility options for the visually impaired and for converting content in multiple
languages, the website did not provide LEA contact information for parents with limited
English proficiency or individuals with disabilities who might need additional
assistance. 16 We shared this information with Warren County officials and they took
corrective action by adding accessibility contact information to the Warren County
website. We found that the updated Warren County website was sufficient to meet the
16
Per Federal Register, IFR for ARP ESSER, 86 FR 21199, LEA ARP ESSER plans must be accessible,
including to parents with limited English proficiency and individuals with a disability.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 15
LEA ARP ESSER plan accessibility requirement and determined that no additional actions
were required.
OFO Review of LEA Spending Plan Budgets and Assurances
After the OCIS plan reviewers approved the plan narratives, they notified (by email) the
LEAs of the approval and required the LEAs to upload their ARP ESSER spending plan
budget and sign their ARP ESSER Assurances form in GMAP. Kentucky required LEA
superintendents to electronically sign the ARP ESSER Assurances form in GMAP. By
signing the assurances form, the LEAs promised to comply with applicable Federal
requirements while administering ARP ESSER funds. Kentucky’s OFO personnel then
accessed GMAP and verified that the LEAs had uploaded their spending plan budgets
and that the assurances forms had been signed by the superintendents. Once OFO
personnel verified that these two actions had been completed in GMAP, the LEA could
submit a request to Kentucky for ARP ESSER funds (reimbursement funding method).
The spending plan budget is a form in GMAP with fields for cost accounting codes and
descriptions, budgeted amounts, and expenditure narratives. The form also includes a
specific section for the LEA to input the same information for the 20 percent of ARP
ESSER funds reserved for learning loss. GMAP has controls to ensure that LEAs correctly
upload their spending plan budgets and that basic requirements are met, which include
having preloaded budget categories that align with approved ARP ESSER cost accounting
codes and a designated section to account for the 20 percent of funds reserved for
learning loss.
OCIS Review of Updated LEA ARP ESSER Plans
In November 2022, Kentucky began requiring its LEAs to submit in GMAP their updated
ARP ESSER plan narratives and spending plans, which would be reviewed and approved
by the OCIS plan reviewers. 17 LEAs are required to include a functioning website link to
their updated ARP ESSER plans. In their updated spending plan budgets, LEAs are
required to identify all items with a unit cost of $5,000 or more. According to the OCIS
Associate Commissioner, this new requirement was incorporated to streamline the
process for LEAs to obtain the required approval from Kentucky for items with a unit
cost of $5,000 or more. 18 The OCIS plan reviewers will use a checklist (ARP ESSER
Consultant Checklist) maintained in GMAP to guide their reviews, provide technical
assistance and feedback to LEAs as needed, and verify that
17
Kentucky also required its LEAs to submit an updated Safe Return to In-Person Instruction plan. For
this audit, we limited our review to LEAs’ use of funds plans and related spending plan budgets.
18
Kentucky previously required LEAs to obtain approval via email for these items.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 16
• the LEA provides a functioning link to its ARP ESSER plan;
• the ARP ESSER plan narrative aligns with the spending plan budget narrative;
• the spending plan budget items are reasonable, allocable, necessary, and
substantially align to the types of activities reported in the ARP ESSER plan
narrative and Provision of Services page; 19 and
• the spending plan budget allocates at least 20 percent of the ARP ESSER funds
for learning loss activities.
If not initially approved, the LEA will need to refine its updated documents until the plan
reviewer is satisfied that all applicable requirements have been met. While updated
information can be provided and reviewed at any time, the OCIS Associate
Commissioner told us that Kentucky would annually perform this review for all 171 LEAs
for the duration of the ARP ESSER grant. We reviewed the design of Kentucky’s process
for annually reviewing and approving updated ARP ESSER plan information. We
concluded that the process, if implemented properly, is adequate to ensure that
updated LEA ARP ESSER plans meet applicable requirements.
A non-Federal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the
Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that it is managing the 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 the
U.S. Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) Standards for Internal Control in the
Federal Government (September 2014) or the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations
of the Treadway Commission’s Internal Control Integrated Framework. One component
of internal control is control activities. Section 10.01 of GAO’s Standards for Internal
Control in the Federal Government states that management should design control
activities to achieve objectives and respond to risks.
The Provision of Services page is a form in GMAP that the LEA uses to describe how it plans to spend
19
ARP ESSER grant funds.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 17
Finding 2. Kentucky’s Process for Reviewing LEA
ARP ESSER Reimbursement Requests Should
Be Documented and Could Be Strengthened in
a Key Area
Kentucky’s process for reviewing LEA ARP ESSER reimbursement requests should be
documented and could be strengthened in a key area to provide additional assurance
that LEAs use ARP ESSER grant funds for allowable purposes. Kentucky monitored LEAs’
use of ARP ESSER funds, in part, by reimbursing LEAs after verifying that their
reimbursement request aligned with the approved budget and did not exceed the
amount awarded (reimbursement process) and reviewing expenditure reports for all
LEAs each quarter to verify that expenditures were assigned to an allowable code and
did not exceed budgeted amounts (quarterly review process). While Kentucky has been
consistent in how it oversees LEAs’ use of ARP ESSER funds, it does not request or
review any supporting documentation (such as contracts, receipts, and invoices) from
LEAs as part of its review of LEA reimbursement requests. Kentucky also does not have
written policies and procedures to guide personnel through the reimbursement process.
We reviewed a total of 26 ARP ESSER expenditures for Warren County and Jefferson
County (13 expenditures for each LEA) and identified issues at Warren County. For
Warren County, we identified one expenditure ($9,200 for a golf cart) that was
unallowable because it did not meet the overall purpose of the ARP ESSER program
and four expenditures (equipment purchases totaling $149,882) for which Warren
County did not obtain prior written approval from Kentucky, contrary to 2 C.F.R.
section 200.439(b) and Kentucky policy.
As of the end of our fieldwork, Kentucky had designed but not yet started additional
monitoring of selected LEAs based on their overall risk (ARP ESSER monitoring). After
the exit conference, Kentucky provided us with written policies and procedures for its
ARP ESSER monitoring process. We reviewed Kentucky’s ARP ESSER monitoring policies
and procedures and concluded that they were designed in a way that should enable
Kentucky to identify and select high-risk LEAs for review and detect instances of
noncompliance during those reviews.
Kentucky’s Oversight of LEA MOEquity Requirements.
Kentucky published on its website the names of the LEAs receiving an ARP ESSER
MOEquity exception and the reasons for those exceptions, in accordance with the final
requirements for the ARP ESSER Fund. 20 All 171 LEAs requested and received an ARP
20
Federal Register, Final Requirements for ARP ESSER Fund, 87 FR 34790.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 18
ESSER MOEquity exception for FY 2022. 21 For an LEA seeking a MOEquity exception for
an exceptional or uncontrollable circumstance, and where there was no aggregate
reduction in State and local per-pupil funding, Kentucky required the LEA’s
superintendent to submit a signed LEA Certification of Exception from Local
Maintenance of Equity Requirements form in Kentucky’s GMAP. All other LEAs were
required to email their MOEquity exception requests to the Kentucky’s Assistant
Director, Division of District Support for verification or request a special exception from
the Department. Warren County and Jefferson County requested an ARP ESSER
MOEquity exception for an exceptional or uncontrollable circumstance with no
aggregate reduction in State and local per-pupil funding and their superintendents
signed the required certification in GMAP. We concluded that both LEAs provided the
required documentation and certification to support their exemption.
Technical Assistance, Guidance, and Training Provided to LEAs
Kentucky provided technical assistance and guidance to LEAs, in part, through
dissemination of Frequently Asked Questions documents (prepared by the Department),
its website, weekly newsletters, and webcasts. The technical assistance and guidance
provided to LEAs covered various topics, including allowable uses of ARP ESSER funds
and the ARP ESSER MOEquity requirements. Kentucky provided a large portion of this
technical assistance and guidance to LEAs before LEAs could access their ARP ESSER
funds. We determined that Kentucky communicated clear, accurate, and timely
guidance and technical assistance to LEAs regarding allowable uses of ARP ESSER funds
and the applicable MOEquity requirements.
Kentucky’s Processes for Monitoring LEAs’ Use of ARP ESSER
Funds
Kentucky monitored LEAs’ use of ARP ESSER funds through its reimbursement and
quarterly review processes. As of the end of our fieldwork, Kentucky had designed but
not yet started its ARP ESSER monitoring. These processes are described in the next
three sections, respectively. Figure 2 provides an overview of Kentucky’s review of LEA
ARP ESSER reimbursement requests.
21
Of the 171 LEAs that received an exception to MOEquity requirements, 118 LEAs cited that they
experienced an exceptional or uncontrollable circumstance with no aggregate reduction, 30 LEAs cited
that they have a total enrollment of less than 1,000 students, 22 LEAs cited that they serve all students
within a single school per grade span, and 1 LEA was granted an exception from the Department for
exceptional circumstances.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 19
Reimbursement Process
Kentucky reimburses LEAs for their ARP ESSER expenditures in the same way it
reimburses LEAs for their other Federal grant expenditures. Kentucky requires an LEA to
submit a Federal Cash Request (FCR) form to be reimbursed for its ARP ESSER
expenditures. The LEA is required to enter the following amounts on the FCR form:
approved budget, total expenditures to date, and previous cash received. The total
expenditures to date amount is an aggregate and thus not broken down by object or
category code. Once the LEA enters that data, the current reimbursement request
amount (expenditures to date less previous cash received) and remaining grant balance
(approved grant balance less expenditures to date and current reimbursement request)
are automatically calculated on the FCR form. LEAs then email their completed FCR
forms to Kentucky’s OFO. 22
A Federal program specialist and budget analyst within OFO’s Accounting and Finance
Branch are responsible for reviewing and approving, respectively, the LEA ARP ESSER
reimbursement requests. The specialist determines whether the LEA has excess cash by
comparing the previous cash received amount on the FCR form with related expenditure
information in an FCR Expenditure Report generated from Kentucky’s Enhanced
Management Administrative and Reporting System (eMARS). Next, the specialist verifies
that the LEA's required assurances documents (FCR Statement of Assurances and
District Funding Assurances) are signed and approved by authorized officials in GMAP. 23
The specialist also verifies that the person requesting reimbursement on the LEA's
behalf is listed on the FCR Statement of Assurances. If the assurances documents are
not signed or the person submitting the reimbursement request is not authorized to do
so, the specialist emails the LEA and instructs it to address the issue. The specialist then
enters the FCR form payment information in eMARS, generates a general accounting
expense document, and attaches the FCR form to the general accounting expense
document. When notified by the specialist that the FCR form is ready for final review
and approval, the budget analyst verifies that the FCR form is attached to the general
accounting expense document and checks for any data entry errors that may have
occurred when the Federal program specialist entered data from the FCR form into
22
LEAs send their FCR forms to a Kentucky email account that can be accessed by a Federal program
specialist within OFO.
23
Kentucky requires an LEA's superintendent or designee to sign the FCR Statement of Assurances
document, which certifies that the information on the FCR form is accurate, properly reviewed, and
submitted in accordance with State and Federal regulations. The District Funding Assurances document
requires the LEA superintendent to assure that all school districts are in compliance with applicable
assurances and that the assurances have been approved by the LEA’s Board of Education.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 20
eMARS. If there are no errors, the budget analyst approves payment to the LEA. Figure 2
provides an overview of Kentucky’s review of LEA ARP ESSER reimbursement requests.
Figure 2. Kentucky’s Review of LEA ARP ESSER Reimbursement Requests
Kentucky incorporated useful controls into its reimbursement process, including
verifying that key information on the FCR form was correct, LEA assurances documents
were properly submitted and approved in GMAP, and an authorized LEA official
submitted the reimbursement request. However, Kentucky’s process for reviewing LEA
ARP ESSER reimbursement requests could be strengthened by requiring LEAs to provide
a listing of their ARP ESSER expenditures and supporting documentation for a sample of
those expenditures (as requested by Kentucky) as part of their reimbursement request.
Without this information, it would be difficult for Kentucky to reasonably assure that the
expenditures for which the LEAs are seeking reimbursement are allowable and properly
accounted for, and there is an increased risk that Kentucky will not identify or become
aware of significant compliance issues involving the ARP ESSER program. LEAs’ misuse or
mismanagement of ARP ESSER funds reduces the funds available for students and
schools that need them.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 21
The ARP ESSER program was considered a higher risk program for 2022 according to
2 C.F.R. section 200.519(c)(2). 24 The Pandemic Response Accountability Committee
stated that the unprecedented amount of money made available for pandemic relief
and quick distribution of most funds put the money at a higher risk for fraud. 25 Further,
ARP ESSER funds can be used for a wide range of activities spanning multiple
coronavirus response and relief laws. This scenario, in conjunction with Kentucky not
reviewing supporting documentation on at least a sample basis, could allow for the
unintentional or intentional misuse of ARP ESSER funds by grantees and subgrantees
and result in fraud, waste, and abuse going undetected. Without additional controls
over the LEA reimbursement request process, Kentucky may fail to properly address
these heightened risks, leaving ARP ESSER funds at greater risk of misuse.
Non-Federal entities must establish and maintain effective internal control over the
Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that they are managing the award in
compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
award (2 C.F.R. section 200.303(a)). State grantees (pass-through entities) are required
to establish monitoring priorities based on the risks posed by each subgrantee and
monitor the fiscal activity of subgrantees as necessary to ensure that the subaward is
used for authorized purposes, complies with Federal statutes, regulations, and the
terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are
achieved (2 C.F.R. section 200.332). In addition, section 10.01 of GAO’s Standards for
Internal Control in the Federal Government, states that management should design
control activities to achieve objectives and respond to risks.
We also found that Kentucky does not have written policies, procedures, or protocols to
guide its reimbursement process. Kentucky prepared a narrative of its reimbursement
process for the independent auditors conducting its annual Statewide single audit. 26
However, that narrative is not used by Kentucky management or staff and thus does not
24
Federal agencies, with the concurrence of the Office of Management and Budget, may identify Federal
programs that are higher risk and identify them as such in the Compliance Supplement. The ARP ESSER
program was identified as a higher risk program in the Office of Management and Budget’s 2 C.F.R. Part
200, Appendix XI, Compliance Supplement, dated April 2022.
25
The CARES Act established the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee within the Council of
Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, the oversight and coordination body for the Inspector
General community.
26
Kentucky is required to provide a narrative of its FCR (reimbursement) process to the Kentucky
Auditor of Public Accounts as part of the Kentucky Statewide single audit. The narrative is used by the
Auditor of Public Accounts’ office to gain an understanding of the process and test whether the
identified procedures are followed.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 22
constitute documented processes that Kentucky personnel follow. Section 12.01 of
GAO’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that
management should implement control activities through policies. Section 12.04
suggests that those in key roles further define policies through day-to-day procedures
depending on the rate of change in the operating environment and complexity of the
operational process. Further, Kentucky’s Internal Control Handbook states that, “[t]he
best designed internal controls are not completely effective unless they are backed up
and documented into formal policies. Without documentation, internal controls can
erode over time and employees may implement undocumented internal controls
inconsistent with management’s intentions.” Without documented procedures to guide
its reimbursement process, Kentucky officials and employees might not fully understand
what is expected of them or what they should be reviewing, and it could result in
inconsistencies in how reimbursement requests are reviewed and approved.
Documented procedures also help facilitate the training of new and current employees
and ensure that employees perform processes consistently.
Quarterly Review Process
Each quarter, program specialists within Kentucky’s Division of Budget and Financial
Management review budgeted and actual expenditure information for all 171 LEAs.
Kentucky requires LEAs to submit, via email, a summary Comprehensive District
Improvement Plan (CDIP) report within 25 days after the end of each quarter. LEAs use
Kentucky’s Municipal Users Network Information System (MUNIS) 27 to create the
summary CDIP report each quarter. The summary CDIP report, in part, shows the total
amount budgeted for ARP ESSER; the amounts expended by month, quarter, and year;
and the amount of funds available by cost code. For each LEA, the program specialists
compare the total actual expenditures for each cost code (as shown in the summary
CDIP report) to the cost code included in Kentucky’s ARP ESSER funding matrix. 28 They
also compare ARP ESSER budget information in the LEA’s summary CDIP report to the
revised budget total in the Federal allocation spreadsheet 29 to ensure they align. If
errors are identified during the quarterly review (for example, if ARP ESSER
expenditures were coded to an unallowable cost code), the program specialist emails
27
MUNIS is a web-based, grants management system that all Kentucky LEAs use to track and account for
their local, State, and Federal funds, using the standardized accounting codes and procedures
established by Kentucky to account for their ARP ESSER funds.
28
Kentucky created a funding matrix that showed the accounting codes where ARP ESSER expenditures
could be charged (codes that would generally represent an allowable use of ARP ESSER funds). Kentucky
provided this matrix to the LEAs.
29
The Federal allocation spreadsheet contains the ARP ESSER fund allocations for all 171 LEAs.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 23
the LEA’s finance officer to learn why the error occurred and provide technical
assistance on how to correct the issue. If it is determined that an LEA charged an
allowable ARP ESSER expenditure to an unallowable cost code, Kentucky requires the
LEA to reclassify the expenditure into an allowable code. However, if it is determined
that the expenditure was unallowable, the LEA is required to charge the expenditure to
a local or State funding source. In both cases, Kentucky requires the LEA to submit a
revised summary CDIP report to show that the error was corrected and that all ARP
ESSER expenditures were charged to an allowable ARP ESSER cost accounting code. The
program specialists document their quarterly review work in a spreadsheet and
maintain a record of their review. This process, when used in conjunction with robust
reimbursement and ARP ESSER monitoring processes, could help ensure that LEAs use
ARP ESSER funds in accordance with applicable requirements and their approved ARP
ESSER plan.
ARP ESSER Monitoring Process
Kentucky established a process to monitor selected LEAs’ use of ARP ESSER funds, which
Kentucky officials told us would begin in June 2023. Because Kentucky’s ARP ESSER
monitoring of selected LEAs had not started as of the end of our fieldwork, we limited
our review to the design of the monitoring process. The OCIS Assistant Director told us
that the process that Kentucky used to monitor CRRSAA ESSER funds is the same process
Kentucky will use to monitor ARP ESSER funds. 30 After the exit conference in May 2023,
Kentucky provided us with written policies and procedures for its ARP ESSER monitoring
process. We reviewed the policies and procedures and concluded that Kentucky’s ARP
ESSER monitoring is designed in a way that should enable Kentucky to identify and
select high-risk LEAs for review and detect instances of noncompliance during those
reviews.
Kentucky has 14 teams composed of 28 program consultants and 4 architects who are
responsible for conducting ESSER monitoring. Each team consists of two program
consultants and if construction or remodeling projects over $2,000 are involved, one
architect. Towards the end of our fieldwork, Kentucky performed a risk assessment and
30
In February 2021, Kentucky developed a risk-based ESSER monitoring process to monitor selected
LEAs’ use of CARES Act ESSER funds. Kentucky later updated this process for CRRSAA ESSER and used it
to monitor selected LEAs’ use of CRRSAA ESSER funds. Kentucky completed its CRRSAA ESSER monitoring
in November 2022.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 24
used a risk assessment tool 31 to help select LEAs for ARP ESSER monitoring. The 14 LEAs
with the highest risk scores (excluding those that were subject to CRRSAA ESSER
monitoring) were selected for ARP ESSER monitoring.
Kentucky’s ARP ESSER monitoring process will consist of a self-assessment, desk review,
and site visit for each selected LEA. Selected LEAs are required to submit a completed
ARP ESSER funds monitoring self-assessment form, an expenditure report from MUNIS,
and other relevant supporting documentation for review (for example, notes from
meetings with stakeholders, documents showing that approved evidence-based
interventions were implemented, policies and procedures, and progress reports). The
self-assessment form has questions seeking information about the LEA’s development
of its ARP ESSER plan, ARP ESSER programmatic implementation and outcomes, and
fiscal management. LEAs are required to submit narratives and evidence for each
response to the questions on the form. If an LEA used CRRSAA ESSER or ARP ESSER
funds for construction or remodeling projects over $2,000, it must also submit a
separate construction or remodeling projects monitoring form that the Kentucky
monitoring teams will use to help determine whether the LEA followed Kentucky’s
construction approval processes and applicable Federal requirements.
The desk review will generally consist of the monitoring teams reviewing the LEAs’ self-
assessment responses and supporting documents. Specific expenditures and related
supporting documents (such as contracts, receipts, and invoices) may be reviewed
during the desk review, depending on the type or amount of the expenditure. The
monitoring teams will use a checklist and the self-assessment form to document the
desk review. After the desk review, the teams will perform site visits. During site visits,
the teams will conduct group interviews with the LEA superintendent, finance officer,
ESSER funds contact or Federal programs coordinator, director of facilities, and any
other employee or official who the LEA wants to participate in the interview. The
monitoring teams will review additional supporting documentation, as needed, and visit
schools to observe physical inventory and construction projects. Kentucky will then
prepare and provide the LEA with a final report that identifies strengths,
31
The ARP ESSER risk assessment tool incorporated the following risk indicators: ARP ESSER allocation
amount, high percentage of ESSER funds used for construction, prior issues with Federal grants, timely
spending of CRRSAA ESSER and ARP ESSER funds, not subject to consolidated or ESSER monitoring in the
last 5 years, and late liquidation request under CARES Act ESSER or unspent CARES Act ESSER balance.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 25
recommendations, and required corrective actions that the LEA must take in response
to deficiencies identified during the monitoring.
Review of ARP ESSER Expenditures at Warren County and
Jefferson County
We reviewed samples of ARP ESSER expenditures at Warren County and Jefferson
County to determine whether they used ARP ESSER funds in accordance with applicable
requirements and the approved ARP ESSER plan. 32 We identified issues at Warren
County.
Warren County
We reviewed 13 ARP ESSER expenditures totaling $326,740. These generally included
expenditures for payroll; arts and music; and technology such as Chromebooks, teacher
workstations (virtual learning), and software. We determined that 12 (92 percent) of the
13 expenditures reviewed were allowable. One expenditure (golf cart) was unallowable
because it did not meet the overall purpose or intent of the ARP ESSER program.
Additionally, we determined that Warren County did not obtain prior written approval
from Kentucky for all four (100 percent) expenditures that required prior approval,
contrary to 2 C.F.R. section 200.439(b) and Kentucky policy. The golf cart was one of the
four expenditures that should have but did not receive prior written approval from
Kentucky.
Unallowable Expenditure
Warren County used $9,200 in ARP ESSER funds to purchase a golf cart that was not
reasonable and necessary to meet the overall purpose of the ARP ESSER program. The
purpose of the Education Stabilization Fund, which ESSER funds are part of, is to
prevent, prepare for, and respond to the coronavirus pandemic (CARES Act, “Education
Stabilization Fund” section). 33 Warren County’s Director of ESSER Funds told us that the
golf cart would be used to monitor students during outdoor events due to a shortage in
staff resulting from the pandemic. While purchasing a golf cart with ARP ESSER funds
could be allowable if its intended use met the overall purpose of the ARP ESSER
program, Warren County’s justification for the golf cart purchase did not support that it
was reasonable or necessary to prevent, prepare for, or respond to the coronavirus
pandemic. During our fieldwork, Kentucky also identified the golf cart as an unallowable
cost when reviewing Warren County’s spending plan budget as part of its annual review
of LEA ARP ESSER plan updates and informed Warren County’s Director of ESSER Funds
that the golf cart did not meet the intent of the ARP ESSER program. Warren County
32
The results of our testing apply only to the samples selected and cannot be projected.
33
The CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARP provided money for the Education Stabilization Fund.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 26
took corrective action by contacting the school that purchased the golf cart to have it
removed as an ARP ESSER expenditure and providing documentation to Kentucky
showing that the golf cart had been removed as an ARP ESSER expenditure. We
reviewed documentation at Warren County and verified that the funds were reallocated
towards the purchase of an allowable expenditure.
Expenditures That Did Not Receive Prior Written Approval
Warren County did not obtain prior written approval from Kentucky for four equipment
purchases totaling $149,882. This is contrary to Kentucky policy and 2 C.F.R. section
200.439(b), which states that 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. Each of the four expenditures had unit costs greater than $5,000
and thus required prior written approval from Kentucky.
We asked Warren County if it had been requesting prior written approval from Kentucky
for equipment and other capital expenditures with a unit cost of $5,000 or more. In
response, Warren County’s director of ESSER funds told us that Warren County was not
informed about the requirement until December 2022 when Kentucky sent an email on
that topic to LEA finance officers. We asked Kentucky when it had informed LEAs about
the prior written approval requirement. Kentucky’s OCIS associate commissioner told us
that Kentucky presented information about the requirement to LEAs at two conferences
that took place in June 2021 and November 2021, and during a November 2022 finance
officer webcast. The associate commissioner added that during the November 2022
webcast, Kentucky asked LEAs to revise their ARP ESSER spending plan budgets to
include single unit purchases of $5,000 or more, including those that may not have
received prior approval and those planned in the future. We reviewed documents,
including presentation slides for the conferences and emails between Kentucky and two
LEAs regarding the preapproval requirement, that showed that Kentucky communicated
the requirement to LEAs during the conferences held in 2021 and that at least two LEAs
specifically discussed the requirement with Kentucky. The ARP ESSER Assurances form,
signed by LEA superintendents, requires LEAs to comply with all applicable regulations,
including those in 2 C.F.R. Part 200 (Uniform Guidance). For those reasons, Warren
County should have known that it needed to obtain written approval from Kentucky
before purchasing equipment or other capital expenditure items with a unit cost of
$5,000 or more.
Jefferson County
We reviewed 13 ARP ESSER expenditures totaling $7,411,912. These generally included
expenditures related to payroll; repairs and maintenance; facility improvements; service
contracts; and technology such as Chromebooks, printers, and smart board displays. We
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 27
determined that all 13 expenditures were in accordance with applicable requirements
(allowable) and Jefferson County’s approved ARP ESSER plan.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education require Kentucky to —
2.1 Design and document procedures to guide Kentucky personnel through the LEA
reimbursement request process. The procedures should be in the form of
written policies and procedures or protocols, and designed to ensure
compliance with applicable requirements, including those covered in 2 C.F.R.
Part 200 (Uniform Guidance) and ARP.
2.2 In order to address the heightened risk associated with ARP ESSER funds, design
and incorporate into its documented procedures for reviewing LEA
reimbursement requests protocols to sample LEA expenditures charged to ARP
ESSER and review supporting documentation to ensure that applicable Federal,
State, and local requirements are met.
2.3 Implement its ARP ESSER monitoring policies and procedures, as designed, to
provide additional assurance that LEAs use ARP ESSER funds in accordance with
applicable requirements and their approved ARP ESSER plans.
Kentucky Comments
Kentucky neither agreed nor disagreed with the finding and with recommendation 2.2.
However, Kentucky described the actions it plans to take for recommendation 2.2,
stating that it will work with the Department to enhance its ARP ESSER reimbursement
request review process by determining an appropriate increased level of review and
adding steps to the reimbursement request review process. Kentucky agreed with
recommendation 2.1, stating that it has designed and documented procedures for the
Federal Cash Request process and posted the approved procedures on its SharePoint
site (accessible to staff) and its publicly accessible webpage. Kentucky requested that
recommendation 2.1 be removed or amended to reflect the actions it has already taken
to address the recommendation. Kentucky disagreed with the phrasing of
recommendation 2.3, stating that it has already begun implementing its ARP ESSER
monitoring processes. Kentucky noted that it began preparing for the ARP ESSER
monitoring cycle in spring 2023, its monitoring formally started in June 2023, and its first
monitoring site visits will occur in September 2023. Kentucky proposed alternative
phrasing for recommendation 2.3 to clarify that its monitoring work is underway.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 28
OIG Response
Kentucky’s development of written policies and procedures for the LEA ARP ESSER
reimbursement request review process is partially responsive to recommendation 2.1.
Developing written policies and procedures is responsive to the recommendation;
however, the policies and procedures did not include steps for Kentucky personnel to
sample LEA expenditures charged to the ARP ESSER grant and review supporting
documentation to ensure that applicable Federal, State, and local requirements are met,
as discussed in recommendation 2.2. To fully address the recommendation and
heightened risk associated with ARP ESSER funds, Kentucky should incorporate into its
written policies and procedures steps to sample LEA ARP ESSER expenditures and review
supporting documentation.
Kentucky's plan to work with the Department to enhance its ARP ESSER reimbursement
request review process by determining an appropriate increased level of review and
adding steps to the reimbursement request review process is a good first step and
partially responsive to recommendation 2.2. If sampling LEA ARP ESSER expenditures
and reviewing supporting documentation become part of Kentucky’s increased level of
review, Kentucky’s proposed actions are responsive to our recommendation.
We disagree with Kentucky’s implication that the phrasing of recommendation 2.3 does
not adequately acknowledge that some activities were already underway because we
include in the report much of what Kentucky provided in its response. For example, in
Finding 2, we note that Kentucky planned to start its ARP ESSER monitoring in June 2023
and that towards the end of our fieldwork, Kentucky had performed a risk assessment
to select LEAs for ARP ESSER monitoring. We did not make any changes to the report or
recommendations in response to Kentucky’s comments. We did make clarifying edits to
recommendation 2.2 in response to technical comments provided by the Department.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 29
Appendix A. Scope and Methodology
Our audit covered Kentucky’s processes for reviewing and approving LEA ARP ESSER
plans and overseeing LEAs’ use of ARP ESSER funds from March 24, 2021, through
July 31, 2022. To achieve our objective, we gained an understanding of the following
laws, regulations, and guidance relevant to ARP ESSER:
• CARES Act (P.L. 116-136, March 27, 2020), section 18003 (“Elementary and
Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund”).
• CRRSAA (P.L. 116-260, December 27, 2020), section 313 (“Elementary and
Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund”).
• ARP (P.L. 117-2, March 11, 2021), sections 2001 (“Elementary and Secondary
School Emergency Relief Fund”) and 2004 (“Maintenance of Effort and
Maintenance of Equity”).
• 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and
Audit Requirements for Federal Awards.
• Office of Management and Budget’s 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Appendix XI, Compliance
Supplement, April 2022.
• GAO’s “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government”
(September 2014).
• IFR for ARP ESSER (April 22, 2021), 86 FR 21195–21207; and Final Requirements
for ARP ESSER Fund (June 8, 2022), 87 FR 34790–34794.
• Department guidance, including the Department’s Secretary of Education letter
(March 24, 2021) announcing SEA grant allocations; Certification and Agreement
for Funding under the Education Stabilization Fund Program ESSER Fund; Fact
Sheet ARP Act of 2021 ESSER Fund; Frequently Asked Questions documents for
ARP ESSER Program Maintenance of Equity Requirements (updated July 26,
2022) and ESSER and Governor’s Emergency Education Relief Programs (May
2021, and updated on December 29, 2021, and December 7, 2022); and ED
COVID-19 Handbook, Roadmap to Reopening Safely and Meeting All Students’
Needs, Volume 2 (2021).
We gained an understanding of Kentucky’s oversight and monitoring activities through
interviews with SEA and LEA officials. We interviewed employees and officials from
Kentucky, Warren County, and Jefferson County who had knowledge of or were
responsible for establishing, administering, or monitoring the ARP ESSER program. At
Kentucky, we interviewed officials who were responsible for providing guidance and
technical assistance to LEAs, reviewing and approving LEA ARP ESSER plans and budgets,
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 30
and monitoring LEAs’ use of ARP ESSER funds. To assess the reliability of the testimonial
evidence, we compared information obtained from interviews with records related to
Kentucky’s oversight and monitoring activities when provided by the interviewees. We
concluded that the testimonial evidence we obtained was sufficiently reliable within the
context of our audit objective.
We also gained an understanding of Kentucky’s oversight and monitoring activities
through reviews of relevant documents and records. We reviewed documents
identifying Kentucky’s offices and staff who had a role in establishing, administering, or
monitoring the ARP ESSER program. We reviewed and evaluated the guidance, technical
assistance, and training (such as newsletters, webcasts, training slides, and instructions)
that Kentucky provided to LEAs regarding ARP ESSER plans and spending. We also
reviewed written policies and procedures, narratives, and protocols to further our
understanding of how Kentucky monitored or planned to monitor LEAs’ use of ARP
ESSER funds, including through its MOEquity determinations and quarterly review,
reimbursement, and ARP ESSER monitoring processes. Additionally, we reviewed and
evaluated the tools that Kentucky used to monitor LEA ARP ESSER plans and LEAs’ use of
ARP ESSER funds, including reviewer checklists, guides, standardized forms and
templates, and risk assessment framework. The purposes of these document reviews
were to gain an understanding of how Kentucky administered and monitored ARP ESSER
funds and assess the adequacy of those activities within the context of the audit
objective. We also gained an understanding of Warren County’s and Jefferson County’s
processes for reviewing and approving ARP ESSER expenditures (including their
procurement, approval, and payment processes), which was generally done to help us
identify the cause for any deficiencies identified during our review of expenditures at
the two LEAs.
Review of Kentucky’s Oversight of LEA ARP ESSER Plans. We reviewed the summary
results from Kentucky’s review of LEA ARP ESSER plan narratives to verify that Kentucky
approved the plan narratives for all 171 LEAs, assess the rigor of Kentucky’s process for
reviewing and approving LEA APR ESSER plans, and gain an understanding of how often
and why plan reviewers did not approve plans. We also reviewed the ARP ESSER plans
for Warren County and Jefferson County to determine whether they met applicable
requirements (specifically, the requirements set forth in the IFR for ARP ESSER,
April 22, 2021), and verify that Kentucky was consistent in how it reviewed and
approved the two plans and followed all applicable steps in its review and approval
process. We also accessed each LEA’s website to ensure that its ARP ESSER plan was
publicly available.
Review of Kentucky’s Oversight of LEAs’ Use of ARP ESSER Funds. We reviewed
samples of ARP ESSER expenditures at Warren County and Jefferson County to
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 31
determine whether they used ARP ESSER funds in accordance with applicable
requirements. Specifically, we reviewed each expenditure to determine whether it was
(a) connected to the pandemic, (b) authorized under applicable regulations, and
(c) reasonable and necessary in accordance with Uniform Guidance. We also reviewed
each expenditure to determine whether it aligned with the LEAs’ approved ARP ESSER
plans. Lastly, we reviewed the LEAs’ procurement, review, and approval activities for
each expenditure to verify that the LEAs followed their established processes in these
areas. See the Sampling Methodology section for additional information.
Sampling Methodology
To determine whether Kentucky had an adequate oversight process to ensure that LEAs
used ARP ESSER funds in accordance with applicable requirements and their approved
ARP ESSER plans, we selected 2 LEAs from the universe of 171 LEAs that were allocated
ARP ESSER funds and tested a total of 26 expenditures for the 2 LEAs (13 expenditures
for each LEA). We judgmentally selected for review the LEA with the largest ARP ESSER
funding allocation (Jefferson County). For the second LEA, we limited the universe of
LEAs eligible for selection to those LEAs that were allocated $5,000,000 or more in
ARP ESSER funds and had expended 25 percent or more of their ARP ESSER funding as of
July 31, 2022. We then randomly selected an LEA (Warren County) from the limited
universe of 37 LEAs (excluding Jefferson County).
For Warren County, we selected (using both judgmental and random sampling) a
nonstatistical sample of 13 ARP ESSER expenditures (3 percent) from a total population
of 517 ARP ESSER expenditures as of July 31, 2022. The 13 expenditures represented
$326,740 (2 percent) of the $16,168,708 in total ARP ESSER expenditures. To select our
sample, we first divided the expenditures into two strata: one for learning loss (totaling
$2,847,148) and one for all other expenditures (totaling $13,321,560). Next, we
removed from each stratum indirect costs and any expenditures that were less than
$5,000. After removing these items, the learning loss population and other expenditures
population totaled $1,213,537 and $8,630,520, respectively. We then selected samples
as follows:
• From the learning loss population, we randomly selected 3 expenditures,
totaling $30,487.
• From the other expenditures population, we selected 10 expenditures, totaling
$296,253. First, we judgmentally selected 3 expenditures, totaling $199,479. We
selected the two largest (non-payroll) expenditures and one expenditure whose
description did not appear to meet the grant’s purpose. Next, from the
remaining population we randomly selected 7 expenditures, totaling $96,774.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 32
For Jefferson County, we selected (using both judgmental and random sampling) a
nonstatistical sample of 13 ARP ESSER expenditures (1 percent) from a total population
of 1,455 ARP ESSER expenditures as of July 31, 2022. The 13 expenditures represented
$7,411,912 (4 percent) of the $200,280,889 in total ARP ESSER expenditures. To select
our sample, we first divided the expenditures into two strata: one for learning loss
(totaling $164,982,363) and one for all other expenditures (totaling $35,298,526). Next,
we removed from each stratum indirect costs and any expenditures that were less than
$5,000. After removing these items, the learning loss population and other expenditures
population totaled $126,120,677 and $32,720,668, respectively. We then selected
samples as follows:
• From the learning loss population, we randomly selected three expenditures,
totaling $35,823.
• From the other expenditures population, we selected 10 expenditures, totaling
$7,376,089. First, we judgmentally selected three expenditures, totaling
$7,089,173. We selected the largest (non-payroll) expenditure, the largest
construction expenditure, and one expenditure whose description did not
appear to meet the grant’s purpose. Next, from the remaining population we
randomly selected seven expenditures, totaling $286,916.
The results of our testing apply only to the samples selected and cannot be projected.
Use of Computer-Processed Data
We relied, in part, on computer-processed data (spreadsheets) provided by Kentucky to
help us select the two LEAs for review. Kentucky provided spreadsheets listing LEA ARP
ESSER allocations and total ARP ESSER expenditures through July 31, 2022. To assess the
reliability of the spreadsheet with LEA ARP ESSER allocations, we compared the
allocations in the spreadsheet to the award amounts in the ARP ESSER Grant Award
Notifications for three LEAs. We also reviewed the spreadsheet for completeness by
comparing the names and count of LEAs (171) on the allocation spreadsheet to the
names and count of LEAs on Kentucky’s County and Independent School Districts LEA
map. 34 To assess the reliability of the spreadsheet with LEA ARP ESSER expenditures, we
compared total expenditures on the spreadsheet to total expenditures on the FCR forms
for four LEAs. We also reviewed the spreadsheet for completeness by verifying that it
included expenditures as of July 31, 2022, for all 171 LEAs. Based on these assessments,
we concluded that the data in the allocation and expenditure spreadsheets were
reliable for their intended use.
34
Source: Kentucky’s website (https://education.ky.gov/comm/schdist/Documents/KDEMAP.pdf).
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 33
We also relied, in part, on computer-processed data that we obtained from MUNIS for
Warren County and Jefferson County. From MUNIS, we obtained the universes of ARP
ESSER expenditures as of July 31, 2022, for Warren County and Jefferson County. We
used the universes to select samples of expenditures for detailed testing to determine
whether the two LEAs used their ARP ESSER funds in accordance with applicable
requirements and their approved ARP ESSER plan. To assess the completeness of the
data in MUNIS for both LEAs, we compared the total expenditures in MUNIS to the total
expenditures reported on the LEAs’ July 31, 2022, FCR form. To assess the reliability of
the data in MUNIS for both LEAs, we reviewed supporting documentation, such as
invoices and payroll records, for our sample of 26 expenditures (13 expenditures for
each LEA). Based on this work, we concluded that the data in MUNIS were reliable for
their intended use.
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 relate to Kentucky’s processes for ensuring that LEA ARP ESSER plans meet
applicable requirements and LEAs use ARP ESSER funds in accordance with applicable
requirements and their approved LEA ARP ESSER plans. At the SEA level, we limited our
internal control work to the two areas we deemed significant to the audit objective: risk
assessment and control activities.
• Risk assessment—risk identification, analysis of risk, responses to risk, including
consideration of the potential for fraud.
• Control activities—design of appropriate types of control activities, design of
control activities at various levels, documentation of responsibilities through
policies, and periodic review of control activities.
At the LEA level, we limited our internal control work to gaining an understanding of the
LEAs’ processes (controls) within the context of the individual expenditures selected for
testing which would help us determine the underlying cause for any identified
deficiencies.
As discussed in the findings, we concluded that Kentucky’s process (control activities)
for ensuring that LEA ARP ESSER plans met applicable requirements was adequate
(Finding 1) and its process for reviewing and approving LEA ARP ESSER reimbursement
requests should be documented and strengthened in a key area (Finding 2).
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
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 34
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 August 2022 through June 2023. We discussed
the results of our audit with Kentucky officials on May 18, 2023.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 35
Appendix B. Allowable Uses of ESSER Funds
Activities that an LEA may support with ESSER funds include: 35
1. Any activity authorized by the ESEA, including the Native Hawaiian Education Act
and the Alaska Native Educational Equity, Support, and Assistance Act (20 U.S.C.
6301 et seq.).
2. Any activity authorized by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C.
1400 et seq.).
3. Any activity authorized by the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA)
(29 U.S.C.3271 et seq.).
4. Any activity authorized by the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of
2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.).
5. Any activity authorized by subtitle B of title VII of the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11431 et seq.).
6. Coordinating preparedness and response efforts of LEAs with State, local, Tribal, and
territorial public health departments, and other relevant agencies, to improve
coordinated responses among such entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to
COVID-19.
7. Providing principals and other school leaders with the resources necessary to
address the needs of their individual schools.
8. Activities to address the unique needs of low-income children or students, students
with disabilities, English learners, racial and ethnic minorities, students experiencing
homelessness, and children and youth in foster care, including how outreach and
service delivery will meet the needs of each population.
9. Developing and implementing procedures and systems to improve the preparedness
and response efforts of LEAs.
10. Training and professional development for staff of the LEA on sanitation and
minimizing the spread of infectious diseases.
11. Purchasing supplies to sanitize and clean the facilities of the LEA, including buildings
operated by such LEA.
12. Planning for, coordinating, and implementing activities during long-term closures,
including providing meals to eligible students, providing technology for online
learning to all students, providing guidance for carrying out requirements under the
35
Per section 18003(d) of the CARES Act, section 313(d) of CRRSAA, and section 2001(e) of ARP.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 36
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and ensuring other education services can
continue to be provided consistent with all Federal, State, and local requirements.
13. Purchasing educational technology (including hardware, software, and connectivity)
for students who are served by the LEA that aids in regular and substantive
educational interaction between students and their classroom instructors, including
low-income students and students with disabilities, which may include assistive
technology or adaptive equipment.
14. Providing mental health services and supports, including through the
implementation of evidence-based full-service community schools.
15. Planning and implementing activities related to summer learning and enrichment
and supplemental after-school programs, including providing classroom instruction
or online learning during the summer months and addressing the needs of low-
income students, students with disabilities, English learners, migrant students,
students experiencing homelessness, and children and youth in foster care.
16. Addressing the academic impact of lost instructional time among an LEA’s students,
including low-income students, students with disabilities, English learners, racial and
ethnic minorities, students experiencing homelessness, and children and youth in
foster care, including by
a. administering and using high-quality assessments that are valid and reliable
to accurately assess students’ academic progress and assist educators in
meeting students’ academic needs, including through differentiating
instruction.
b. implementing evidence-based activities to meet the comprehensive needs
of students.
c. providing information and assistance to parents and families on how they
can effectively support students, including in a distance learning
environment.
d. tracking student attendance and improving student engagement in distance
education.
17. School facility repairs and improvements to enable operation of schools to reduce
risk of virus transmission and exposure to environmental health hazards, and to
support student health needs.
18. Inspection, testing, maintenance, repair, replacement, and upgrade projects to
improve the indoor air quality in school facilities, including mechanical and non-
mechanical heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, filtering, purification
and other air cleaning, fans, control systems, and window and door repair and
replacement.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 37
19. Developing strategies and implementing public health protocols including, to the
greatest extent practicable, policies in line with guidance from the CDC for the
reopening and operation of school facilities to effectively maintain the health and
safety of students, educators, and other staff.
20. Other activities that are necessary to maintain the operation of and continuity of
services in the LEA and continuing to employ existing staff of the LEA.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 38
Appendix C. Acronyms and Abbreviations
ARP American Rescue Plan
C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations
CARES Act Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act
CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CDIP Comprehensive District Improvement Plan
CRRSAA Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations
Act
Department U.S. Department of Education
eMARS Enhanced Management Administrative and Reporting System
ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act
ESSER Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief
FCR Federal Cash Request
FY fiscal year
GAO Government Accountability Office
GMAP Grant Management Application and Planning
IFR interim final requirements
Jefferson County Jefferson County Public Schools
Kentucky Kentucky Department of Education
LEA local educational agency
MOEquity Maintenance of Equity
MUNIS Municipal Users Network Information System
OCIS Office of Continuous Improvement and Support
OFO Office of Finance and Operations
SEA State educational agency
Warren County Warren County Public Schools
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 39
Kentucky Comments
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 40
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 41
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A22CA0095 42
File and source
- File
- kentucky-arp-esser-oversight.pdf
- Size
- 3,130,937 bytes
- SHA-256
- b0a583428e3081b287bd4b474bc082200785460a0308943cc46fdd7b21d501c2
- Our copy
- kentucky-arp-esser-oversight.pdf
- Original
- oig.ed.gov