West Virginia Legislative Auditor PERD PE 23-08-667: Department of Education monitoring of emergency education funds (November 2023)
Summary
Performance Review PE 23-08-667 of the West Virginia Department of Education (WVDE), issued in November 2023 by the Performance Evaluation & Research Division of the West Virginia Office of the Legislative Auditor, under the heading that the WVDE lacks adequate capacity or structure to monitor local school districts' use of federal emergency education funds. It states that beginning in March 2020 the WVDE received nearly $1.2 billion in ESSER funds and that the Office of Federal Programs used three personnel for cyclical monitoring of ESSER I funds for 54 counties. It reports that 37 LEAs were deemed noncompliant, and that PERD found 7 transactions totaling over $285,000 noncompliant among those the WVDE had determined compliant. It recommends that the WVDE increase its monitoring capacity, and the WVDE responded on October 12, 2023.
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
Cite this document
“West Virginia Legislative Auditor PERD PE 23-08-667: Department of Education monitoring of emergency education funds (November 2023).”
Original at www.wvlegislature.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/west-virginia-legislative-auditor-perd-pe-23-08-667-department-of-educ-542cfdb8ed/
, SHA-256 82b98cdd9c670e0b9ed9d9e51b80aaf53d124e034eda3c2dd2f585db27d18bf3.Full text
November 2023
PE 23-08-667
PERFORMANCE REVIEW
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
AUDIT OVERVIEW
The West Virginia Department of Education Lacks Adequate
Capacity or Structure to Monitor Local School Districts’ Use of
Federal Emergency Education Funds Which Has Resulted in an
Increased Risk of Fraud, Waste, and Abuse of these Funds
WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION & RESEARCH DIVISION
JOINT COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION
Senate House of Delegates
Jack Woodrum, Chair Chris Phillips, Chair Todd Longanacre
Jason Barrett Pat McGeehan, Vice-Chair Phil Mallow
Bill Hamilton David Adkins Carl Martin
Mark Hunt Jordan Bridges Chris Pritt
Glenn Jeffries Eric Brooks Mark Ross
Mike Maroney Geno Chiarelli Andy Shamblin
Rupie Phillips Kathie Hess Crouse Doug Smith
Ben Queen Mark Dean Adam Vance
Randy Smith Tom Fast Diana Winzenreid
Mike Stuart Don Forsht Evan Worrell
Chandler Swope Scott Heckert Ric Griffith
Ryan Weld Rick Hillenbrand Mike Pushkin
Mike Woelfel Mike Honaker Kayla Young
WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION & RESEARCH DIVISION
Building 1, Room W-314
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, West Virginia 25305
(304) 347-4890
Aaron Allred John Sylvia Brandon Burton Lukas Griffith Brooke Christian Alexander Penny
Legislative Auditor Director Research Manager Senior Research Analyst Research Analyst Referencer
Performance Review
Performance Evaluation & Research Division | pg. 3
Department of Education
pg. 4 | West Virginia Office of the Legislative Auditor
Performance Review
CONTENTS
Executive Summary. ...................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Issue 1: The West Virginia Department of Education Lacks Adequate Capacity or Structure to
Monitor Local School Districts’ Use of Federal Emergency Education Funds Which Has
Resulted in an Increased Risk of Fraud, Waste, and Abuse of these Funds. ........................................11
List of Tables
Table 1: ESSER Grant Fundings...............................................................................................................................................13
Table 2: ESSER Fund Balances as of October 6, 2023. ....................................................................................................14
Table 3: Improper Purchasing Procedures, Excess Indirect Costs, and Unallowable Spending
Activities. .......................................................................................................................................................................24
Table 4: LEA Purchases Deemed Compliant By the WVDE that PERD Found Violated Proper
Purchasing Procedures ESSER I Cyclical Monitoring Samples....................................................................27
Table 5: LEA Purchases from Vendors Not Registered with SOS ESSER I Cyclical Monitoring Samples.......29
Table 6: ESSER II/ARP Funding Improper Purchasing Procedures, Excess Indirect Costs, and
Unallowable Spending Activities . .......................................................................................................................38
Table 7: The 54 LEAs Under ESSER I Review Broken Down by the Number of Program Monitors
Assigned to the Review............................................................................................................................................41
Table 8: Competitive Bid Threshold Limits for LEAs Policy 8200, Section 7.11.....................................................43
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Transmittal Letter. ...............................................................................................................................................51
Appendix B: Objectives, Scope and Methodology ..........................................................................................................53
Appendix C: Agency Response................................................................................................................................................55
Appendix I: ESSER I Cyclical Monitoring Samples and Percentages of Total Allocations....................................57
Performance Evaluation & Research Division | pg. 5
Department of Education
pg. 6 | West Virginia Office of the Legislative Auditor
Performance Review
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Performance Evaluation and Research Division (PERD), within the Office of the Legislative Auditor,
conducted an Agency Review of the West Virginia Department of Education (WVDE) pursuant to West
Virginia Code §4-10-8. The objective was to determine whether the WVDE and local education agencies
(LEAs) are following procedures for sub-recipient audits. The issues of this report are highlighted below.
Frequently Used Acronyms in This Report:
ARP - American Rescue Plan
CARES - Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
COVID - Coronavirus Disease
CRSSA - Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations
ESEA - Elementary and Secondary Education Act
ESSER – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief
GPS - Grants and Planning System
LEA – Local Education Agency
OASIS - Our Advanced Solution with Integrated Systems
OFP - Office of Federal Programs
PERD – Performance Evaluation and Research Division
SEA - State Educational Agency
SOS- Secretary of State
USDOE – United States Department of Education
WVBE – West Virginia Board of Education
WVDE – West Virginia Department of Education
Report Highlights:
The West Virginia Department of Education Lacks Adequate Capacity or Structure to
Monitor Local School Districts’ Use of Federal Emergency Education Funds Which Has
Resulted in an Increased Risk of Fraud, Waste, and Abuse of these Funds
• Beginning in March 2020, the WVDE received nearly $1.2 billion in ESSER funds, most of which has
been distributed to LEAs in support for areas impacted by COVID-19.
• The agency reported that the OFP used three personnel to conduct cyclical monitoring of ESSER I
funds for 54 counties.
• Out of the 54 West Virginia school districts reviewed by OFP monitors for ESSER I grants, 37 LEAs
were deemed noncompliant for improper purchasing procedures, using funds for unallowable activities,
and/or exceeding indirect cost rates.
• After the WVDE reported 37 LEAs were deemed noncompliant, no risk assessment was completed by
the agency to determine if more staff should be hired to maintain adequate oversight.
• The OFP has recovered from ESSER I $134,554.08 from a total of 19 LEAs and $323,302 from
ESSER II and ARP ESSER funds from 13 LEAs.
Performance Evaluation & Research Division | pg. 7
Department of Education
• Of the 29 LEAs that the WVDE determined were compliant with proper purchasing procedures, PERD’s
review of the same transactions found that 7 transactions, totaling over $285,000, were noncompliant.
• Because the OFP’s cyclical monitoring does not consider if vendors are registered to do business in
the State, the vast majority of LEAs made federal grant purchases with unregistered vendors totaling
over $2.1 million.
• Results of ESSER II/ARP monitoring by the OFP preceded an ongoing Special Circumstance Review
of Upshur County that highlighted use of federal funds on unallowable costs, and identified internal
control issues.
• The OFP’s review of Logan County should have flagged a $500,000 contract for virtual education
services that did not follow competitive bidding procedures or establish a written contract.
• Preliminary findings from the ESSER II/ARP cyclical monitoring reports suggest similar issues of
non-adherence of purchasing guidelines with eight counties being repeat offenders.
PERD’s Response to the WVDE’s Written Response
The WVDE provided its response on October 12, 2023 (Appendix C). With respect to the first
recommendation, the agency stated that most of its employees are on restricted payroll for other areas within
the OFP, and the few individuals who are not restricted do not have expertise in financial auditing. Regarding
the second recommendation, the WVDE stated that it is not feasible to employ additional employees to assist
with fiscal monitoring because the remaining ESSER monies are set to expire in September 2024, which is
“just ten months” from this recommendation being offered. The agency accepts, and has indicated plans to
implement, recommendations 3 – 8.
Because the final round of COVID monies contain the largest sum out of the three ESSER grants,
PERD maintains that the WVDE should still attempt to utilize the administrative portion of ESSER funds
to hire additional temporary staff to assist with fiscal monitoring, despite the September 2024 deadline. The
agency missed seven different ESSER I purchases that were non-compliant for proper purchasing procedures,
and ARP ESSER monitoring will be dealing with a grant award totaling over $761.9 million. Therefore,
PERD asserts that it would still be advisable to add more monitoring personnel beyond the four coordinators,
one program assistant, and one director currently on staff under the Office of ESEA Programs.
Recommendations
1. The WVDE should increase its monitoring and internal controls capacity by assigning more personnel
to assist with cyclical monitoring.
2. Consideration should be given by the WVDE to use the administrative portion of ESSER funds to hire
additional temporary staff to assist in the fiscal monitoring.
3. The fiscal monitoring process should be established in writing with specifics on what program
monitors should examine. Such monitoring instruments should instruct program monitors to examine
pg. 8 | West Virginia Office of the Legislative Auditor
Performance Review
if vendors are registered with the Secretary of State, list every type of purchasing violations that should
be reviewed, specify key aspects of internal control that must be reviewed, such as segregation of
duties, the approval chain of command, the proper use of P-cards and credit cards, and other specific
elements of internal control as the WVDE determines appropriate.
4. The WVDE should renew its communication with LEAs to re-emphasize proper purchasing procedures.
5. The WVDE should routinely review purchasing practices of LEAs during non-emergency conditions to
reinforce proper purchasing procedures.
6. When appropriate, the WVDE should encourage LEAs to utilize alternative procurement options
designated by Policy 8200, such as educational services cooperatives and pre-existing state contracts
that permit “piggybacking” to facilitate purchasing processes during states of emergency.
7. The WVDE should incorporate in Policy 8200, and in the monitoring instrument for ESSER monitoring,
the requirement that LEAs use vendors that are appropriately registered with the SOS and State Tax
Department to be authorized to do business in West Virginia.
8. The WVDE should clearly define which section of Policy 8200 applies to LEAs for ESSER-related
purchases, and for purchases made in the future under potentially similar circumstances.
Performance Evaluation & Research Division | pg. 9
Department of Education
pg. 10 | West Virginia Office of the Legislative Auditor
Performance Review
ISSUE 1
The West Virginia Department of Education Lacks
Adequate Capacity or Structure to Monitor Local School
Districts’ Use of Federal Emergency Education Funds
Which Has Resulted in an Increased Risk of Fraud, Waste,
and Abuse of these Funds
Issue Summary The Performance Evaluation and Re-
search Division (PERD) finds that the
The West Virginia Department of Education (WVDE) has received WVDE implemented a fiscal monitor-
nearly $1.2 billion in Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency ing and internal control system; how-
Relief (ESSER) funds through three separate federal Acts to support ever, its capacity is inadequate for en-
the safe reopening of schools and recover from the effects of the 2019 suring proper use of ESSER funds, and
coronavirus disease pandemic (COVID-19) on the academics, social, the structure lacks specific criteria that
emotional, and mental health of students. A stipulation of receiving should be reviewed in all cases.
these emergency federal grant funds is for the WVDE to implement an
adequate capacity for appropriate fiscal monitoring and internal control
over the use of the funds to ensure they are used for allowable purposes
and to guard against potential sources of waste, fraud, and abuse. The
Performance Evaluation and Research Division (PERD) finds that the
WVDE implemented a fiscal monitoring and internal control system;
however, its capacity is inadequate for ensuring proper use of ESSER
funds, and the structure lacks specific criteria that should be reviewed
in all cases. Consequently, there are more violations the system is
not detecting than it is finding. The evidence of this is revealed in
that the WVDE reviewed samples of ESSER I transactions from 54 local
education agencies (LEAs), 29 of which were determined compliant
Although the U.S. Department of Edu-
with proper purchasing procedures; however, PERD reviewed those
cation required and encouraged States
same transactions and found 7 of the 29 LEAs were non-compliant to re-assess their capacities to monitor
with required purchasing practices, such as not following proper bid the ESSER funds from the American
protocol, failing to solicit the correct number of bids for larger contracts, Rescue Plan Act and consider expand-
lacking appropriate bid documentation, and many vendors used were not ing capacity if needed, the WVDE con-
registered to do business with the State of West Virginia. In addition, tinued to use no more than a total of
ESSER II reviews are ongoing, and several LEAs have repeated similar five staff personnel to monitor the use
violations that they were cited for under ESSER I monitoring. of ESSER funds with most of the moni-
toring done by one to three individuals.
The WVDE’s fiscal monitoring system has missed some instances
of improper procurement practices by local school districts, and the
overall impact is that the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse is increased, with
the likelihood of funds not being used for intended purposes. Although
the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) required and encouraged
States to re-assess their capacities to monitor the ESSER funds from the
American Rescue Plan Act and consider expanding capacity if needed,
the WVDE continued to use no more than a total of five staff personnel
to monitor the use of ESSER funds with most of the monitoring done by
one to three individuals. It is permissible to hire additional staff using the
administrative portion of ESSER funds to expand the State’s monitoring
Performance Evaluation & Research Division | pg. 11
Department of Education
capacity. According to the agency, out of ESSER I administrative
expenditures, “No funds were allocated for cyclical monitoring or to pay
any staff.” Further, while two positions were hired with ESSER II funds,
and two positions were hired with ARP ESSER funds within the OFP,
none of those positions “supported the cyclical monitoring of the ESSER
grants.” Therefore, the legislative auditor recommends the WVDE
expand its monitoring capacity of ESSER funds and improve its
structure.
Beginning In March 2020, the WVDE Has Received Nearly
$1.2 Billion in ESSER Funds, Most of Which Has Been
Distributed to Local Educational Agencies in Support for
Areas Impacted by COVID-19
Shortly after President Donald Trump declared the Coronavirus
disease (COVID-19) a state of emergency on March 13, 2020, he signed The American Rescue Plan also con-
tinued ESSER funding programs that
the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act on were started under the CARES Act and
March 27, 2020. Among its provisions, the Act included specific funding supplemented under the CRSSA Act to
sources for local boards of education, better known as LEAs. Section further enable states to safely reopen
18003 of the CARES Act established the Elementary and Secondary schools for in-person instruction, and
Schools Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund to support areas impacted by to address the learning disruption re-
the disruption and closure of schools from COVID-19. Also, ESSER sulting from the pandemic.
funds were to assist in continuing educational services while schools
were closed, assist in remote learning and to assist in developing and
implementing plans for the return to normal operations. Funding
was further supported under the Coronavirus Response and Relief
Supplemental Appropriations (CRSSA) Act, Public Law No. 116-260
(December 27, 2020).
Under President Joe Biden, the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act
of 2021, Public Law No. 117-2 (March 11, 2021) was enacted. The ARP
Act provided economic assistance for several sectors of the economy
and governmental agencies. However, it also continued ESSER funding
programs that were started under the CARES Act and supplemented under
the CRSSA Act to further enable states to safely reopen schools for in-
person instruction, and to address the learning disruption resulting from
the pandemic. As with the CARES Act, the CRSSA and ARP ESSER
funds were awarded to State Departments of Education, better known as
State Educational Agencies (SEAs), which in turn would be allocated to
LEAs to address the educational impact the COVID-19 pandemic had at
the local level.
Table 1 outlines the three major emergency relief Acts directed
towards elementary and secondary schools in the nation. ESSER funding
that originated under the CARES Act in March 2020 is categorized as
ESSER I. ESSER funding that was enacted through the CRSSA Act
pg. 12 | West Virginia Office of the Legislative Auditor
Performance Review
in December 2020 is categorized as ESSER II, and ARP ESSER funds,
enacted in March 2021, are sometimes categorized as ESSER III.
West Virginia was awarded $86,640,471 of ESSER I funds on May 7,
2020. On January 13, 2021, West Virginia was awarded $339,032,096 Any unexpended funds remaining af-
in ESSER II funds, and West Virginia received ARP ESSER funding ter these deadlines are to be returned
to the U.S. Department of Education
totaling $761,960,095, two-thirds of which ($507,611,952) was received
(USDOE).
March 24, 2021, and the remaining $254,348,143 was received on July
15, 2021. The expiration dates of ESSER funds differ. ESSER I funds
expired on September 30, 2022. ESSER II funds expire on September
30, 2023, and ARP ESSER funds expire on September 30, 2024. Any
unexpended funds remaining after these deadlines are to be returned to
the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE).
Table 1
ESSER Grant Fundings
ESSER I Funding ESSER II Funding ARP ESSER Funding
Topic
(CARES Act) (CRSSA Act) (ARP Act)
Section 18003 of
Authorizing Section 313 of the Section 2001 of the
Division B of the
Legislation CRSSA Act ARP Act
CARES Act
Available for Available for Available for
Period
obligation by SEAs and obligation by SEAs and obligation by SEAs and
of Funds
subrecipients through subrecipients through subrecipients through
Availability
September 30, 2021. September 30, 2022. September 30, 2023.
Expiration of
September 30, 2022 September 30, 2023 September 30, 2024
Funds
ESSER
$86,640,471 $339,032,096 $761,960,095
Awards
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Fact Sheets for CARES Act, CRSSA Act, American Rescue Plan Act, and
ARP ESSER.
Table 2 shows the amount of unspent ESSER funds as of October
6, 2023. Nearly 100 percent of ESSER I monies have been spent. These
unspent monies are expected to revert to the USDOE. Over 86 percent
of ESSER II funds have been spent, leaving over $45 million unspent as
the State approaches the September 30, 2023 expiration date. Over $467
million in ARP ESSER monies have yet to be spent with the expiration
deadline being September 30, 2024 for those funds.
Performance Evaluation & Research Division | pg. 13
Department of Education
Table 2
ESSER Fund Balances as of October 6, 2023
ESSER I ESSER II ARP ESSER
Topic
(CARES Act) (CRSSA Act) (ARP Act)
Amount Awarded $86,640,471 $339,032,096 $761,960,095
Amount Spent $86,613,872 $293,875,018 $294,427,526
Unspent Amount $26,599 $45,157,108 $467,532,569
Percent of Awarded Funds Spent 99.97% 86.7% 38.6%
Expiration of Funds Sept. 30, 2022 Sept. 30, 2023 Sept. 30, 2024
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Economic Stabilization website (https://covid-relief-data.ed.gov/
profile/state/WV), as of October 6, 2023.
West Virginia Submitted a State Plan for ARP ESSER
Funds to the U.S. Department of Education on June 7, 2021
The USDOE required each state to submit a State Plan by June
7, 2021, for its intended use of ARP ESSER funds. The USDOE was
required to approve the SEA plan to make the State’s remaining ARP
ESSER allocation available for use. The USDOE approved West
Virginia’s State Plan on July 15, 2021. The State Plan was intended
to be a blueprint on how local districts and schools in West Virginia
could continue to reopen safely; support sustained access to in-person The State Plan was intended to be a
instruction throughout the summer and into the next year; and address blueprint on how local districts and
the social, emotional, mental health and academic needs of students due schools in West Virginia could con-
tinue to reopen safely; support sus-
to the impact of the coronavirus pandemic, particularly those students
tained access to in-person instruction
disproportionately impacted. throughout the summer and into the
next year; and address the social, emo-
tional, mental health and academic
The USDOE required State Plans to respond to seven major needs of students due to the impact of
components to ensure the proper and effective use of ARP ESSER funds. the coronavirus pandemic, particular-
These sections are as follows: ly those students disproportionately
impacted.
1. Describing the State’s Current Status and Needs,
2. Safely Reopening Schools and Sustaining Their Operations,
3. Planning for the Use and Coordination of ARP ESSER Funds,
4. Maximizing State-Level Funds to Support Students,
5. Supporting LEAs in Planning for and Meeting Students’ Needs,
6. Supporting the Educator Workforce, and
pg. 14 | West Virginia Office of the Legislative Auditor
Performance Review
7. Monitoring and Measuring Progress.
PERD decided to examine various components of the WVDE’s
State Plan and how it has responded to the USDOE’s expectations.
This current report focuses on the seventh component, Monitoring and
Measuring Progress. However, there are two elements to Monitoring and
Measuring Progress. One is fiscal monitoring as it relates to the USDOE
requirement that States implement monitoring and internal controls to
ensure that ESSER funds are used for allowable purposes and that they
are safeguarded against waste, fraud, and abuse. The second element is
measuring the progress of evidence-based programs that are designed to
address learning loss and determine if the programs are having positive
impacts or if changes in strategies are necessary. This report examines
only the fiscal monitoring of ESSER funds. Another PERD report will
review several aspects of the State Plan as they relate to measuring the
extent of the pandemic’s impact on student learning from lost instructional
time, and the extent to which the WVDE is measuring the progress of
evidence-based interventions in terms of their effectiveness or needs for
alternative strategies.
The WVDE’s State Plan Proposed a Fiscal Monitoring and
Internal Controls System for All ESSER Funds to LEAs
This current report focuses on the sev-
enth component, Monitoring and Mea-
In response to the USDOE’s requirement for fiscal monitoring of suring Progress.
ESSER funds, the WVDE proposed in its State Plan a fiscal monitoring
system that consists of six components. These components are described
as follows:
1. The State’s LEAs will individually submit an ESSER Application
through the WVDE Grants and Planning System (GPS) platform.
2. The WVDE E-Grants system and financial drawdown system
provides detailed expenditure information to monitor the
allowability of expenditures and the extent to which LEAs spent
funding as they proposed within their applications.
3. The WVDE’s financial system will allow LEAs to request, and
the WVDE to approve, line-item transfers throughout the grant
period.
4. The WVDE will monitor the provision of equitable services to
non-public schools by reviewing equitable services allocations
processes through the ESSER Application in the GPS platform.
5. The WVDE will monitor fund balances for this program quarterly
to identify LEAs that are lagging in use of funding to assure that
all funds are spent in a timely manner.
Performance Evaluation & Research Division | pg. 15
Department of Education
6. The WVDE will monitor LEA internal controls through the
cyclical Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
Consolidated Monitoring process.
In essence, this proposed monitoring system would give the
WVDE oversight and internal control of LEAs’ proposed and actual
expenditures of ESSER funding. The system, as proposed, would
provide various elements of internal control such as organizational
structure in which the WVDE assumes management authority over how
ESSER funds are to be spent by LEAs, an approval process, providing
knowledgeable WVDE personnel to support and assist LEAs, monitoring
LEA expenditures, assessing the risk of improper use, and communicating
appropriate information to LEAs in order to achieve the objectives of
ESSER funding.
Although the WVDE Implemented Fiscal Monitoring
and Internal Control of ESSER Grants, Its Capacity Is
Inadequate In essence, this proposed monitoring
system would give the WVDE oversight
and internal control of LEAs’ proposed
PERD reviewed documentation received from the WVDE to and actual expenditures of ESSER
determine the extent to which the agency implemented the proposed funding.
fiscal monitoring system as it proposed. PERD did not examine the area
of equitable services to non-public schools. The following subsections
describe PERD’s findings as they relate to the fiscal monitoring system.
1) Submission of ESSER Applications Using the GPS Platform
PERD finds that the WVDE, through its Office of Federal
Programs (OFP), has implemented its proposed fiscal monitoring system.
A review of fiscal years 2020, 2021 and 2022, which coincides with the
funding applications for ESSER I, ESSER II and ARP ESSER, shows that
all counties submitted applications and fiscal year budgets through the
WVDE’s GPS) platform for review. Once grant applications are approved
by the counties, they are sent to OFP for its review and approval. Once
approved by the OFP, counties receive an official grant award to accept
and sign. The OFP’s review of LEA applications provides a blueprint of
what the LEAs intend to do, which also facilitates the OFP’s monitoring
of allowability issues by observing proposed grant activities and uses
for all ESSER funds. Any type of proposed grant activity that are is not
allowed can be flagged at this early review stage.
pg. 16 | West Virginia Office of the Legislative Auditor
Performance Review
2) The WVDE E-Grants System and Financial Drawdown
System
The WVDE’s E-Grant system was proposed to monitor the
allowability of expenditures. However, the WVDE indicated that the
E-Grant system is only used to approve and send out grant awards to
counties, not to track expenditures. The WVDE stated that the E-Grant
system allows it to run detail project financial reports to track budget
and expenditures on grant awards. The OFP also reported, “While the
E-Grants system does not contain expenditure data it does house the
official electronic grant award with approvals and required project code
that the county is to use when coding all related expenditures. The grant
award from E-Grants is used in conjunction with financial drawdown
expenditure data as it contains the project code as well as the obligation
dates and liquidation dates that the grantee is required to follow.”
PERD determined that although the E-Grant system is used for other
oversight functions other than monitoring allowable expenditures as
proposed, allowable expenditures are being monitored through a cyclical
monitoring process which is discussed below.
ESSER I balance logs indicate that as
of March 31, 2023, five counties (Clay,
Greenbrier, Kanawha, Lewis, Nich-
3) Fund Balance Monitoring
olas) did not spend all their ESSER I
funds. However, the unspent funds
One important area of the State Plan is for the WVDE to monitor were minimal with the average unspent
ESSER fund balances quarterly to determine a county’s progress in being $10,759.
spending these funds. Actual expenditures can also be monitored through
quarterly project financial reports for each county. The OFP also uses
the State’s Our Advanced Solution with Integrated Systems (OASIS)
to monitor county drawdowns. These grant balance reports show the
amount remaining on the grant award that the counties have available
to drawdown. The reports are analyzed for actual grant activity to make
sure that the county is encumbering and spending the grant awards timely.
Since there are time limits on the use of ESSER funds, it is important
for the WVDE to promptly identify when LEAs are lagging in spending
ESSER funds for planned objectives. ESSER I balance logs indicate
that as of March 31, 2023, five counties (Clay, Greenbrier, Kanawha,
Lewis, Nicholas) did not spend all their ESSER I funds. However, the
unspent funds were minimal with the average unspent being $10,759.
Table 2 above shows that the total unspent and expired ESSER I funds,
as of October 6, 2023 is $26,599. This is 0.03% of the $86,640,471
awarded to the State. ESSER II and ARP ESSER quarterly reviews are
ongoing. However, Table 2 above shows that as of October 6, 2023,
over 86 percent of ESSER II funds have been spent and the expiration
date for those funds is September 30th, 2023. Nearly 39 percent of ARP
ESSER monies have been spent and the expiration date for those funds is
September 30th, 2024.
Performance Evaluation & Research Division | pg. 17
Department of Education
4) Monitoring Allowable Expenditures
An important responsibility for States receiving ESSER funds is
to review LEA internal control over ESSER funds and monitor the LEA’s
use to ensure they spend on allowable goods and services. PERD finds
that the OFP followed an extensive process in evaluating each LEA’s
internal control governing ESSER funds. According to the West Virginia
State Plan, the OFP proposed to monitor all ESSER grants to LEAs by
monitoring internal controls through the cyclical ESEA Consolidated
Monitoring process. According to the OFP:
Internal Controls are reviewed during the county’s
scheduled monitoring. Monitoring is cyclical and based
upon risk so not every county will get monitored every year.
LEA’s are required to upload their own Conflict of Interest
policies and certifications. Interview questions are also
completed to have the county explain their control process
over allowability of costs, time and effort reporting, and
equipment control. If the county has a purchasing or PERD asked how many staff members
conduct the monitoring process, the
equipment control policy or equipment control policy in
OFP reported that, “There are 3 people
addition to the required state board policy they are also that work on the monitoring of grant-
required to upload it for monitoring. ees. There is one main individual that
does both the selections for the moni-
The OFP also stated, “WVDE’s monitoring protocol was designed toring sample and that same individual
based off of the monitoring protocol used by US ED to monitor States does the findings and reporting. The
and Districts on the respective fund and considering the requirements of other two assist with the programmat-
pass-throughs contained in the Federal Uniform Grant Guidance 2 CFR ic aspects of the monitoring and the
200.” For each of the seven ESSER I monitor indicators (questions), county communications.”
program compliance and or effectiveness is determined based on
interview responses, supporting evidence provided by the LEA, as well
as information gathered through the statewide WVEIS data collection
and GPS.
Each LEA submits required documentation to assist the OFP
in answering each monitoring indicator. Once the OFP has enough
information to help answer each monitoring indicator, a rating for each
is completed by the OFP program monitor of either compliance, meets
compliance with recommendations, or does not meet compliance with a
finding issued by the OFP. Ultimately, the monitoring report is completed
by OFP, and forwarded to the county. For those counties that received
a rating of non-compliance and a finding, the OFP initiates a corrective
action plan that is reported within each report. PERD asked how many
staff members conduct the monitoring process, the OFP reported that,
“There are 3 people that work on the monitoring of grantees. There
is one main individual that does both the selections for the monitoring
sample and that same individual does the findings and reporting. The
other two assist with the programmatic aspects of the monitoring and the
county communications.”
pg. 18 | West Virginia Office of the Legislative Auditor
Performance Review
Once the report is completed by the OFP, a letter with the enclosed
report is sent to each county requesting a written response acknowledging
acceptance of each finding, corrective action, or recommendation.
Counties are required to either submit the documentation that proves
proper procedures were followed or to provide written procedures on how
the LEA will ensure adherence to the proper procedure moving forward.
However, “If the district provides the information after a finding has
been cited and in response to the report as a corrective action then the
finding stays, and the county response becomes part of their corrective
action plan file.”
As of March 2023, all counties have been reviewed for their
ESSER I funded program except Clay County. The agency indicated
that Clay County was not reviewed because the monitoring is cyclical,
so not every LEA would likely be reviewed. PERD inquired on Clay
County because the magnitude of funds would warrant that all LEAs
be reviewed, and it may further support the inadequate capacity of the
monitoring process. The OFP reported that it has decided to monitor
all LEAs every year until the money expires. The completion dates of
each ESSER I review were between May 2022 and March 2023. ESSER The CARES Act enumerated 12 catego-
II and ARP monitoring reviews started in September 2022 and are ries of allowable uses of the funds, all
scheduled to be completed by the end of May 2023. As of June 9, 2023, of which relate to preventing, prepar-
16 counties had not submitted information, therefore PERD could not ing for, and responding to COVID-19.
conduct a complete formal review as was achieved with the ESSER I
monitor reports.
Allowable Uses of ESSER Funds
The CARES Act enumerated 12 categories of allowable uses of
the funds, all of which relate to preventing, preparing for, and responding
to COVID-19. ESSER I funding under the CARES Act, Section 18003
(d) specified the following 12 allowable activities:
1. any activities authorized under the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, IDEA, Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical
Education Act, Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, and
McKinney-Vento;
2. coordination and preparedness and response efforts to LEAs with
state, local, tribal, and territorial public health departments, and
other relevant agencies, to prevent, prepare for and respond to the
coronavirus;
3. providing resources for principals and other school leaders to
address school specific needs;
4. activities that address unique needs of low-income children or
Performance Evaluation & Research Division | pg. 19
Department of Education
students with disabilities, English learners, racial and ethnic
minorities students, experiencing homelessness and foster care
youths, including how outreach and service delivery will meet
the needs of each population;
5. developing and implementing procedures and systems to improve
preparedness and response efforts of LEAs;
6. training and professional development for LEA staff on sanitation
and minimizing the spread of infectious diseases;
7. purchasing supplies to sanitize and clean facilities operated by an
LEA;
8. planning and coordination during long-term closures, including
how to provide meals to eligible students, how to provide online
learning technology to all students, how to provide guidance on
meeting IDEA requirements and how to ensure other educational
services can continue to be provided consistent with federal, state,
and local requirements;
9. purchasing educational technology, which could include Although ESSER II funding provid-
hardware, software, and connectivity, for students served by ed a few “additional” use categories
to address learning loss; preparing
the LEA that aids in regular, substantive educational interaction schools for reopening; and testing,
between students and educators, including low-income students repairing, and upgrading projects to
and students with disabilities; improve air quality in school build-
10. providing mental health services and supports; ings; these allowable uses were already
permitted for ESSER funds under the
11. planning and implementing summer learning and supplemental CARES Act.
afterschool program activities, 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 in foster care; and
12. other activities necessary to maintain the operation and continuity
of services in LEAs and continuing to employ existing staff.
Although ESSER II funding provided a few “additional” use
categories to address learning loss; preparing schools for reopening; and
testing, repairing, and upgrading projects to improve air quality in school
buildings; these allowable uses were already permitted for ESSER funds
under the CARES Act. These “additional” allowable categories as listed
as follows:
13. addressing learning loss amount all students in all subgroups
including by administering high quality, reliable assessments
that can access student academic progress and assist educators in
meeting student needs, including by using different instruction,
implementing evidence-based activities to meet the comprehensive
needs of students, proving information and assistance to parents
pg. 20 | West Virginia Office of the Legislative Auditor
Performance Review
and families and tracking student performance and engagement
in distance learning environments;
14. school facility repairs and improvements to enable operation
of schools to reduce risk of virus transmission and exposure to
environmental health hazards and support student health needs;
and
15. inspecting, testing, maintaining, repairing, replacing and
upgrading projects to improve the indoor air quality in school
facilities, including HVAC systems, filtering, purification and
other air cleaning, fans, control systems, and window door repair
and replacement.
The American Rescue Plan allows for uses permitted in the
CARES Act and the ESSER II funding; however, ARP ESSER funding
requires that LEAs reserve at least 20 percent of funds to address
learning loss through establishing evidence-based interventions to The American Rescue Plan allows for
ensure that the interventions respond to students’ social, emotional, and uses permitted in the CARES Act and
academic needs, and address the disproportionate impact COVID-19 the ESSER II funding; however, ARP
had on underrepresented student subgroups (major racial and non-racial ESSER funding requires that LEAs
groups). Such programs may consist of summer learning, extended day, reserve at least 20 percent of funds to
comprehensive afterschool programs, or extended school year programs. address learning loss through estab-
Again, the general principles to determine allowable cost under ESSER lishing evidence-based interventions to
funding are if the costs are associated with preventing, preparing for, and ensure that the interventions respond
responding to COVID-19, including addressing learning loss. to students’ social, emotional, and ac-
ademic needs, and address the dispro-
portionate impact COVID-19 had on
underrepresented student subgroups
The WVDE’s Fiscal Monitoring System Identified (major racial and non-racial groups).
Numerous Violations of Unallowable Expenditures and
Improper Purchasing Procedures
As previously identified, the WVDE implemented its proposed
fiscal monitoring system in response to the USDOE’s directive for
the ESSER grant funds. The system has the elements that provide for
appropriate internal control. There is organizational structure in which
LEAs must seek approval of their applications from the WVDE. The
WVDE evaluates if:
• LEAs’ applications are in line with the purposes and allowability
of ESSER funding,
• technical assistance and information are communicated by the
WVDE to LEAs,
• data collections allow the WVDE to identify LEAs that are
lagging in spending ESSER funds,
• the level of risk of non-compliance can be assessed, and
Performance Evaluation & Research Division | pg. 21
Department of Education
• LEA expenditures can be monitored for allowability and proper
procurement practices.
The OFP provided PERD with an understanding of the State’s
monitoring of LEA transactions using ESSER funds. It indicated that it
monitors LEAs in seven areas. These seven areas are listed as follows:
1. The LEA provides services to private school students and teachers
in an equitable manner based on the needs of the private schools
choosing to participate.
2. The LEA complies with all requirements for notification and
consultation with private school officials.
3. The LEA only spends funds for allowable activities based on an
approved ESSER Application.
4. The LEA does not exceed their approved indirect costs rate.
5. The LEA supports an updated equipment list for all federally
funded purchased items (public and private schools) and conducts For the most part, the OFP conducts
a physical inventory of all equipment (individual item cost of $5K a “Desk Review” of information that
or more) at least once every two years. LEAs are required to upload and that
the OFP obtains from other sources.
6. The staff funded by ESSER I funds complete Time and Effort
reports (monthly or semi-annual).
7. The LEA has a system of internal controls.
Items 3, 4, and 7 are of particular interest in this audit report.
These categories address the issues of whether LEAs spent ESSER I funds
on allowable activities (Item 3), which also considers whether the LEA
purchased goods and services following proper purchasing procedures.
Item 4 determines if LEAs exceeded the approved rate for indirect costs.
Items 3 and 4 could find that the LEA must reimburse the federal funds
by the amount of the violations. Item 7 examines if the LEA has a system
of internal control in place by reviewing the LEA’s written policies and
procedures.
For the most part, the OFP conducts a “Desk Review” of
information that LEAs are required to upload and that the OFP obtains
from other sources. The OFP reported, “During monitoring we receive
and review transaction activity reports that contain 100% of the current
activity on the grant award. From those reports we then select a sample
of transactions to request supporting documentation for.” Regarding
sampling, the OFP reported, “The monitoring team looks through all
of the transactions and picks a sample based upon their review of the
population. It is not completely random because they will pick items that
could appear questionable to them, high dollar items that would exceed
pg. 22 | West Virginia Office of the Legislative Auditor
Performance Review
bid thresholds, constructions items that appear to be subject to Davis
Bacon. So, it is more of a mix of small random selections and larger
targeted selections.”
Between May 2022 and March 2023, the WVDE conducted
ESSER I cyclical monitoring reviews for all West Virginia LEAs, except
Clay County. As a standard monitoring protocol, WVDE personnel
requested and reviewed a sample of purchases, policies and procedures,
financial data, and other information consistent with the seven areas of
review. Appendix I shows the number of invoices and vendors represented
by the samples, and the dollar amounts represented in the sample as a
percentage of total ESSER I allocations for the 54 counties reviewed.
Of the $77.2 million allocated in total to these 54 LEAs in ESSER I
funds, $27.2 million, or approximately 35 percent, is represented in the
sample. There is a wide variation in the percentages of allocated amounts
reviewed ranging from 3 to 99 percent.
Table 3 below shows that of the 54 LEAs reviewed, 37 were The supporting documentation pro-
deemed noncompliant in a combination of review areas 3, 4, or 7. As vided by LEAs to the OFP, prior to a
Table 3 shows, these LEAs had a combination of non-compliance finding, may contain purchase orders,
invoices, copies of checks, bid docu-
findings involving exceeding the approved indirect cost rate, using funds
mentation, and internal control poli-
for unallowable activities, or failing to follow proper competitive bid cies and procedures. Of the 37 LEAs
procedures, established in the WVDE’s Code of State Rules §Title 126, that were deemed non-compliant in the
Series 202, better known as Policy 8200. This policy establishes the three areas of focus, 21 were non-com-
purchasing policies and procedures that LEAs are required to follow pliant due to the LEAs not following
in purchasing goods and services. With certain modifications, Policy Policy 8200 for at least one of the in-
8200 is patterned after the basic procurement policies and procedures voices reviewed by the WVDE’s pro-
established by the West Virginia Purchasing Division. gram monitors.
The supporting documentation provided by LEAs to the OFP, prior
to a finding, may contain purchase orders, invoices, copies of checks, bid
documentation, and internal control policies and procedures. Of the 37
LEAs that were deemed non-compliant in the three areas of focus, 21
were non-compliant due to the LEAs not following Policy 8200 for at
least one of the invoices reviewed by the WVDE’s program monitors.
Table 3 shows that these purchasing infractions involved transactions
that totaled over $1.5 million within the samples. The infractions varied,
such as:
• lack of public advertising for the request for bids,
• a lack of the required number of competitive bids,
• lack of required number of written bids,
• lack of support for a sole-source purchase, and
• insufficient or no bid documentation being found or
uploaded for OFP to review.
Counties that are deemed non-compliant are requested to either
submit documentation by a specified date to support the purchases or to
ensure proper bidding requirements will be adhered to moving forward
Performance Evaluation & Research Division | pg. 23
Department of Education
and, in some instances, the OFP can request for a recovery of funds.
Table 3 shows that 18 LEAs exceeded the indirect cost rate in the amount
of $90,316. This amount will need to be reimbursed to the federal grant
by the respective LEAs. According to a July 2023 report, the OFP has According to a July 2023 report, the
OFP has recovered $134,554.08 of ES-
recovered $134,554.08 of ESSER I funds from a total of 19 LEAs and SER I funds from a total of 19 LEAs
$323,302 of ESSER II and ARP ESSER funds from 13 LEAs. Table 3 and $323,302 of ESSER II and ARP
also shows that $43,384 was determined to be unallowed activities under ESSER funds from 13 LEAs.
the ESSER I grant. These monies also will need to be reimbursed unless
the LEA can provide documentation that the expenditures are allowable.
When asked how much federal funding WVDE has recovered from
LEAs since 2018 the OFP reported, “We do not keep summary data on
the total amount of funds recovered across the department other than
data provided for ARP and ESSER.”
Table 3
ESSER I Funding
Improper Purchasing Procedures, Excess Indirect Costs,
and Unallowable Spending Activities
Improper Unallowable Exceeded
Purchasing Spending Indirect Cost Description for
LEA
Procedures Amount Rate Unallowable Activities
Barbour $26,954
Boone $329,092
Braxton $2,202
Brooke $44,291
Calhoun $85,939
Doddridge $195,753 $1,133
Fayette $12,487
Gilmer $91,294 $290
Funds to various schools to
Greenbrier $97,329 $22,500 $459 forward funds to start the athletic
and band seasons.
Hampshire $5,000
Hancock $169,440 $1,134
Hardy $61,221
Harrison $40,966
Jackson $130,859
Jefferson $8,066 $10,401 Private schools reimbursement
Kanawha $11,036
Lewis $13,337
Lincoln $13,996
Mason $53,685
McDowell $1,506
pg. 24 | West Virginia Office of the Legislative Auditor
Performance Review
Table 3
ESSER I Funding
Improper Purchasing Procedures, Excess Indirect Costs,
and Unallowable Spending Activities
Improper Unallowable Exceeded
Purchasing Spending Indirect Cost Description for
LEA
Procedures Amount Rate Unallowable Activities
Mineral $25,999
Mingo $16,360
Monroe $159
Morgan $283
Nicholas $7,678 Private school reimbursement
Ohio $63
Pleasants $2,596
Pocahontas $255
Preston $49,074
Raleigh $9,703
Randolph $1,342
Ritchie $25,040
Food provided to students who
Summers $140 $7,267
attended a seminar.
Taylor $8,634
Upshur $5,000 Choir trip to D.C.
Wayne $11,998
Wetzel $48,000
Total $1,516,260 $43,384 $90,316
Source: WVDOE ESSER I Cyclical Monitoring Documents
Although 21 counties were deemed non-compliant due to at
least one invoice not adhering to Policy 8200 for improper purchasing
procedures, 11 of the 20 counties (Boone, Brooke, Calhoun, Doddridge,
Gilmer, Greenbrier, Hampshire, Hancock, Hardy, Mineral, and Preston)
had multiple invoices that did not adhere to Policy 8200. Of the 21
counties listed, Taylor had until late August 2023 to respond, Doddridge
had until June 2023 to respond, 9 LEAs (Barbour, Calhoun, Kanawha,
Lewis, Mason, Mineral, Mingo, Wayne, Wetzel) stated proper bidding
requirements will be followed in the future, 8 (Brooke, Gilmer, Greenbrier,
Hancock, Hardy, Harrison, Jackson, Preston) provided documentation of
why this occurred, and Boone responded so late the OFP “rolled it into
their ESSER II/ARP monitoring.”
Performance Evaluation & Research Division | pg. 25
Department of Education
Of the 29 LEAs that the WVDE Determined Were
Compliant with Proper Purchasing Procedures, PERD’s
Review of the Same Transactions Found that 7 of Them
Were Non-compliant
The previous subsection indicates that of the 54 LEAs that the
OFP reviewed, 29 were determined to be compliant with the WVDE’s
Policy 8200. However, PERD reviewed the same transactions of the
29 compliant LEAs and found that 7 of them had purchases that did not
provide documentation in compliance with proper purchasing procedures.
The agency provided a statement indicating that the same documentation
PERD reviewed was also among the documentation the OFP reviewed.
The statement was made by the WVDE’s Elementary and Secondary
Education Act programs director to PERD in February 2023:
“We uploaded our entire files for each monitoring which
also include trainings and information provided to the
county. We thought it was easier to share the entire file
with you all. We also uploaded the listings with what the Although 21 counties were deemed
counties provide.” non-compliant due to at least one in-
voice not adhering to Policy 8200 for
This indicates that there would have been the same absence of improper purchasing procedures, 11 of
bid documentation during the OFP’s cyclical monitoring review, and the 20 counties (Boone, Brooke, Cal-
houn, Doddridge, Gilmer, Greenbrier,
therefore, should have been identified and questioned by the monitors at Hampshire, Hancock, Hardy, Mineral,
the time of the original review. and Preston) had multiple invoices that
did not adhere to Policy 8200.
Table 4 below lists the seven LEAs that the OFP should have
deemed non-compliant with Policy 8200. Most of these LEAs lacked
bid documentation, and two of the samples also dealt with an absence
of proper sole-source documentation. Collectively, the seven LEA
samples in question contained improperly documented purchases totaling
$285,488. The individual purchase amounts ranged between $6,000 -
$114,000. In a few examples of the sampled purchase documentation, the
LEA acquired quotes, but not formal bids, for purchases over $10,000.
Section 7.11 of Policy 8200 differentiates between “bids” and “quotes”
in various places, indicating that they are two separate methods that are
not interchangeable when it comes to the competitive bid process.
Notably, three LEAs listed in Table 4 had transactions that totaled
over $50,000, which, as designated by section 7.11.5 of Policy 8200,
requires public advertisement for the bid request “using such media as
legal advertisements in local newspapers, the internet, trade journals,
purchasing bulletins, mass mailings or other media considered advisable.”
It is also required that “the solicitation for bids must specify that the bids
are to be received in the form of sealed bids.” These requirements were
not adhered to in these transactions. Most products listed in Table 4 were
pg. 26 | West Virginia Office of the Legislative Auditor
Performance Review
commonly purchased with ESSER I funds by various LEAs throughout
the state; however, other LEAs used a variety of vendors to purchase
similar products outside of the vendors listed in the table. Therefore,
evidence indicates that it was possible for the LEAs in Table 4 to secure
bids from multiple sources for the same products.
Table 4
LEA Purchases Deemed Compliant By the WVDE
that PERD Found Violated Proper Purchasing Procedures
ESSER I Cyclical Monitoring Samples
Purchase County
Vendor Description
Amount District
$114,000 Logan Heritage Educational Services Virtual learning
$69,731 Berkeley Mobile Citizen, LLC Wireless Internet
$59,745 Monroe Pearson Online Academy Virtual learning
$15,563 Lincoln Hubert Company PPE dispensing cart
$11,300 Marshall National Equipment Co. Hand sanitizer
$8,800 Tyler Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Reading software
$6,349 Monongalia Flywheel Desk shields
$285,488
Sources: LEA purchasing documentation and WVDE Cyclical Monitoring documentation.
Furthermore, section 8.1 of Policy 8200, titled Alternative
Purchasing Procedures, states, “The LEA may purchase equipment and
other commodities or services directly from a vendor without competitive
bidding” if:
• “The item is available from a statewide contract and
‘piggybacking’ by local government entities is permitted in the
contract.”
• “The item is available from a local purchasing cooperative, Evidence indicates that it was possi-
ble for the LEAs in Table 4 to secure
such as a [regional educational service agency] or a group of
bids from multiple sources for the same
county boards that are working together to use their combined products.
purchasing volume to obtain more advantageous pricing through
economies of scale.”
PERD found examples of LEAs utilizing both types of the
alternative purchasing procedures denoted above. County boards of
education such as Logan and Preston, for example, piggybacked on
the State’s contract with Liberty Distributors, which sells custodial
supplies. Additionally, seven different LEAs used educational services
Performance Evaluation & Research Division | pg. 27
Department of Education
cooperatives to procure a variety of purchases, including virtual learning.
Utilizing these alternative methods more frequently during the COVID-19
pandemic would have likely saved LEAs time, created more instances of
compliance for cyclical monitoring, and reduced the amount of required
bid documentation. Therefore, to facilitate purchasing processes, the
legislative auditor recommends that the WVDE encourage LEAs to
utilize alternative procurement options designated by Policy 8200, Utilizing these alternative methods
such as educational services cooperatives and pre-existing state more frequently during the COVID-19
contracts that permit “piggybacking.” pandemic would have likely saved
LEAs time, created more instances of
compliance for cyclical monitoring,
and reduced the amount of required bid
The OFP’s Cyclical Monitoring Does Not Consider If documentation.
Vendors Are Registered to Do Business in the State as the
Vast Majority of LEAs Made Federal Grant Purchases
with Unregistered Vendors
The vendors utilized for all purchases within the ESSER I samples
were reviewed by PERD to verify registration with the West Virginia
Secretary of State’s (SOS) business and licensing database. Table 5
shows that the sample contains a total $2,170,932 spent by 48 of the
54 LEAs using unregistered vendors. Overall, the 48 LEAs completed
115 separate purchases involving 97 different unregistered vendors with
ESSER I funds. Three of the vendors in question were previously in good
standing with the SOS but held inactive/terminated status at the time of
the purchase by the LEAs. Within the sample of invoices, 6 out of 54
LEAs used vendors that were properly registered with the SOS. All but
two of the vendors listed in Table 5 are located outside of West Virginia,
and based on the description of the purchases, the items were likely
difficult to obtain during the COVID-19 pandemic.
pg. 28 | West Virginia Office of the Legislative Auditor
Performance Review
Table 5
LEA Purchases from Vendors Not Registered with SOS
ESSER I Cyclical Monitoring Samples
Purchase County School Number of
Description of Items Purchased
Total District Vendors
$14,221 Barbour 3 Hand sanitizer, plexiglass barriers, masks
$75,793 Berkeley 3 Wireless internet; desks and chairs
$219,277 Boone 3 Partitions, masks, hand sanitizer, gloves
$19,145 Braxton 3 Markerboards, food containers, bandages
$19,558 Brooke 2 Seminar for school nurses, desk shields
$242,954 Cabell 3 Desk shields, gloves, ear loop face masks
$5,068 Calhoun 1 IT software, Bluetooth scanner
$58,937 Doddridge 2 Body temperature detectors, stand-alone kiosks
$27,825 Fayette 1 Industrial cleaner
$3,668 Gilmer 1 Adobe Creative Cloud license
$37,083 Grant 4 Water coolers, interactive white board
$95,979 Greenbrier 5 Masks, gloves, tables, industrial cleaner
$72,984 Hampshire 6 Non-contact temperature kiosks, tables/stands
$40,146 Hancock 1 Desk shields
$21,878 Hardy 2 Bell covers for band instruments, keyboards
$24,963 Harrison 3 Desk shields, online learning subscriptions
$191,857 Jackson 6 Masks, thermometers, table dividers, sanitizer
$2,376 Jefferson 2 Entrance mats, rapid response system
$5,116 Kanawha 3 Band equipment covers, cleaning kits
$5,735 Lewis 1 Social distancing stickers
$22,813 Lincoln 2 Educational consultant, protective equipment
$40,350 Marion 1 Desk dividers
$1,348 Marshall 2 Custom door, gloves, gauze sponges, bandages
$94,299 Mason 1 65” touch screen monitors
$132,162 McDowell 3 Telehealth training bundle, disinfectant
$31,863 Mercer 2 Sanitizer, circle desk dividers
$26,000 Mineral 2 1,000 laptop bags, online books
$9,009 Mingo 2 T-shirts, school bus software (routing program)
$6,349 Monongalia 1 Desk partitions
$4,320 Monroe 1 Heat recovery ventilator units for classrooms
$500 Morgan 1 Flex shields
$19,916 Nicholas 3 iPad accessories, gloves, hand sanitizer
$12,384 Ohio 3 Music books, playing masks for marching band
Performance Evaluation & Research Division | pg. 29
Department of Education
Table 5
LEA Purchases from Vendors Not Registered with SOS
ESSER I Cyclical Monitoring Samples
Purchase County School Number of
Description of Items Purchased
Total District Vendors
$1,274 Pendleton 1 Software licenses
$10,265 Pocahontas 4 Breakaway lanyards, hand sanitizer
$253,162 Putnam 3 Internet hotspot access, band instrument covers
$59,944 Ritchie 1 Cafeteria furniture and chairs
$68,103 Summers 5 Chromebook cases, laptop chargers, Wi-Fi
$16,787 Taylor 6 Breakaway lanyards, band masks, sanitizer
$3,830 Tucker 1 Desk dividers
$2,248 Tyler 1 Active masks
$280 Upshur 1 Protective face shields
$11,962 Wayne 3 Disinfectant, bell covers for band instruments
$3,025 Webster 2 Face shields, thermometers, wireless internet
$108,035 Wetzel 3 Art supplies, sneeze guards, barrier shields
$11,091 Wirt 3 Masks, air purifiers, infrared thermometers
$32,550 Wood 1 Flexible dividers
$2,504 Wyoming 1 Infrared thermometers and masks
$2,170,932 115
Sources: Secretary of State Business and Licensing Database, and WVDE Cyclical Monitoring documentation.
Although Policy 8200 designates the formal guidelines for LEA
purchases, it does not explicitly comment on whether a vendor must be
registered with the SOS to conduct business with a county school district.
However, within the appendix of Policy 8200, “vendor” is formally
defined as: “An individual, partnership or business authorized to conduct
business in the State of West Virginia that is able to furnish the desired
commodity or service.” Based on West Virginia State Code, an entity
authorized to do business in the state involves registration with the State
This further indicates the lack of ap-
Tax Department. According to §11-12-3 of State Code, “No person shall, propriate structure in the monitoring
without a business registration certificate, engage in or prosecute, in process when Policy 8200 states that
the State of West Virginia, any business activity without first obtaining a vendors must be authorized to conduct
business registration certificate from the Tax Commissioner of the State business in the state, but the OFP does
of West Virginia.” Chapter 11 further specifies that a business registration not include this in the monitoring pro-
certificate authorizes a person to conduct business within the state. While cess.
the vendors in question are verified to not be registered with the SOS, it is
likely that they are also not registered with the State Tax Department, and
therefore, are not paying their share of state taxes. This further indicates
the lack of appropriate structure in the monitoring process when Policy
8200 states that vendors must be authorized to conduct business in the
state, but the OFP does not include this in the monitoring process.
pg. 30 | West Virginia Office of the Legislative Auditor
Performance Review
Furthermore, Legislative Rule CSR §148-1-6.1.7 explains
purchasing protocol that “applies to all spending units of State
government.” While county boards are not spending units of the State
government, CSR 148 contains a Registration of Vendors section that
could benefit LEA purchasing procedures if added to Policy 8200, as it
requires the following:
The vendor must be licensed and in good standing in
accordance with any and all state and local laws and
requirements by any state or local agency of West Virginia, By not registering with the SOS, the
including, but not limited to, the West Virginia Secretary vendor also avoids compliance with
of State’s Office, the West Virginia Tax Department, West W. Va. Code §59-1-2A, which requires
Virginia Insurance Commission, or other state agencies payment of an annual report fee and
filing of an annual report.
or political subdivisions. The vendor must provide all
necessary releases to obtain information necessary to
verify that the vendor is licensed and in good standing
with the above entities.
Also, CSR §148-1-6.1.4 states that “vendors receiving orders for
goods or services exceeding $1,000, regardless of payment method, shall
pay an annual fee of $125.00.” Of the sample invoices involving vendors
not registered with the SOS, 95 different purchases totaled $1,000 or
more (including a $20,000 purchase by Doddridge County Schools, from
United Kingdom-based vendor DST Innovations, for stand-alone front
and back kiosks). By not registering with the SOS, the vendor also avoids
compliance with W. Va. Code §59-1-2A, which requires payment of
an annual report fee and filing of an annual report. Proper registration
with the SOS further ensures that the LEA is conducting business with a
legitimate entity that is in good standing with the State of West Virginia.
Pursuant to W.Va. Code §5A-3-33f, the State of West Virginia and By not verifying the registration status
its political subdivisions may not solicit offers from, award contracts to, of vendors being used by LEAs, a po-
or consent to subcontract with a debarred vendor during the debarment tential consequence is that the school
period. The West Virginia Purchasing Division maintains a publicly districts could use unsuitable vendors.
available list of 30 vendors who are currently debarred from doing
business with the State. By not verifying the registration status of vendors
being used by LEAs, a potential consequence is that the school districts
could use unsuitable vendors. There is no evidence in the sample that
any LEA purchased from a debarred business. The legislative auditor
recommends that the WVDE incorporate in Policy 8200, and in the
monitoring instrument for ESSER monitoring, the requirement that
LEAs use vendors that are appropriately registered with the SOS
and State Tax Department to be authorized to do business in West
Virginia.
Performance Evaluation & Research Division | pg. 31
Department of Education
Results of ESSER II/ARP Monitoring by the OFP Preceded
a Special Circumstance Review of Upshur County that
Highlighted Use of Federal Funds on Unallowable Costs,
and Identified Internal Control Issues
On July 6, 2022, the OFP reviewed the Upshur County school
district as part of the cyclical monitoring process of ESSER I funded
programs. Four program monitors were assigned to the review. The
monitors had a finding that $5,000 of ESSER I funds was paid to
Buckhannon Upshur High School without itemized invoices or receipts
for the payment. The Upshur County LEA was ordered to either provide
itemized receipts for the transaction or reimburse the federal grant by
September 6, 2022. No documentation was provided by Upshur County
and the LEA would be required to reimburse the federal grant. Although
the LEA was later subject to internal control deficiencies during a 2023
Special Circumstance Review, the OFP explained to PERD, “Upshur
County was able to talk through and explain their internal control process
during the interview call for ESSER I. At that time, we had no evidence
to demonstrate that they were not following the procedures.” Therefore,
besides the single citation regarding spending on allowable activities,
Upshur received compliance ratings for all ESSER I cyclical monitoring Besides the single citation regarding
indicators. spending on allowable activities, Up-
shur received compliance ratings for
Furthermore, the results of the ESSER II/ARP cyclical review all ESSER I cyclical monitoring indi-
cators.
for Upshur County, completed in February 2023, included a series of
noncompliance findings related to funds spent on unallowable activities
and purchasing procedures. Some of the OFP’s initial findings regarding
funds spent on unallowable activities include the following:
• Over 1,000 WV State Wildlife Center family passes were
purchased for the summer of 2021; however, monitors found that
the purchase was unallowable due to a lack of evidence that these
passes had a programmatic purpose and would need to reimburse
the ESSER grant award in the amount of $21,320.
• A C.J. Maggie’s room rental without a detailed invoice or
supporting receipt required a reimbursement of $1,150 to the
ESSER II grant award.
• Over 1,200 family pool passes purchased from the Upshur County
Commission were found by monitors to be without programmatic
purpose and required reimbursement totaling $62,325.
• Two other purchases at restaurants totaling over $1,100 were also
determined to be unallowable due to a lack of itemized receipts
and called for reimbursement.
pg. 32 | West Virginia Office of the Legislative Auditor
Performance Review
In addition to the ESSER cyclical monitoring findings, the
WVDE received a letter written on behalf of a concerned citizens group
in March 2023 that requested a “complete and forensic audit” of Upshur
County Schools, with an emphasis on federal funding. In response to
these concerns, the State Superintendent of Schools authorized a Special
Circumstances Review in May 2023. Some of the Special Review’s
findings regarding funds spent on unallowable activities include the
following:
• The review team “identified 12 instances of contracts that
included food and beverage charges for staff retreats for
Stonewall Resort totaling $49,260. Food and beverage expenses
for conferences are not an allowable expenditure with Federal
funding. Overnight accommodation was provided for staff at
Stonewall Resort, which is 25 miles from the board office.” The
LEA provided no documentation to validate the need to have a
retreat at Stonewall or to justify it as an allowable expense under
the ESSER II grant.
• Expenditures at local restaurant C.J. Maggie’s (in addition to what During an analysis of Upshur County
monitors cited during the ESSER II/ARP review) involved over internal controls, the Special Circum-
$21,000 of food and beverage charges that were purportedly part stance Review found several instances
of overrides in internal controls.
of a staff retreat. No meeting agendas or room rental agreements
were provided to support the need to have the retreat at the
location.
• A bed and breakfast staff retreat in Buckhannon totaled over
$1,400 in expenditures, but no supporting documentation was
provided to validate the usage of the site, which was located six
miles from the school board office.
• Three employees received $75,100 in federal compensation, in
addition to regular pay, despite no records showing actual time
worked and no documentation confirming the payments were
approved by the school board.
Additionally, during an analysis of Upshur County internal
controls, the Special Circumstance Review found several instances of
overrides in internal controls. The review states, “There were seven
instances where purchases with federal funds were not approved by the
Federal Program Director. We noted nine instances where an ‘approved’
stamp was used in the place of an authorizing signature.” The Special
Circumstance Review also found the LEA to be without proper written
policies in the following ways:
• “The district does not have a policy covering conflicts of interest.
They do have a Policy of Fiscal Administration, but the policy
does not address conflicts of interest.”
Performance Evaluation & Research Division | pg. 33
Department of Education
• “The district did not provide, and the finance review team could
not locate online a local policy that governs the use of the county’s
P-Card and other credit cards.” Such internal control procedures
are required of LEAs by the State Auditor’s Purchasing Card
Policies and Procedures manual.
• Employee absence/leave policy “was deemed to be insufficient as
it does not address all types of leave currently provided to various
groups of employees throughout the district,” including aspects of
annual/vacation leave, outside the school environment days, and
out-of-calendar days (that are nonpaid days not included as part
of the minimum employment term).
Finally, the Special Circumstances Review team became aware of
two instances in which the district employed individuals who did not hold
and did not apply for licenses/certificates from the WVDE. One of those
instances appears to involve nepotism. These findings were presented to
the West Virginia Board of Education in June 2023, which resulted in the In July 2022, the OFP assigned one
person to monitor Logan County’s
Board immediately voting to seize authority of Upshur County Schools. ESSER I activities. The program
Because the Special Circumstance Review included “a sampling of monitor gave the LEA a compliance
financial records representing less than 1% of total transactions covering rating in all seven areas. One of the
four fiscal years,” the special review is ongoing, as of October 2023, invoices that the monitor sampled was
while the OFP analyzes other federal expenditures made by the district.1 for $19,500. It was payment associat-
ed with a larger contract of more than
$500,000 for Heritage Educational
virtual learning.
The OFP’s Review of Logan County Should Have Flagged a
$500,000 Contract for Virtual Education Services that Did
Not Follow Competitive Bidding Procedures or Establish a
Written Contract
The OFP’s ESSER I review of Logan County is another example
of an inadequate monitoring capacity. In July 2022, the OFP assigned
one person to monitor Logan County’s ESSER I activities. The program
monitor gave the LEA a compliance rating in all seven areas. One of
the invoices that the monitor sampled was for $19,500. It was payment
associated with a larger contract of more than $500,000 for Heritage
Educational virtual learning. The documentation for the $19,500 gave
ample evidence that it was for a larger contract with large previous
payments that should have warranted attention by the program monitor.
Nevertheless, no detailed review was conducted on the Heritage Education
contract by the monitor, and compliance was assigned to the LEA in all
categories.
1
Findings by the Special Circumstance Review of Upshur County Schools
in June 2023 prompted a federal investigation by the U.S. Attorney for the Northern
District of West Virginia, which is ongoing as of October 2023.
pg. 34 | West Virginia Office of the Legislative Auditor
Performance Review
However, at the specific request of the West Virginia State
Superintendent of Schools, the Office of Support and Accountability
conducted an unannounced Special Circumstance Review of Logan
County Schools, commencing September 15, 2022, to investigate official
complaints submitted to the WVDE regarding board governance, central
office leadership, and documentation provided to the WVDE through a
Federal Programs Monitoring. The WVDE reviewed county financial
data for all purchases made by the county between July 1, 2020, and
August 9, 2022. The team conducting the special report noted several
instances in which the district entered non-competitive contracts in which
the only support for sole-source was a letter provided by the vendor. One
example was the contract with Heritage Educational services that totaled
$565,200.
The special review ultimately included multiple “focus areas” of
topical investigation, resulting in numerous findings. The WVDE noted
a total of 47 different noncompliance citations in a variety of categories
dealing with deficiencies in executive leadership, school system
efficiencies, financial indicators, operation of federal programs, and other Logan County chose to procure the vir-
subjects. Consequently, the West Virginia Board of Education voted tual services even though the WVDE
unanimously to take control over Logan County on October 27, 2022. As had already established the West Vir-
of early October 2023, Logan County remains under State supervision. ginia Virtual School, and a virtual ed-
ucation platform known as WV Learns,
Considering the special review and its findings related to that permitted virtual school opportuni-
purchasing in Logan County, the legislative auditor directed PERD to ties for all counties.
examine Logan County’s federal COVID-19 expenditures, with emphasis
on a contract between the district and a newly established vendor that
was paid over $500,000 to provide virtual learning services to K-12
students. Logan County chose to procure the virtual services even though
the WVDE had already established the West Virginia Virtual School, and
a virtual education platform known as WV Learns, that permitted virtual
school opportunities for all counties.
PERD found that shortly before establishing an agreement with
Logan County, a business called Heritage Educational Services, LLC
(Heritage Educational) was established on July 23, 2020, after operating
as Heritage Christian Primary and Preparatory School (Heritage
Christian) since 2017. According to SOS records, both Heritage
Educational and Heritage Christian are distinct and active businesses
based in Logan County. The same individual listed as “incorporator”
of Heritage Christian is also listed as an officer for Heritage Educational.
On all Heritage Educational correspondence, agreements, and written
communication, the person listed as the “owner” is also associated with
Heritage Christian.
Roughly one month after Heritage Educational was established,
Logan County entered into an agreement with the company “to provide
facilitation for our WVDE Virtual students,” according to an internal
Performance Evaluation & Research Division | pg. 35
Department of Education
email sent to principals by the assistant superintendent of Logan County
on August 26, 2020. The same email states the reason for the agreement
was to alleviate the workload of school personnel because “school-level
staff members do not have the time to provide the support that our WVDE
Virtual School students need.” Principals were informed that Heritage
Christian students would be enrolling with Logan County but “are
choosing WVDE Virtual.” Therefore, the former private school students
would be enrolled in public school but remain virtual and continue to
receive their education through Heritage. The internal email states, “They
will receive the same opportunities to participate in school activities as
students, who come to school face to face.”
Heritage Educational delivered its virtual curriculum to Logan
County students using the pre-existing WV Learns platform. County
school districts pay a general cost to use WV Learns under normal
circumstances, at a rate of $600 for each student enrolled full-time in the
West Virginia Virtual School. Logan County, for example, paid $38,400
to the WVDE in March 2021 for spring semester virtual students, while
simultaneously paying Heritage Educational $19,300 for its virtual
learning. Financial records show that between fiscal years 2021 and
Logan County, for example, paid
2023, Logan County paid Heritage Educational $636,660. This total is $38,400 to the WVDE in March 2021
in addition to fees paid to the State for WV Learns. for spring semester virtual students,
while simultaneously paying Heritage
The written agreement between Heritage Educational and Logan Educational $19,300 for its virtual
County is dated August 24, 2021 although the previously referenced learning.
email announcing the agreement with Heritage Educational, as well as
financial records, indicate that the vendor began receiving payment for
services from the district in the fall of 2020. A Logan County purchase
order addressed to Heritage Educational, dated October 5, 2020, denotes
a total of $114,000 billed for virtual services, with an allocation schedule
ranging between September 8, 2020 and January 25, 2021. Financial
transactions confirm the first check was written to Heritage Educational
on October 14, 2020. Considering the 2020 date of the first purchase
order, compared to the August 2021 date of the written agreement,
Logan County was operating under a $100,000 partnership, without
a written contract, for the first school year during which the vendor
was paid for services.
Additional materials obtained by the WVDE show that Heritage
Educational was named a sole-source provider; however, the only
documentation used to validate this claim was a letter submitted by the
vendor itself outlining the services it offers. The letter is dated August 1,
2021 – nearly one year after Logan County disbursed the first payment
to Heritage Educational. (The Special Circumstances Report on Logan
County by the WVDE incorrectly states that the sole-source letter was
dated August 1, 2020.) The letter concludes, “There is no other company
that offers such a complete list of services at one contractual price.”
pg. 36 | West Virginia Office of the Legislative Auditor
Performance Review
Nonetheless, purchase records contained within ESSER I cyclical
monitoring samples verify that other counties procured virtual learning
services through multiple vendors as shown below, contradicting the
assertion that Heritage was a sole-source:
• Summers County Schools utilized the Southern Educational
Services Cooperative, which partnered with a vendor called
Proximity Learning, Inc. to provide virtual learning. This
collaboration was originally pursued in 2019, prior to the
pandemic and the establishment of Heritage Educational.
• Hardy County Schools utilized the Eastern Panhandle
Instructional Cooperative to “assist in the development, delivery,
implementation, and evaluation of Hardy County Schools virtual
learning program” beginning in July 2020.
• Monroe County Schools utilized Pearson Online and Blended
Learning of Columbia, Maryland, in March 2021.
Additionally, the contract between Logan County and Heritage
Educational contradicts the sole-source claim by prohibiting the district The contract between Logan County
from contracting with another entity to provide virtual education and Heritage Educational contradicts
facilitation: “So long as [Heritage Educational] is not in breach of this the sole-source claim by prohibiting
Agreement, the Board agrees it will not enter into an agreement with the district from contracting with an-
other entity to provide virtual educa-
any third party to provide the services outlined in this Agreement to any tion facilitation.
students.” A WVDE investigator noted in their summary of evidence for
the special review of Logan County that they “know from experience
that many other individuals and places can provide facilitator and
instructional support for WV Virtual students.”
Preliminary Findings from the ESSER II/ARP Cyclical
Monitoring Reports Suggest Similar Issues of Non-
Adherence of Purchasing Guidelines with Eight Counties
Being Repeat Offenders
As previously reported, the final monitoring ESSER II/ARP
reports issued by the OFP have yet to be completed. However, the OFP
compiled files of those that have been completed and the legislative
auditor noted continued issues of counties reported as non-compliant.
Table 6 lists the LEAs that have been reviewed as of June 29, 2023.
Thirty-nine (39) LEAs have been reviewed by the OFP and 17 have been
issued non-compliance from the invoices sampled to determine allowable
expenses and 15 LEAs (Boone, Braxton, Calhoun, Grant, Greenbrier,
Hampshire, Harrison, Jefferson, Logan, Lewis, Lincoln, Mason, Preston,
Taylor, and Upshur) are non-compliant due to not following Policy 8200,
with cited infractions of:
Performance Evaluation & Research Division | pg. 37
Department of Education
• missing or no bid documentation;
• no invoices, purchase orders or requisitions provided;
• no evidence of sealed bids that were publicly advertised; and
• a lack of sole-source documentation.
Moreover, of the 15 counties, 9 (Boone, Calhoun, Greenbrier,
Hampshire, Harrison, Lewis, Mason, Preston, and Taylor) were also It is also evident that counties are con-
issued non-compliance for purchasing violations under the ESSER I tinuing to utilize vendors that are not
review. It is also evident that counties are continuing to utilize vendors registered with the Secretary of State.
that are not registered with the Secretary of State. For example, from the
eight counties that were deemed non-compliant, two monitoring reviews
in a row, Boone, Greenbrier, Hampshire, and Mason utilized vendors in
both years that are not registered with the Secretary of State. It is worth
noting that no LEA to date has yet to be cited for exceeding the indirect
cost rate. This suggests that the WVDE has educated LEAs on the proper
method for calculating indirect costs.
Table 6
ESSER II/ARP Funding
Improper Purchasing Procedures, Excess Indirect Costs,
and Unallowable Spending Activities
Improper Exceeded
Purchasing Unallowable Indirect Description for
LEA Procedures Spending Cost Rate Unallowable Activities
Amount
Food purchased and provided to
Berkeley $315
community members.
Boone $497,320
Braxton $2,850
Calhoun* Unknown Unknown No documentation was submitted.
Doddridge $165 Tax was paid on food purchase.
Grant $277,500
Greenbrier $169,169
No prior written approval for
Hampshire $117,253 **$172,147
construction project.
Hancock** Unknown Unknown No documentation was submitted.
Food and beverage purchases for
Harrison $8,995 $1,743
high school prom.
Jefferson $25,000
Lewis $421,848
Lincoln $24,579
Marshall $11,190
Mason $252,832
pg. 38 | West Virginia Office of the Legislative Auditor
Performance Review
Table 6
ESSER II/ARP Funding
Improper Purchasing Procedures, Excess Indirect Costs,
and Unallowable Spending Activities
Improper Exceeded
Purchasing Unallowable Indirect Description for
LEA Procedures Spending Cost Rate Unallowable Activities
Amount
Mineral $95,488
Walmart gift cards for attendance
Nicholas $220
incentives.
Food purchased and provided to
Preston $26,322 $1,008
community members.
Raleigh $12,567
Taylor $99,005
Entertainment costs with no
programmatic purpose; no room
Upshur $45,400 $85,947
rental agreement; no itemized
receipts to confirm allowable costs.
Wayne $422 Gift baskets for businesses.
Wetzel $93,291
Shoes meant for disadvantaged
Wyoming $10,899 youth were purchased for all
students.
Total $2,180,607 $272,866 ---
Source: WVDE ESSER II/ARP Cyclical Monitoring Documents
*No documentation submitted by the LEA, so potential amount is unknown.
**Reimbursement was required if the LEA did not have supporting evidence to validate the expenditure. No
response documentation from the agency could be found on the agency shared drive to verify if LEA ever responded
with supporting evidence.
Several Causes Are Contributing to Deficiencies in the
WVDE Cyclical Monitoring Process
While the WVDE’s fiscal monitoring and internal control system
has identified improper purchasing practices, unallowed expenditures,
and excess indirect costs, PERD finds that the WVDE missed seven
violations during ESSER I cyclical monitoring. PERD has identified five
separate causes that contributed to deficiencies in the WVDE’s execution
of ESSER I cyclical monitoring, which also appear to be carried on into
ESSER II monitoring.
Performance Evaluation & Research Division | pg. 39
Department of Education
1. The WVDE does not have adequate monitoring capacity. Eighty-
five percent of the ESSER I monitoring has been conducted by
one to three staff members.
2. The fiscal monitoring system lacks appropriate risk assessment.
The frequency of improper purchasing procedures and other
ESSER grant violations warranted a re-assessment of risk and
adjustments to the system’s capacity and structure.
3. The current monitoring process lacks appropriate structure.
There were no written policies and procedures for the cyclical
monitoring process, certain aspects of internal control that should
be reviewed were not, and certain purchasing violations that PERD has identified five separate
should be identified are not part of the monitoring process. causes that contributed to deficiencies
in the WVDE’s execution of ESSER
4. The WVDE did not clearly communicate which purchasing I cyclical monitoring, which also
procedures LEAs needed to follow during the ESSER I appear to be carried on into ESSER
II monitoring.
procurement process.
5. Local school districts may have been in the practice of improper
purchasing procedures prior to the COVID-19 pandemic due to a
lack of monitoring.
1) Inadequate Monitoring Capacity
According to the Governor’s Executive Budget Operating Detail,
the WVDE’s Office of Federal Programs and Support, which oversees
cyclical monitoring and other federal-related duties, has 56 full time-
equivalent employees for fiscal year 2024. As previously stated, however,
the agency indicated to PERD that it has no more than five individuals
tasked with reviewing all of the state’s LEAs for their use of ESSER I
transactions and internal control policies and procedures. Table 7 below
shows how the 5 individuals were assigned to monitor the 54 counties
that were reviewed. Twenty-four (24) of the 54 LEAs, were reviewed by
one of the five program monitors. Eighty-five (85) percent of the reviews
were conducted by one to three program monitors. This has proven to be
insufficient.
pg. 40 | West Virginia Office of the Legislative Auditor
Performance Review
Table 7
The 54 LEAs Under ESSER I Review
Broken Down by the Number of Program Monitors Assigned to the Review
1 Program 2 Program 3 Program 4 Program 5 Program
Monitor Monitors Monitors Monitors Monitors
Number of LEAs Reviewed 24 9 13 7 1
Source: WVDE Cyclical Monitoring documentation.
It stands to reason that having fiscal monitoring conducted on 55
different LEAs by one to three staff may be an extensive undertaking and
would possibly lead to mistakes and omissions. More significant is
that of the 54 LEAs reviewed, more than half did not follow proper
procurement practices, and in the final analysis, all but 10 reviewed
counties had some combination of non-compliance for the first tow
rounds of ESSER monitoring. The evidence of many purchasing
violations not being identified suggests that the current capacity of the
fiscal monitoring system is inadequate in achieving effective monitoring
of ESSER funds. Given that ESSER funds have administrative portions
that may be used for employing additional staff, the WVDE should
expand the monitoring capacity by hiring additional staff.
Given that ESSER funds have admin-
2) Inadequate Risk Assessment istrative portions that may be used for
employing additional staff, the WVDE
As stated previously, the WVDE implemented a fiscal monitoring should expand the monitoring capaci-
system that has the elements of proper internal control, including ty by hiring additional staff.
mechanisms that allow for risk assessments. Given the prevalence of
non-compliance for all LEAs reviewed, an appropriate risk assessment
suggests the need to expand the monitoring system’s capacity.
Therefore, the legislative auditor recommends that the WVDE
increase its monitoring and internal controls capacity by assigning
more personnel to assist with cyclical monitoring. In addition, the
WVDE needs to renew its communication with LEAs to inform them
of its findings and reemphasize proper procurement practices going
forward.
3) Lack of Structure
When asked if the OFP has a policy or written procedures for
sampling of the transaction reports, if they have a policy as to exactly
what to request from each county and if there was a policy for repeat
offenders, the OFP reported,
Performance Evaluation & Research Division | pg. 41
Department of Education
We do not have a policy or written procedures currently
but are working on establishing one and are in the process
of building our monitoring into the GPS system for a more
formal process.
It is the legislative auditor’s opinion
It is the legislative auditor’s opinion that the lack of a standard written that the lack of a standard written
policy for the fiscal monitoring system runs the risk of inconsistencies, policy for the fiscal monitoring sys-
inaccuracies, and omissions, where some counties that should be tem runs the risk of inconsistencies,
deemed non-complaint are instead determined compliant, and some non- inaccuracies, and omissions, where
compliance issues are overlooked such as the case with Logan County. some counties that should be deemed
non-complaint are instead determined
Moreover, a written policy would provide more specific guidance to compliant, and some non-compliance
monitors. It should be clearly understood that program monitors should issues are overlooked such as the case
examine if vendors are registered with the State, certain aspects of internal with Logan County.
control should be examined and should be in writing by each LEA such
as segregation of duties, the approval chain of command, and the proper
use of P-cards and credit cards. Therefore, the legislative auditor
recommends that the WVDE establish in writing its fiscal monitoring
policies and procedures to ensure consistency, completeness, and
accuracy in its findings.
4) Unclear Communication on Which Purchasing Procedures
LEAs Need to Follow
Two separate sections of Policy 8200 were referenced at
different times by the WVDE in terms of the specific criteria that the
LEAs were supposed to follow for ESSER I purchases. Under normal
circumstances, LEAs would follow Section 7.11 of Policy 8200, which
dictates the competitive bid rules based on varying threshold limits. To
define a threshold, Section 7.3 specifies, “The threshold level to be used It should be clearly understood that
is determined by the total estimated cost of the item being purchased, program monitors should examine if
which is the unit cost multiplied by the quantity.” Therefore, the grand vendors are registered with the State,
total for a purchase containing multiple units of the same item qualifies certain aspects of internal control
as the real threshold, as opposed to the cost of each item as an individual should be examined and should be
product. Cyclical monitoring documents indicated that confusion in writing by each LEA such as seg-
surrounding threshold levels was a repeat occurrence with some LEAs regation of duties, the approval chain
that were under the impression that bids were not required for individual of command, and the proper use of
P-cards and credit cards.
items costing less than a specific amount.
Table 8 below outlines the intricate nature of Section 7.11 of
Policy 8200 to illustrate the specific bid requirements for purchases
based on total amounts. The procedures manual notes that Request for
Proposals “are encouraged whenever possible,” and most subsections of
7.11 place an emphasis on documentation and records retention. As can
be observed, the competitive bid requirements become more stringent as
the overall purchase costs increase.
pg. 42 | West Virginia Office of the Legislative Auditor
Performance Review
Table 8
Competitive Bid Threshold Limits for LEAs
Policy 8200, Section 7.11
Purchase Range Bid Requirement Summary
< $5,000 Competitive bids are encouraged but not required.
$5,000 - $10,000 Minimum of three verbal quotes must be obtained.
$10,000 - $25,000 Minimum of three written bids must be obtained.
Bids from at least three suppliers using advertisement media;
$25,000 - $50,000 effort must be made to solicit as many bids as practical.
>$50,000 Public advertisement and sealed bids only.
Source: Title 126 of Legislative Rule, Series 202, Policy 8200, Section 7.11.
With purchases costing over $25,000, Section 7.11.4e allows:
An LEA may waive the requirement to
advertise when a vendor is considered to be
the sole source for the item being purchased,
when it is determined to be in the best
interest of the LEA, or when professional,
technical, or specialized services are being
acquired under an agreement. All waivers
must be documented and those based on
a best interest determination must be
approved by the county superintendent, Use of this waiver under this emergen-
or the director of a [regional educational cy condition could have alleviated some
service agency] of the purchasing challenges some
LEAs may have had.
Despite this permissive language for competitive bid waivers, the
sampled purchases from the cyclical monitoring files provided by the
WVDE did not contain instances that documented any attempt by an
LEA to claim waivers in cases where the LEA was noncompliant for
bid requirements. Use of this waiver, especially under this emergency
condition could have alleviated some of the purchasing challenges some
LEAs may have had.
Although the WVDE used Section 7 of Policy 8200 as the criteria
for all ESSER I cyclical monitoring documents when testing whether
funds were used for allowable activities, the agency had recommended
use of a different section two years prior. Ten (10) days after Governor
Jim Justice declared a state of emergency for all West Virginia counties
on March 16, 2020, the WVDE sent a mass email to all K-12 chief school
business officials directing the districts to utilize Section 28 of Policy
8200. Along with a complete copy of Section 28 within the body of the
message to the chief school business officials, the email instructed:
Performance Evaluation & Research Division | pg. 43
Department of Education
As a reminder, West Virginia Board of
Education (WVBE) Policy 8200 contains
regulations for emergency procurement
procedures when the Governor declares an
emergency. For emergency needs related
to COVID-19, county boards of education
need to be sure they are following the
minimum regulations set forth in Section
28 of WVBE Policy 8200. Regular The conflicting references created the
procurement rules would still apply to potential for confusion regarding the
exact criteria that LEAs were expected
purchases unrelated to the COVID-19
to follow, particularly because they do
health emergency. not have the same policies regarding
bid thresholds.
Despite these instructions, the WVDE did not use Section 28
for cyclical monitoring of COVID-related purchases. The conflicting
references created the potential for confusion regarding the exact criteria
that LEAs were expected to follow, particularly because they do not have
the same policies regarding bid thresholds. The confusion is manifested
in multiple cases where an LEA was initially cited as noncompliant for
Section 7 purchasing procedures, the district responded to the WVDE’s
request for corrective action by uploading the March 26 email containing
the state agency’s directions to use the emergency section of Policy 8200.
Section 28 is less stringent than the guidelines established under
Section 7 for regular competitive bidding, but still requires three verbal
bids for purchases over $1,000, and three written bids for purchases
estimated to cost more than $5,000. In contrast to Section 7, Section 28 is
silent regarding purchases beyond $5,000, which translates to the “three
written bids” rule acting as an umbrella requirement for all estimated
costs totaling over $5,000.
In contrast to Section 7, Section 28
Given the emergency status of Section 28, certain exceptions are is silent regarding purchases beyond
made in the following capacities: $5,000, which translates to the “three
written bids” rule acting as an umbrel-
• 28.1.3i: “If, in the opinion of the LEA, using sound judgment la requirement for all estimated costs
and discretion, time does not permit written bids to be received, totaling over $5,000.
verbal bids shall be obtained and documented, with written bids
received within five working days of the request.”
• 28.1.3j: “If, in the opinion of the LEA, using sound judgment and
discretion, time does not permit verbal bids to be received, the
public organization must secure written approval from the chief
executive officer of the state agency to secure necessary services
and supplies without bids for only that period of time absolutely
necessary to abate the emergency.”
Although some LEAs attempted to cite Section 28 as a response
for noncompliance citations identified by initial cyclical monitoring, there
pg. 44 | West Virginia Office of the Legislative Auditor
Performance Review
remained a lack of documentation to verify that these subsections were
followed, as the entries listed above rely on written records regardless of
emergency. Furthermore, had more LEAs followed 28.1.3j and acquired
written approval from the WVDE chief executive officer to grant an
emergency waiver of bidding rules, this would have likely reduced the
number of legitimate non-compliant citations. The legislative auditor
recommends that the WVDE clearly define which section of Policy
8200 should be followed by LEAs for ESSER-related purchases,
and for purchases made in the future under potentially similar If LEAs are not monitored regular-
circumstances. ly for their compliance of purchasing
requirements, then the risk is relative-
ly high that their normal purchasing
5) Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, LEAs may have been in practices will be non-compliant with
the practice of improper purchasing procedures due to a lack expected purchasing procedures.
of monitoring.
The misunderstanding of thresholds, coupled with the numerous
LEAs found noncompliant with Policy 8200, suggests that local school
districts were likely practicing improper purchasing procedures prior
to the COVID-19 pandemic. When PERD asked the WVDE if routine
monitoring of LEAs’ purchasing practices are conducted, the agency
stated that it did not routinely review purchasing practices of LEAs.
Monitoring the compliance of entities is an important internal control
component. If LEAs are not monitored regularly for their compliance of
purchasing requirements, then the risk is relatively high that their normal
purchasing practices will be non-compliant with expected purchasing
procedures.
Other States Have Been Found to Not Have Sufficient
Capacity to Monitoring ESSER Funds
The same report also found that $31
Below are examples of other state departments of education that million of pandemic relief funds were
have come under performance audits during the allocation of ESSER distributed for a summer learning pro-
funds. The monitoring capacity of these states vary. However, in each gram without a method to ensure stu-
case, the monitoring process was found to be insufficient. dent ability was improved.
• A December 2020 report by the North Carolina Office of the
State Auditor found that the Department of Public Instruction
distributed approximately $76 million of CARES Act funding
but did not monitor spending. The report stated, “As a result,
there was an increased risk that public school units could have
misused the funds without the misuse being detected.” The same
report also found that $31 million of pandemic relief funds were
distributed for a summer learning program without a method to
ensure student ability was improved.2
2
North Carolina Office of the State Auditor, Audit of Coronavirus Relief
Funds at the Department of Public Instruction, December 2, 2020, https://dig.abclocal.
go.com/wtvd/docs/State-Auditor-Report.pdf.
Performance Evaluation & Research Division | pg. 45
Department of Education
• The Auditor of the State of California released a report in October
2021 regarding COVID federal funds spending and the state
Department of Education. The report identified inadequacies
in the monitoring process, as the agency reviewed less than
one percent of LEAs that received ESSER funding. The report
states, “The small number of LEAs that Education monitored is
concerning given that it identified significant issues related to
unsupported or unallowable expenditures at some of the 15 LEAs The agency conveyed that it did not
that it selected.” The agency conveyed that it did not have enough have enough staff to monitor a larger
staff to monitor a larger number of LEAs.3 number of LEAs.
• A Single Audit report by the Mississippi Office of the State Auditor,
released in November 2022, found that the state Department
of Education failed to follow proper procurement guidelines.
There was one specific case wherein the eventual winning bidder
influenced changes to the vendor specification requirements
within the final contract and was granted extra time to prepare bids
before the request for quotes was publicly advertised. Further, the
winning bid was not one of the two lowest-priced bids. The report
concluded:
Failure to act in good faith in obtaining negotiations
can open [the agency] to civil litigation claims.
Additionally, implied preference to vendors could
result in public distrust in the procurement process.
Lastly, implied preference could result in fraud,
waste, or abuse during the procurement process.4
• A Montana legislative audit on the Office of Public Instruction,
released in May 2022, cited a lack of internal controls regarding This finding was accompanied by the
recommendation that “OPI should
the monitoring of federal grants, and identified over $460,000 in improve monitoring of schools for
alleged COVID-related expenditures that “contained insufficient COVID-19 related funding.
detail to demonstrate the funds were spent in accordance with
ESSER regulations or could not be tied back to the approved
budgets.” This finding was accompanied by the recommendation
that “OPI should improve monitoring of schools for COVID-19
related funding.”5
3
Auditor of the State of California, California Department of Education: It
Needs to Provide Better Oversight to Ensure That Local Educational Agencies Promptly
and Effectively Use Federal COVID‑19 Funds, October 2021, https://www.auditor.
ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2021-614.pdf.
4
Mississippi Office of the State Auditor, Single Audit for Year Ending June 30,
2021, November 2022, https://www.osa.ms.gov/documents/single-audit/21sar.pdf.
5
Montana Legislative Audit Division, Financial-Compliance Audit: Office of
Public Instruction For the Two Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2021, May 2022, https://
leg.mt.gov/content/Publications/Audit/Report/21-19.pdf.
pg. 46 | West Virginia Office of the Legislative Auditor
Performance Review
• An audit conducted by the Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau,
released in May 2022, found that the Department of Public
Instruction “could not provide supporting documentation for
the amounts it reported” for the required annual report it had
submitted to the U.S. Department of Education regarding the
use of ESSER funds. The bureau questioned the accuracy of
the agency’s reporting and recommended that the department PERD finds that the fiscal monitoring
“develop formal written procedures to identify the sources of system established by the West Virginia
information necessary and steps needed to compile complete and Department of Education per the grant
accurate information for the ESSER Fund annual reports.”6 requirements of ESSER funding lacks
the proper capacity to be effective in en-
suring that ESSER funds are used as
intended.
Conclusion
PERD finds that the fiscal monitoring system established by the
West Virginia Department of Education per the grant requirements of
ESSER funding lacks the proper capacity to be effective in ensuring
that ESSER funds are used as intended. The USDOE encouraged the
State to re-evaluate its current monitoring capacity considering the ARP/
ESSER funding, which was considerably more than the funds granted
under ESSER I and ESSER II. However, there is no evidence that the
WVDE made any adjustments to its monitoring capacity and continued
using primarily one to three program monitors for West Virginia’s 55
LEAs. ESSER funds provide an administrative portion that may be used
to increase staff to fulfill the objectives of the grant funds. The effects of
the inadequate monitoring capacity are that some violations that are
occurring are not being detected, and the risk of fraud, waste, and
abuse is elevated. While the WVDE cited 25 LEAs for noncompliance
in purchasing procedures, PERD reviewed the same documentation
and identified 7 others that also did not submit proper purchasing
documentation yet were initially deemed compliant by program monitors. Judging from the preliminary results of
ESSER II reviews, it appears that LEAs
Proper internal control considers periodic risk assessments be gained a better understanding on the
made to determine if adjustments to control activities need to be made correct method of calculating indirect
costs.
because the risks of non-compliance or ineffectiveness is higher. The
prevalence of purchasing violations identified by the fiscal monitoring
system during the review of ESSER I funds warranted the WVDE to
make adjustments to address the high level of non-compliance. PERD
found no evidence that the WVDE made adjustments resulting from
risk assessments in the form of increasing the monitoring capacity or
communicating an emphasis on proper purchasing procedures and
allowable expenditures. However, judging from the preliminary results
of ESSER II reviews, it appears that LEAs gained a better understanding
on the correct method of calculating indirect costs.
6
State of Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau, State of Wisconsin FY 2020-21
Single Audit, Report 22-5, May 2022, https://legis.wisconsin.gov/LAB/media/3376/22-
5full_354486.pdf.
Performance Evaluation & Research Division | pg. 47
Department of Education
Although the capacity of the monitoring system is important,
equally important is the structure of the review process by the program
monitors. The WVDE does not have the monitoring process in writing
which leads to inconsistent findings or omissions. The agency should
specify the various types of purchasing violations to look for, and program
monitors should be required to determine if vendors are registered with
the Secretary of State to do business in West Virginia. PERD’s review of
ESSER I cyclical monitoring purchases made by LEAs determined that
over 90 different recipient vendors were not registered with the SOS, and
therefore, did not qualify to do business with the State of West Virginia.
Moreover, the lack of registrations, coupled with the excessive purchase
totals involved with some of these vendors, indicate that the State did not
receive at least $10,000 in rightful fees had the companies been properly
registered, per §148 CSR 1. Procuring products from non-registered
vendors, especially those located out of state and out of country, increases
the risk of fraud. Standard written policies and procedures for monitoring
The lack of registrations, coupled with
should be established to facilitate a consistent, accurate, and complete
the excessive purchase totals involved
fiscal monitoring system. with some of these vendors, indicate
that the State did not receive at least
$10,000 in rightful fees had the com-
Recommendations panies been properly registered, per
§148 CSR 1.
1. The WVDE should increase its monitoring and internal controls
capacity by assigning more personnel to assist with cyclical
monitoring.
2. Consideration should be given by the WVDE to use the
administrative portion of ESSER funds to hire additional
temporary staff to assist in the fiscal monitoring.
3. The fiscal monitoring process should be established in writing
with specifics on what program monitors should examine. Such
monitoring instruments should instruct program monitors to
examine if vendors are registered with the Secretary of State,
list every type of purchasing violations that should be reviewed,
specify key aspects of internal control that must be reviewed, such
as segregation of duties, the approval chain of command, the
proper use of P-cards and credit cards, and other specific elements
of internal control as the WVDE determines appropriate.
4. The WVDE should renew its communication with LEAs to re-
emphasize proper purchasing procedures.
5. The WVDE should routinely review purchasing practices of LEAs
during non-emergency conditions to reinforce proper purchasing
procedures.
pg. 48 | West Virginia Office of the Legislative Auditor
Performance Review
6. When appropriate, the WVDE should encourage LEAs to utilize
alternative procurement options designated by Policy 8200,
such as educational services cooperatives and pre-existing state
contracts that permit “piggybacking” to facilitate purchasing
processes during states of emergency.
7. The WVDE should incorporate in Policy 8200, and in the
monitoring instrument for ESSER monitoring, the requirement
that LEAs use vendors that are appropriately registered with the
SOS and State Tax Department to be authorized to do business in
West Virginia.
8. The WVDE should clearly define which section of Policy 8200
applies to LEAs for ESSER-related purchases, and for purchases
made in the future under potentially similar circumstances.
Performance Evaluation & Research Division | pg. 49
Department of Education
pg. 50 | West Virginia Office of the Legislative Auditor
Performance Review
Appendix A
Transmittal Letter
Performance Evaluation & Research Division | pg. 51
Department of Education
pg. 52 | West Virginia Office of the Legislative Auditor
Performance Review
Appendix B
Objectives, Scope and Methodology
The Performance Evaluation and Research Division (PERD) within the Office of the Legislative Auditor
conducted this performance review of the West Virginia Department of Education (WVDE) as authorized by
the West Virginia Performance Review Act, Chapter 4, Article 10, of the West Virginia Code, as amended. The
purpose of the WVDE, as established in West Virginia Code §18-2 et seq., is to exercise general supervision
of the public schools of the state and carry into effect the laws and policies of the state relating to education.
Objectives
The objective for this review is to determine if the WVDE is properly monitoring the use of Elementary
and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) federal grants to ensure the funding is being spent for the
intended purpose, in accordance with the State Plan.
Scope
The scope of this review involved the WVDE’s adherence to the internal control sub-recipient
procedures for receiving sub-recipient county audits during FY 2020 and 2021. The scope also includes cyclical
monitoring data for ESSER I and ARP-ESSER funds conducted by the WVDE between May 2022 and April
2023. The review additionally includes information regarding the State Board of Education takeover of Logan
County Schools, a Special Circumstance review of Upshur County Schools, and a federal investigation of
Upshur County Schools finances – all of which are ongoing as of October 2023. Finally, a risk assessment
with respect to agency capacity was analyzed, particularly during the ESSER I cyclical monitoring stage.
Methodology
PERD gathered and analyzed several sources of information and conducted audit procedures to assess
the sufficiency and appropriateness of the information used as audit evidence. The information gathered and
audit procedures are described below.
The bulk of the documentary information gathered for the cyclical monitoring review was acquired
through a shared drive, administered by the WVDE, that granted exclusive access to PERD. The agency uploaded
volumes of monitoring data on the shared drive for PERD’s review, including county district purchasing
orders, financial documents, cyclical monitoring forms, purchasing policies, and email communication
between districts and the WVDE. To determine the accuracy of certain information, testimonial evidence was
also gathered via written statements from WVDE staff, as well as virtual and in-person meetings.
The federally required State Plan, which details the agency’s intended use of ESSER funds, was also
analyzed as part of this review, in addition to county single audits conducted between FY 2020 and 2021. State
Board of Education meeting minutes and applicable Special Circumstance On-Site Review Reports were also
utilized.
All information regarding unregistered vendors was obtained via the Secretary of State’s (SOS) online
business registration portal, which includes records of all registered entities. Written testimony was also
gathered from the SOS to confirm the status of specific vendors registered with the state in a business capacity.
Performance Evaluation & Research Division | pg. 53
Department of Education
We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence
to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives.
pg. 54 | West Virginia Office of the Legislative Auditor
Performance Review
Appendix C
Agency Response
Performance Evaluation & Research Division | pg. 55
Department of Education
pg. 56 | West Virginia Office of the Legislative Auditor
Performance Review
Performance Evaluation & Research Division | pg. 57
Department of Education
pg. 58 | West Virginia Office of the Legislative Auditor
Performance Review
Appendix I
ESSER I Cyclical Monitoring Samples and Percentages of Total Allocations
ESSER I Cyclical Monitoring Samples
and Percentages of Total Allocations
Number of Vendors
& Invoices Sampled Total Total
% of
County Amount ESSER I
Allocation
District on Invoices Allocation
Vendors Invoices Reviewed
Sampled for LEA
Barbour 8 11 $266,036 $858,084 31%
Berkeley 10 12 $347,664 $3,943,220 8%
Boone 8 18 $547,085 $1,243,840 44%
Braxton 10 11 $108,483 $820,010 13%
Brooke 6 8 $64,748 $607,649 11%
Cabell 13 16 $3,342,771 $4,986,882 67%
Calhoun 10 12 $195,549 $367,333 53%
Doddridge 7 13 $258,139 $297,037 87%
Fayette 14 54 $1,266,284 $2,305,679 55%
Gilmer 8 9 $197,781 $245,822 80%
Grant 9 14 $331,963 $392,838 85%
Greenbrier 18 29 $581,277 $1,395,998 42%
Hampshire 16 30 $220,827 $989,407 22%
Hancock 7 7 $189,652 $854,815 22%
Hardy 10 12 $418,639 $515,519 81%
Harrison 13 17 $1,765,574 $2,724,153 65%
Jackson 11 14 $298,968 $1,203,502 25%
Jefferson 12 13 $27,816 $1,064,066 3%
Kanawha 20 20 $1,032,151 $8,351,034 12%
Lewis 6 6 $683,121 $688,424 99%
Lincoln 7 9 $338,860 $1,429,829 24%
Logan 13 14 $470,691 $2,106,680 22%
Marion 8 10 $1,389,042 $2,041,044 68%
Marshall 9 9 $104,777 $1,181,460 9%
Mason 8 8 $239,295 $1,232,270 19%
McDowell 18 19 $1,174,374 $2,267,898 52%
Mercer 9 12 $497,270 $3,232,246 15%
Mineral 11 11 $241,898 $1,131,755 21%
Mingo 15 20 $572,981 $1,868,906 31%
Monongalia 8 8 $79,284 $1,808,942 4%
Performance Evaluation & Research Division | pg. 59
Department of Education
ESSER I Cyclical Monitoring Samples
and Percentages of Total Allocations
Number of Vendors
& Invoices Sampled Total Total
% of
County Amount ESSER I
Allocation
District on Invoices Allocation
Vendors Invoices Reviewed
Sampled for LEA
Monroe 10 10 $48,638 $527,689 9%
Morgan 7 12 $310,449 $488,104 64%
Nicholas 11 11 $785,390 $1,268,267 62%
Ohio 8 9 $650,485 $1,324,556 49%
Pendleton 4 4 $228,704 $236,939 97%
Pleasants 5 5 $118,579 $190,344 62%
Pocahontas 12 12 $76,452 $359,067 21%
Preston 6 6 $555,205 $1,078,383 51%
Putnam 11 11 $423,557 $1,115,117 38%
Raleigh 12 12 $1,485,509 $3,409,195 44%
Randolph 6 6 $1,290,354 $1,441,179 90%
Ritchie 10 10 $240,904 $469,821 51%
Roane 5 5 $593,008 $837,265 71%
Summers 21 21 $539,825 $937,137 58%
Taylor 9 15 $90,704 $639,907 14%
Tucker 6 6 $188,658 $226,882 83%
Tyler 9 10 $90,934 $316,721 29%
Upshur 12 12 $578,204 $1,082,696 53%
Wayne 18 28 $118,233 $2,015,674 6%
Webster 8 10 $133,723 $754,431 18%
Wetzel 6 11 $232,621 $726,422 32%
Wirt 12 14 $95,097 $275,127 35%
Wood 15 15 $869,574 $4,137,531 21%
Wyoming 11 11 $199,964 $1,229,459 16%
Total amount of invoices sampled $27,177,769 $77,244,256 35%
Sources: WVDE monitoring files; West Virginia Schools Pandemic Relief Funding chart by
WVDE.
pg. 60 | West Virginia Office of the Legislative Auditor
WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION & RESEARCH DIVISION
Building 1, Room W-314, State Capitol Complex, Charleston, West Virginia 25305
telephone: 1-304-347-4890 | www.wvlegislature.gov/Joint/perd.cfm | fax: 1- 304-347-4939
File and source
- File
- pe-23-08-667-department-of-education-esser-2023-11.pdf
- Size
- 2,246,128 bytes
- SHA-256
- 82b98cdd9c670e0b9ed9d9e51b80aaf53d124e034eda3c2dd2f585db27d18bf3
- Original
- www.wvlegislature.gov