Full text
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
Wisconsin Department of Public
Instruction’s Administration and
Oversight of Emergency
Assistance to Nonpublic Schools
Grant Funds
September 29, 2025
ED-OIG/A24NY0195
NOTICE
Statements that managerial practices need improvements, as well as other conclusions
and recommendations in this report, represent the opinions of the Office of Inspector
General. The appropriate Department of Education officials will determine what
corrective actions should be taken.
In accordance with Freedom of Information Act (Title 5, United States Code,
Section 552), reports that the Office of Inspector General issues are available to
members of the press and general public to the extent information they contain is not
subject to exemptions in the Act.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Audit Services
September 29, 2025
Tony Evers
Governor, State of Wisconsin
P.O. Box 7863
Madison, WI 53707
Dr. Jill K. Underly
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
201 W Washington Ave
Madison, WI 53703
Dear Governor Evers and Dr. Underly:
Enclosed is our final audit report, “Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction’s Administration and
Oversight of Emergency Assistance to Nonpublic Schools Grant Funds,” Control Number ED-
OIG/A24NY0195.This report incorporates the comments you provided in response to the draft report.
The U.S. Department of Education’s policy is to expedite resolution by timely acting on findings and
recommendations. Therefore, if you have any additional comments or information that you believe may
have a bearing on the resolution of this audit, you should send them directly to the following
Department of Education official, who will consider them before taking final Departmental action on this
audit:
Hayley Sanon
Acting Assistant Secretary
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20202
We appreciate your cooperation during this review. If you have any questions, please contact me at
(202) 657-8542 or Keith.Cummins@ed.gov.
Sincerely,
/s/
Keith Cummins
Acting Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audit
Enclosure
400 MARYLAND AVENUE, S.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20202-1510
Promoting the efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity of the Department’s programs and operations.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Inspector General
Results in Brief
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction’s Administration and
Oversight of Emergency Assistance to Nonpublic Schools Grant Funds
Why Did the OIG Perform What Did the OIG Find?
This Audit? Although Wisconsin’s processes to assess nonpublic schools’ eligibility for EANS-funded
In response to the coronavirus services and assistance ensured that funds were obligated within 6 months of receipt and
disease 2019 pandemic (COVID-19), that applications for the EANS programs were generally approved or denied timely in
Congress passed three relief acts accordance with Federal regulations, we found that Wisconsin allocated ARP EANS funds
that provided more than $275 billion to nonpublic schools that did not meet program eligibility requirements and did not verify
for an Education Stabilization Fund, some information that nonpublic schools provided in their applications for EANS funds.
including $5.5 billion for the
Additionally, Wisconsin’s oversight of its contractor’s administration of EANS expenditures
Emergency Assistance to Nonpublic
and inventory processes could be improved. Specifically, Wisconsin did not effectively
Schools (EANS) program. The
monitor its contractor to ensure that expenditures were properly accounted for,
purpose of the EANS programs is to
supporting documentation was maintained, and assets purchased with EANS funds were
provide services or assistance to
tracked. Further, Wisconsin’s processes did not ensure that fees charged to the nonpublic
eligible nonpublic schools to address
schools’ EANS funds were reasonable and appropriate. However, Wisconsin’s oversight
educational disruptions caused by
was adequate to ensure that EANS-funded services and assistance were for allowable
the COVID-19 emergency.
purposes.
Effective application and oversight What Is the Impact?
processes help ensure that EANS Wisconsin’s improper approval of ineligible nonpublic schools’ applications resulted in
funds are appropriately allocated providing over $20 million in ARP EANS-funded services and assistance to 184 nonpublic
and used for allowable purposes in schools. Further, because Wisconsin did not verify certain information in nonpublic
order to help eligible nonpublic schools’ applications, it provided $838,829 for EANS-funded services and assistance to
schools address the needs of one ineligible school and did not have assurance that all schools that were approved to
students, families, and educators. participate in the programs had a nonprofit status.
The Wisconsin Department of Public
Instruction (Wisconsin) was awarded It is critical that Wisconsin conduct adequate oversight of its contractor’s administration
about $151.4 million in EANS funds. of EANS funds to ensure that expenditures are properly accounted for, supporting
documentation is maintained, and assets are tracked. The lack of oversight resulted in an
Our objectives were to determine improper payment and unsupported expenditures. By not ensuring assets purchased with
whether Wisconsin designed and EANS funds are being tracked, there’s an increased risk that some assets will not be used
implemented (1) application for purposes related to COVID-19 or other permitted Federal program activities; or be
processes that adequately assessed lost, or unused.
nonpublic schools’ eligibility for
What Are the Next Steps?
EANS-funded services or assistance
We made seven recommendations to address the issues we identified in Wisconsin’s
and complied with other applicable
administration and oversight of its EANS programs.
requirements and (2) oversight
processes to ensure that EANS- We provided a draft of this report to Wisconsin for comment. Wisconsin disagreed with
funded services or assistance were our findings and all seven recommendations. We summarize Wisconsin’s comments and
used for allowable purposes. provide our responses at the end of each finding. We also provide the full text of
Wisconsin’s comments at the end of the report (Wisconsin's Comments)
Final Audit Report ED-OIG/A24NY0195
Table of Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 7
Finding 1. Wisconsin Did Not Administer ARP EANS Funds in Accordance with Federal
Requirements.................................................................................................................... 10
Finding 2. Wisconsin Did Not Adequately Assess All EANS Programs Eligibility
Requirements for Nonpublic Schools ............................................................................... 13
Finding 3. Wisconsin Could Improve its Oversight of the EANS Programs ....................... 17
Appendix A. Scope and Methodology............................................................................... 23
Appendix B. Allowable Uses of EANS Funds ..................................................................... 27
Appendix C. Acronyms and Abbreviations........................................................................ 29
Wisconsin’s Comments ..................................................................................................... 30
Introduction
Background
On March 13, 2020, the President declared a national emergency due to the coronavirus
disease 2019 pandemic (COVID-19). In response, Congress passed three COVID-19 relief
acts within a 1-year period that provided more than $276 billion for an Education
Stabilization Fund to prevent, prepare for, and respond to COVID-19, including
$5.5 billion for the Emergency Assistance to Nonpublic Schools (EANS) program.
• The Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (CRRSA),
enacted on December 27, 2020, provided $2.75 billion in funding for nonpublic
schools to provide services and assistance addressing educational disruptions
caused by COVID-19, as part of the Governor’s Emergency Education Relief
Fund.
• The American Rescue Plan Act (ARP), enacted on March 11, 2021, provided
another $2.75 billion in funding to the EANS programs, bringing the total
amount of EANS funding to $5.5 billion.
Purpose of the EANS Programs
The purpose of the EANS programs is to provide services or assistance to eligible
nonpublic schools to address educational disruptions caused by the COVID-19
emergency. Under the CRRSA and ARP EANS programs, governors apply to the
U.S. Department of Education (Department) for formula grants for the purpose of
providing emergency services or assistance to nonpublic schools. Although a Governor
applies for EANS funds and has oversight responsibilities as the grantee, the statutes
require that the State educational agency (SEA) administer the programs. SEAs can use
up to one-half of 1 percent of its total EANS allocation for administrative costs. SEAs can
hire contractors to assist in administering and overseeing a State’s EANS programs.
Importantly, nonpublic schools are not recipients of grant awards under the EANS
programs, but instead receive services or assistance provided by the SEA as requested in
their application, to the extent resources are available.
SEA Administrative Responsibilities
CRRSA section 312(d) describes SEAs’ responsibilities for administering the EANS
programs. SEAs are responsible for informing nonpublic schools about the programs,
creating applications for eligible nonpublic schools, and ensuring timely and accessible
application processes. SEAs must approve or deny applications within 30 days of receipt,
determine and provide allowable services either directly or through external service
providers, and ensure that no funds are given directly to nonpublic schools. All services
must be secular, nonideological, and nonreligious and must be provided by a public
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A24NY0195 7
agency. Additionally, SEAs must obligate EANS funds promptly, ideally within 6 months
of receiving the funds, and administer the EANS programs in accordance with all
applicable regulations.
Additionally, on or before the date it makes its ARP EANS applications for services or
assistance available to nonpublic schools, SEAs must publish on its website (1) the
minimum percentage it will use to determine whether a nonpublic school enrolls a
significant percentage of students from low-income families, (2) the source(s) of poverty
data it will use to determine counts of students from low-income families in a nonpublic
school, and (3) the factors it will use to identify nonpublic schools as most impacted by
COVID-19. 1
Nonpublic School EANS Programs Eligibility
For purposes of the EANS programs, an eligible nonpublic school is an elementary or
secondary school that
• is a nonprofit;
• is accredited, licensed, or otherwise operates in accordance with State law;
• was in existence prior to the date COVID-19 was declared a national emergency
(March 13, 2020); and
• did not, and will not, apply for and receive a loan under the Small Business
Administration’s (SBA) Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) that is made on or
after December 27, 2020. This limitation applies for as long as the nonpublic
school is a participant in the EANS programs under CRRSA or ARP.
The ARP also established separate criteria that SEAs were required to use to determine
whether nonpublic schools were eligible to receive services or assistance. Under CRRSA,
SEAs were required to prioritize services or assistance to nonpublic schools that enrolled
low-income students and were most impacted by the qualifying emergency (COVID-19).
The ARP further restricted eligibility for services or assistance to nonpublic schools that
enrolled a significant percentage of low-income students and were most impacted by
the qualifying emergency. Because the ARP did not identify what constituted a
significant percentage of low-income students, the Department established through a
notice of final requirements in the Federal Register that, to be eligible for ARP EANS-
funded services or assistance, the percentage of low-income students in a nonpublic
1
Final Requirements for ARP EANS, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 131, (July 13, 2021).
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A24NY0195 8
school must be at least 40 percent, unless a State requested and received approval from
the Department to use an alternate percentage based on circumstances in the State. 2
Allowable Uses of EANS Funds
The EANS programs allow a nonpublic school to receive services and assistance from the
State’s SEA or its contractors to address educational disruptions resulting from
COVID-19. These services and assistance can include supplies to sanitize and clean
school facilities, educational technology, and reasonable transportation costs, among
many others. For a full list of services and assistance covered under the EANS programs,
see Appendix B.
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction’s EANS Program
Administration
The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (Wisconsin) was awarded $77.5 million
in CRRSA funds and $73.9 million in ARP EANS funds to provide services and assistance
to nonpublic schools affected by the pandemic. Wisconsin’s Office of Parental Education
Options was responsible for the administration and oversight of the EANS programs.
Wisconsin made $77,104,541 in CRRSA funds available to 449 nonpublic schools and
$73,506,205 in ARP EANS funds available to 392 nonpublic schools that it deemed
eligible to receive services and assistance. Wisconsin contracted with a vendor to
administer the entire EANS program. Wisconsin’s contractor was responsible for the
delivery of services and assistance to the nonpublic schools in the EANS program. 3 This
included (1) providing EANS program technical assistance; (2) hosting webinars for
nonpublic schools; (3) approving past, current and future expenditure purchases, and
(4) overseeing and tracking the nonpublic schools’ inventory of equipment purchased
with EANS funds. Wisconsin was responsible for developing and processing the EANS
applications and determining the categories of allowable expenditures.
2
Final Requirements for ARP EANS, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 131 (July 13, 2021).
3
Wisconsin paid their contractor $337,460 to administer the CRSSA program and $294,378 to
administer the ARP EANS program.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A24NY0195 9
Finding 1. Wisconsin Did Not Administer ARP
EANS Funds in Accordance with Federal
Requirements
Wisconsin did not comply with ARP EANS program requirements when determining
nonpublic schools’ eligibility for ARP EANS-funded services and assistance. Wisconsin
was approved by the Department to use an alternate low-income enrollment threshold
of 21.9 percent when determining nonpublic schools’ eligibility for ARP EANS-funded
services and assistance, as proposed in its ARP EANS application. However, Wisconsin
also stated in its application that it would approve ARP EANS-funded services and
assistance for nonpublic schools that submitted reimbursement claims or direct
assistance requests under the CRRSA EANS program even if those schools did not meet
its approved low-income enrollment threshold. The Department approved the
application even though this approach did not align with Federal eligibility
requirements. 4
According to the Department’s final requirements published in the Federal Register, at
least 40 percent of the nonpublic school’s students must be from low-income families
for the nonpublic schools to be eligible for ARP EANS-funded services or assistance.
However, a State could request and must receive approval from the Department to use
an alternate percentage based on specific circumstances within the State. 5
Wisconsin stated that its ARP EANS program was compliant with its application as
approved by the Department. In addition to receiving approval to use an alternate low-
income percentage, Wisconsin added language to the ARP EANS application that would
allow the State to provide ARP EANS funds to nonpublic schools that had ongoing
challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Wisconsin stated in its application that
the determination of need for ARP EANS funds should not be limited to low-income
status and that schools’ ongoing challenges to mitigate COVID-19 and address learning
loss would incur costs. Wisconsin believed that these associated costs—what it referred
4
During a December 2024 meeting, the Department acknowledged that, when reviewing and approving
Wisconsin’s ARP EANS application, it overlooked the approach outlined by Wisconsin regarding its plan
to approve ARP EANS-funded services and assistance for certain nonpublic schools even if they did not
meet the State’s approved low-income enrollment threshold. The Department stated that disregarding
the poverty threshold was inconsistent with Federal requirements.
5
Final Requirements for ARP EANS, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 131, (July 13, 2021).
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A24NY0195 10
to in its application as “transactional data”—could be used as a proxy for demonstrating
need.
By not adhering to Federal requirements of the ARP EANS program, Wisconsin provided
184 ineligible nonpublic schools with more than $20 million in ARP EANS-funded
services and assistance. Of these, 77 nonpublic schools had a low-income percentage of
10 percent or below, including 38 nonpublic schools with a low-income percentage
below 5 percent and 18 nonpublic schools with zero percent low-income enrollment.
Using ARP EANS funds for services and assistance to nonpublic schools that did not meet
the approved low-income student enrollment threshold reduces the amount of funds
available to eligible nonpublic schools that could have used the funds for additional
services or assistance to address educational disruptions caused by the COVID-19
emergency.
Recommendation
We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education require the Governor of Wisconsin to—
1.1 Return the more than $20 million that was used for ARP EANS-funded services
and assistance for ineligible nonpublic schools or take other remedial actions
as appropriate, such as making accounting adjustments to other valid and
allowable obligations incurred during the ARP EANS period of availability.
Wisconsin’s Comments
Wisconsin disagreed with the finding and recommendation, stating that it was fully
compliant with its approved application. Wisconsin stated that it proposed an alternate
significant poverty percentage, demonstrated why its alternate percentage was
appropriate for ARP EANS eligibility, responded to Department inquiries regarding its
proposed method, and had its reasoning affirmed by the Department when the
Department approved its application—but that OIG has called into question its use of an
alternate significant poverty percentage. Regarding Recommendation 1.1, Wisconsin
stated that it was inappropriate for OIG to recommend that it return $20 million to the
Department as it was fully compliant with its approved ARP EANS application.
Wisconsin also stated that OIG did not provide any notice or follow-up regarding its
audit work between March 13, 2025, and May 13, 2025, at which point OIG contacted
Wisconsin to schedule an exit conference; that it inquired whether further information
or clarification was needed to complete the audit process multiple times and did not
receive a response from OIG; and that OIG did not notify it that the audit work had
concluded.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A24NY0195 11
OIG Response
We stand by our finding and recommendation. Notably, we did not find an issue with
Wisconsin’s use of an approved alternate significant poverty percentage. Rather, we
found that Wisconsin provided ARP EANS-funded services and assistance to nonpublic
schools with low-income percentages that were below Wisconsin’s approved alternate
percentage. Therefore, our recommendation remains unchanged.
Additionally, the OIG communicated extensively with both Wisconsin and its contractor
throughout the audit, including by making several requests for clarification of program
processes, asking for supporting documentation, and discussing our assessments of the
documentation that was provided
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A24NY0195 12
Finding 2. Wisconsin Did Not Adequately Assess
All EANS Programs Eligibility Requirements
for Nonpublic Schools
Wisconsin had written policies and procedures for reviewing and approving nonpublic
schools’ applications for CRRSA and ARP EANS funds, but did not design and implement
adequate processes to assess certain eligibility requirements for nonpublic schools to
receive EANS-funded services and assistance. Specifically, Wisconsin lacked processes
for verifying the accuracy of the data and assurances related to nonprofit status and
participation in the PPP that nonpublic schools included in their CRRSA and ARP EANS
applications. However, Wisconsin designed and implemented processes to ensure that
all CRRSA and ARP EANS funds were obligated within 6 months of receipt and
applications for the EANS programs were generally approved or denied timely in
accordance with Federal regulations. Also, Wisconsin provided accurate technical
assistance and guidance to nonpublic schools regarding the application process and
EANS program requirements, except as noting in Finding 1.
Wisconsin’s Processes for Reviewing and Approving Nonpublic
Schools’ Applications for CRRSA and ARP EANS Funds
For the CRRSA EANS program, Wisconsin required nonpublic schools to submit their
CRRSA EANS application online. When submitting the CRRSA EANS application,
Wisconsin required each nonpublic school to certify that they
• were a nonprofit school;
• were accredited, licensed, or otherwise approved to operate in accordance with
State law;
• existed and operated prior to March 13, 2020;
• did not and will not receive a loan under SBA’s PPP that is made on or after
December 27,2020; and
• were not requesting services or assistance that have already been supported by
an SBA loan under the PPP.
Further, as part of the CRRSA EANS application process, Wisconsin pre-populated low-
income student count data from private schools for the 2019–2020 school year that it
reported in its application for the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief
program. If a nonpublic school needed to update this data, they had to provide the
updated amount along with the data source they used such as free or reduced-priced
lunch data, scholarship or financial assistance records, or other allowable sources.
Additionally, a nonpublic school authorized representative was required to
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A24NY0195 13
electronically sign the CRRSA EANS application. By signing the application, the nonpublic
school certified that it would comply with applicable State and Federal requirements for
CRRSA EANS funds. Lastly, each nonpublic school had to provide a description of how
COVID-19 impacted the school in their application.
For the ARP EANS program, Wisconsin first used the approved CRRSA EANS applications
to determine nonpublic schools that were eligible for ARP EANS. Wisconsin then
confirmed whether the nonpublic school was interested in participating in ARP EANS
prior to allocating any funds. If a nonpublic school did not apply for and receive a CRRSA
EANS grant, they could apply for ARP EANS funding following the same application
process used for the CRRSA EANS program.
According to CRRSA section 312(d)(2)(B)(v), the SEA must obligate funds to provide
services or assistance to nonpublic schools no later than 6 months after receiving funds.
Additionally, CRRSA section 312(d)(3)(A)(ii) states that the application must be approved
or denied no later than 30 days after the receipt of the application. We found that
Wisconsin’s processes ensured that the CRRSA and ARP EANS funds were obligated
within 6 months of receipt and applications for the EANS program were generally
approved or denied within 30 days.
Wisconsin Did Not Verify Nonprofit Status and PPP
Participation in Nonpublic Schools’ CRRSA and ARP EANS
Applications
Wisconsin lacked processes for verifying the accuracy of the data and assurances
provided by nonpublic schools in their CRRSA and ARP EANS applications. As stated
above, each nonpublic school self-certified that they were a nonprofit school.
Additionally, for CRRSA and ARP applications, nonpublic schools must certify and
respond that they did or did not receive a PPP Loan on or after December 27,2020.
Wisconsin did not provide support that the schools we reviewed were nonprofit schools
and did not have a process to independently verify the PPP data.
According to section C-1 of the Department’s 2021 frequently asked questions (FAQ) for
EANS Program as authorized by CRRSA and ARP (updated September 17, 2021), an
eligible nonpublic school is an elementary or secondary school that is nonprofit and did
not, and will not, apply for and receive a loan under SBA’s PPP (15 United States Code
636(a)(37)) that is made on or after December 27, 2020. This limitation applies for as
long as the nonpublic school is a participant in the EANS program under CRRSA or ARP.
Wisconsin officials stated that they did not have resources to independently verify the
data submitted for all nonpublic schools’ applications. Wisconsin’s EANS program only
had one full-time employee, and one term employee assigned to review and approve
nonpublic schools’ applications for EANS funds. Additionally, Wisconsin stated that the
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A24NY0195 14
EANS program was a new Federal program, and to comply with Federal requirements,
Wisconsin relied on nonpublic schools’ self-certification of their applications. This self-
certification served as an assurance that information provided by the nonpublic schools
was accurate and complete.
By not verifying information on nonpublic schools’ applications for EANS funds,
Wisconsin increased its risk of allocating CRRSA or ARP EANS funds to ineligible schools.
We reviewed the SBA’s PPP loan database and identified at least one nonpublic school
that received a PPP loan outside the allowable date and had improperly received CRRSA
and ARP EANS-funded services and assistance totaling $838,829. We found that this
school received a PPP loan of $202,987 on March 12, 2021. We informed Wisconsin of
this issue, and a Wisconsin official advised that they had begun the process of
requesting that the school return the funds that were improperly expended.
Technical Assistance and Guidance Provided to Nonpublic
Schools Regarding CRRSA and ARP EANS Applications
Wisconsin provided clear, accurate, and timely technical assistance and guidance to
nonpublic schools regarding the purpose and goals of the CRRSA and ARP EANS
programs, how and when to submit their applications, initial and final allocation
determinations, and allowable uses of EANS funds. The State accomplished this, in part,
through email communications and webinars between March 2021 and October 2024.
Wisconsin also provided accurate technical assistance and guidance on eligibility criteria
for the CRRSA EANS program. However, it did not provide accurate technical assistance
and guidance on eligibility criteria for the ARP EANS program, which resulted in it not
complying with program requirements when determining nonpublic schools’ eligibility
for ARP EANS-funded services and assistance, as discussed in Finding 1.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education require the Governor of Wisconsin and Wisconsin’s State Superintendent of
Public Instruction to—
2.1 Provide documentation showing that the $838,829 in CRRSA and ARP EANS
funds that were recovered from the ineligible nonpublic school were returned
to the Department.
2.2 Obtain supporting documentation that all nonpublic schools that received
EANS-funded services and assistance have a nonprofit status.
Wisconsin’s Comments
Wisconsin disagreed with the finding and recommendations, stating that it did not have
access to resources that it could use to independently verify whether a nonpublic school
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A24NY0195 15
received a PPP loan, so it relied on the signed certifications of the applicants. Wisconsin
also explained that it prepopulated eligibility data from existing sources, which
nonpublic schools were required to verify and update as part of the application process.
Regarding Recommendation 2.1, Wisconsin stated that OIG’s recommendation to return
$838,829 was erroneous, as those funds had already been collected from the ineligible
nonpublic school and returned to the Department. Regarding Recommendation 2.2,
Wisconsin stated that it followed the Department’s guidance and there was no
indication that any nonpublic school receiving EANS-funded services and assistance
lacked nonprofit status.
OIG Response
We maintain our position that Wisconsin did not adequately assess all EANS programs
eligibility requirements for nonpublic schools. By relying solely on attestations without
requiring any independent evidence, Wisconsin increased the risk that ineligible schools
could receive EANS-funded services and assistance. Therefore, except for
Recommendation 2.1, our recommendations remain unchanged.
Regarding Recommendation 2.1, we revised but did not remove the recommendation.
We received documentation showing that Wisconsin recovered $838,829 from the
ineligible nonpublic school, but we did not receive documentation showing that the
funds were returned to the Department.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A24NY0195 16
Finding 3. Wisconsin Could Improve its
Oversight of the EANS Programs
Wisconsin’s oversight of its CRRSA and ARP EANS expenditures and inventory processes
could be improved. Wisconsin’s contractor was responsible for administering and
providing services and assistance using EANS funds and tracking assets purchased with
EANS funds. However, Wisconsin did not implement effective monitoring processes over
the contractor’s administration of the EANS programs. Specifically, Wisconsin did not
have monitoring processes to ensure that the contractor implemented policies and
procedures to (1) properly account for expenditures, (2) maintain supporting
documentation for EANS-funded services and assistance, and (3) track assets purchased
with EANS funds for nonpublic schools. Further, Wisconsin’s processes did not ensure
that fees charged to the nonpublic schools’ EANS funds were reasonable and
appropriate. However, we found that Wisconsin’s oversight processes ensured that
EANS‑funded services or assistance were for allowable purposes.
Wisconsin’s Contractor’s Processes for Administering the EANS
Programs
Wisconsin’s contractor developed written policies and procedures for reviewing and
approving nonpublic schools’ expenditures under the EANS program and tracking assets
purchased with EANS funds. The procedures for reviewing and approving expenditures
included an evaluation and approval process for services and assistance requested by
nonpublic schools to ensure compliance with Federal requirements. Under the CRRSA
EANS program, nonpublic schools were allowed to use any of the three types of
requests: direct services, prior reimbursements, or future reimbursements. However,
for the ARP EANS program, nonpublic schools were only allowed to request direct
services. The figure below describes the processes that Wisconsin’s contractor
developed for each type of request.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A24NY0195 17
Figure. Summary of Wisconsin’s Processes for Types of Expenditures Submitted by
Nonpublic Schools Under the EANS Program
Additionally, the contractor maintained written policies and procedures for tracking
inventory of equipment purchased with EANS funds. This process included performing
an annual verification that nonpublic schools’ assets listed on the inventory sheets 6
were actively used by the nonpublic school. As part of the asset verification, nonpublic
schools should have received an email to update their inventory sheet and confirm
whether their assets were in use or had been disposed. The nonpublic schools were
asked to reply to the email confirming that updates were made to their inventory
sheets, which would prompt the contractor to conduct an inventory audit.
6
The contractor required each nonpublic school to record all assets purchased with EANS funds on an
inventory sheet. The contractor provided each nonpublic school with a Google spreadsheet link, which
was accessible via the contractor’s interface system.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A24NY0195 18
Wisconsin Did Not Effectively Monitor its Contractor’s
Administration of the EANS Program
Wisconsin lacked sufficient monitoring processes to ensure that its contractor
implemented its policies and procedures to ensure that expenditures were properly
accounted for, supporting documentation for EANS-funded services and assistance was
maintained, and assets purchased with EANS funds for nonpublic schools were tracked.
As part of its oversight of the EANS program, Wisconsin held weekly meetings with its
contractor and discussed expenditures requiring final determination of allowability
under the program and depreciation and tracking of assets. However, Wisconsin did not
develop any other monitoring processes to provide reasonable assurance that the EANS
programs were administered in accordance Federal requirements and expenditures
were supported.
Lastly, Wisconsin did not provide oversight to ensure that the contractor tracked assets
purchased with ARP and CRRSA EANS funds as required by Federal requirements. We
requested replies to emails confirming the status of nonpublic schools’ inventories and
support that assets were still in use or returned that were within our sample. However,
the contractor did not provide this documentation.
According to 2 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) section 200.303(a), nonfederal
entities must have internal controls that ensure these funds are managed in compliance
with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. State
grantees (pass-through entities) are required to establish monitoring priorities based on
the risks posed by each subgrantee and to monitor the fiscal activity of subgrantees as
necessary to ensure that the subaward complies with Federal statutes, regulations, and
the terms and conditions of the subaward; and achieves performance goals
(2 C.F.R. section 200.332(c) and (e)). In addition, section 10.01 of Government
Accountability Office’s “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government”
states that management should design control activities to achieve objectives and
respond to risks.
Wisconsin stated that it entered into a contract with the contractor to fully administer
the EANS program and determined that it did not need to maintain full oversight of the
contractor’s processes for administering the program. Wisconsin officials stated that the
contractor’s primary function was to serve educational needs throughout the State by
providing leadership, coordination, and services to school districts, universities,
technical colleges, and other educational entities.
Wisconsin’s lack of adequate oversight of its EANS programs and its contractor’s
processes resulted in $21,312 in improper payments that were expended outside of the
CRSSA EANS program period and $297,477 in unsupported expenditures in CRSSA and
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A24NY0195 19
ARP EANS funds. We reviewed a sample of 30 CRRSA EANS and 30 ARP EANS
expenditures and found 1 expenditure in which the vendor provided services almost
6 months after the CRRSA EANS program ended. This expenditure was for supplies that
were allowable under CRSSA EANS for which the contractor submitted a claim for
reimbursement from Wisconsin in January 2024. However, according to the contractor’s
documentation, the supplies were invoiced and delivered to the nonpublic school in
July 2024, which was outside of the CRRSA EANS program period.
For our sample of expenditures, we reviewed POs, contracted direct service
agreements, 7 invoices, vendor payment, and other documentation that fully supported
the expenditures reviewed. While we determined that the expenditures were for
allowable purposes under the CRRSA and ARP EANS programs, Wisconsin did not
provide sufficient support documentation for seven expenditures. In several instances,
contracted direct service agreements identifying the vendor and describing materials or
services to be provided to a nonpublic school were not provided. A few of the
expenditures were for staff hired to provide services at nonpublic schools, but
documentation such as payroll or timesheets were not provided to support that the
services were provided. Not having supporting documentation for all expenditures for
our review limited our ability to confirm the allowability of those expenditures.
Because Wisconsin did not adequately oversee the contractor’s processes to track
assets, there’s no assurance that the assets were still being used for purposes related to
COVID-19 or for allowable purposes under other Federal programs.
Wisconsin’s Did Not Ensure that Fees Charged for Nonpublic
Schools’ EANS-Funded Services and Assistance Were
Reasonable and Appropriate
Wisconsin did not design and implement adequate oversight of its EANS programs to
ensure that service fees charged to nonpublic schools’ EANS funds were appropriate and
reasonable. Wisconsin’s contractor charged a service fee in the form of a processing fee
for assistance in procuring goods and services on behalf of the nonpublic schools.
Wisconsin allowed service fees to be charged for providing direct services to nonpublic
schools without determining a reasonable fee percentage. During our review, we found
service fees from 2.44 percent to 10.5 percent that were charged to nonpublic schools
for direct service expenditures. While Wisconsin was aware that service fees were
charged to nonpublic schools, it was not aware of the specific percentages charged and
7
The direct service agreement was a contract between the nonpublic schools and the contractor which
provides the nonpublic schools with direct services to materials and services allowable under the EANS
program.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A24NY0195 20
did not state that service fees were allowable in the contract terms with its contractor
for administering the EANS programs.
According to 2 C.F.R. section 200.303(a), nonfederal entities must establish and
maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable
assurance that they are managing the award in compliance with Federal statutes,
regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award.
Wisconsin stated that it was aware that service fees were charged to nonpublic schools’
EANS funds as part of standard practice, but it did not provide a reason for not assessing
reasonable service fee percentages and including them within the contract conditions
and terms. Not ensuring that service fees charged to the CRRSA and ARP EANS programs
were reasonable and documented in the contract increases the risk of unallowable
expenditures and reduces the amount of EANS funds available to address educational
disruptions caused by the COVID-19 emergency.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education require the Governor of Wisconsin and Wisconsin’s State Superintendent of
Public Instruction to—
3.1 Return the $21,312 in CRRSA EANS funds that were expended improperly for
services and assistance for a nonpublic school.
3.2 Require the contractor to provide sufficient support for the $297,477 of
unsupported CRRSA and ARP EANS-funded expenditures or return funds to
the Department.
3.3 Conduct a full review of the contractor’s vendor service fees to determine
reasonableness. Return EANS funds for any vendor service fees deemed to be
unreasonable.
3.4 Ensure that assets purchased with EANS funds are tracked in accordance with
Federal requirements.
Wisconsin’s Comments
Wisconsin disagreed with the finding and recommendations, stating that the OIG’s
claims regarding program improvements run counter to the positive performance
record that it has with the Department and its other Federal partners.
Regarding Recommendation 3.1, Wisconsin stated that the $21,312 in alleged improper
expenditures was tied to an eligible claim that was resubmitted under the ARP EANS
program. Regarding Recommendation 3.2, Wisconsin stated that its contractor had
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A24NY0195 21
already provided documentation to support these expenditures and that the OIG either
missed or disregarded it. Regarding Recommendation 3.3, Wisconsin maintained that
the service fees charged by the contractor were appropriate, necessary for
administering the EANS programs, properly identified, and lower than standard
administrative rates. Regarding Recommendation 3.4, Wisconsin stated that its
contractor followed established procedures, obtained annual inventory updates, and
provided records to OIG to confirm compliance.
OIG Response
We maintain our position that Wisconsin could improve its oversight of the EANS
programs. We thoroughly reviewed all documentation provided by Wisconsin’s
contractor and, based on our professional judgement, determined that some of the
documentation provided was insufficient to support expenditures that we tested, as
detailed in the finding. Our assessments were made in accordance with professional
audit standards and supported our conclusions that Wisconsin did not ensure that its
contractor consistently applied its written processes for supporting expenditures and
tracking federally funded assets. Wisconsin also did not provide any documentation of
its assessment of the reasonableness of service fees charged to nonpublic schools.
Therefore, except for Recommendation 3.4, our recommendations remain unchanged.
Regarding Recommendation 3.4, we revised but did not remove the recommendation.
We received documentation showing that assets were identified and located, but we
did not receive documentation showing that they are being tracked in accordance with
Federal requirements.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A24NY0195 22
Appendix A. Scope and Methodology
Our audit covered Wisconsin’s processes for reviewing and approving nonpublic schools’
applications and overseeing nonpublic schools’ use of EANS funds for the period
March 13, 2020, through June 30,2024.
To achieve our objectives, we reviewed and gained an understanding of the following
laws, regulations, and guidance relevant to CRRSA and ARP EANS:
• CRRSA (Public Law 116-260, December 27, 2020), section 312 “Governor’s
Emergency Education Relief Fund”;
• ARP (Public Law 117-2, March 11, 2021), section 2002, “Emergency Assistance
to Nonpublic Schools”;
• ARP Federal Register July 13, 2021;
• Department guidance, including the Certification and Agreement for Funding
EANS Program under CRRSA; FAQ, EANS Program as authorized by CRRSA and
ARP (Updated September 17, 2021); Addendum to FAQ, Disposition of
Equipment and Supplies, EANS Program (January 23, 2023); Final Requirements
for ARP EANS Federal Register Vol. 86, No. 131 (July 13, 2021);
• Wisconsin’s Grant Award Notification for the CRRSA and ARP EANS programs;
• the Government Accountability Office’s Standards for Control in the Federal
Government (September 2014); and
• 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and
Audit Requirements for Federal Awards.
We gained an understanding of Wisconsin’s application and oversight processes through
interviews with key Wisconsin and contractor officials who had knowledge of or were
responsible for establishing, administering, or overseeing the CRRSA and ARP EANS
programs. To assess the reliability of the testimonial evidence, we compared
information obtained from interviews with records related to Wisconsin’s application
and oversight activities when provided by the interviewees. We concluded that the
testimonial evidence we obtained was sufficiently reliable within the context of our
audit objectives.
We assessed the adequacy of Wisconsin’s application and nonpublic school eligibility
determination processes by (1) reviewing the applications that Wisconsin developed for
the CRRSA and ARP EANS programs to determine whether they contained data fields
that would allow Wisconsin to properly assess a school’s eligibility and prioritize schools
as required by law, (2) assessing the timeliness of Wisconsin’s dissemination of EANS
programs information and related applications, and (3) testing a sample of nonpublic
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A24NY0195 23
schools’ applications to determine whether Wisconsin properly determined the schools’
eligibility.
We also gained an understanding and assessed the adequacy of Wisconsin’s oversight
processes through reviews of relevant documents and records. We reviewed documents
identifying Wisconsin offices and staff who had a role in establishing, administering, or
overseeing the CRRSA and ARP EANS programs. We reviewed and evaluated the
guidance and technical assistance (such as webinars and emails) that Wisconsin
provided to nonpublic schools regarding the use of CRRSA and ARP EANS funds. We also
reviewed the written procedures that Wisconsin’s contractor developed to gain an
understanding of how requests for services and assistance were reviewed and
approved.
We assessed the implementation of Wisconsin’s oversight processes by testing samples
of CRRSA and ARP EANS expenditures to determine whether they complied with
applicable requirements. Specifically, we reviewed each expenditure to determine
whether it was (a) connected to the pandemic, (b) authorized under applicable law and
regulations, (c) reasonable and necessary in accordance with the Uniform Guidance, and
(d) sufficiently supported. We also determined whether purchased equipment and
supplies in the samples were properly approved and inventoried, if applicable.
Sampling Methodology
To determine whether Wisconsin designed and implemented application processes that
adequately assessed nonpublic schools’ eligibility for EANS-funded services or assistance
and complied with applicable requirements, we selected a nonstatistical, random
sample of applications for both CRRSA and ARP EANS. In total, we reviewed 9 approved
applications and 10 rejected applications. Specifically, for the CRRSA EANS program, we
sampled 10 applications (2 percent) of the 467 nonpublic schools that completed the
application process. This included 5 of the 451 eligible applicants (1 percent) and 5 of
the 16 rejected applicants (31 percent). For the ARP EANS program, we sampled
10 applications (4 percent) of the 251 nonpublic schools that applied. This consisted of
5 of the 196 nonpublic schools that were approved (3 percent) and 5 of the
55 nonpublic schools that were rejected (9 percent). Additionally, we judgmentally
selected one school that was newly approved under ARP EANS.
To determine whether Wisconsin’s oversight processes ensured that EANS funds were
used for allowable purposes and assets acquired with those funds were tracked and
maintained, we selected nonstatistical, random samples of nonpublic schools’
expenditures of CRRSA and ARP EANS funds. We sampled a total of 60 (2 percent) of the
3,649 expenditures that were charged to the EANS programs. For the CRRSA EANS
program, we sampled 30 (1 percent) of the 2,319 expenditures that were
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A24NY0195 24
reimbursement payments and direct payments to vendors. For the ARP EANS program,
we sampled 30 (2 percent) of the 1,330 expenditures that were direct payments to
vendors.
To determine whether Wisconsin complied with cash management requirements, we
attempted to reconcile Wisconsin’s G5 drawdowns to its CRRSA and ARP EANS
expenditures. Although we could not reconcile them as of a specific date during the
grant period, we were able to reconcile CRRSA EANS in total at the end of the grant
period and ARP EANS to a sufficient extent for us to be comfortable that we were
testing the entire ARP EANS amount.
The results of our testing apply only to the samples selected and cannot be projected.
Internal Controls
We obtained an understanding of all five areas of internal control (control environment,
risk assessment, control activities, information and communication, and monitoring) as
they related to Wisconsin’s processes for ensuring that nonpublic schools were eligible
and used CRRSA and ARP EANS funds in accordance with applicable requirements. We
limited our internal control work to the two areas we deemed significant to the audit
objective: control environment and control activities.
• Control environment—assignment of responsibility and delegation of authority,
documentation of the internal control systems, and enforcing accountability.
• Control activities—design of appropriate types of control activities, design of
control activities at various levels, documentation of responsibilities through
policies, and periodic review of control activities.
As discussed in the findings, we concluded that Wisconsin did not comply with Federal
requirements (see Finding 1), did not adequately assess all eligibility requirements for
nonpublic schools’ applications for EANS-funded services and assistance (see Finding 2),
and could improve its oversight of the EANS programs (see Finding 3).
Use of Computer-Processed Data
We relied, in part, on computer-processed data (spreadsheets) provided by Wisconsin
to select and review the CRRSA and ARP EANS nonpublic school applications that we
sampled. We obtained the computer-processed application data and the electronic
applications from Wisconsin; in addition, we obtained any additional supporting
documentation. To assess the reliability and completeness of the data, we compared
the fields in the applications to the provided support, school websites, and PPP website
and found that the fields from the applications we sampled matched data from the
support obtained. Some of the fields included were total student enrollment, the data
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A24NY0195 25
source used to determine the number of students from low-income families, and
whether the school indicated that it received a PPP loan prior to December 27, 2020.
Although we identified some issues with Wisconsin’s processes as explained in
Finding 2, we concluded that the data were sufficiently reliable for their intended use.
We obtained the universes of expenditures for both CRRSA and ARP EANS for the audit
period. We used the universes to select samples of expenditures for detailed testing to
determine whether Wisconsin’s oversight processes ensured that EANS funds were used
for allowable purposes. To assess the completeness of the data, we compared total
CRRSA and ARP EANS expenditures to amounts drawn down by Wisconsin from the
Department’s G5 grants management system for the audit period. To assess the
reliability of the expenditure data, we traced the expenditures to supporting
documentation, such as invoices and POs for our sample of 60 expenditures
(30 expenditures for each EANS program). While we found that supporting
documentation was not provided for some expenditures as identified in Finding 3, we
concluded that the data were sufficiently reliable for their intended use.
Finally, we relied, in part on the Department’s G5 grants management system as it is the
official system of record for the Department's grants data. As a result, we considered it
to be the best available data for its intended purpose. To assess the reliability of the
data, we compared total CRRSA and ARP EANS expenditures to amounts drawn down by
Wisconsin from G5 for the audit period. We did not identify any issues that affected our
using the data and concluded that the computer-processed data were sufficiently
reliable for their intended use.
Compliance with Standards
We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the
audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objective. We believe that the evidence
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our
audit objective.
We remotely conducted our audit from July 2024 through May 2025. We discussed the
results of our audit with Wisconsin officials on May 22, 2025.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A24NY0195 26
Appendix B. Allowable Uses of EANS Funds
According to section D-1 of the Department’s September 2021 EANS FAQ guidance
document, a nonpublic school may apply to receive services and assistance from the
SEA or its contractors to address educational disruptions resulting from the COVID-19
emergency. These services and assistance include:
1. Purchasing supplies to sanitize, disinfect, and clean school facilities.
2. Providing personal protective equipment.
3. Improving ventilation systems, including windows or portable air purification
systems.
4. Training and professional development for staff on sanitization, the use of
personal protective equipment, and minimizing the spread of infectious
diseases.
5. Installing physical barriers to facilitate social distancing.
6. Purchasing other materials, supplies, or equipment recommended by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for reopening and operation of
school facilities to effectively maintain health and safety.
7. Expanding capacity to administer coronavirus testing to effectively monitor and
suppress the virus.
8. Purchasing educational technology (including hardware, software, connectivity,
assistive technology, and adaptive equipment) to assist students, educators, and
other staff with remote or hybrid learning.
9. Redeveloping instructional plans, including curriculum development, for remote
or hybrid learning, or to address learning loss.
10. Leasing sites or spaces to ensure safe social distancing, including guidelines and
recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
11. Paying for reasonable transportation costs.
12. Initiating and maintaining education and support services or assistance for
remote or hybrid learning or to address learning loss.
Under CRRSA EANS (but not ARP EANS) reimbursement is allowed for the expenses of
any services or assistance described above that a nonpublic school incurred on or after
March 13, 2020, except for
• improvements to ventilation systems (including windows), except for portable
air purification systems, which may be reimbursed;
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A24NY0195 27
• staff training and professional development on sanitization, the use of personal
protective equipment, and minimizing the spread of the COVID-19;
• redeveloping instructional plans, including curriculum development, for remote
or hybrid learning or to address learning loss;
• initiating and maintaining education and support services or assistance for
remote or hybrid learning or to address learning loss; and
• any expenses reimbursed through a loan guaranteed under the PPP (15 United
States Code 636(a)) prior to December 27, 2020.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A24NY0195 28
Appendix C. Acronyms and Abbreviations
ARP American Rescue Plan
C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations
COVID-19 coronavirus disease 2019
CRRSA Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental
Appropriations Act
Department U.S. Department of Education
EANS Emergency Assistance to Nonpublic Schools
FAQ frequently asked questions
PO purchase order
PPP Paycheck Protection Program
SBA Small Business Administration
SEA State educational agency
Wisconsin Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A24NY0195 29
Wisconsin’s Comments
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A24NY0195 30
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A24NY0195 31
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A24NY0195 32
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A24NY0195 33
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A24NY0195 34
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A24NY0195 35
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A24NY0195 36
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
ED-OIG/A24NY0195 37