Federal Reports

What Office of Inspector General Evaluated

Determine the extent of inefficiencies between GovTA and NFC payroll systems. Assess preventative and detective controls to mitigate discrepancies. Evaluate cost-reduction measures regarding leave audits.

What Office of Inspector General Found

• Library lacks adequate controls to mitigate variances between GovTA and NFC systems.
• One-way interface between GovTA and NFC does not provide real-time error validation.
• Leave synchronization process remains inefficient and does not eliminate manual reconciliations.

What Office of Inspector General Recommends

• Document the policies and procedures pertaining to preventative and detective controls, to mitigate future leave balance variances between the GovTA and National Finance Center (NFC) systems.
• Implement leave synchronization every pay period, documenting the process in standard operating procedures to ensure consistency and provide corrective actions for discrepancies.
• Perform an assessment to evaluate alternative methods for resolving leave balance variances, thereby providing a basis for selecting the most efficient and effective approach.
• Based on the results of the risk assessment, implement the approach that aligns with the Library’s operational needs while minimizing inefficiencies caused by leave balance variances.
• Implement the selected approach designed to reconcile leave balance variances efficiently, while reducing manual correction efforts.

Our objectives were to determine whether the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (Wisconsin) designed and implemented (1) application processes that adequately assessed nonpublic schools’ eligibility for Emergency Assistance to Nonpublic Schools (EANS)-funded services or assistance and complied with other applicable requirements, and (2) oversight processes to ensure that EANS-funded services or assistance were used for allowable purposes. Although we found Wisconsin’s processes to assess nonpublic schools’ eligibility for EANS-funded services and assistance ensured that funds were obligated within 6 months of receipt and that applications for the EANS programs were generally approved or denied timely in accordance with Federal regulations, we found that Wisconsin allocated ARP EANS funds to nonpublic schools that did not meet program eligibility requirements and did not verify some information that nonpublic schools provided in their applications for EANS funds. Additionally, Wisconsin’s oversight of its contractor’s administration of EANS expenditures and inventory processes could be improved. Specifically, Wisconsin did not effectively monitor its contractor to ensure that expenditures were properly accounted for, supporting documentation was maintained, and assets purchased with EANS funds were tracked. Further, Wisconsin’s processes did not ensure that fees charged to the nonpublic schools’ EANS funds were reasonable and appropriate. However, Wisconsin’s oversight was adequate to ensure that EANS-funded services and assistance were for allowable purposes.  Wisconsin’s improper approval of ineligible nonpublic schools’ applications resulted in providing over $20 million in ARP EANS-funded services and assistance to 184 nonpublic schools. Further, because Wisconsin did not verify certain information in nonpublic schools’ applications, it provided $838,829 for EANS-funded services and assistance to one ineligible school and did not have assurance that all schools that were approved to participate in the programs had a nonprofit status. We made seven recommendations to address the issues we identified in Wisconsin’s administration and oversight of its EANS programs.

The objective of our audit was to determine whether West Virginia Department of Education (WVDE) implemented selected components of its statewide accountability system in accordance with West Virginia’s approved Every Student Succeeds Act State plan and any approved amendments. The selected components were (1) indicators used to measure student academic achievement and school success, (2) annual meaningful differentiation, and (3) identification of schools needing additional support. We evaluated WVDE’s processes for implementing selected components of West Virginia’s statewide accountability system for school year 2021–2022.  We found that WVDE generally implemented selected components of the statewide accountability system in accordance with West Virginia’s State plan and amendments and WVDE’s policies and procedures and correctly allocated additional funding to local educational agencies (LEA) with schools identified in the fall of 2022 as needing additional support. However, WVDE incorrectly identified for additional support and improvement 12 schools that were not eligible for additional support services. Additionally, WVDE did not always keep records showing that it provided additional support services, such as planning and collaboration, diagnostic and monitoring activities, and technical assistance, to LEAs with schools identified as needing additional support. We made three recommendations to strengthen WVDE’s implementation of selected components of its statewide accountability system.

The objective of our audit was to determine whether Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) implemented selected components of its statewide accountability system in accordance with Connecticut’s approved Every Student Succeeds Act State plan and any approved amendments. The selected components were (1) indicators used to measure student academic achievement and school success, (2) annual meaningful differentiation, and (3) identification of schools needing additional support. We evaluated CSDE’s processes for implementing selected components of Connecticut’s statewide accountability system for school year 2021–2022. We found that CSDE implemented two (student academic achievement and school success indicators and annual meaningful differentiation) of the three selected components of the statewide accountability system and provided additional funding and support services to local educational agencies with identified schools in accordance with Connecticut’s approved State plan and CSDE’s policies and procedures. However, its implementation of certain aspects of the third selected component (identification of low-performing schools) of the accountability system deviated from the plan. As a result, CSDE did not identify all schools for comprehensive support and improvement that it should have identified in the fall of 2022. Additionally, CSDE did not always identify or correctly identify the student subgroups needing additional targeted support and improvement in accordance with Connecticut’s approved State plan, which it attributed to a system coding error for additional targeted support and improvement. We recommended that CSDE amend Connecticut’s State plan by updating its procedures for identifying schools for CSI to ensure they align with the procedures in CSDE’s “Using Accountability Results to Guide Improvement” and the definition of a school identified for CSI in the ESEA and provide support to the five Title I schools that should have been identified for CSI. We also recommend that the Department verify that CSDE implemented corrective actions to fix the system coding error to ensure that it correctly identifies student subgroups needing ATSI in the future.

OIG reviewed the Agricultural Marketing Service’s monitoring over grantees’ use of funds within the Farm and Food Workers Relief Grant Program.