Federal Reports

The objective of our audit was to determine whether the California Department of Education (California) appropriately allocated Immediate Aid to Restart School Operations (Restart) program funds and ensured that local educational agencies (LEA) and nonpublic schools used Restart program funds for allowable and intended purposes.We found that California appropriately allocated 2018 and 2019 Restart program funds to LEAs and nonpublic schools. Although we did not identify any unallowable costs at the two LEAs whose uses of Restart program funds we reviewed, we found that California needs to improve its processes for ensuring that LEAs use Restart program funds for allowable and intended purposes. Specifically, California did not always adhere to its established procedures for reimbursement of expenditures for the 2018 Restart program, including not obtaining supporting documentation for $103,124 in expenditures for two LEAs; did not timely monitor the Restart program; and did not ensure remittance of interest earned on Restart program funds that were advanced to LEAs.

The objectives of the audit were to determine whether the State of Oklahoma (Oklahoma) designed and implemented awarding processes that ensured that the Governor's Emergency Education Relief Fund (GEER grant) was used to support local educational agencies (LEA) and institutions of higher education (IHE) that were most significantly impacted by the coronavirus or LEAs, IHEs, or other education-related entities within the State that were deemed essential for carrying out emergency educational services; and monitoring processes to ensure that subgrantees used GEER grant funds in accordance with the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) and other applicable Federal requirements.Oklahoma did not award all of its GEER grant funds in accordance with the CARES Act, Federal regulations, Department guidance, and GEER grant conditions.

What We Looked AtThe Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act provided the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) with $10 billion to help airports deal with the public health emergency caused by Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). FAA awarded $9.1 billion in grants to airports nationwide, using its existing Airport Improvement Program (AIP) to distribute the funds. Our objective for this self-initiated audit was to assess whether FAA’s policies and procedures for awarding and overseeing CARES Act grants are sufficient to protect taxpayer interests. What We FoundLeveraging the AIP allowed FAA to announce CARES Act awards for more than 3,000 airports in just 2 weeks. However, changes in the Agency’s oversight process regarding supporting documentation requirements affected its ability to monitor program performance, and we determined at the time of our review that it contributed to more than $271 million in unsupported costs, $85 million in questioned costs, and $3 million of improper payments. FAA also did not establish procedures for deobligating CARES Act grants that become inactive, exceed the period of performance, or provide airport sponsors with adequate guidance on documenting workforce retention data. These internal control weaknesses hindered FAA’s ability to ensure that it is operating the program as Congress intended, administering projects in a fiscally responsible manner, and achieving reporting and compliance objectives. Our RecommendationsWe are making seven recommendations to improve FAA’s oversight of COVID relief funds. FAA concurred with recommendations 5–7 and provided completion dates. The Agency partially concurred with recommendations 1–4. Based on documentation FAA provided after our review was completed, we consider recommendation 1 resolved but open pending completion of planned actions, recommendations 2 and 3 resolved and closed, and recommendation 4 unresolved. We are asking FAA to reconsider its position and provide us with a revised response within 30 days of the date of this report.

The objective was to determine the extent to which the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) manage and enforce the priority trade issue related to intellectual property rights (IPR).

The Office of the Inspector General conducted a review of the Communications and Public Relations (C&PR) organization to identify factors that could impact C&PR’s organizational effectiveness. During the course of our evaluation, we identified behavioral and operational risks, some of which were recurring, that stemmed from alignment issues, which could negatively affect sustainable execution within C&PR. Specifically, these risks included (1) perceived lack of organizational direction, (2) perceived lack of empowerment in C&PR leadership, (3) concerns with the development of the organizational structure, (4) staffing and prioritization concerns, (5) role clarity concerns, (6) concerns with relationships within and outside of C&PR, and (7) organizational placement concerns.