| English Language Acquisition Grants |
Education requires local educational agencies (LEAs) to resolve all deficiencies noted during Categorical Program Monitoring site visits within 225 days. For 16 of 41 site visits tested, the LEAs were significantly late with their resolutions. In addition, Education was not prompt for an additional 8 of those 16 site visits tested in resolving the corrective actions once it received the resolutions. |
2005-06 |
| By June 30, 2011, Housing will send letters to grantees for monitoring done in calendar year 2010. By June 30, 2011, Housing will perform a risk assessment on all state recipients that have had significant activity and develop a plan to monitor the 20 highest-risk state recipients. By December 31, 2011, Housing will conduct on-site monitoring of these 20 highest-risk state recipients and send letters containing findings and concerns to the state recipients within 30 days of the monitoring visit. |
175 |
| English Language Acquisition Grants |
Education was using unaudited local educational agency (LEA) expenditure figures to calculate compliance with the MOE requirements instead of using the final audited expenditures. |
2005-06 |
| Education sends final MOE calculations back to local educational agencies (LEAs) if final calculations differ from the preliminary calculations |
167 |
| Improving Teacher Quality State Grants |
Education requires local educational agencies (LEAs) to resolve all deficiencies noted during Categorical Program Monitoring site visits within 225 days. For 16 of 41 site visits tested, the LEAs were significantly late with their resolutions. In addition, Education was not prompt for an additional 8 of those 16 site visits tested in resolving the corrective actions once it received the resolutions. |
2005-06 |
| By June 30, 2011, Housing will send letters to grantees for monitoring done in calendar year 2010. By June 30, 2011, Housing will perform a risk assessment on all state recipients that have had significant activity and develop a plan to monitor the 20 highest-risk state recipients. By December 31, 2011, Housing will conduct on-site monitoring of these 20 highest-risk state recipients and send letters containing findings and concerns to the state recipients within 30 days of the monitoring visit. |
175 |
| Improving Teacher Quality State Grants |
Education was using unaudited local educational agency (LEA) expenditure figures to calculate compliance with the MOE requirements instead of using the final audited expenditures. |
2005-06 |
| Education sends final MOE calculations back to local educational agencies (LEAs) if final calculations differ from the preliminary calculations |
167 |
| Migrant Education - State Grant Program |
Education requires local educational agencies (LEAs) to resolve all deficiencies noted during Categorical Program Monitoring site visits within 225 days. For 16 of 41 site visits tested, the LEAs were significantly late with their resolutions. In addition, Education was not prompt for an additional 8 of those 16 site visits tested in resolving the corrective actions once it received the resolutions. |
2005-06 |
| By June 30, 2011, Housing will send letters to grantees for monitoring done in calendar year 2010. By June 30, 2011, Housing will perform a risk assessment on all state recipients that have had significant activity and develop a plan to monitor the 20 highest-risk state recipients. By December 31, 2011, Housing will conduct on-site monitoring of these 20 highest-risk state recipients and send letters containing findings and concerns to the state recipients within 30 days of the monitoring visit. |
175 |
| Title I Grants to LEAs (Local Educational Agencies) |
Education requires local educational agencies (LEAs) to resolve all deficiencies noted during Categorical Program Monitoring site visits within 225 days. For 16 of 41 site visits tested, the LEAs were significantly late with their resolutions. In addition, Education was not prompt for an additional 8 of those 16 site visits tested in resolving the corrective actions once it received the resolutions. |
2005-06 |
| By June 30, 2011, Housing will send letters to grantees for monitoring done in calendar year 2010. By June 30, 2011, Housing will perform a risk assessment on all state recipients that have had significant activity and develop a plan to monitor the 20 highest-risk state recipients. By December 31, 2011, Housing will conduct on-site monitoring of these 20 highest-risk state recipients and send letters containing findings and concerns to the state recipients within 30 days of the monitoring visit. |
175 |
| Title I Grants to LEAs (Local Educational Agencies) |
Education was using unaudited local educational agency (LEA) expenditure figures to calculate compliance with the MOE requirements instead of using the final audited expenditures. |
2005-06 |
| Education sends final MOE calculations back to local educational agencies (LEAs) if final calculations differ from the preliminary calculations |
167 |
| Child Care Mandatory and Matching Funds of the Child Care and Development Fund |
Cash Management. Education did not comply with the Cash Management Improvement Act (CMIA) agreement's unique funding techniques, which require federal funds to be requested after program payments have been made. |
2006-07 |
| To ensure that child care funding processes are consistent with the CMIA Agreement, Education will review the agreement and revise as necessary. |
185 |
| Child Care and Development Block Grant |
Cash Management. Education did not comply with the Cash Management Improvement Act (CMIA) agreement's unique funding techniques, which require federal funds to be requested after program payments have been made. |
2006-07 |
| To ensure that child care funding processes are consistent with the CMIA Agreement, Education will review the agreement and revise as necessary. |
185 |
| Career and Technical Education--Basic Grants to States |
Although Education has policies in place for monitoring its compliance with the requirement to use program funds to supplement rather than supplant existing funds for its State activities and operations expenditures, there is no documentation that the procedures have been performed. |
2007-08 |
| Education does not concur with this finding. Education‘s budgetary processes include built-in controls to ensure that federal funds are not being used to supplant any reduction or elimination of nonfederal appropriated activities. For example, based on Education's documentation (accounting and budgetary records), the auditors were effectively able to verify that program funds were used to supplement not supplant. |
170 |
| Career and Technical Education--Basic Grants to States |
Education did not review or approve the maintenance of effort (MOE) calculation. |
2007-08 |
| Education has developed a procedure manual that describes the process to be followed for calculating MOE. In addition, Education currently requires a secondary review by conducted by a manager. However, because the MOE calculations worksheets cannot be completed until close to the end of the calendar year, they were not completed or reviewed by a manager at the time of the audit. |
169 |
| Career and Technical Education--Basic Grants to States |
Education requires local educational agencies (LEAs) to resolve all deficiencies noted during Categorical Program Monitoring site visits within 225 days. For 16 of 41 site visits tested, the LEAs were significantly late with their resolutions. In addition, Education was not prompt for an additional 8 of those 16 site visits tested in resolving the corrective actions once it received the resolutions. |
2007-08 |
| By June 30, 2011, Housing will send letters to grantees for monitoring done in calendar year 2010. By June 30, 2011, Housing will perform a risk assessment on all state recipients that have had significant activity and develop a plan to monitor the 20 highest-risk state recipients. By December 31, 2011, Housing will conduct on-site monitoring of these 20 highest-risk state recipients and send letters containing findings and concerns to the state recipients within 30 days of the monitoring visit. |
175 |
| Reading First State Grants |
Education outsources its subrecipient monitoring to a contractor, California Technical Assistance Centers (C-TAC). However, 1) the contractor's monitoring procedures focus on assisting local educational agencies (LEAs) with program implementation, as opposed to assessing their compliance with federal requirements; 2) C-TAC does not have any type of summary reports of findings to provide the LEAs or Education to document any issues noted or to convey deadlines to resolve any issues; 3) Education has no processes in place to review any detail of reported expenditures on a sample basis to ensure that federal funds were expended in accordance with U.S. Office of Management and Budget requirements. |
2007-08 |
| Education received an extension of the unused portion of the 2008-09 federal funds through September 2011. As such, Education will continue to work effectively with C-TAC and with Reading First Regional Technical Assistance Centers to oversee and improve the monitoring of LEAs involved in the Reading First program and to follow up promptly on known outstanding issues. |
181 |
| Twenty-First Century Community Learning Centers |
Education requires local educational agencies (LEAs) to resolve all deficiencies noted during Categorical Program Monitoring site visits within 225 days. For 16 of 41 site visits tested, the LEAs were significantly late with their resolutions. In addition, Education was not prompt for an additional 8 of those 16 site visits tested in resolving the corrective actions once it received the resolutions. |
2007-08 |
| By June 30, 2011, Housing will send letters to grantees for monitoring done in calendar year 2010. By June 30, 2011, Housing will perform a risk assessment on all state recipients that have had significant activity and develop a plan to monitor the 20 highest-risk state recipients. By December 31, 2011, Housing will conduct on-site monitoring of these 20 highest-risk state recipients and send letters containing findings and concerns to the state recipients within 30 days of the monitoring visit. |
175 |
| Twenty-First Century Community Learning Centers |
Education was using unaudited local educational agency (LEA) expenditure figures to calculate compliance with the MOE requirements instead of using the final audited expenditures. |
2007-08 |
| Education sends final MOE calculations back to local educational agencies (LEAs) if final calculations differ from the preliminary calculations |
167 |
| Career and Technical Education--Basic Grants to States |
Education does not have policies and procedures in place that narrate the procedures performed and the source of data used to complete the calculation of grant awards. |
2008-09 |
| Education will strengthen existing policies and procedures for calculating the amount of subgrants awarded to each LEA by developing a memo confirming the procedures performed and the source of data used to complete the calculation of grant awards. |
165 |
| Career and Technical Education--Basic Grants to States |
Education lacks internal controls over the Perkins data collection system used to prepare the Consolidated Annual Performance, Accountability, and Financial Status Report (CAR) submitted by local educational agencies (LEAs). Data reported by LEAs may not be complete, accurate, and reliable. |
2008-09 |
| According to Education, the controls it has implemented to improve the quality of data submitted for the annual CAR are complete and operating as designed. This includes the availability of an electronic upload for data submitted by the LEAs. In addition, the Perkins Program Monitoring system has been implemented. |
174 |
| Child Care Mandatory and Matching Funds of the Child Care and Development Fund |
Education requires local educational agencies (LEAs) to resolve all deficiencies noted during the Categorical Program Monitoring site visits within 225 days. For 16 of 41 site visits tested, Education received the proposed resolutions after 225 days. In addition, Education was not prompt in an additional 8 of those 16 site visits tested in resolving the corrective actions once it received proposed resolutions from LEAs. |
2008-09 |
| By June 30, 2011, Housing will send letters to grantees for monitoring done in calendar year 2010. By June 30, 2011, Housing will perform a risk assessment on all state recipients that have had significant activity and develop a plan to monitor the 20 highest-risk state recipients. By December 31, 2011, Housing will conduct on-site monitoring of these 20 highest-risk state recipients and send letters containing findings and concerns to the state recipients within 30 days of the monitoring visit. |
186 |
| Child Care and Development Block Grant |
Education requires local educational agencies (LEAs) to resolve all deficiencies noted during the Categorical Program Monitoring site visits within 225 days. For 16 of 41 site visits tested, Education received the proposed resolutions after 225 days. In addition, Education was not prompt in an additional 8 of those 16 site visits tested in resolving the corrective actions once it received proposed resolutions from LEAs. |
2008-09 |
| By June 30, 2011, Housing will send letters to grantees for monitoring done in calendar year 2010. By June 30, 2011, Housing will perform a risk assessment on all state recipients that have had significant activity and develop a plan to monitor the 20 highest-risk state recipients. By December 31, 2011, Housing will conduct on-site monitoring of these 20 highest-risk state recipients and send letters containing findings and concerns to the state recipients within 30 days of the monitoring visit. |
186 |
