2022-001The District did not have adequate internal controls for ensuring compliance with allowable activities and costs, equipment, and restricted purpose requirements. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 32.009, COVID-19 ? Emergency Connectivity Fund Program Federal Grantor Name: Federal Communications Commission Federal Award/Contract Number: ECF202105752 Pass-through Entity Name: N/A Pass-through Award/Contract Number: N/A Known Questioned Cost Amount: $393,794 Background The Emergency Connectivity Fund (ECF) Program provides funding to meet the needs of students and school staff who would otherwise lack access to connected devices and broadband connections sufficient to engage in remote learning. This is referred to as ?unmet need.? In fiscal year 2022, the District spent $408,291 in ECF Program funds to purchase laptops and Wi-Fi hotspots for students. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and maintain internal controls that ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Allowable activities and costs ECF Program recipients may only seek reimbursement for eligible devices and services provided to students and staff with unmet need. Recipients are prohibited from seeking reimbursement for eligible equipment and services used solely at the school or held for future use (i.e., warehousing). Equipment The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires ECF Program recipients to maintain inventories of the devices and services they have purchased with program funds. The FCC also requires inventory records to include specific elements, such as the type of equipment or service provided, equipment make/model and serial number, name of the students or employees provided the equipment or service, dates they used the equipment or service, and more. Restricted purpose ? unmet need When submitting applications to the FCC, schools only had to provide an estimate of their students? and staff?s unmet need. However, when requesting reimbursement, the District could only request program funds for eligible equipment and services provided to students and school staff with actual unmet need. Restricted purpose ? per-location and per-user limitations The FCC imposed per-location and per-user limitations to maximize the use of limited funds. Under the program, eligible schools could only be reimbursed for one connected device and Wi-Fi hotspot per student or school employee with unmet need, and no more than one fixed broadband connection per location, such as a student?s or employee?s residence. Description of Condition Allowable activities and costs/restricted purpose ? unmet need The District estimated unmet need for eligible equipment and services when it applied for ECF Program funds. However, our audit found the District?s internal controls were ineffective for ensuring it documented the determination of actual unmet need and only requested reimbursement for equipment and services provided to students. Specifically, the District purchased 1,262 laptops, based on its estimate of unmet need, and it requested reimbursement for these purchases totaling $393,794. However, the District did not maintain documentation showing it provided each laptop paid with program funds to a student with unmet need. Equipment The District maintains asset inventories; however, our audit found the District?s internal controls were ineffective for ensuring these inventories included all required elements necessary to demonstrate compliance with federal requirements. Specifically, for all laptops purchased with ECF Program funds, the District did not include the dates devices were checked out to students or when they returned them. Further, prior to receiving its ECF-funded devices in 2022, the District incorrectly added several computers in the asset tracking system in 2021 as devices purchased with ECF funds. Restricted purpose ? per-location and per-user limitations Our audit found the District?s internal controls were ineffective for demonstrating it complied with the FCC?s per-location and per-user limitations. Specifically, the District did not maintain documentation showing it monitored or had a tracking process in place to ensure it only provided one device or connection per user and location. We consider these deficiencies in internal controls to be material weaknesses that led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition Allowable activities and costs/restricted purpose ? unmet need Although employees in the District?s Finance Department knew that another department received an ECF Program award, they said they did not know the program was federally funded and, therefore, were unaware of all its regulations. Further, they did not know about the requirement to request reimbursement only for actual unmet need, and thought the estimate of unmet need provided during the application process was sufficient to comply with this requirement. Equipment The District experienced turnover in the positions responsible for maintaining the asset management system, and current staff could not locate records supporting the check-out and check-in dates of ECF devices. Restricted purpose ? per-location and per-user limitations Staff responsible for monitoring the per-user limitations were not fully aware of the requirement to maintain documentation showing the District only provided one device and/or connection per student and employee. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Allowable activities and costs/restricted purpose ? unmet need Because the District did not have documentation supporting whether it provided eligible equipment to students with actual unmet need, it cannot demonstrate compliance with the program?s requirements. Given the nature of the program and circumstances, it is likely that at least some of the equipment the District charged to the award addressed unmet needs. However, the lack of a documented assessment of students? actual unmet need means that most costs are unsupported. Since we do not have a reasonable basis for estimating how much of the District?s expenditures are allowable, we are questioning all unsupported costs. Federal regulations require the State Auditor?s Office to report known questioned costs that are greater than $25,000 for each type of compliance requirement. We question costs when we find the District does not have adequate documentation to support expenditures. Equipment Without maintaining proper asset inventory records, as the FCC requires, the District cannot demonstrate compliance with this requirement. Because of the missing and inaccurate information, the District cannot effectively track the use of federally funded equipment. Restricted purpose ? per-location and per-user limitations Because the District?s documentation indicated it provided more than one device per student and received reimbursement for them, it did not comply with the FCC?s restrictions. Recommendation We recommend the District work with the granting agency to determine audit resolution. We further recommend the District establish and follow internal controls to ensure staff fully understand the requirements for ECF awards. Specifically, the District should: ? Request reimbursement only for eligible equipment and services provided to students and staff with unmet need, and maintain documentation demonstrating compliance ? Maintain inventories that include all required elements to track the use of equipment and services paid with ECF Program funds ? Monitor to confirm it provides no more than one device per student and employee, and no more than one broadband connection per location, in compliance with the ECF Program?s requirements District?s Response The District appreciates the patience and understanding offered by the State Auditor?s Office throughout the ECF Program review. As many Districts across the state, our District experienced significant implied flexibility from FCC, yet very little guidance on documenting ?need?. However, the Distrct maintains all students had unmet need to safely and equitably expect all students (and staff) to engage in remote learning while CIPA (Children?s Internet Protection Act) requires our District to have protection measures in place that block or filter internet access to pictures that are: (a) obscene; (b) child pornography; or (c) harmful to minors (for computers that are accessed by minors). We do not have the ability to filter personal home devices and therefore, every student had unmet need. To compound the situation, these federal awards did not flow through OSPI, but rather were handled like E-Rate dollars. This directly engaged the IT department in this work and vendors were paid directly by the FCC, resulting in no financial activity visibility to the Business Office. The District accepts this opportunity to improve and has already begun transitioning to a new asset tracking system that meets requirements and utilizes best practices for device management. As well, the District will ensure the Business Office is privy to all grant activity by developing procedures that require multi-disciplinary approval and collaboration. Auditor?s Remarks The State Auditor?s Office is sympathetic to the significant challenges the District faced during the COVID-19 pandemic, and deeply respects its commitment to student learning despite these challenges. SAO knows that in many cases, governments across Washington received significant pandemic-era federal funds without also receiving clear guidance on how to use them. Then, and now, SAO continues to advocate for clear, timely guidance from federal agencies to make sure Washington governments are not put in a difficult position at audit time. However, when auditing federal programs of any kind, governments must provide documentation to substantiate that they met the award requirements. As is our practice and audit standards require, we will review the status of this finding during our next audit. We value our partnership with the District in striving for transparency in public service. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303 Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 47 CFR Part 54, Universal Service, Subpart Q, Emergency Connectivity Fund, describes the ECF Program requirements.
2022-001The District did not have adequate internal controls for ensuring compliance with allowable activities and costs, equipment, and restricted purpose requirements. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 32.009, COVID-19 ? Emergency Connectivity Fund Program Federal Grantor Name: Federal Communications Commission Federal Award/Contract Number: ECF202105752 Pass-through Entity Name: N/A Pass-through Award/Contract Number: N/A Known Questioned Cost Amount: $393,794 Background The Emergency Connectivity Fund (ECF) Program provides funding to meet the needs of students and school staff who would otherwise lack access to connected devices and broadband connections sufficient to engage in remote learning. This is referred to as ?unmet need.? In fiscal year 2022, the District spent $408,291 in ECF Program funds to purchase laptops and Wi-Fi hotspots for students. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and maintain internal controls that ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Allowable activities and costs ECF Program recipients may only seek reimbursement for eligible devices and services provided to students and staff with unmet need. Recipients are prohibited from seeking reimbursement for eligible equipment and services used solely at the school or held for future use (i.e., warehousing). Equipment The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires ECF Program recipients to maintain inventories of the devices and services they have purchased with program funds. The FCC also requires inventory records to include specific elements, such as the type of equipment or service provided, equipment make/model and serial number, name of the students or employees provided the equipment or service, dates they used the equipment or service, and more. Restricted purpose ? unmet need When submitting applications to the FCC, schools only had to provide an estimate of their students? and staff?s unmet need. However, when requesting reimbursement, the District could only request program funds for eligible equipment and services provided to students and school staff with actual unmet need. Restricted purpose ? per-location and per-user limitations The FCC imposed per-location and per-user limitations to maximize the use of limited funds. Under the program, eligible schools could only be reimbursed for one connected device and Wi-Fi hotspot per student or school employee with unmet need, and no more than one fixed broadband connection per location, such as a student?s or employee?s residence. Description of Condition Allowable activities and costs/restricted purpose ? unmet need The District estimated unmet need for eligible equipment and services when it applied for ECF Program funds. However, our audit found the District?s internal controls were ineffective for ensuring it documented the determination of actual unmet need and only requested reimbursement for equipment and services provided to students. Specifically, the District purchased 1,262 laptops, based on its estimate of unmet need, and it requested reimbursement for these purchases totaling $393,794. However, the District did not maintain documentation showing it provided each laptop paid with program funds to a student with unmet need. Equipment The District maintains asset inventories; however, our audit found the District?s internal controls were ineffective for ensuring these inventories included all required elements necessary to demonstrate compliance with federal requirements. Specifically, for all laptops purchased with ECF Program funds, the District did not include the dates devices were checked out to students or when they returned them. Further, prior to receiving its ECF-funded devices in 2022, the District incorrectly added several computers in the asset tracking system in 2021 as devices purchased with ECF funds. Restricted purpose ? per-location and per-user limitations Our audit found the District?s internal controls were ineffective for demonstrating it complied with the FCC?s per-location and per-user limitations. Specifically, the District did not maintain documentation showing it monitored or had a tracking process in place to ensure it only provided one device or connection per user and location. We consider these deficiencies in internal controls to be material weaknesses that led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition Allowable activities and costs/restricted purpose ? unmet need Although employees in the District?s Finance Department knew that another department received an ECF Program award, they said they did not know the program was federally funded and, therefore, were unaware of all its regulations. Further, they did not know about the requirement to request reimbursement only for actual unmet need, and thought the estimate of unmet need provided during the application process was sufficient to comply with this requirement. Equipment The District experienced turnover in the positions responsible for maintaining the asset management system, and current staff could not locate records supporting the check-out and check-in dates of ECF devices. Restricted purpose ? per-location and per-user limitations Staff responsible for monitoring the per-user limitations were not fully aware of the requirement to maintain documentation showing the District only provided one device and/or connection per student and employee. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Allowable activities and costs/restricted purpose ? unmet need Because the District did not have documentation supporting whether it provided eligible equipment to students with actual unmet need, it cannot demonstrate compliance with the program?s requirements. Given the nature of the program and circumstances, it is likely that at least some of the equipment the District charged to the award addressed unmet needs. However, the lack of a documented assessment of students? actual unmet need means that most costs are unsupported. Since we do not have a reasonable basis for estimating how much of the District?s expenditures are allowable, we are questioning all unsupported costs. Federal regulations require the State Auditor?s Office to report known questioned costs that are greater than $25,000 for each type of compliance requirement. We question costs when we find the District does not have adequate documentation to support expenditures. Equipment Without maintaining proper asset inventory records, as the FCC requires, the District cannot demonstrate compliance with this requirement. Because of the missing and inaccurate information, the District cannot effectively track the use of federally funded equipment. Restricted purpose ? per-location and per-user limitations Because the District?s documentation indicated it provided more than one device per student and received reimbursement for them, it did not comply with the FCC?s restrictions. Recommendation We recommend the District work with the granting agency to determine audit resolution. We further recommend the District establish and follow internal controls to ensure staff fully understand the requirements for ECF awards. Specifically, the District should: ? Request reimbursement only for eligible equipment and services provided to students and staff with unmet need, and maintain documentation demonstrating compliance ? Maintain inventories that include all required elements to track the use of equipment and services paid with ECF Program funds ? Monitor to confirm it provides no more than one device per student and employee, and no more than one broadband connection per location, in compliance with the ECF Program?s requirements District?s Response The District appreciates the patience and understanding offered by the State Auditor?s Office throughout the ECF Program review. As many Districts across the state, our District experienced significant implied flexibility from FCC, yet very little guidance on documenting ?need?. However, the Distrct maintains all students had unmet need to safely and equitably expect all students (and staff) to engage in remote learning while CIPA (Children?s Internet Protection Act) requires our District to have protection measures in place that block or filter internet access to pictures that are: (a) obscene; (b) child pornography; or (c) harmful to minors (for computers that are accessed by minors). We do not have the ability to filter personal home devices and therefore, every student had unmet need. To compound the situation, these federal awards did not flow through OSPI, but rather were handled like E-Rate dollars. This directly engaged the IT department in this work and vendors were paid directly by the FCC, resulting in no financial activity visibility to the Business Office. The District accepts this opportunity to improve and has already begun transitioning to a new asset tracking system that meets requirements and utilizes best practices for device management. As well, the District will ensure the Business Office is privy to all grant activity by developing procedures that require multi-disciplinary approval and collaboration. Auditor?s Remarks The State Auditor?s Office is sympathetic to the significant challenges the District faced during the COVID-19 pandemic, and deeply respects its commitment to student learning despite these challenges. SAO knows that in many cases, governments across Washington received significant pandemic-era federal funds without also receiving clear guidance on how to use them. Then, and now, SAO continues to advocate for clear, timely guidance from federal agencies to make sure Washington governments are not put in a difficult position at audit time. However, when auditing federal programs of any kind, governments must provide documentation to substantiate that they met the award requirements. As is our practice and audit standards require, we will review the status of this finding during our next audit. We value our partnership with the District in striving for transparency in public service. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303 Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 47 CFR Part 54, Universal Service, Subpart Q, Emergency Connectivity Fund, describes the ECF Program requirements.