2022-001 The District did not have adequate internal controls for ensuring compliance with allowable activities 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: ECF202102077, ECF222120700 Pass-through Entity Name: N/A Pass-through Award/Contract Number: N/A Known Questioned Cost Amount: $2,605,900 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 $2,605,900 in ECF Program funds to purchase laptops 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). Restricted purpose ? unmet need Office of the Washington State Auditor sao.wa.gov When submitting applications to the Federal Communications Commission, 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. Description of Condition Allowable activities and costs/restricted purpose ? unmet need The District estimated unmet need for eligible equipment 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 provided to students. Specifically, the District purchased laptops, based on its estimate of unmet need, and it requested reimbursement for these purchases totaling $2,605,900. However, the District did not maintain documentation showing it provided each laptop paid with program funds to a student with unmet need. 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 Employees in the District?s Finance Department knew that another department received an ECF Program award, however, it was the responsibility of that department to comply with the program?s requirements. 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. District staff who were authorized to order eligible equipment did not know about the required certifications stating that the District was only seeking reimbursement for eligible equipment provided to students unmet need. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Allowable activities and costs/restricted purpose ? unmet need Office of the Washington State Auditor sao.wa.gov 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 all 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. 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 with unmet need, and maintain documentation demonstrating compliance. District?s Response The District does not concur with the audit finding or the questioned costs. The District does agree that internal controls and processes could be improved, however this was during the pandemic and we believe the appropriate level of reporting would be a management letter because all costs were allowable and devices were only provided to those with unmet need. The audit?s condition states that our internal controls were ineffective for ensuring we requested reimbursement only for students with a documented unmet need. Based on the guidance below, we have spent all funds for allowable costs, that those costs were reasonable and necessary and for students with unmet needs. Districts were able to determine whether students had unmet needs, and for our district this meant addressing instances where students may share a home device with others, the device was too old or slow to function properly, student owned devices did not have the appropriate security in place to protect students during remote learning, and operationally the district could not access personally owned Office of the Washington State Auditor sao.wa.gov devices to provide the thousands of technical questions and issues students faced during remote learning. Based on these experiences, unmet need was defined broadly, but within allowed parameters and inventory records were kept. Devices for remote learning could also be used at school. During the pandemic in Washington State we experienced times when classrooms, schools and or districts were closed by health department and state regulations because of outbreaks. Districts had to be prepared to support remote learning each day with constantly changing guidance on who was allowed to be in person. The following guidance from the Federal Communications Commission, titled ?Emergency Connectivity Fund Common Misconceptions?, ?Misconception #2: If schools have returned to in-class instruction for the upcoming school year, they are not eligible to participate. Answer: This is false. Equipment and services provided to students or school staff who would otherwise lack sufficient access to connected devices, and/or broadband internet access connection while off campus are eligible for Emergency Connectivity Fund Support.? From the Federal Communications Commission Order FCC-CIRC21-93-043021, question 77: ?We think schools are in the best position to determine whether their students and staff have devices and broadband services sufficient to meet their remote learning needs, and we recognize that they are making such decisions in the midst of a pandemic. We, therefore, will not impose any specific metrics or process requirements on those determinations.? And from question 53: ??we are sensitive to the need to provide some flexibility during this uncertain time. If those connected devices were purchased for the purpose of providing students?with devices for off-campus use consistent with the rules we adopt today, we will not prohibit such on-campus use.? SAO did not apply any reasonable measure to reduce questioned costs but did state they know some of the costs are reasonable, while still choosing to question all costs. That is clearly out of alignment with the FCC guidance. 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. Office of the Washington State Auditor sao.wa.gov 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.