 |
|
||
| |||
| |||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Year/ Finding# |
PA Auditee | Finding Description |
PA Comments (Provided to ED on 7/9/97) |
Determination |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FINDINGS RELATED TO OSERS/OSEP | ||||
| FY 1993 - 65 | PDE | PDE did not ensure subgrantees under the Special Education - State Grants Program complied with non-supplanting requirements resulting in $5,671,731 in questioned costs. (A similar condition was noted in the previous single audit.) | PDE continues to disagree with the auditors' conclusion. PDE personnel will investigate the feasibility of developing a checklist to address fiscal issues for the 1995-96 IDEA-B project applications. | The Office for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services does not sustain the auditors' finding that four IUs violated the non-supplanting requirement of Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA-B), set out at 34 CFR 300.230. During fiscal year 1993, each IU in Pennsylvania was required, by 34 CFR 300.230, to spend an amount of State and local funds on special education and related services that equaled or exceeded -- on either an aggregate or per capita basis -- the amount of State and local funds spent by each IU for these purposes in fiscal year 1993. Thus, in order to determine whether any of the four IUs violated the non-supplanting requirement, a comparison needed to be made of the actual State and local expenditures on special education and related services in fiscal year 1993 to the actual expenditures on special education and related services in fiscal year 1992. See, e.g., State of Washington v. U.S. Department of Education, 905 F2d. 274, 277 (9th Cir. 1990). Instead, the audit report compared the actual expenditures of State and local funds on special education and related services for each of the IUs in fiscal year 1992 to the amount of State and local funds budgeted for those purposes in fiscal year 1993. Given this situation, the Office for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services is not in a position to establish a prima-facie case for recovery of funds, as required by Section 452 of the General Education Provisions Act. For that reason, the Office for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services closes this finding and does not require that PDE return any of the questioned costs. The Office for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, addresses the question of PDE's procedures for ensuring compliance with 34 CFR 300.230 in findings 72 (FY '94), 50 (FY '95), and 29 (FY '96), which are all included as part of this closed findings matrix. |
| FY 1994 - 71 | PDE | Method utilized to contract for administrative services by Bureau of Special Education (BSE) resulted in questioned costs in excess of $22,152. | The finding
did not reach any conclusion regarding the monitoring
performed on the agencies' delivery of special education
to preschool children served by Early Intervention. This
silence, as well as that of other audits, i.e., OSEP
March 1994 report, supports the conclusion that the
methodology used to perform program audits of Early
Intervention providers may continue, albeit, through
other means of funding of resources to continue
performance of this satisfactory system.
Reports are prepared for each public agency monitored, as well as, follow-up corrective action completion determined in subsequent activities to ensure remediation is obtained. These reports will be reviewed by BSE to ensure their compliance with prescribed procedures and adherence with the task of remediating all identified noncompliance with IDEA. |
This finding is resolved and closed. OSERS does not concur with the auditors findings in this instance. PDE is not required to return any funds related to the questioned costs of this finding or take any further corrective action. At issue in this finding is a contract PDE entered into with an IU to monitor, and prepare materials related to monitoring, of early childhood special education programs. The auditor's questioned whether the IU had any role under this contract which would justify the funds paid to it in that capacity and the procedures followed by PDE in awarding this contract. PDE provided OSERS with copies of monitoring reports prepared as part of the deliverables under this contract, as well as a copy of a revised monitoring system originating from the contract. In both instances, OSERS' review of these deliverables found the products to be sufficient for the purposes for which they were intended. The monitoring reports collected adequate data on which to evaluate and monitor the programs in question, while the monitoring system produced as a result of the contract created a framework for conducting subsequent compliance monitoring of the early intervention (pre-school) program. As a result, OSERS concludes that the value of the program services obtained through this contract outweighs any potential harm to the Federal interest raised by the concerns set out in the audit report. Given that circumstance, recovery of any of the questioned costs would not be appropriate in this instance. See 20 U.S.C. 1234a(a)(2). Moreover, PDE has discontinued the practice of contracting with IUs for program monitoring and instead now performs that function in-house. OSERS will continue to work with PDE on other matters related to its monitoring of its special education program. This audit finding, however, is closed without any need for further corrective action or the return of questioned costs by PDE. |
| FY 1994 - 72 | PDE | PDE did not ensure subgrantees under the Special Education - State Grants Program complied with non-supplanting requirements. (A similar condition was noted in prior year finding #65.) | PDE will
develop procedures to compare State and local special
education expenditures per IU and school district budgets
and expenditure reports to the IUs' IDEA-B applications.
It is the intent of PDE to have those procedures
available for use in the 1995-96 review process. PDE
reviews all project applications to assure compliance
with Federal |
The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services has reviewed the IDEA-B application PDE required its IUs' to submit for funding under that program during 1995-96. That application specifically requires information on State and local expenditures on special education made by each IU and its member districts for the current and most recent fiscal year. This is the information that PDE would need to ascertain whether an IU had met the eligibility requirement set out in 34 CFR 300.230. For that reason, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services considers this finding closed and requires no additional corrective action. |
| FY 1995 - 50 | PDE | PDE did not ensure subgrantees under the Special Education - Grants to States Program complied with non-supplanting requirements, resulting in questioned costs of $2,121,017. (A similar condition was noted in prior year finding #72.) | PDE disagrees with the audit finding and the auditor's conclusion that IU 21 and IU 9 did not comply with the IDEA-B non-supplanting requirement. No additional corrective action has been taken. | The Office for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services does not sustain the auditors' finding that IU 9 and 21 violated the non-supplanting requirement of Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA-B), set out at 34 CFR 300.230. During fiscal year 1995, each IU in Pennsylvania was required, by 34 CFR 300.230, to spend an amount of State and local funds on special education and related services that equaled or exceeded -- on either an aggregate or per capita basis -- the amount of State and local funds spent by each IU for these purposes in fiscal year 1994. After reviewing documentation provided to this Office by PDE, we have determined that both IU 21 and IU 9 complied with the Part B non-supplanting requirement during fiscal year 1995. IU 21, during fiscal year 1994, spent a total of $33,413,606 of State and local funds on special education. During fiscal year 1995, the year in question in this audit finding, IU 21 complied with 34 CFR 300.230 because the amount of State and local funds it expended on special education and related services increased to $34,612,218. IU 9, during fiscal year 1994, spent a total of $15,586,843 of State and local funds on special education and related services. During fiscal year 1995, the year in question in this audit finding, IU 9 complied with 34 CFR 300230 because the amount of State and local funds it expended on special education and related services increased to $15,964,542. As a consequence, PDE will not have to return any of the costs questioned under this audit finding. Finally, this Office also concludes that PDE includes in the IDEA-B applications submitted by its IUs' provisions that are an appropriate means of ascertaining compliance with this requirement. Specifically, this Offices notes that the applications required the IUs' to provide information on their total State and local expenditures on special education and related services -- including expenditures made by member school districts -- for the two most recent fiscal years. This information would allow PDE to ascertain whether the IUs' had met the eligibility requirement set out in 34 CFR 300.230. In addition, IUs' were specifically required to ensure that their compliance with 34 CFR 300.230. This finding, therefore, is closed. |
| FY 1995 - 61 | PDE | Method utilized to contract for administrative services by BSE resulted in questioned costs in excess of $23,288. (A similar condition was noted in prior year finding #71.) | During the 1995/96 single audit review of PDE, the auditors have indicated resolution of this finding. | This finding is resolved and closed. OSERS does not concur with the auditors findings in this instance. PDE is not required to return any funds related to the questioned costs of this finding or take any further corrective action. At issue in this finding is a contract PDE entered into with an IU to monitor, and prepare materials related to monitoring, of early childhood special education programs. The auditor's questioned whether the IU had any role under this contract which would justify the funds paid to it in that capacity and the procedures followed by PDE in awarding this contract. PDE provided OSERS with copies of monitoring reports prepared as part of the deliverables under this contract, as well as a copy of a revised monitoring system originating from the contract. In both instances, OSERS' review of these deliverables found the products to be sufficient for the purposes for which they were intended. The monitoring reports collected adequate data on which to evaluate and monitor the programs in question, while the monitoring system produced as a result of the contract created a framework for conducting subsequent compliance monitoring of the early intervention (pre-school) program. As a result, OSERS concludes that the value of the program services obtained through this contract outweighs any potential harm to the Federal interest raised by the concerns set out in the audit report. Given that circumstance, recovery of any of the questioned costs would not be appropriate in this instance. See 20 U.S.C. 1234a(a)(2). Moreover, PDE has discontinued the practice of contracting with IUs for program monitoring and instead now performs that function in-house. OSERS will continue to work with PDE on other matters related to its monitoring of its special education program. This audit finding, however, is closed without any need for further corrective action or the return of questioned costs by PDE. |
| FY 1996 - 29 | PDE | An internal control weakness exists for PDE's system to ensure subgrantees complied with non-supplanting requirements. (A similar condition was noted in prior year finding #50.) | PDE will continue to review current procedures to make improvements as may be deemed necessary and feasible. PDE will continue to rely on subgrantee assurances in conjunction with review of intermediate unit and subgrantee school district information during the application review process. Information for other school districts will continue to be reviewed as soon as it is available. Current year and prior year information is reviewed and compared concurrent with PDE's Individuals with Disabilities Education Act midyear funding reallocation process. These procedures ensure that potential subgrantee future noncompliance with 34 CFR 300.230 can be identified and addressed within a grant period. | The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services does not require PDE to take any corrective action on the basis of this audit finding. The application PDE required IUs' to submit during this fiscal year to receive IDEA-B funds appropriately addressed the requirements of 34 CFR 300.230. Specifically, IUs' were required to ensure their compliance with that provision and provide information on State and local expenditures on special education and related services by the IUs' and their member school districts. Finally, it would not be appropriate to require PDE to develop any further procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements of 34 CFR 300.230 since the non-supplanting requirement applicable to the Part B program was substantially revised by Section 613(a)(2)(A)(ii) and (iii) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997. Pub. L. 105-17. This finding, therefore, is closed. |
| FINDINGS RELATED TO OSERS/RSA | ||||
| FY 1992 - 78* | L&I | Expenditures at Hiram G. Andrews Center (HGAC) did not comply with OMB Circular A-87 (A-87), resulting in $14,140,812 in questioned costs. | L&I has filed a formal appeal of this finding with ED's Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ) and is awaiting a decision. | This finding will be resolved and closed upon the execution and completion of the terms and conditions in paragraphs 1-9 and 11 of the attached Agreement. |
| FY 1993 - 80* | L&I | Expenditures at HGAC did not comply with A-87, resulting in $9,397,558 in questioned costs. (A similar condition was noted in the previous single audit.) | L&I has filed a formal appeal to a similar finding cited in the June 30, 1992 Single Audit with ED's OALJ requesting a decision. | This finding will be resolved and closed upon the execution and completion of the terms and conditions in paragraphs 1-9 and 11 of the attached Agreement. |
| FY 1994 - 81* | L&I | Expenditures at HGAC did not comply with A-87, resulting in $5,337,990 in questioned costs. (A similar condition was noted in prior year finding #80.) | L&I has filed a formal appeal to a similar finding cited in the June 30, 1992 Single Audit and has requested a decision from ED's OALJ. | This finding will be resolved and closed upon the execution and completion of the terms and conditions in paragraphs 1-9 and 11 of the attached Agreement. |
| FY 1995 - 58* | L&I | Expenditures at HGAC did not comply with A-87, resulting in $11,120,690 in questioned costs. (A similar condition was noted in prior year finding #81.) | No additional corrective action has been taken. L&I is awaiting a determination from ED. | This finding will be resolved and closed upon the execution and completion of the terms and conditions in paragraphs 1-9 and 11 of the attached Agreement. |
| FY 1996 - 34* | L&I | Expenditures at HGAC did not comply with OMB Circular A-87, resulting in $11,445,379 in questioned costs. (A similar condition was noted in prior year finding #58.) | At this time
the Department together with the HGAC are in the process
of negotiating the original finding on this matter from
SFY 1991. In a PDL, dated June 28, 1996, and issued by
ED, L&I has formally challenged this PDL and has
filed an appeal with ED's Office of Administrative Law
Judge (OALJ). The OALJ has granted our request for review
and accepted jurisdiction to hear our appeal. In view of
this, we feel we cannot respond other than to offer the
following comment.
The OALJ has not yet rendered a decision on this issue. The department intends to pursue our stand through additional legal arguments in an effort to convince the OALJ of the reasonableness of our position. Therefore, the department concludes nonconcurrence and disagrees with the finding as stated and with the recommendation made by the auditor. However, ED, in the PDL, indicated that the auditors calculation of questioned costs was based on using a cash basis for the revenues and an accrual basis for the expenditures. It was further stated that in order to properly match expenses with revenues, both must be made on the same basis of accounting. The PDL indicated that ED found the questioned costs to be $911,673 and not the $14,140,812 as referenced by the auditors in the finding. Had there been supporting documentation for the $911,191 of the $991,673 it is possible that some of these expenditures could have been determined to have resulted in benefit to the program, thus resulting in a further reduction of the disallowance. Speculating, if the same ratio of change was applied to this SFY 96 finding the questioned costs would go from $11,445,397 to $802,646 or perhaps even less if supporting documentation is available. This position, however, was not the basis for our appeal. The department and the HGAC, as its own reporting entity, have made a strong stand to rationally prove to ED why the HGAC does not need to follow A-87 for certain administrative and programmatic concerns. |
This finding will be resolved and closed upon the execution and completion of the terms and conditions in paragraphs 1-9 and 11 of the attached Agreement. |
| Findings Related to OVAE | ||||
| FY 1993 - 68 | PDE | Costs of
$41,141,000 are questioned because maintenance of effort
(MOE) requirements were not met.
PDE omitted State costs for Customized Job Training (CJT) from its calculation of MOE. Both decisions issued by the Secretary and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit upheld ED's determinations for FY 1989 and 1991 findings that CJT costs must be included in the calculation of MOE under the Perkins Act. Because Congress deemed PDE to be in compliance for the years covered by the decisions, ED did not recover any funds. However, Congress did not alter the underlying MOE requirement or the decisions on the merits. PDE has attempted to amend its State plan to exclude the costs from its MOE calculations. |
PDE does not consider CJT to be a component of the Carl Perkins MOE calculation. With CJT expenditures excluded, PDE has maintained its fiscal effort and, therefore, PDE considers itself to be in compliance with the MOE provision. No corrective action steps are needed. In a September 16, 1996 letter, PDE provided additional information to ED's OVAE. PDE is waiting for a response from ED. | This finding is resolved and closed under the terms and conditions of the attached Agreement. |
| FY 1995 - 54 | PDE | Weakness in
PDE's system to ensure compliance with Federal MOE
requirements.
PDE omitted State costs for CJT from its calculation of MOE. Both decisions issued by the Secretary and the 3rd Circuit upheld ED's determinations for FY 1989 and 1991 findings that CJT costs must be included in the calculation of MOE under the Perkins Act. Because Congress deemed PDE to be in compliance for the years covered by the decisions, ED did not recover any funds. However, Congress did not alter the underlying MOE requirement or the decisions on the merits. PDE has attempted to amend its State plan to exclude the costs from its MOE calculations. |
PDE/Bureau of Information Systems (BIS) feels that proper procedures are currently in place to ensure that correct data becomes part of their final computer files. PDE believes no further action is necessary. PDE awaits a PDL from ED. | This finding is resolved and closed. On February 23, 1998, PDE provided a letter to its Bureau of Information Systems (BIS) directing BIS to implement specific procedures to correct the record keeping deficiencies cited by the Department of the Auditor General. ED(OVAE) is satisfied that the new procedures will provide adequate documentation to support any necessary changes in student enrollment data by BIS. In addition, based on PDE's response to the audit report finding and information provided during project team discussions, ED(OVAE) agrees that BIS has proper procedures in place to ensure that the information it receives is processed in a sufficient manner to support the requirements of PDE. |
| FY 1996 - 30 | PDE | Weaknesses exist in PDE's system to ensure compliance with Federal MOE requirements. (A similar condition was noted in prior year finding #54.) | PDE BIS feels that proper procedures are currently in place to ensure that correct data becomes part of their final computer files. Bureau of Voc-Tech Ed (BVTE) feels that manual controls are not necessary. Monitoring of the student enrollment data by BIS is sufficient for this corrective action. PDE believes no monitoring by BVTE is needed. | This finding is resolved and closed. Please see the determination for FY1995 Finding #54. |
* The RSA findings (marked with an asterisk) listed in this Second Supplement to Matrix of Closed Findings will be resolved and closed upon the execution and completion of the terms and conditions in the attached Agreement.
Abbreviations Used in Matrix
OSERS - Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services
RSA - Rehabilitation Services
Administration
L&I - PA Department of Labor and Industry
OSEP - Office of Special Education Programs
PDE - PA Department of Education
OVAE - Office of Vocational and Adult
Education
