[House Hearing, 107 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] OVERSIGHT OF THE SINGLE AUDIT ACT ======================================================================= HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS of the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ JUNE 26, 2002 __________ Serial No. 107-209 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house http://www.house.gov/reform U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 2003 86-963 PDF For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania STEPHEN HORN, California PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii JOHN L. MICA, Florida CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington, MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland BOB BARR, Georgia DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio DAN MILLER, Florida ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois DOUG OSE, California DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois RON LEWIS, Kentucky JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JIM TURNER, Texas TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine DAVE WELDON, Florida JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida DIANE E. WATSON, California C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia ------ JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma (Independent) Kevin Binger, Staff Director Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director James C. Wilson, Chief Counsel Robert A. Briggs, Chief Clerk Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and Intergovernmental Relations STEPHEN HORN, California, Chairman RON LEWIS, Kentucky JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois DOUG OSE, California MAJOR R. OWENS, New York ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York Ex Officio DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California J. Russell George, Staff Director and Chief Counsel Henry Wray, Senior Counsel Justin Paulhamus, Clerk David McMillen, Minority Professional Staff Member C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on June 26, 2002.................................... 1 Statement of: Carter, Thomas A., Assistant Inspector General for Audit Services, Department of Education.......................... 58 Everson, Mark W., Controller, Office of Management and Budget 15 Hanson, Elizabeth A., Director, Departmental Real Estate Assessment Center, Department of Housing and Urban Development................................................ 66 Hinton, Russell W., chair, Single Audit Committee, National Association of State Auditors, Controllers and Treasurers.. 35 Knickerbocker, Frederick T., Associate Director for Economic Programs, U.S. Census Bureau............................... 26 Martin, Jack, Chief Financial Officer, Department of Education.................................................. 45 Thompson, Sally E., Director, Financial Management and Assurance, U.S. General Accounting Office.................. 4 Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by: Carter, Thomas A., Assistant Inspector General for Audit Services, Department of Education, prepared statement of... 60 Everson, Mark W., Controller, Office of Management and Budget, prepared statement of.............................. 17 Hanson, Elizabeth A., Director, Departmental Real Estate Assessment Center, Department of Housing and Urban Development, prepared statement of......................... 68 Hinton, Russell W., chair, Single Audit Committee, National Association of State Auditors, Controllers and Treasurers, prepared statement of...................................... 38 Horn, Hon. Stephen, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement of................. 3 Knickerbocker, Frederick T., Associate Director for Economic Programs, U.S. Census Bureau, prepared statement of........ 28 Maloney, Hon. Carolyn B., a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, prepared statement of............... 75 Martin, Jack, Chief Financial Officer, Department of Education, prepared statement of........................... 48 Thompson, Sally E., Director, Financial Management and Assurance, U.S. General Accounting Office, prepared statement of............................................... 7 OVERSIGHT OF THE SINGLE AUDIT ACT ---------- WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 2002 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and Intergovernmental Relations, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Stephen Horn (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Horn, Miller, Schakowsky and Maloney. Staff present: J. Russell George, staff director and chief counsel; Bonnie Heald, deputy staff director; Henry Wray, senior counsel; Rosa Harris, GAO detailee; Justin Paulhamus, clerk; Michael Sazonov, Sterling Bentley, Joe DiSilvio, and Yigal Kerszenbaum, interns; David McMillen, minority professional staff member; and Ellen Rayner, minority chief clerk. Mr. Horn. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and Intergovernmental Relations will come to order. Each year the Federal Government awards billions of dollars in grants, loans, loan guarantees, property and interest subsidies to State and local governments and nonprofit organizations. Last year alone, the Federal Government issued approximately $325 billion in awards and grants to these entities. Prior to passage of the Single Audit Act, the Federal Government required financial audits of each grant program to ensure that the grant was being appropriately spent. This often resulted in grant recipients undergoing multiple audits. For example, if Johns Hopkins University received grants from several Federal agencies, each grant was audited separately, often by different audit organizations. Since passage of the Single Audit Act, the recipient in this example, Johns Hopkins, undergoes one audit of all its grants and awards. The Single Audit Act is intended to promote sound financial management including effective internal controls over Federal awards. The act requires audits of grant recipients that annually expend $300,000 or more in Federal awards. Each year about 30,000 single audits are performed. These audits have identified thousands of financial management weaknesses. It is the Federal Government's responsibility to ensure that these weaknesses are corrected. It is critical that the Federal departments and agencies that award these grants ensure that these billions of taxpayer dollars are properly spent. Today we will examine how effectively the Federal Government is accomplishing this goal. I welcome each of you, our witnesses, and look forward to your testimony. [The prepared statement of Hon. Stephen Horn follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.001 Mr. Horn. And now if we--as you know, all of the subcommittees have an oath, and if you'd stand with your people that back you up as well, the clerk will take their names. We've got about five, six behind you. Raise your right hand. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Horn. The clerk will note all of these fine gentlemen and ladies accepted the oath. Please be seated. We're going to move very rapidly today, because I have to be in a mark-up at the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee at 11 a.m. I'll begin, and then we'll move ahead very rapidly, and I'm sure you're pleased. The first witness is Sally Thompson, Director, Financial Management and Assurance, U.S. General Accounting Office. Nice to have you here again. STATEMENT OF SALLY E. THOMPSON, DIRECTOR, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND ASSURANCE, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE Ms. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'm pleased to be here to discuss our report, which was conducted at your request and is being released at this hearing, on the efforts that Education, HUD and Transportation are doing to assure that the Federal award recipients take timely and appropriate actions to correct all single audit findings, and then I would also like to highlight three issues that merit additional attention to ensure that the single audit efforts are achieving the full benefits envisioned by the act. Single audits are a critical element in the government's oversight and monitoring of what you mentioned was over $300 billion in Federal awards. In regard to our report, even though Education, HUD and Transportation had procedures in place to establish responsibility for identifying and reviewing single audits, we found little evidence that the three agencies had actually evaluated and concluded on the adequacy of corrective actions reported, and then notified recipients of the agency's positions on the audit findings and the corrected actions. In other words, there's a statute in place, there's OMB guidance in place, there's agency policies and procedures, but there is not accountability. This is not a compliance issue. It's an accountability issue. Specifically we've reviewed 60 1999 reports from these agencies for their biggest programs and their biggest recipients, and we found 246 audit findings, of which only 30 percent had management decision memos. The OMB circular requires the agencies to issue decision memos within 6 months of the receipt of their single audit reports. Even if they were to issue those management decision memos within 6 months, it would still be 15 months after the end of the audited period. Agencies' reasons for not following-up with management decisions included that they weren't significant, although the audit requirements very specifically said only significant findings are reported; and, that they look at subsequent year- end single audit reports to indicate whether the recipient had indeed corrected the findings. However, when we add to the 15 months another year, and this is not a timely manner of following-up on the audit findings to make sure that they're corrected. Program officials from the three agencies also told us that they followup on corrective actions through activities such as site visits, phone conversations and review, again, of the subsequent audits. However, we found very little documentation that demonstrated these activities. In addition to that, there is no agencywide analysis and reporting of the single audit information that was performed. We believe single audits provide valuable information for agency managers to use in strengthening accountability and oversight, and performing agencywide analysis of problems that may be consistent across single audits. We also feel single audits are another element in the risk management assessment process to reduce improper payments, which is a key element in the President's management agenda. However, when we talked to the agency officials at the three agencies, they revealed that most of the program managers were not communicating this information to the top agencies. We are recommending that the secretary of each of these agencies implement policies and procedures that clearly define roles and responsibilities and ensure accountability of timely and appropriate actions are occurring on all audit findings. We also feel that this reporting should include information on the types of audit findings identified in the single audit reports and the status of those corrective actions. The agency head could be doing agencywide analysis on these findings. Now I would like to to talk briefly about three issues that are of concern to us: Whether all single audits are being conducted, whether the recipients perform the proper monitoring of subrecipients, and whether the single audits comply with auditing standards. In the audit universe, we generally have an honor system. We depend on the recipients to arrange the single audits. We have no government-wide tracking system that accumulates, tracks and reports the total amount of all awards expended by an agency or a recipient. This key is essential for being able to manage across the Federal Government. Subrecipient monitoring. Right now when the States receive audit awards, grant awards, they are responsible for reporting to the agency. However, they distribute that money to many of the local governments and nonprofits, and the States are the ones that are held accountable for following up on those subrecipients. Agencies never know what those findings are, nor do they know whether they've been corrected or not. The very last issue is audit quality. We have a survey that we did on the last report we issued to you. We found that the IGs participated in about 109 reviews and found significant problems with the audits that were being done in the area of internal control, as well as compliance. We believe that this indicates how major the problem is with the quality of audit control. This concludes my remarks, and I'd be glad to answer questions. Mr. Horn. Thank you. [Note.--The GAO report entitled, ``Single Audit, Actions Needed to Ensure That Findings are Corrected,'' may be found in subcommittee files.] [The prepared statement of Ms. Thompson follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.009 Mr. Horn. We now have the second presenter, the Honorable Mark W. Everson, Controller, Office of Management and Budget. STATEMENT OF MARK W. EVERSON, CONTROLLER, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Mr. Everson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a statement that goes on at some length on these issues, but I will just try to summarize it for you. I think first I want to say obviously the issues that GAO has raised are significant and need to be addressed. Mr. Horn. Without objection, we'll have your complete statement as if you read it, and go ahead on the summary. Mr. Everson. Just picking and choosing from it, I'll try and hit the high points. I think the reference you made to statutory changes that were made in 1996, we think clearly they're having a positive effect, but more needs to be done in terms of improving the audit quality, in terms of--as I'm sure my fellow panelists will say--using--furthering the use of technology to get better data. And I would just suggest that the progress has, however, been considerable, and it's--it must be considerable, because as you've pointed out, over $300 billion of the expenditures, the outlays of the government, now come in the form of these grants. In fact, it's something that I was rather startled when I came back into government to learn that it's actually a larger number than procurement. The money that is expended through grants exceeds procurement. I think we have a chart that just shows where--the pie chart indicates just how much goes into grants. Actually in terms of--outlays for fiscal year 2001 exceeded the money spent on the national defense by almost $10 billion. If you look at that, it's actually growing as well, principally because of the increase in the Medicaid payments, but it's actually increased from 11 percent of total outlays in 1990 to 17 percent in 2001. And we would expect that this figure would grow as time goes on, making it all the more important that we have appropriate financial controls and are looking at how these moneys are expended. Right now the--this is an area where we are dependent, as in much of the administration's initiatives to control erroneous payments, on the efforts of States in particular. They are the largest grantees. In fact, if you look at just the top five States, they receive as grantees about half of this $320 billion. So you've got California, New York, Texas, Illinois and Florida that constitute half of the recipients for these moneys. We are looking at the audit threshold right now. The audit is required for any grantee over $300,000. We're looking at whether we ought to increase that level. It would not in any way, shape or form do anything to reduce the dollar coverage, but it would reduce the burdens. Audits are obviously costly. As was mentioned by Ms. Thompson, the management initiatives--the President's management initiative to reduce erroneous payments targets this very area. We need to do more, particularly with the three departments that have been mentioned, because if you look at the expenditure, the moneys, and you slice it not by grantee, but you slice it by programs, there are 665 programs that are the vehicles for this funding, and the largest three are as mentioned. Health and Human Services has almost $200 billion; again, Medicaid being a big piece here. But Transportation and HUD are also quite large, with about $40 billion at Transportation, almost 30- at HUD. So we need to attack it both on a grantee basis, that is to say, where the money goes, but also, as was indicated, on a management basis of the very clear programmatic and accountability responsibility. We do think the audits are having a result. There are clear cases where moneys have been recovered. An example of that would be when Aid to Families With Dependent Children--when that was folding down, the audits actually indicated problems in over $20 billion--pardon me, $20 million was--of overpayments that hadn't been provided or given back to the government, that was secured through just this very vehicle. So they're clearly a good thing. I guess in closing I would also emphasize the need for improved audit quality. Our own indications, based on the work that's been done by IGs, are that this is spotty. It's not as consistent as it ought to be. It seems this is the season to question audits in general. It's, I guess, not surprising that more needs to be done in this very critical area as well. And I'll leave it at that. Mr. Horn. Well, thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Everson follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.018 Mr. Horn. Our third presenter is Frederick T. Knickerbocker, the Associate Director for Economic Programs of the U.S. Census Bureau. STATEMENT OF FREDERICK T. KNICKERBOCKER, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC PROGRAMS, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU Mr. Knickerbocker. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. OMB Circular A-133 designates the Bureau of the Census as the Federal Audit Clearinghouse. The clearinghouse provides an efficient and effective method of processing, distributing and archiving Single Audit reports, monitoring recipients' compliance with the requirements to submit reports required by the act, and capturing and analyzing information on audit results. The clearinghouse reduces the costs of the audit process in a number of ways. First, the central election function allows grantees to send reports to one location instead of reporting to each agency that provided grant funding. Next, the clearinghouse distributes only the reports grant-making agencies need to followup on audit findings. The clearinghouse also facilitates the identification of those organizations that did not submit required audits. And finally, the central clearinghouse provides important governmentwide audit information that was previously not available to Congress, OMB and agency program managers. Establishing the clearinghouse, one, reduces the reporting burden on non-Federal entities and, two, the number of reports that Federal agencies must process. The clearinghouse operates under the direction of OMB with input from the Federal agencies through a user's group and non- Federal auditors. In fiscal year 2002, the clearinghouse operated with a $2.6 million budget. All of these funds are provided by the 24 Federal agencies included in the Chief Financial Officers Council. The clearinghouse began processing data collection forms in December 1997. It now processes approximately 35,000 submissions each year. To date, the clearinghouse has processed approximately 150,000 data collection forms and reporting packages. The clearinghouse is currently working with OMB and members of the Audit Oversight Workgroup of the Chief Financial Officers Council on a delinquent audit plan. In July 2001, the clearinghouse performed a nonresponse followup test. The goal of the test was to determine whether efforts made by the clearinghouse would result in a significant number of additional submissions. The test results demonstrated that a marked improvement in the response rate is possible. The Chief Financial Officers Council is using these results to develop a governmentwide plan to identify delinquent single audits. The clearinghouse maintains a governmentwide data base covering all complete data collection form data. The data base is accessible to Federal agency users and the public through an Internet site maintained by the Census Bureau. Federal agency representatives made several requests for enhanced capabilities of the clearinghouse's Internet Data Dissemination System. Some of these requests resulted from efforts of the Chief Financial Officers Council to meet the requirements of the Federal Financial Assistant Management Improvement Act of 1999. These results resulted in several improvements to the clearinghouse data dissemination system. The data base for all completed submissions now approaches 150,000 records and is available through the Census Website. The clearinghouse has also developed several electronic options to ease the reporting burden. Larger entities have expressed concerns over the burden of reporting on hundreds of programs, and in response we created a processing method to allow larger entities to submit all their data on spreadsheets and, therefore, to the clearinghouse via diskette. Much more importantly, however, this clearinghouse has developed an Internet data entry system. The system allows entities to enter, edit and submit all data electronically. The clearinghouse started Internet reporting in early 2000. Now approximately 60 percent of all submissions are reported online. Since the clearinghouse is the single submission point for nearly all audit reporting packages, Federal agencies generally no longer receive copies of the audit reports directly from auditees. The clearinghouse, however, currently maintains an archive of the current-year audit reports and those for the 4 prior fiscal years. Requests for copies of reporting packages are received daily. Those from Federal awarding agencies are processed immediately. Public requests for copies of audits requires special attention due to the possible presence of sensitive data such as the names of individuals and Social Security numbers. For requests from non-Federal entities, the clearinghouse staff locates and copies the audits, and our Freedom of Information Act Office forwards them to the relevant agency for review and distribution. To assure outside consultation on this whole operation, a Single Audit Users Group was formed with representatives from the Federal grantmaking agencies, OMB, GAO, the clearinghouse, the public sector and private accounting firms, and this group has been meeting periodically since 1997. That concludes my testimony. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Horn. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Knickerbocker follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.025 Mr. Horn. We have now the ranking member here, and she, too, will have to leave when I leave at 11, because she's in the financial business where they're always meeting. Ms. Schakowsky. Well, we're in a markup. Mr. Horn. Ms. Schakowsky, the gentlewoman from Illinois. Ms. Schakowsky. I thank our distinguished panel, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on financial management issues and for holding this hearing on the Single Audit Act. The Single Audit Act is an important piece of legislation, because it both improves financial accountability and reduces the burden the Federal Government places on nonprofit agencies and local governments that are receiving Federal funds. These audits provide the basis for public assurance that grant funds are being spent properly and at the same time allows these agencies to meet all audit requirements with a single annual audit. There are a wide variety of agencies in the city of Chicago, part of which I represent, which come under the Single Audit Act from the Archdiocese of Chicago to the Chicago Antihunger Federation, to the Lincoln Park Zoo. I'm pleased that we have reduced the burden on these organizations and that we can account for the Federal funds spent. However, I would like to challenge the auditors to look at these audits not simply as a review of the past, but an opportunity to help make these programs more effective. I would like us to move beyond the concerns about recordkeeping and work toward a system that helps these agencies become more efficient in the delivery of services. We care about the Lighthouse Group or the Jewish Children's Bureau not because they're good recordkeepers, but because of the good work that they do. I would like to see the auditors assist these agencies in streamlining their financial systems so that they can spend more time and more dollars on services and less on financial accounts. If we can use these audits to improve service delivery, we will have accomplished a very important goal. Again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, and the witnesses for your testimony. Mr. Horn. Thank you. And our next presenter is Russell W. Hinton, Chair of the Single Audit Committee of the National Association of State Auditors, Controllers and Treasurers. Mr. Hinton. STATEMENT OF RUSSELL W. HINTON, CHAIR, SINGLE AUDIT COMMITTEE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE AUDITORS, CONTROLLERS AND TREASURERS Mr. Hinton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the National State Auditors Association regarding the Single Audit Act amendments of 1996. My testimony represents the combined views of the NSAA membership and does not necessarily represent the views of individual States and their implementation of the Single Audit Act. A recurring theme throughout the amendment process was for the implementation of the single audit process to be dynamic, that processes and procedures reflect changing conditions. We feel that the adoption of this concept will strengthen implementation of the single audit process significantly. From a State perspective, critical to an ongoing single audit process is maintenance of OMB Circular A-133. Four areas that we consider critical that need to be addressed periodically would include updating of the OMB A-133 compliance supplement, review of the single audit threshold, authorization for review of pilot projects and continual update of the data collection form. With regard to the OMB compliance supplement, the State audit community is very pleased with the efforts of OMB to update that document annually. It provides a wealth of information for those of us who are charged with the responsibility of auditing Federal programs. With regard to the single audit threshold, the amendments would require OMB to review the threshold triggering the single audit biannually, and it is our current understanding that a proposal from OMB will be forthcoming, calling for an increase in the threshold from 300,000 to 500,000. NSAA will be supportive of such a proposal. A few States opposing an increase in a threshold cite concerns relating to the monitoring of subrecipients. To the extent that additional subrecipients will no longer be covered under the Single Audit Act amendments of 1996, a particular State's monitoring efforts and audit costs may likely increase. There are--in conjunction with an increase in the threshold to $500,000, the NSAA has agreed to participate in a working group proposed by OMB to develop methodologies to effectively and efficiently monitor subrecipients. With regard to authorization of pilot projects, OMB may authorize pilot projects after consultation with appropriate Senate and House committees to test alternative methods of achieving the purposes of the amendments. It was envisioned that numerous pilot projects would be ongoing and would serve as a catalyst for future amendments to the Single Audit Act and A-133. Today the NSAA notes that the pilot project provision has not been fully utilized to explore alternatives. The NSAA remains supportive of the pilot project provision of the Single Audit Act amendments of 1996. Several States indicate the single audit objectives and corresponding audit procedures do not adequately measure combined Federal-State-local program results, and several States believe it is time to transition the focus of single audits from compliance audits to alternative engagement types through the pilot project process; i.e., performance audits or total program engagements. The NSAA, therefore, encourages the OMB and other Federal grantor agencies to initiate or solicit proposals for worthy pilot projects and to give appropriate considerations to cost/benefit and timing issues. With regard to single audit quality, the creation of sound single audit legislation does not--obviously does not guarantee a successful implementation. We believe that it's dependent upon a cooperate effort between both the Federal Government granting agencies and auditors. With regard to management decisions, we are sometimes frustrated in the State audit community that while Federal awarding agencies have shown improvements in the timeliness in which they address recipient audit findings, several States continue to be concerned that Federal awarding agencies are not operating at the optimum level with regards to the issuance of timely management decisions. We applaud the creation and use of the Federal Automated Clearinghouse Data base. It's been an invaluable tool in monitoring overall audit quality from a State perspective. It provides a wealth of information to assist us in monitoring our responsibilities at the State level. With regard to quality control reviews, NSAA considers quality control reviews to be one of the most effective means of ensuring accountability over the quality of audits conducted by non-Federal auditors. We would like to see an increase in this in conjunction with increased auditing efforts at the State level with regard to the quality of certain audits of smaller organizations. We note a large disparity in the quality of work being conducted at that level and feel that particular training and other efforts should be directed at auditees with regard to auditor procurement, because based on some of the research that we have done, we need a better grade of auditor at certain levels. We would once again emphasize--I think one of the success stories of the 1996 amendment has been an increased cooperation on the part of the Federal, State and local government audit community, and we would certainly applaud those efforts going forward. Thank you. Mr. Horn. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Hinton follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.032 Mr. Horn. And we now go to the Honorable Jack Martin, Chief Financial Officer for the Department of Education. Mr. Martin. STATEMENT OF JACK MARTIN, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, good morning. It is my pleasure to be here today on behalf of the Department of Education concerning the Department's actions and progress under the Single Audit Act. This past January, President Bush signed into law H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act, closing a successful year of bipartisan cooperation in Congress and opening a new era in American education. To meet the challenges of this new law, the Secretary of Education, Rod Paige, implemented earlier this year a long-term management improvement plan, the Blueprint for Management Excellence. The blueprint sets a new direction within the Department that demands organizational excellence in programs, performance and management. The Single Audit Act complements this direction. My role as Chief Financial Officer is to advise the Secretary on matters regarding financial management, including audit resolution. This is my first opportunity to testify since being sworn in in February. Today my remarks as the audit followup official for the Department will be directed at key audit resolution improvements and some issues that make our process unique. Earlier this month GAO issued its draft report titled Single Audit: Actions Needed to Ensure That Findings Are Corrected. We're pleased to note from the report that the Department is doing a good job in carrying out its responsibilities under the Single Audit Act. We know, of course, there's always room for improvement. We support GAO's recommendations that agency management should be kept apprised of single audit findings and grantee corrective actions. Our Department issues hundreds of decisions a year on single audit findings, addressing program compliance requirements. These decisions are made at the Assistant Secretary's level, and these officials or their designees are aware of and are involved in addressing compliance issues targeting their programs. To address the findings, we will take another look at our audit resolution process to identify areas of internal control that can be further strengthened, including reviewing files to ensure proper documentation and resolution of findings. At the Department we have long recognized the importance of single audits as a critical measure of the effectiveness of education programs and student performance at the State and local level. To get the most out of the single audit process, we adopted what we referred to as a Cooperative Audit Resolution and Oversight Initiative, or CAROI. GAO noted in their report that CAROI is a practical approach to address complex and recurring single audit findings. We also are proud of the fact that the Association of Government Accountants has designated CAROI as a best practice. Through CAROI, the Department brings all key partners, Federal and State, to the table to address audit findings. Before CAROI the process was time-consuming, bred ill will between the Department and the grantees, and ran up high costs through litigation, often resulting in modest monetary recoveries. With CAROI, the Department works hand in hand with the States to resolve problems identified in audit reports. CAROI is an evolving process at the Department of Education. One of our objectives is to improve timeliness. Currently it may take a year or more to get a completed agreement among all the participant at table. We believe we can do better. Our most successful CAROI effort to date has been the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Over 120 findings, many involving complex issues and high dollar amounts, were resolved in a 6-month period. This extraordinary accomplishment demonstrates how State, Federal cooperation and teamwork can work when the lines of communication are fully open. The true measure of this program is its ability to address problems identified in audit reports once and for all. With this as our criteria, the Pennsylvania CAROI project was a resounding success. Subsequent single audits from the Commonwealth contain no repeat findings. Another enhancement I'd like to mention is our Triage program. At the Department, Triage refers to the process by which we assess the seriousness of audit findings to determine the amount of attention needed for resolution. Its purpose is to promote the most efficient use of audits to assist management in achieving program goals and discharging our fiduciary responsibilities, while at the same time helping us to use our internal resources more effectively. We're also in the process of updating our Post Audit User Guide. Our focus has been on strengthening procedures to ensure that the Department has an effective system for audit resolution, close-out, record documentation, and maintenance and followup. It is being developed as an Intranet document with links to key information. In addition to the user guide, we're also in the process of revising the Department's Discretionary Grant Handbook, which includes guidance on the value and use of single audits. We're also continuing to improve our ability to track and monitor audit resolution efforts. This year we began an effort to build a single data base system to track, monitor and report on the postaudit status of single audits, GAO audits and ED-OIG audits. We anticipate the new combined system to be up and running earlier next year. Our current system has been designated a best practice by the Association of Government Accountants. The Department of Education has some requirements unique in the Federal Government. One of these requirements is to establish a prima facie case for the recovery of funds when resolving our GEPA audit reports. This means that we must include a statement of the law and the facts that, unless rebutted, is sufficient to sustain the conclusion drawn in our management decision letter. In addition, our decision must include an analysis of the value of program services actually provided in determining harm to the Federal interest. This provision raises the bar for what must be included in management decisions in a way that requires the Department to take considerably more time together and analyze audit information and review it for legal sufficiency. In closing, Mr. Chairman, our goal is to ensure that recipients correct the weaknesses identified in the single audit reports, and that we take the necessary steps to ensure the implementation of single audit guidance as required by OMB Circular A-133. I appreciate the opportunity to come before your subcommittee and share our Department's commitment to effectively meet our single audit responsibilities. I'll be happy to answer any questions you or any member of the subcommittee may have. Thank you very much. Mr. Horn. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Martin follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.042 Mr. Horn. Now we have Thomas A. Carter, the Assistant Inspector General for Audit Services of the Department of Education. Mr. Carter. STATEMENT OF THOMAS A. CARTER, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDIT SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Mr. Carter. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss how the Offices of Inspector General meet their responsibilities to assure the quality of single audits under the Single Audit Act. The IG Act mandates that the Inspector General take appropriate steps to assure that any work performed by non-Federal auditors complies with the standards for audits established by the Comptroller General. The Offices of Inspector General devote varying resources to assuring audit quality based on their resources and the needs of their agency. OIGs apply four basic efforts to assure audit quality. Some OIGs use all four, while others use fewer. The first is performing desk reviews. All single audits undergo an initial desk review by the Federal audit clearinghouse to determine if the submitted reporting package is complete. Some OIGs or another office within their agency perform a second desk review when the report arrives at their agency. A second effort is conducting quality control reviews, or QCRs. The OIGs conduct QCRs of the auditor's working papers on a sample basis. The objectives are to first ensure that the audit was conducted in accordance with applicable standards and meets the single audit requirements; second, to identify any followup audit work needed; and third, to identify issues that may require management attention. QCRs are performed using the PCIE's uniform quality control review guide. The third effort for OIGs is preparing audit guidance for the auditors. The annual OMB Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement contains specific audit guidance relating to over 150 individual Federal programs. The revision of the compliance supplement usually is a collaborative effort between OMB, the program officials, legal counsel, the Chief Financial Officer's staff, and the OIG. The degree of OIG involvement in the revision process varies among agencies. At the ED-OIG we play a major role providing a compliance supplement policy official who coordinates and works with other ED officials on revisions, performs a final review, and submits the completed input to OMB. The final quality-related effort of OIGs is to provide training and technical assistance to auditors and program officials on single audits. Again, the level of effort given to this activity varies among the OIGs. We don't have specific information on what the other IGs have done in this area, but I have included some examples of ED-OIG activities in my complete statement to illustrate the form and extent this can take. While OIGs generally fulfill their responsibilities on single audits independently, there is a long history of coordination and collaboration among members of the PCIE on single audits. Through this coordination, we can leverage our resources and take a more unified approach to resolving single audit issues. ED-OIG recently initiated steps to revive a committee of PCIE members' representatives that would provide a regular forum for continuing dialog on single audit matters. We met earlier this month and plan a followup meeting later this summer. How good is the quality of single audits? We don't really have a complete answer to that question. We got a partial answer in the spring of 2001 when the PCIE audit committee conducted a survey of single audit QCRs performed over a 4-year period. The survey reported that OIGs conducted 459 QCRs, of which 75 percent were judged to be acceptable, 20 percent were technically deficient, and 5 percent were substandard. We really do not know how good the quality of the audits is because these results may not be representative of the quality of all single audits. The selections of QCRs by us and other OIGs were based on judgmental factors rather than a random basis, and therefore the results are not projectable. To draw a statistically projectable sample of sufficient size and scope that would afford a meaningful assessment of single audit quality across the board would require the OIG community to develop and execute a sample of single audits for which all OIGs have oversight responsibilities. We have taken a first step toward achieving that projectable sample. At our June meeting the OIG community agreed to begin exploring ways to conduct a statistical sample of QCRs. In summary, the Offices of Inspector General have a key role in ensuring the quality of single audits, and they are performing a number of efforts to improve the quality. We currently do not have a valid measure of the quality of single audits, and we cannot properly measure how effective our efforts are. This is why the current effort to develop a statistically valid sample needs to be successful. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I will be happy to answer any questions you may have for me. Mr. Horn. Thank you, Mr. Carter. [The prepared statement of Mr. Carter follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.048 Mr. Horn. And our last presenter is Elizabeth Hanson, Director of the Departmental Real Estate Assessment Center of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH A. HANSON, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENTAL REAL ESTATE ASSESSMENT CENTER, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Ms. Hanson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. Financial and compliance audits, including audits of State and local governments and nonprofit entities under the Single Audit Act, are an essential element of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's management control and oversight of its housing and community development programs. The Office of Public and Indian Housing's Real Estate Assessment Center is responsible for electronically collecting and assessing audit reports from housing providers receiving financial assistance from either the Office of Public and Indian Housing or the Office of Multifamily Housing. For the approximately 3,200 public housing agencies and the 8,700 nonprofit owners of multifamily projects, this means an audit in accordance with the Single Audit Act and OMB Circular No. A- 133. The Real Estate Assessment Center uses the financial submissions to assess the financial condition and regulatory compliance of the property, or the PHA, and assigns the property or PHA to one of three risk categories depending upon whether the property is a good, marginal or troubled performer. The financial submissions and assessment results are referred to program staff in HUD's Office of Public and Indian Housing and the Office of Multifamily Housing for use in risk- based targeting of technical assistance, onsite monitoring and enforcement activities to improve program compliance and performance. The Real Estate Assessment Center has set up a division to assure the quality of the audits. The Quality Assurance Subsystem consists of a staff of auditors whose primary purpose is to conduct quality assurance reviews, together with certified public accounting firms that perform financial statement audits of HUD housing program participants. Based on several factors, we select high-risk firms for quality assurance reviews annually. The selection criteria includes outstanding referrals from both financial analysts at the Real Estate Assessment Center and HUD program offices, total assets audited by the firm among all HUD-related engagements, and total revenues audited by the firm for HUD- related engagements. Also, if a firm audited 10 or more entities during the previous fiscal year or identified no audit findings, that is considered a factor for selection. When substandard work is identified, the QASS team recommends administrative sanctions which include one or more of the following: Referral to one or more of the State boards of accountancy in the States where the CPA firm practices, referral to HUD's Departmental Enforcement Center for potential debarment proceedings, and referral to the American Institute of Certified Professional Accountants. There are approximately 340 CPA firms auditing about 2,150 PHAs, and the top 10 percent of those firms audit about 68 percent of this population. Many of these firms are either sole practitioners or firms with three or fewer CPAs on staff. The average number of audits performed by the top 10 percent of firms is 44 audits per year, with a range between 35 and 114 audits. Seven sole practitioners do more than 50 audits annually, with one CPA doing 98 audits by himself. A firm with only 3 CPAs audited 8 of the 33 largest PHAs in the country. Analysis of referrals that QASS has received, as well as the quality assurance reviews already completed indicate that several high-volume practitioners do not have the resources to perform PHA audit engagements in accordance with the professional auditing standards or within timeframes required by the Department. A combination of high volume and limited staff resources means that audit quality suffers. With fees being directly related to the time spent on an audit engagement, fewer staff hours not only result in a lower fee, but also a lower quality of work. Of the 25 PHA auditors reviewed during the 12 months ending February 2002, QAR results indicate that 20 firms were not in compliance with professional auditing standards. We have made 18 referrals for administrative sanctions, and we have an additional 10 referrals pending. The majority of these are to the State boards of accountancy where the CPAs practice. However, there are four debarment actions pending at the Departmental Enforcement Center. For multifamily housing projects, regardless of whether it is a profit-motivated owner or a nonprofit, we've determined that there are approximately 2,260 CPA firms providing audit services to the populations of owners required to submit audits to HUD. For this program, the top 10 percent of firms audit about 55 percent of the population. In fiscal year 2001, we reviewed 87 firms that performed multifamily audits, both A-133 and program-type audits, though primarily profit-motivated owners. QASS identified only one firm with severe performance problems. In general the firms that perform the most multifamily audits are regional, large local or national firms with adequate staffing for their workload. Other HUD grant programs such as those administered by the Office of Community Planning and Development are also relying on audits under the Single Audit Act as an essential component of their program management control and oversight. In this area, HUD's program field staff are responsible for obtaining and acting on single audits to ascertain the financial condition and compliance of the program participants. However, recent review by the U.S. General Accounting Office cited that these HUD program areas do not have a central system to assure that single audits are properly received and acted upon. HUD has plans in place to better assure that all required single audits are properly received and acted upon in all HUD program areas. Thank you. Mr. Horn. We thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Hanson follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.052 Mr. Horn. And now we'll start the Q and A, and one question I want to all of you to answer, and that has been mentioned, the Office of Management and Budget is working toward increasing the single audit threshold from $300,000 to $500,000. Ms. Hanson, what are your views on the increase? Ms. Hanson. We have looked at it from the perspective of the multifamily and public housing programs, and it's not going to significantly impact our oversight of those public housing agencies or the multifamily property owners. In terms of the dollar amounts covered by those entities, it's not significant. And in addition, we continue to receive the unaudited financial submissions from those property owners and public housing agencies, so we still have the ability to look at the financial information. Mr. Horn. Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter. We haven't taken an official look at it yet, but from discussions with my non-Federal staff, I believe our position would be that it would not be a bad idea to increase the threshold. Mr. Horn. Mr. Martin. Mr. Martin. We haven't officially examined the $500,000 threshold, but I think our position would be to support it. Mr. Horn. Mr. Hinton. Mr. Hinton. The National State Auditors Association would support such a proposal. As I stated in my testimony, some of the concerns are among the States for--whereby the State has linked their monitoring efforts to the threshold, and there will have to be some review there, but NSAA would be in support of it. Mr. Horn. Mr. Knickerbocker. Mr. Knickerbocker. Increasing the threshold will presumably reduce the number of submissions, but from the clearinghouse standpoint, we stand ready to process any number of submissions. Mr. Horn. Mr. Knickerbocker. Mr. Knickerbocker. Oh, yes, sir. Again, as I said, presumably increasing the threshold will reduce the number of submissions, but from the clearinghouse standpoint, we stand ready to process any number of submissions. Mr. Horn. Mr. Everson. Mr. Everson. I'd just point out here, our understanding is there are about 34,000 entities that get audited. This would knock out 6,000 of those entities. That's only 18 percent, but it would--the dollar coverage would be less than 1 percent that you're losing by taking that step. So we think it lightens the burden, reduces the burden on the public with no change in the risk quotient from the overall Federal Government point of view. Mr. Horn. Ms. Thompson. Ms. Thompson. On the surface I think GAO would be in support of that, but I would say that there needs to be a balancing to look at the subrecipients, because the Federal agencies are not getting those reports from the subrecipients. They are going directly to the State, and we don't know what the effect would be on those, and I think there needs to be an analysis on that. Mr. Horn. I thank you. We're going to be in recess until 11 a.m., and Mr. Miller will assume the Chair as chairman. And so I thank you very much for coming. Mrs. Maloney. May I ask one question? Mr. Horn. Well, can you wait for Mr. Miller, because I have to be in Transportation. Otherwise I'd love to do it. [Recess.] Mr. Miller [presiding]. The hearing will continue. We will proceed with questions and ask Mrs. Maloney to go. Mrs. Maloney. I am delighted to join with my good friend Dan Miller and place my regrets that he has decided not to run for reelection. He has been an outstanding Member of this body and I will miss him. I wish he would reconsider. I also welcome all the witnesses and just briefly state that the Single Audit Act was created in 1984, amended in 1996, in order to ensure that money awarded by the Federal Government is well spent by the private organizations that get it. Entities that receive over $300,000 of the taxpayers' money must arrange to have a single audit which agencies, with the help of the Federal Audit Clearinghouse, are supposed to review in order to spot misuse of government funds. Many agencies also consult the audits before awarding money, to check how recipients have handled previous awards of Federal money. Those agencies who do not should begin this commonsense practice. As someone who has tried to serve and work with Mr. Miller and others to look at ways to better manage taxpayers' money, I am disturbed by some of the failings that have been reported by the single audit system. For example, the Department of Health and Human Services--and I understand they are not with us today--has twice been cited in GAO reports as not having any comprehensive way to deal with the Single Audit Reports that come into its agencies. In an April 23rd report and a June 11th report that I requested, with Wisconsin Representatives Barrett and Kleczka, the GAO reported that HHS did not know the extent to which the single audits they had received revealed the misuse of funds because they had no comprehensive system of analyzing the reports. The Department of Health and Human Services serves the neediest among us. It is our job to make sure that money intended to provide food, schooling, or job training is not wasted or stolen by incompetent or criminal organizations. And without adequate oversight from HHS, we have no way to tell how much of that money is truly going to the ones that most need our help. I know we have other Federal agencies represented here today, and I look forward to reading your testimonies. I did hear some of it. But as I was talking while we were waiting with Mark Everson from the OMB, the Comptroller there, he indicated, I thought, something very wise to me: that this really has to be a team effort with the States and the localities, and that we send this money oftentimes in block grants or direct grants to the States and localities, and that they should be playing their part in making sure that these funds are well spent. I used to be a member of the City Council of New York for 10 years, and have many friends on that body. And if any of you have any ideas of how we could--I'll just use my city, because I know New York has many needy people and has many--a great deal of funding from HHS and other housing and other areas--of ways that we could get the city to work with us to help us improve what we're doing. I can tell you, when I did come to the Federal Government from the city of New York, I was amazed at how well run the Federal Government is. I think it is extremely well run compared to the city of New York, which I think is well run, but your controls and oversight were superior to that which we had worked to put in place in the city. [The prepared statement of Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6963.053 Mrs. Maloney. I have two questions: No. 1: How can we get the localities to take some of this burden off of us, and responsibility, to make sure that the moneys are spent well? And the second is really the result of the GAO report that said that often they will, in the single audit, they will analyze and see something wrong; yet then there is no followup to make sure that it is corrected. So why even bother to have an audit if you are not going to then take the next step, which is to correct whatever it is that is a mismanagement, which may be just something as innocent as not really being a sophisticated manager in some areas of the country or even in the city of New York? Why bother with a single audit if we don't correct the problems that come out of it? I would like to open those two questions up. If anyone has an idea of how you respond to the point that I raised that oftentimes they come up with ideas that are of mismanagement, yet no one follows through, how do we get the Federal Government to follow through? But, on the other hand, it should not just be the Federal Government's responsibility, it should be part of the city's and the State's to work in partnership with us. How do we shift some of this responsibility in a way that is accountable to the local areas so that we can make sure that the dollars get to the people who need it, and, very importantly, are well spent in the way that we intend when we vote in Congress to help the poor that it truly does? So I just open it up for comments from anybody. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for yielding to me. Always a gracious gentleman. Thank you. Mr. Everson. Maybe I could try to frame it from the center at OMB, if you will, and from the President's Management Council point of view, if I could. First, thank you very much for your offer on New York City, and we will take a look at that and come back to you. But the President's management agenda has, as one of his five core areas, improved financial performance. Central to that is the reduction of erroneous payments. This is part and parcel of that effort, because what you have here is you have an attack on this through two levels. One is very much through the departments that run these programs, and the word ``accountability'' that was used earlier is quite--quite central to this--this whole issue. We are working with the departments, including those represented here and others, to make sure they're following up on this whole area. They're doing studies and indicating to us what the erroneous payment rate is, which is--which is clearly one of the things you determine through these audits. And I think we are going to make some progress. It is a complicated issue, though, and it is complicated because of the other point that you raised, which is that they don't directly control these moneys. The moneys are given to others who then run these programs. And frequently, I have to be honest here, the imposition of controls is resisted, even within this body, because there'll be pushback from States or from counties as to the imposition, say, of penalties. An example of that being just now in the farm bill and changes we wanted to make in food stamp areas, just the penalty phase; if people spent too much money and did not have the adequate controls, there's oftentimes a lot of pushback, because if you're going to get a penalty, obviously it costs the State money. It is a very complicated dynamic, and you need to work at both the department level but also at the State level, and we need your help there because sometimes they don't want to cooperate. Mrs. Maloney. If I could followup on your comments, that one way to address that is to come forward with how we want these controls federally. And instead of imposing the penalty, say if you want this money within a 5-year period or a 10-year period, you implement this type of management control. You know, I think sometimes, particularly in serving the poor when the need is so much, they are just overwhelmed; people are overwhelmed, and they can't really spend the time to think of how they could better control it. So maybe we in the Federal Government that has more experience in controls and oversight could come up with some ideas that we could just suggest, maybe instead of a penalty, we could put out an incentive; say you correct this in X, Y, Z ways, and then we will give you more money. Now, very briefly, on the State and city of New York, by far the Federal budget goes to the city of New York, not the State, because the city of New York serves the--it's where the poor live. And it's the urban center of where the population really lives. And I was always surprised on the State to see how much more money was really in the city on contracts, building, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security than upstate. You always think the State is bigger. But as I said, if you wanted some model cases or some hearings or some, you know, just some thought on how you could do this, I could certainly work with you with the city of New York. All 52 members are still friends of mine because I served with them. Mr. Everson. I would like to do that. Mrs. Maloney. Maybe that would be a better way of getting that done, as opposed to saying we are going to give you a penalty, when most cities and States have a huge budget gap. The city of New York has a $5 to $6 billion budget gap. If you talk about a penalty, they are going to be upset because they need the money. But if it came in in the beginning, not in an onerous way, but we will give you 5 years to correct your erroneous payment problem by X, Y, Z, they would welcome the leadership of how to respond, because no one wants their limited dollars being spent inappropriately. Thank you. Mr. Martin. I believe that many cities continue to fund some recipients that are financial basket cases. And I believe that if they improve followup of these subrecipients, and consider the audit findings in future awards, that would reduce the findings considered in the single audit process. Ms. Thompson. I'm from GAO, Mr. Congressman; nice to have you here; nice to be here today. One of the things that I mentioned in my remarks before you came in was that I felt there was a real need for the States to report on the subrecipients, because the Federal agencies are not getting the information on the audit findings of these subrecipients. I'm a firm believer that by reporting, you increase accountability. But more than that, you could do analysis. The Federal agencies then can look across the subrecipients and see where the problems are. For instance, we've seen a lot of audit findings in eligibility, and you take that down to an individual program then, and if you see that prevalent across many States, you need to then look at what is the reason that they're finding audit problems in eligibility? It allows that kind of analysis. Right now, the States are not reporting up on who the subrecipients are, nor are they reporting up on what kind of audit findings are being identified out there by the audits and what kind of followup actions are being taken to correct those problems. Even though those audits are in the clearinghouse data base, that information is not going out to the Federal agencies. And I think if we had, again as you mentioned, a partnership among everybody within the State up to the State level, and then the States with the agency level, we could increase our accountability but, more importantly, give them the information they need to do this kind of analysis. Mrs. Maloney. Thank you. Mr. Miller. Thank you. Let me ask some questions of Mr. Everson, and I know he has to leave early. Three questions I will ask you, and then you can cover them all at one time. The GAO report issued today raises questions about the adequacy of agency efforts to ensure that recipients of Federal awards are correcting weaknesses identified in the single audit reports. What is the OMB's role in ensuring that the weaknesses are corrected? A recent GAO survey indicated that agency quality control reviews have found problems with the quality of some single audits. The question is, how pervasive is this problem? The third question is, what is OMB doing to ensure that all required single audits are being performed? Mr. Everson. Taking the first one, as I indicated before, the President has articulated improving financial management as one of the five governmentwide efforts that we are undertaking as part of the President's management agenda. This is a very central element of it, reducing erroneous payments, so we take very seriously the work that GAO has done here in looking at the efforts, really, of the departments which control the largest pieces of this $300-some-odd billion of grants that are out there. We have concerted efforts, working with the departments, to increase our monitoring of what they're doing in this area, and as you may know, we are evaluating their progress quarterly. In fact, we will be updating our management--executive branch management scorecard on where each agency stands, their efforts in this area; and, for instance, be giving my colleague here, Jack, a grade on how the Education Department is doing on improving financial management. That will be published and be available to everybody on July 15th when we do the midsession reviews. So there is a great deal of accountability and a great deal of focus on this whole effort. And it will take into account things like GAO reports on this area. So that's the first question. I think it is receiving the attention it needs and will be highlighted. The quality of the audits. I think that as several people touched on, I don't think we really know as well as we should just whether the audits themselves are of the standard across the board that we would want, the points that were made about the involvement of the inspectors general and also, I would think, the CFOs that get a clear view of this, they're central. We need to do more in terms of the sampling of the audits, more peer reviews. I think the PCIE, which is the group of IGs and the audit committee that was referenced, they're working on this. We are working on this with them. But I think we do need to do more. And as I indicated before, this is a tough time to be in the audit business. They're in for a lot of criticism in the work that's being done in the private sector. We need to make sure that we have very high standards here. So I think more needs to be done and we will do that. I am the acting chair of the PCIE, and I will make sure that I reiterate that as we work on that on the IG side. Help me again on the third question? Mr. Miller. What are you doing to ensure that all required single audits are being performed? Mr. Everson. I think that is, again, an active area of collaboration amongst the bodies that we have in place. And there is a grants subcommittee that works within the CFO Council structure and works directly--we have a lot of coordination on this--with GAO and with the departments through the CFO Council. But I think that, as was mentioned earlier, that--I think you used the word ``honor system.'' I don't think we have quite figured out a foolproof way here to make sure that everybody who should provide an audit is so doing. That remains to be seen how we would make that air-tight. Again, though, I think that we are picking up, we are sweeping in the big-dollar items, as I indicated before. The exposure here may be on some of the smaller grantees, is where I think there is probably greater risk. Mr. Miller. Let me ask about the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act. Could you comment on the OMB's views of the effectiveness of the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act and what action is being taken to address the continuing poor condition of the financial systems across the government? Mr. Everson. I think that the act has been very important in trying to direct agencies to get to systems that are compliant with Federal standards, both as to their own individual needs, but moreover to get to a common set of transaction processes and standards such that you could actually use this information on a central basis. As you know, right now we don't have audited financial statements for the U.S. Government. GAO can't opine on the financial statements of the U.S. Government. Part of this is systems driven; that we can't even collect and provide information, adequate information on all the intergovernmental transactions. You can't get there until you have good systems that produce the right information in the right account structure. Nevertheless, having said that, as we move forward to improved systems across the government, and invest to do that-- and there is a great deal of modernization that is going forward right now that's very good. There is a problem, I would suggest to you, with the act as you look at all the reporting that takes place under FFMIA, FMFIA, the CFO Act and other areas. There is almost a competing hierarchy of reporting under these various acts. And we need to be, I think, taking a look at this. I have talked to the Comptroller General about it, getting a better hierarchy of reporting. Because what happens quite frankly, sir, is that you end up opining as to compliance with FFMIA, and that gives you a series of issues to address, and then you've got material weaknesses and FMFIA problems, and I'm not sure the agencies know where to turn to--which problem to fix first. We need to get a rational system that says we have material weaknesses that the auditors have determined which would sweep in these FMFIA problems, and work on those, if you will. It is a little too complicated out there right now. Mr. Miller. One more question of Mr. Everson before you leave. It is related to H.R. 4685, the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002. What is OMB's views of H.R. 4685 and does it support the bill? Mr. Everson. You will have to tell me a little bit more about it. Mr. Miller. It increases the number of agencies that are going to be required to have audits. Mr. Everson. OK, great. Yes. Yes. We are for this because it brings down--this lowers the threshold and sweeps in some of the smaller agencies. We think that is a good idea. They end up with their financial statements. The piece that I think we have some reservations about is really just what I talked about a minute. The FFMIA components of that; because it's not totally clear to me in a small agency that you should mandate that same adherence as to the technical requirements on systems, because those really have a benefit to us overall if you want to roll up the information into the governmentwide statements. It's not clear that you want-- they've got a system that the auditors would say is adequate for their purposes. I'm not sure whether, in a $30 million agency or program, you would want to mandate that they go through the investment cost of having a system that is actually totally in agreement with what we need to roll up the governmentwide statements. That's the only reservation we have. But we are strongly in support of having you test functions attached to those agencies. Mr. Miller. What is OMB's views on the improper payment bill? Mr. Everson. If you could tell me--there are a couple of different pieces that are moving on improper payments. This is the--you're talking about--the bill that's just moving forward now, which would really codify the reporting on programs by agencies to OMB? Yes, that would simply I think support what we are trying to do, and provide tighter deadlines, if you will, for us I think. So I think it would help us. Not any different to what Jack and his colleagues are trying to do for us. But having it in the law, sure. Mr. Miller. Mrs. Maloney. Mrs. Maloney. I have no further questions. Mr. Miller. Mr. Everson, I know you have an appointment. This is for Sally Thompson. Two questions: What needs to be done to ensure compliance with the Single Audit Act? And how effective are the provisions of the Single Audit Act? Is the act working? Ms. Thompson. I think it's an excellent act. It provides the framework to be able to put the proper controls in place for the $300-billion-plus expenditures. But there are gaps and holes, some of which we have recommended in the report that we are releasing today. Certainly adding more accountability in terms of, at the agency level, the rollup to the top management of the overall process and situations of a single audit finding; what kind of management decision memos have been issued; are they done on a timely basis; what are the conclusions on that? Have the recipients been notified and what is the timetable for followup on that? Not only that, it provides agencywide analysis to be able to understand what's going on out there in the area of grants and awards across the board. We also feel, though, that there are a number of other areas at a governmentwide level that need to be addressed, many of which have been mentioned here today. We are concerned about the universe--that we don't know whether we are receiving all the required single audits. It's an honor system. We believe that's solvable. If you roll up that kind of information at the agency level, you ought to then be able to roll it up at the governmentwide level and be able to track it, accumulate it, look at it, understand this recipient that may be getting money from several different agencies that would fall under the requirement, even with the increased threshold of a single audit. It would provide you that kind of information. Also in terms of what they call the cognizant agency, which are an agency that's responsible for following up on single audit findings that may involve money from other agencies. I think holding them accountable will increase the effectiveness of the act. And then as we mentioned, we really believe there should be State reporting--that's not occurring right now--that goes up to the agencies, that identifies who those subrecipients are. Then you can go into the data base and see if those recipients are actually filing reports. Because right now, all the clearinghouse can do is to look at those that filed last year to see whether they filed this year. But if nobody's filed at all, they do not know that. So State reporting would provide a number of solutions to many of the problems that have been mentioned here today: who the subrecipients are, how much money they're spending. Also we don't know how much the corporations are getting of these awards as well, and that would identify that. And then we think the quality needs to be addressed to make the act more effective. And there again, as we said, we really don't know the extent of those problems out there. And we think by partnerships with the IGs, and the State auditor being directed from OMB, would significantly give us the data that's needed to identify whether there is a problem with the quality of the audits out there. I'm also a firm believer of performance accountability. We are holding the Federal agencies accountable for the programs and the performance and the results of those programs. I think that the agencies should hold the recipients and the States should hold the subrecipients also accountable for the results of those programs. Mr. Miller. Thank you. Let me ask Mr. Knickerbocker a question. I think we met before on census issues. Mrs. Maloney and I chaired that committee for a few years. What type of user feedback information does the clearinghouse accumulate, and what could improve the quality of the clearinghouse? Mr. Knickerbocker. Well, Mr. Chairman, we do have the Single Audit Act user group. We interact with all the Federal grant-making agencies. The features of the clearinghouse, both the data dissemination system and the data collection system, have been crafted in part on the basis of the guidance from the user community. In other words, we are quite sensitive that the mechanics by which we receive the information, make it available to the agencies, respond to their needs. So I think that we can say that we do have an active program of interaction with the Federal agencies. We have training programs for the Federal agencies to know how to access the clearinghouse. We are, as I indicated in my testimony, working with subsidiary groups of the CFO Council on issues of delinquent audits, how to increase responsiveness from delinquent audits. I did not mention it in my testimony, but in part of my written testimony, that we're also working with the CFO groups on checking the results in the clearinghouse against the three different Federal payment systems. I mean, the whole system is quite complex, and one of the issues is if you look at various ways that moneys move out to local entities, nonprofit entities, by comparing those money flows with the auditing flows, can you find discrepancies and therefore identify organizations that are not reporting and not fulfilling their auditing responsibilities? So I suppose my general response is that we see ourselves as a service organization meeting the needs of the program agencies. I think the record will show that we've been responsive to their needs and I'm not aware that, any of the agencies feel that there are major shortcomings in what we are doing at this juncture. Mr. Miller. Thank you. Mr. Hinton, what are some of the key issues that need to be addressed to ensure quality and usefulness of audits? And in your testimony you mentioned that a few States are opposed to the single audit threshold. Can you elaborate further on their concerns? Mr. Hinton. With regard to improvement in single audit quality at the local and the nonprofit level, our position would--would involve an increased accountability effort on the part of the IGs, on the part of State auditors, to review these reports for compliance with the significant sections of the act. We've been very successful in Georgia, on the local government side, recently in identifying deficiencies in the act and thereby being able to--to implement some methods for improving that. One thing we also see at the local level is a lack of education or lack of awareness of the specific aspects of the Single Audit Act. And that's a twofold problem in that the entity which is obtaining the audit has a responsibility under Circular A-133 to engage a competent auditor. And what we see there is quite often there's a lot of shopping that goes on with regard to selection of the auditor, and less of a concern about the quality of the audit that's going to be addressed there. Mrs. Maloney. Excuse me. May I ask a question? How are they able to shop who the auditor is? Mr. Hinton. Well, I shouldn't say ``shop.'' The attitude is to get--meet the minimal requirements of Federal regulation, Federal law, at the lowest cost. And the auditees need to pay more attention to the qualifications of that particular---- Mrs. Maloney. In other words, the city or State can select the auditor? I thought the auditors came down from the Federal gentleman. Mr. Hinton. No, ma'am. Mrs. Maloney. So they hire them from outside firms? Mr. Hinton. Right. There are a variety of situations across the country. I know in our State---- Mrs. Maloney. What's your State? Mr. Hinton. Counties--Georgia--counties and municipalities are required by State statute, and obviously by the Single Audit Act, to obtain an audit that meets the requirement of the legislation and the implementing regulation. And it's the responsibility of who receives the Federal funds or expends those Federal funds to obtain that audit. Mrs. Maloney. Then they go to a private firm? I did not think that--I thought the auditors came down from the IG or from the government. I did not realize it was private auditors. Mr. Hinton. No, ma'am. Mrs. Maloney. How do we know that the auditors are right? We had the same problem with Enron. Mr. Hinton. It's not been a good year for auditors. With regard to the change in the threshold, there are certain States which have linked the requirements for their State's monitoring efforts of State grants and such to the Single Audit Act. And under the Single Audit Act, a portion of that audit can be paid for with administrative dollars of the various Federal assistance programs. By raising the threshold, certain States are concerned that participation in obtaining the audits might not be available, that it would drop off a number of their entities which are tied in their statutes to audit requirements. However, those States which raised objections to that were limited, and surveys we conducted over the last 2 years have indicated favorable support for the $500,000 level. Mr. Miller. Mr. Martin, how would the increase in the single audit threshold impact Education's oversight in monitoring school districts? Mr. Martin. I don't think it would change the way we monitor school districts. I think the procedures we have in place right now, CAROI and the other ways we receive our audit reports, the fact that we're implementing a new data base, should help. But I don't think the implementation of the $500,000 threshold will effect us at all. You know, the capabilities of our systems are not a function of what that threshold is. Mr. Miller. As an appropriator I find this whole question very interesting, since I'm on Labor-HHS in particular. This is for Ms. Hanson. What impact will an increase in the audit threshold have on HUD's monitoring and oversight of housing authorities that receive Federal financial assistance? And HUD recently reported $2 billion in net improper payments in housing subsidy programs. Has the Department used single audit results as a tool to determine the risk areas in the housing programs and, if so, how? Ms. Hanson. Thank you. I will take the first one, and you will have to remind me of the second one. The impact on changing the threshold for the Public Housing Agency is not going to be significant. Currently 1,173 PHAs fall below the $300,000 threshold, and they have total Federal revenues of approximately $141 million. Those that are in the neighborhood of $300,000 to $500,000 it's another 304 PHAs with about $118 million. That still leaves 1,627 PHAs with over $500,000, for $13.6 billion in Federal revenue. You weren't here with the earlier question, but we will still receive the unaudited financial submissions from those housing authorities, so we will have the opportunity to be looking, and make an assessment of their financial condition based on those unaudited financial statements. We don't believe by raising the threshold, it will impact our ability to continue our oversight of those housing authorities. And the second one was---- Mr. Miller. About the $2 billion that's been reported in improper payments in the housing subsidy programs. Has the Department used single audit results as a tool to determine the risk areas in the housing programs and, if so, how? Ms. Hanson. Not directly. How we analyze risk assessment in the Office of Public and Indian Housing is we look at a variety of features, including the amount of Federal resources going to that housing authority, performance under the PHAs system, and compliance issues such as audit findings to determine where we believe there is a high-risk housing authority that needs our attention either through additional technical assistance, greater monitoring of the documents that come in, or actual onsite attention. I'm not really prepared to speak to what the Department is doing, but we do have a very aggressive program of trying to work up front with the housing authorities and other housing providers to assist them in validating the information that residents and potential residents provide. Mr. Miller. Thank you. Well, this will conclude the hearing. But let me for the record make some thank-yous to several people that made this hearing possible: Russell George, the staff director and chief counsel; Bonnie Heald, the deputy staff director, Henry Wray, the senior counsel; Rosa Harris, the GAO detailee; Justin Paulhamus, the majority clerk; Michael Sazonov, the subcommittee intern; Sterling Bentley, the subcommittee intern; Joe DiSilvio, the subcommittee intern; and Yigal Kerszenbaum, subcommittee intern. For the minority, David McMillen of the professional staff, and Ellen Rayner, the chief minority clerk. I thank the reporters, Michelle Bulkley and Joe Strickland. With that, I thank you all very much for participating. I am sorry that Chairman Horn couldn't remain for the whole hearing, but I thank you very much. [Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] -