![](media/image1.wmf){width="1.0611111111111111in"
height="1.0618055555555554in"}![](media/image2.png){width="1.2138888888888888in"
height="1.1569444444444446in"}

**UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION**

########  OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

# **61 FORSYTH STREET, ROOM 18T71**

# **ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303**

####### Phone (404) 562-6470 Fax (404) 562-6509

#### 

#### January 12, 2006

#####  Control Number

##### ED-OIG/A04F0011

Mrs. Kathy Cox

State Superintendent of Schools

Georgia Department of Education

2066 Twin Towers East

Atlanta, GA 30334

Dear Mrs. Kathy Cox:

This Final Audit Report, entitled *Audit of the Georgia Department of
Education's Migrant Education Program,* presents the results of our
audit. The objectives of our audit were to (1) review and determine the
adequacy of the Georgia Department of Education's (GA DOE)
re-investigation of the eligibility of migrant students served by the
Two Rivers Migrant Education Agency (MEA); (2) determine whether the
Migrant Education Program (MEP) funds allocated to the Marion County
Board of Education for Two Rivers MEA were expended appropriately; and
(3) determine the extent of GA DOE's monitoring of its MEP sub-grantees.
Our review covered MEP operations and the Two Rivers re-investigation
from September 1, 2003 through August 30, 2005.

**BACKGROUND**

The Migrant Education Program (MEP) is authorized under Part C of Title
I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended.
Federal regulations define an MEP eligible migratory child as a child
who is, or whose parent, spouse, or guardian is, a migratory
agricultural worker, including a migratory dairy worker, or a migratory
fisher, and who, in the preceding 36 months, has moved from one school
district to another, to obtain temporary or seasonal employment in
agricultural or fishing work. The goal of the MEP is to ensure that all
migrant students reach challenging academic standards that all children
are expected to meet, and to prepare them for successful transition to
postsecondary education or employment. Federal

MEP funds are allocated by formula to state education agencies, based on
each state\'s per pupil expenditure for education and counts of eligible
migratory children, aged 3 through 21, residing within the state.

Georgia's (GA) MEP authorized funding for award years 2002-2003 and
2003-2004 was \$8,873,820 and \$8,928,859 respectively. GA DOE reported
a total of 23,765 students were eligible to participate in the Georgia
MEP during award year 2002-2003, and 25,640 students in 2003-2004. Only
a minimal level of MEP funds was retained at the GA DOE for state
administration of the program (approximately one percent). The remainder
of the funds was allocated to four fiscal agents, located throughout the
state of Georgia. Three of the fiscal agents were Regional Education
Service Agencies (RESA), and one fiscal agent is a County Board of
Education. Each of the fiscal agents operated a Migrant Education Agency
(MEA) that was responsible for carrying out MEP-funded services across
multiple districts in its region. A breakdown of the fiscal agents,
MEAs, and number of school districts served is presented in the chart
below.

  --------------------------- ------------------- ------------------------
  **Fiscal Agent**            **Migrant Education **Number of School
                              Agency**            Districts Served**

  First District RESA         Live Oak            38 in Eastern GA

  Coastal Plains RESA         Southern Pine       22 in Southern GA

  Marion County Board of      Two Rivers          46 in Southwestern GA
  Education                                       

  Pioneer RESA                Piedmont            74 in Northern GA
  --------------------------- ------------------- ------------------------

In April 2003, the U.S. Department of Education's (ED) Office of Migrant
Education (OME) directed GA DOE to conduct an investigation of the Two
Rivers MEA to determine whether it was recruiting/serving ineligible
students. In response, GA DOE reported in June 2003 that there was no
evidence to indicate that the Two Rivers MEA was recruiting/serving
ineligible students. OME reviewed GA DOE's report and had serious
concerns about the thoroughness and quality of the investigation and in
January 2004 directed the GA DOE to re-investigate. In January 2005, GA
DOE provided a brief summary of its re-investigation. OME found this
response incomplete and uninformative and requested more information
that was not provided by the GA DOE. In addition, in July 2004 OME
requested all states to re-interview a state-wide sample of participants
in the MEP to determine the accuracy of the state-wide 2003-2004 child
counts. In response to the state-wide re-interviewing activity, GA DOE
reported, in June 2005, a statewide ineligibility rate of 35 percent
(and a 36 percent ineligibility rate in Two Rivers), based solely on
face-to-face re-interviews conducted with those families from the random
sample that could be located. We also noted that OME's most recent
program review report on the Georgia Migrant Education Program,
performed in 2004, identified areas of noncompliance and required
corrective action. Our review focused on GA DOE's re-investigation of
the Two Rivers MEA.

**AUDIT RESULTS**

### 

We found that policies, procedures, and internal controls over Two
Rivers Migrant Education Agency's (MEA) Migrant Education Program (MEP)
expenditure process were adequate and it expended its MEP funds
appropriately. However, we identified problems with GA DOE's 1)
re-investigation of Two Rivers MEA student eligibility, and 2)
administration and oversight of the MEP.

In its comments to the draft report, GA DOE concurred with all findings
and recommendations directed at the state. GA DOE did not address
recommendation 1.5 because it is directed to the Assistant Secretary for
Elementary and Secondary Education and is therefore, beyond the control
of GA DOE officials. In addition, GA DOE stated that it has already
taken steps to implement the recommendations set forth in the report.
The full text of auditee comments is included as an Attachment to the
report.

**Finding No. 1 -- GA DOEs Re-investigation of Two Rivers MEA was**

**Inadequate and its Report Sent to OME was Inaccurate**

GA DOE did not adequately re-investigate the eligibility of migrant
students served by the Two Rivers MEA. We found that GA DOE based its
conclusions on an insufficient number of interviews; inadequate
interview questions and/or procedures; and insufficient and/or
inadequate notes documenting the interviews. We also found that the
re-investigation methodology -- interviews -- produced inadequate
information for GA DOE to base its conclusion that fraud was not a
factor in the discrepancies in reporting student eligibility. In
addition, GA DOE's report to OME contained inaccurate information. As a
result, GA DOE and OME are still unaware of the full extent or reason
for Two Rivers MEA enrolling and serving ineligible students; and OME
does not have accurate and reliable information to use as a basis for
assessing eligibility issues and determining what actions to take.

**[Insufficient Number of Interviews]{.underline}**

MEP is a state-operated and state administered program, and it is the
state's responsibility to ensure that MEP funds are used to identify,
recruit, and provide services only to eligible migrant children. The
state delegates its responsibility to local operating agencies used to
assist the state in carrying out the MEP. Pursuant to 34 C.F.R. §
80.40(a), "Grantees are responsible for managing the day-to-day
operations of grant and sub-grant supported activities. Grantees must
monitor grant and sub-grant supported activities to assure compliance
with applicable Federal requirements and that performance goals are
being achieved."

Based on the criteria in § 80.40(a), OME instructed GA DOE to perform a
re-investigation[^1] of Two Rivers MEA (one of GA DOE's MEP
sub-grantees), in order to determine whether the Two Rivers MEA
deliberately recruited/served ineligible students in the MEP. OME wrote
several letters to GA DOE providing specific instructions on the
approach to be used for the re-investigation. Our review showed that GA
DOE did not follow OME's instructions. Specifically, OME\--

-   Provided sampling instructions, which specified that the number of
    re-interviews of migrant families should be large enough (300-350
    families) to generalize a conclusion as to whether Two Rivers MEA
    was enrolling and serving ineligible migrant students. GA DOE agreed
    with the instructions in writing, however, it did not follow the
    instructions;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Instructed GA DOE to broaden the investigation and determine the
    full extent of the problem, if GA DOE's re-interviews suggested a
    problem. GA DOE did not express whether or not it agreed with OME's
    instruction. GA DOE did not broaden the sample size and did not
    implement other/alternate procedures to address the identified
    problem; and

-   Instructed GA DOE to determine whether fraud was involved in the
    recruitment of ineligible students. GA DOE maintains that it
    followed this instruction, but did not document the procedures or
    the results.

As part of the 2004 re-investigation, GA DOE attempted to locate and
interview 164 families, from a universe of 3,893[^2] students eligible
to participate in the MEP through the Two Rivers MEA for the 2003-2004
program year. GA DOE was only able to locate and interview 50 of those
families, which included 101 children.

The families GA DOE interviewed represented only 2.6 percent of the
universe of Two Rivers MEA migrant students (101/3,893); and half of the
50 families it interviewed were ineligible (54 ineligible children). A
sample of interviews consisting of only 2.6 percent of the universe was
insufficient for GA DOE to project the amount of program ineligibility.
In addition, GA DOE did not take any further steps to determine the full
extent of ineligibility, or the reason that its re-investigation found
ineligible children in the program as instructed in OME's letters.
Therefore GA DOE should have known that the 2003-2004 migrant child
counts it had submitted were incorrect and that, unless problems were
identified and corrected, errors in those child counts might carry over
into future years as well.

**[Inadequate Interview Questions and/or Procedures]{.underline}**

We reviewed GA DOE's interview process and the notes from the May 2004
and August 2004 interviews of the migrant families for its
re-investigation of the Two Rivers MEA. We found that the interview
questions and procedures used for the August 2004 interviews were
inadequate because the interviewers asked questions only about
information relating to the [last time]{.underline} the families had
moved. In addition, the interviewers only asked whether they moved
within the state of Georgia in the past 36 months, and whether they left
their homes during the summer to find qualifying work.

Pursuant to 34 C.F.R. § 200.81(d), **"**Migratory child means a child
who is, or whose parent, spouse, or guardian is, a migratory
agricultural worker, including a migratory dairy worker, or a migratory
fisher, and who, in the preceding 36 months, in order to obtain, or
accompany such parent, spouse, guardian in order to obtain, temporary or
seasonal employment in agricultural or fishing work\-- (1) Has moved
from one school district to another..."

The interviewers should have asked questions relating to the
requirements for MEP eligibility. Specifically, the interview should
have included questions about all of the families' moves for the past 36
months, and moves across state lines. We also found that, for some
interviews, the interviewers did not ask the families when they moved,
from what location, to what location, and for what activity. GA DOE
officials stated that they believe the questions for the investigation
were sufficient to determine eligibility; and corrective actions
implemented as a result of its re-investigation should protect the
integrity of future recruiting practices.

**[Insufficient and/or Inadequate Notes Documenting
Interviews]{.underline}**

In a May 2005 letter to OME, GA DOE reported the results of its
re-investigation. The letter stated that the number of children in the
families interviewed or had moved totaled 240 children, and that GA DOE
determined 54 of the children to be ineligible for the MEP.

Through our analysis of GA DOE's re-investigation documentation, we
learned that GA DOE interviewed 50 migrant families (which includes 101
children), and found 25 families (47 children) to be eligible for the
MEP and 25 families (54 children) to be ineligible. However, during our
review of the migrant family interview notes, we found that the
interviews did not always contain enough information to support GA DOE's
conclusions on eligibility. Specifically, we could not determine whether
5 families (which include 11 children) out of the 25 that GA DOE
determined to be **[eligible]{.underline}**, were actually eligible. We
also could not determine whether 2 families (which include 3 children)
out of the 25 that GA DOE determined to be **[ineligible]{.underline}**,
were actually ineligible. For these seven families it was not clear from
the interview notes, the location where the families moved to or from,
nor was it clear whether the work they sought or obtained was a
qualifying activity.

**[Inadequate Information About Whether Fraud was a Factor in
Discrepancies]{.underline}**

In its report to OME, GA DOE concluded that fraud was not a factor in
the inconsistencies in reporting student eligibility. However, we found
no documentation to indicate that migrant families were asked questions
that would enable GA DOE to obtain evidence of fraud in the inconsistent
reports of eligibility. For example, GA DOE did not document whether the
families interviewed were asked if they\--

-   Had met with the recruiters who recruited them.

-   Had known their children were part of the MEP.

-   Were aware of the requirements to participate in the MEP.

-   Had known their children were found to be migrant and receiving MEP
    services even though they knew they were not eligible.

Although GA DOE stated that it also conducted interviews with recruiters
and other Two Rivers MEA staff in order to determine whether fraud was a
factor in the recruitment of ineligible students, it did not document
the interviews.

# 

# **Inaccuracies in GA DOE's Report to OME**

# OME required GA DOE to prepare a report documenting the results of its re-investigation of Two Rivers MEA's student eligibility in the MEP. GA DOE's letter, dated January 14, 2005, reporting the results of the Two Rivers investigation contained inaccurate and unsupported statements. Specifically, GA DOE over reported the number of families interviewed and reported that 48 additional families had moved and could not be located for interview. As a result of the inaccurate information, OME could not determine the full magnitude of the discrepancies in Georgia's reports of MEP student eligibility.

# 

GA DOE reported to OME that it interviewed 174 migrant families.
However, GA DOE only had documentation to support that it attempted to
locate 164 migrant families; and only 50 of those 164 families were
actually located and interviewed. Officials at GA DOE explained that it
attempted to locate and interview the remaining 124 families (174
families reported as interviewed less the 50 families interviewed),
but 1) someone at the addresses informed them that the families did not
live there anymore, 2) the family was not at home, or 3) someone in the
neighborhood told them that the address did not exist. In addition, GA
DOE could not provide evidence supporting any attempt to locate 10 of
the 174 families. GA DOE classified and reported to OME that all 124
families were interviewed based on its attempt to locate and interview.
GA DOE officials stated that they decided not to base the reporting of
the re-investigation results solely on face-to-face interviews.

Aside from the 174 families discussed above, GA DOE reported that it
determined that an additional 48 families had moved and could not be
interviewed. GA DOE did not have any documentation to support its
attempt to locate and interview these families, which it reported to OME
as having moved. Therefore, GA DOE could not provide us with any
information to verify that the 48 families had moved.

### **RECOMMENDATIONS**

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary
Education require GA DOE to\--

1.  Identify all MEP students served by Two Rivers MEA whose eligibility
    was not determined in the investigation and determine their
    eligibility status through the re-sign process.[^3]

2.  Determine if the GA DOE needs to refund any MEP funds as a result of
    the ineligible students identified. If so, GA DOE should make the
    appropriate refunds for the newly identified ineligible students, as
    well as those ineligible students identified during the Two Rivers
    investigation and the students without adequate documentation to
    support GA DOE's conclusion of eligibility.

3.  Report to OME the correct total number of migrant children in the
    families interviewed during the Two Rivers re-investigation and the
    total number of those children found to be ineligible.

4.  Annually check on continued residence and eligibility of migrant
    children.

In addition, we recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Elementary
and Secondary Education

5.  Determine whether any sanctions should be brought against GA DOE for
    inaccurate and

unsupported statements made in its report to OME.

**Finding No. 2 -- Administration and Oversight of GA DOE's MEP Needs**

**Improvement**

GA DOE did not adequately administer the MEP to ensure that the MEP was
properly implemented. We found that GA DOE's sub-grantees were not
monitored, and Two Rivers MEA's MEP funds were not audited for fiscal
years 2002 and 2003.

## [GA DOE's MEP Sub-grantees Not Monitored]{.underline} 

During our review of GA DOE's administration of the MEP, we found that
-- as already noted in OME's most recent monitoring report -- the GA DOE
could not provide evidence of monitoring activities it performed on its
MEP sub-grantees prior to 2005. Without having adequately monitored the
sub-grantees, GA DOE could not be assured that the sub-grantees were
complying with applicable federal requirements.

Pursuant to 34 C.F.R. § 80.40(a), "Grantees are responsible for managing
the day-to-day operations of grant and sub-grant supported activities.
Grantees must monitor grant and sub-grant supported activities to assure
compliance with applicable Federal requirements and that performance
goals are being achieved."

According to the GA DOE's Title I Director, the former MEP Coordinator
was planning to make on-site monitoring/oversight visits in the Spring
of 2004. However, the GA DOE presented no evidence that the former MEP
Coordinator performed any monitoring activities in the Spring 2004. The
Director of the GA DOE's Innovative Academic Programs said that in of
2005, she visited Georgia's MEAs and interviewed and informed staff
about the upcoming re-organization of the MEP.

According to the Title I Director, the Director of Innovative Academic
Programs, and GA DOE's Superintendent, GA DOE has hired new staff to
coordinate and monitor Georgia's MEP to address its monitoring problems
and MEP ineligibility defect rate. GA DOE has brought all MEP program
and fiscal responsibility back to the State Education Agency (SEA) and
is in the process of developing a monitoring plan.

**[Two Rivers MEA MEP Funds Not Audited]{.underline}**

Marion County Board of Education failed to have its MEP funds audited
for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 as required by federal audit
requirements.[^4] Consequently, both GA DOE and Marion County Board of
Education are not in compliance with federal audit requirements for
those two years. Without an audit, GA DOE could not determine whether
the funds were spent in accordance with applicable laws for those fiscal
years.

Pursuant to 34 C.F.R. § 80.26, "(a) Grantees and sub-grantees are
responsible for obtaining audits in accordance with the Single Audit
Act... (b) State or local governments...shall (1) Determine whether
State or local sub-grantees have met the audit requirements of the
Act...(2) Determine whether the sub-grantee spent Federal assistance
funds provided in accordance with applicable laws and regulations..."
Single Audit requirements are contained in OMB Circular A-133.

Marion County Board of Education was the fiscal agent for the Two Rivers
MEA, and as such was responsible for receiving and expending MEP funds
on behalf of Two Rivers MEA as an MEP sub-grantee of GA DOE. However, it
did not have MEP funds audited under the Single Audit Act (A-133) for
fiscal years 2002 and 2003. Marion County Board of Education is an MEP
sub-grantee of GA DOE. The Board acts as the fiscal agent for Two Rivers
MEA. For fiscal years 2002 and 2003, Marion County Board of Education
received and expended (on behalf of Two Rivers MEA) \$1,571,767 and
\$1,784,517 respectively, in MEP funds. However, Marion County Board of
Education did not include these MEP funds on its Schedule of Federal
Expenditures for the FY 2002 and FY 2003 A-133 audits, and, therefore,
the funds were not audited. The Georgia Department of Audits caught this
error and corrected it for the FY 2004 A-133 audit.

According to the GA Department of Audits - Supervisor for Federal Audit
Requirements, there was a misunderstanding of fiscal responsibility on
behalf of Marion County Board of Education. The Marion County Board of
Education did not know it had to report the expenditure of the MEP funds
and have the MEP funds audited, even though it received and expended the
funds on behalf of Two Rivers MEA.

###### 

###### RECOMMENDATIONS

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Elementary
and Secondary Education require GA DOE to\--

1.  Design and implement a formal monitoring process to ensure
    compliance with program requirements and A-133 audit requirements
    and submit the process and findings to OME.

2.  As part of its monitoring, review single audit reports for its
    sub-grantees to ensure that funds required to be audited are
    actually being audited.

**OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY**

The objectives of our audit were to (1) review and determine the
adequacy of GA DOE's re-investigation of the eligibility of migrant
students served by the Two Rivers MEA; (2) determine whether MEP funds
allocated to Marion County Board of Education for Two Rivers MEA were
expended appropriately; and (3) determine the extent of GA DOE's
monitoring of its MEP sub-grantees.

The audit period for our review of GA DOE's re-investigation of Two
Rivers MEA's student eligibility was from September 1, 2003, through May
30, 2005 -- the program year reinvestigated (September 1, 2003 through
August 30, 2004) and the re-investigation (May 2004 through May 2005).
The audit period for our review of Two Rivers MEA's MEP expenditures was
for fiscal year 2002-2003 (July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003). The
audit period for our review of GA DOE's monitoring of its MEP
sub-grantees was for program years 2003-2004 through the current program
year 2004-2005 (September 1, 2003 through August 30, 2005).

To determine the adequacy of GA DOE's reinvestigation of Two Rivers we
interviewed Marion County Board of Education, Two Rivers MEA, and GA DOE
personnel; reviewed the interview notes and supporting documentation of
the 50 migrant families interviewed for purposes of the Two Rivers
re-investigation; and reviewed reports that GA DOE sent to the Office of
Migrant Education (OME), explaining the results of the re-investigation
of Two Rivers MEA

To determine whether MEP funds allocated to Marion County Board of
Education (BOE) for Two Rivers MEA were expended appropriately, we

-   Interviewed Marion County BOE and Two Rivers MEA personnel to verify
    the MEP expenditure process.

-   Reviewed Two Rivers MEA's written policies and procedures relating
    to the MEP expenditure process.

-   Reviewed accounting records for fiscal year 2002-2003 to determine
    how much MEP funds were received for Two Rivers, how much was
    expended, and the whereabouts of any leftover funds.

-   Sampled MEP expenditures for fiscal year 2002-2003. In our sampling
    process we excluded payroll expenses, journal entries, and MEP
    expenditures under \$100. Of the remaining 490 MEP expenditures, we
    randomly selected a sample of 50 expenditures to review.

-   Sampled MEP inventory for fiscal year 2002-2003. In our sampling
    process we obtained a list of 26 inventory items located at Two
    Rivers MEA, purchased with MEP funds, and randomly selected 13 of
    the items to locate.

-   Performed a payroll review for fiscal year 2004-05 for Two Rivers
    MEA staff and MEP recruiters/paraprofessionals serving in the Two
    Rivers MEA region. We randomly selected 11 out of 42 MEP employees
    associated with Two Rivers MEA, then randomly selected 3 of 12
    months pertaining to the 2004-05 fiscal year (November 2004, March
    2005, April 2005), and reviewed payroll for the 11 MEP employees for
    the three selected months.

To determine the extent of GA DOE's monitoring of its MEP sub-grantees,
we interviewed GA DOE personnel and the former MEP Coordinator, and
reviewed GA DOE's written policies and procedures relating to the MEP
and monitoring.

During the audit, we relied on Certificates of Eligibility (COEs)
generated from the COEStar System, which houses information relating to
the migrant families enrolled in the MEP for the state of Georgia. To
ensure that information in the COEStar System accurately reflects
information from data entry forms (source of COEStar System data), we
randomly sampled COEs in COEStar and compared the information to source
documentation (data entry forms). Based on the results of our sample we
determined that the information on the COEs from COEStar were
sufficiently reliable to use in meeting our audit objective. In
addition, we were given a list of students whose student school history
information was removed from COEStar due to MEP eligibility issues
according to GA DOE officials. We selected a random sample of these
students and determined whether their student school history information
was actually removed from COEStar. Our review assured us that that for
those students that GA DOE identified as ineligible for the MEP, their
eligibility status was updated in COEStar.

We performed on-site audit work in July 2005 at GA DOE in Atlanta, GA,
Two Rivers MEA in Buena Vista, GA, and Marion County Board of Education
also located in Buena Vista, GA. An exit conference was held with GA DOE
officials on October 14, 2005. The audit was performed in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards appropriate to the
scope of the review described above.

**ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS**

Statements that managerial practices need improvements, as well as other
conclusions and recommendations in this report, represent the opinions
of the Office of Inspector General. Determinations of corrective action
to be taken will be made by the appropriate Department of Education
officials.

If you have any additional comments or information that you believe may
have a bearing on the resolution of this audit, you should send them
directly to the following Education Department official, who will
consider them before taking final Departmental action on this audit:

> Henry Johnson

Assistant Secretary

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

U.S. Department of Education

600 Independence Ave., SW

Washington, D.C. 20202-6100

It is the policy of the U. S. Department of Education to expedite the
resolution of audits by initiating timely action on the findings and
recommendations contained therein. Therefore, receipt of your comments
within 30 days would be appreciated.

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. §552),
reports issued by the Office of Inspector General are available to
members of the press and general public to the extent information
contained therein is not subject to exemptions in the Act.

Sincerely,

/s/

Denise M. Wempe

Regional Inspector General for Audit

Attachment

**ATTACHMENT**

December 6, 2005

Control Number

> ED-OIG/A04-F0011

Ms. Denise M. Wempe

Regional Inspector General for Audit

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Inspector General

61 Forsyth Street, Room 18T71

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Dear Ms. Wempe:

Attached is the Georgia Department of Education's response to the draft
audit report dated November 9, 2005, Audit of the Georgia Department of
Education's Migrant Education Program (MEP). Audit coverage included MEP
operations and the Two Rivers re-investigation from September 1, 2003
through August 30, 2005.

If you have questions regarding our response, please contact Mr. Craig
Geers at cgeers@doe.k12.ga.us.

Yours truly,

Kathy Cox

KC/cg

Attachment

Cc: Ida H. Love, Ph.D., Deputy Superintendent

Ms. Elizabeth Webb, Director, Innovative Academic Programs

Mr. Craig Geers, Program Specialist, Migrant Education Program

Jeff Gagne, Ph.D., Federal Policy Analyst

**[Office of Inspector General Draft Audit Report]{.underline}**

**[of the Georgia Department of Education's]{.underline}**

**[Migrant Education Program (MEP)]{.underline}**

**Control Number ED-OIG/A04-F0011**

**State Education Agency Response to Findings and Recommendations**

The Georgia Department of Education (GA DOE) submits the following
written comments in response to the findings and recommendations as set
forth in the Office of Inspector General's (OIG) Draft Audit of the
Georgia Department of Education's Migrant Education Program.

**Finding No. 1 -- GA DOE's Re-Investigation of Two Rivers MEA was
Inadequate and its Report was Inaccurate**

**OIG RECOMMENDATIONS**

**1.1** Identify all MEP students served by Two Rivers MEA that were not
included in the investigation, determine their eligibility status
through the re-sign process, and determine if there should be any
refunds to the Department of Education related to the ineligible
students identified. If so, GA DOE should make the appropriate refunds
for the newly identified ineligible students, as well as those
ineligible students identified during the Two Rivers investigation and
the 11 students without adequate documentation to support GA DOE's
conclusion of eligibility.

**State Response:**

We concur with Finding No. 1 and recommendation 1.1. Corrective action
was taken to determine the eligibility status of all MEP students served
by Two Rivers MEA who were not already removed from program eligibility
as a result of the re-interviews conducted between May 2004 and May
2005. The state plans to comply with the Office of Migrant Education's
(OME) future determinations regarding the appropriate reimbursement of
funds associated with the misidentification of students for program
eligibility as determined through the national Re-Interview Initiative.

a.  Beginning on August 10, 2005, the Two Rivers regional office staff
    and trained MEP funded local system recruiters began to re-interview
    every MEP eligible family/student not included in either (a.) the
    initial Two Rivers investigation or (b.) the state's effort to
    comply with the OME's Re-Interview Initiative request. The recent
    re-interviews were conducted in association with the program's
    annual re-sign process and included modified eligibility
    re-interview questions similar to those recommended by OME officials
    in their August, 2004 guidance (attachment 1). The task was
    completed for the entire Two Rivers region in early November and all
    newly-identified ineligible students in the region have been removed
    from MEP eligibility rosters (attachment 2). The Georgia MEP is
    currently working with the local systems in the Two Rivers service
    region to remove the eligibility coding and discontinue MEP funded
    services for all misidentified students (attachment 3). Parents and
    guardians of misidentified students are being notified in writing
    through correspondence generated at the Two Rivers MEA office
    (attachment 4).

b.  The GA DOE complied with the OME's national request to conduct a
    statewide re-interview initiative to determine the accuracy of
    eligibility determinations of a random sample of 378 students from
    its 2003-2004 child count. The preliminary outcome of that
    initiative was submitted to OME officials in June, 2005, with a
    request made to re-evaluate six cases in July, 2005. The outcome of
    the six re-evaluations was determined in September, 2005, and formal
    notification of the results is currently being drafted by GA DOE
    program administrators along with the results of the state's full
    re-sign/re-interview project. The state has committed to submitting
    eligible child count information to the OME by March 1, 2006. All
    OME requests for reimbursement of unearned allocated funds will be
    honored by GA DOE officials pending future directives from the OME.

**1.2** Report to OME the correct number of migrant families interviewed
during the re- investigation.

**State Response:**

> We concur with recommendation 1.2, and the GA DOE can report that it
> included in its investigation only families whom it could verify
> actually lived or had lived at the address listed on the Certificate
> of Eligibility. The GA DOE concurs that it did not base the count
> solely on face-to-face re-interviews, nor did it follow the procedures
> outlined in the notice dated July 2004 to SEAs from the OME regarding
> the national re-interviewing initiative. That process did not allow
> the SEA to count any children or self-eligible youth from the random
> sample who could not be located during the re-interview process. To do
> so meant that families or self-eligible youth could not be counted
> simply because they were no longer in residence to re-interview.

Of the families re-interviewed during the investigation, 54 children
were identified as ineligible and were removed from the MEP eligible
roster in the spring of 2005. The GA DOE has re-interviewed every
remaining family on the Two Rivers 2004-2005 eligibility roster and
identified all remaining ineligible students through the re-sign period,
August 2005 through November 2005. Of the families interviewed during
the re- sign period, 557 children were removed from the MEP eligible
roster in the Two Rivers MEA.

3.  Annually check on continued residence and eligibility of migrant
    children.

**State Response:**

We concur with recommendation 1.3.

a.  The GA DOE, as an integral component of its MEP accountability and
    reporting process, has annually conducted re-signs to check on
    eligible students' continued residency. During the re-sign process,
    which occurs at the beginning of each new school year, all eligible
    student information and continued residency is verified through
    parent/guardian contact and is then updated in the MEP data system.
    As previously noted, this year's re-sign process also included a
    full, formal re-interview with each parent or guardian to determine
    the accuracy of each student's current eligibility determination.
    The re-sign process, verifying all eligible student information and
    continued residency, will continue to be a part of the GA DOE's
    accountability and reporting efforts.

b.  All future eligibility monitoring and verification requirements will
    be ongoing and not limited to a single annual accountability check
    as was done from August to November of this year. The GA DOE has
    prepared, and has in place for implementation, a monthly random
    sample re-interview process of newly-identified students to verify
    the accuracy of eligibility determinations made within the
    proceeding four weeks in each of the four service regions. Because
    of the magnitude and scale of the recently completed re-interview
    process, the first of these random samples was rescheduled from
    September to January. January's random sample will be pulled in each
    region from all newly-identified students enrolled in the MEP from
    August 1 through December 31, 2005. Each random sample thereafter
    will pull only from the previous month's newly-identified and
    enrolled students. Additionally, the state will conduct a full,
    statewide random sample of eligibility determinations, similar to
    the recently completed OME re-interview initiative, to be conducted
    every three years. The next such statewide review will occur during
    the 2007-2008 school year.

c.  The errors leading to the misidentification of students for MEP
    eligibility in Georgia were the result of a lack of quality control
    processes, including a lack of meaningful monitoring and uniform
    recruiter training practices. The state has taken significant steps
    to ensure that the identified areas of non-compliance that led to
    the misidentification of students are corrected and avoided in all
    future identification and recruitment (ID & R) efforts. Significant
    improvements were realized with the return of direct control of the
    program to GA DOE officials on September 1, 2005. A new GA DOE
    recruiter training and certification program is under way that
    reflects the eligibility guidelines currently established in the
    OME's Draft Non-Regulatory Guidance of October, 2003. Monthly
    meetings are being run to meet with all full-time GA DOE recruiters
    to review and ensure adherence to the state's revised recruiting
    policies, guidelines, and practices. Difficult and challenging
    recruitment cases are being shared and discussed at the monthly
    meetings, and there is a concentrated effort under way to involve
    all staff in contributing to the quality control process of
    identification and recruitment. Local system MEP-funded recruiting
    personnel are also receiving GA DOE developed recruitment training
    sessions as a key component of their regularly scheduled meetings
    with regional GA DOE MEP personnel. Full time GA DOE recruiters are
    delivering these training sessions to ensure the delivery of
    consistent information and expectations.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
4.  Determine whether any sanctions should be brought against GA DOE for
    inaccurate and unsupported statements made in its report to OME.

**State Response:**

This recommendation is made to the Assistant Secretary for Elementary
and Secondary Education and is therefore beyond the control of GA DOE
officials.

**Finding No. 2 -- Administration and Oversight of GA DOE's MEP Needs
Improvement**

**OIG RECOMMENDATIONS**

1.  Design and implement a formal monitoring process to ensure
    compliance with the program requirements.

**State Response:**

We concur with Finding No. 2 and recommendation 2.1. The Georgia
Department of Education is currently designing a state wide service
delivery plan for the implementation of its MEP that reflects the
significant operational changes brought about by the return of direct
MEP control to the GA DOE on September 1, 2005. Future year allocations
of federal Title I, Part C funds will be made by the GA DOE directly to
local school systems using a soon-to-be developed funding formula that
will be a part of the new state wide service delivery plan targeted for
use beginning in the 2006-2007 school year. Local systems will submit an
application for approval for the use of allocated funds through the GA
DOE's consolidated application process. Remaining program funds used to
provide services to eligible 3 through 21 year olds not currently
enrolled in school will be maintained and administered by the GA DOE and
its regional MEP support staff. A collaborative approach to monitoring
the state's MEP is also being designed for implementation in the
2006-2007 school year to ensure compliance with federal MEP monitoring
requirements.

a.  The state's Title I, Part C MEP will be joining Title I, Part A and
    D, Title V, Part A and Title VI, Part B (where applicable) in
    monitoring local systems' implementation of federal programs
    beginning in the 2006-2007 school year. The monitoring of grantees
    receiving funds from the other federal programs will begin in
    January, 2006. The Georgia MEP will be adding its monitoring
    requirements to the established monitoring process over the course
    of the next six months and will cover all required program
    monitoring elements contained in the OME's Draft Non-Regulatory
    Guidance of October, 2003.

2.2 As part of its monitoring, review single audit reports for its
sub-grantees to ensure that funds required to be audited are actually
being audited.

**State Response:**

We concur with recommendation 2.2. Steps will be taken by GA DOE
officials to include, as part of the subgrantee monitoring, requirements
to ensure that MEP funds are included as part of the A-133 audit. The
procedures will require GA DOE monitoring personnel to obtain from the
subgrantees their A-133 audits and to verify that MEP funds reported as
expended were reflected in the Schedule of Federal Expenditures and
were, in fact, subject to an audit in accordance with A-133.

**ATTACHMENT NUMBER 1**

**Verifying Program Eligibility**

a.  **Have you/Has your family, or part of your family, moved during the
    past three years, even for just a short period of time?  Yes  No**

> Notes (give
> dates):\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

b.  *If yes**,*** **Did you move for work or to seek work? In
    what?***(interviewer may need to ask additional questions to
    determine whether the work was temporary or seasonal work in
    agriculture or fishing)*

> Notes (state reason for move and type of
> work):**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

c.  **Which family members moved?
    \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

d.  **Did/Does this work play an important role in sustaining your
    family, i.e. food, rent, power, health care, clothing?  Yes  No**

**Parent/Guardian/Self Eligible Youth Signature:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Date:**

  ----------------- ---------------- ---------------- --------------- -----------
  **ATTACHMENT                                                        
  NUMBER 2**                                                          

                                                                      

                                                                      

  **DISTRICT**      **P0-P2 (Reg.    **P3-22 (Reg.    **P3-22         **TOTAL**
                    Year)**          Year)**          (Summer)**      

  Bibb              1                1                                2

  Bleckley                           1                                1

  Butts                              1                                1

  Crisp                              5                                5

  Decatur           2                33                               36

  Dooly             3                45                               51

  Dougherty                          8                                8

  Grady             5                88               39              107

  Harris                             2                                2

  Houston           3                43                               46

  Lamar                              1                                1

  Marion            1                17                               19

  Mitchell          1                12                               13

  Muscogee                           70                               70

  Peach             9                138              4               154

  Pulaski                            4                                4

  Schley            1                9                                11

  Sumter                             10                               11

  Taylor            1                                                 1

  Thomaston-Upson                    3                                3

  Troup             1                1                                2

  Webster                            7                                7

  Worth                              2                                2

                    28               501              43              557

  Note: No MEP                                                        
  funding was                                                         
  earned for the 28                                                   
  P0-P2 children                                                      
  ----------------- ---------------- ---------------- --------------- -----------

![](media/image3.wmf){width="5.309722222222222in" height="7.70625in"}

## ATTACHMENT NUMBER 3 CONTINUED

![](media/image4.wmf){width="6.495833333333334in"
height="6.604166666666667in"}

**ATTACHMENT NUMBER 4**

**(000) 000-0000 Fax (000) 000-0000**

November 13, 2023

# 

\[Click here and type recipient's name\]

\[Click here and type recipient's address\]

\[Click here and type recipient's address\]

Dear :

A representative from the Georgia Migrant Education Program recently
visited you and/or your family to update and confirm the Migrant
Education Program eligibility information currently on file for you
and/or your child(ren) in the **YOUR** Migrant Education Agency office.
A photocopy of the form that was completed and signed during the visit
is enclosed. Please keep it for your records.

Based on answers to the questions about your/your family's work and
travel, it was determined that you and/or your child(ren) are no longer
eligible for services in the Migrant Education Program. You/your
child(ren) are no longer eligible because:

-   there has been no move or travel in the past three years for the
    primary purpose of obtaining/seeking seasonal/temporary work in
    agriculture/fishing.

-   most recent documented move or travel was not for the primary
    purpose of seeking/obtaining seasonal/temporary work in
    agriculture/fishing.

-   Other:
    \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Thank you for allowing the representative the opportunity to visit you
and/or your family and to review your Migrant Education Program
eligibility information. If you have questions or concerns, please
contact the **YOUR** Migrant Education Agency at 1-800-**000-0000**.

Sincerely,

**YOUR NAME**

Coordinator, **YOUR** Migrant Education Agency

Enclosure

cc: Local system school

[^1]: The re-investigation was separate from OME's request for statewide
    re-interviews to determine the accuracy of the 2003-2004 child
    counts.

[^2]: We obtained this information from GA DOE's investigative sampling
    plan. The information on the sampling plan came from the COEStar
    System, which maintains information relating to the families
    enrolled in Georgia's MEP.

[^3]: Once a year, MEP recruiters revisit MEP families to complete a
    form, or re-sign, that will determine whether the families are still
    eligible to participate in the program.

[^4]: 2001-02 was the first year that Marion County received MEP funds
    on behalf of Two Rivers. The county was audited, but the Marion
    County Board of Education did not include MEP funds on the Schedule
    of Federal Expenditures. Due to the amount of the funds received,
    Marion County's MEP would have been considered a major program and
    would have been required to be audited. As for 2002-03, although
    Marion County's MEP funds would have been considered a major
    program, we do not know if the funds would have been audited because
    the determination would have been based on whether there were any
    findings from the 2001-02 audit.