RECOVERY ACT

Progress and 

Challenges in 

Spending 

Weatherization Funds

Report to the Congress

December 2011

GAO-12-195

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-195, a report to the 

Congress

December 2011

RECOVERY ACT

Progress and Challenges in Spending Weatherization 

Funds

Why GAO Did This Study

The American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery 

Act) provided $5 billion to the 

Department of Energy’s (DOE) 

Weatherization Assistance Program to 

help low-income families by making 

long-term energy efficiency 

improvements to their homes. The 

Recovery Act requires GAO to conduct 

bimonthly reviews of how recipients 

such as state-level agencies use the 

act’s funds. As part of this review, GAO 

examined if the act is achieving its 

stated purposes. The act also requires 

GAO to comment and report quarterly 

on estimates of jobs funded and 

counted as full-time equivalents (FTE), 

as reported by recipients of Recovery 

Act funds. GAO examined (1) the 

status and use of weatherization grant 

program funds under the Recovery 

Act; (2) the challenges, if any, that 

recipients faced in implementing the 

weatherization program under the 

Recovery Act; (3) the extent to which 

the weatherization program under the 

Recovery Act has achieved its energy 

and cost savings goals; and (4) the 

changes, if any, over time in the quality 

of FTE data reported by Recovery Act 

recipients, particularly by program 

recipients. GAO surveyed the 58 statelevel grant recipients of the act’s 

weatherization funds, reviewed DOE 

and recipient-reported data, and 

interviewed state and local agency 

officials.

GAO makes no new recommendations 

in this report but provides the status of 

prior recommendations that remain 

open and not implemented from GAO’s 

Recovery Act–mandated reports. DOE 

generally concurred with GAO’s 

findings and provided clarifications, 

which were incorporated as 

appropriate. 

What GAO Found

As of September 2011, the 58 state-level grant recipients were awarded 

approximately $4.75 billion from DOE to implement the Weatherization 

Assistance Program under the Recovery Act and reported spending about $3.46 

billion (about 73 percent). DOE expects to meet or exceed its production target of 

607,000 homes and spend most of the act’s funds because some recipients have 

been able to exceed their production targets because of a lower average cost of 

weatherizing homes and lower training and technical assistance expenses than 

anticipated. In response to GAO’s prior recommendation that DOE clarify 

production targets and funding deadlines, among other things, DOE officials 

provided documentation showing actions taken concerning targets but failed to 

provide clarification of the consequences for not meeting the targets.

Most recipients reported experiencing more implementation challenges in the first 

year of the Recovery Act than in the third year. Initial challenges included 

implementing new wage and reporting requirements and balancing training and 

technical assistance requirements with production targets. In the absence of a 

spending deadline for the weatherization grant program, DOE established a 

deadline of March 31, 2012, for recipients to complete spending Recovery Act 

weatherization funds. Recipients reported concerns with completing final 

Recovery Act requirements by DOE’s deadline, and continuing to support 

weatherization efforts after the deadline. Officials from state and local agencies 

reported seeking alternative sources of funding to mitigate the loss of federal 

funds. DOE weatherization officials said they requested a 2-year extension from 

the Secretary of Energy to allow some recipients, on a case-by-case basis, to 

spend any remaining Recovery Act funds after March 2012. However as of 

November 2011, it had not been determined if an extension would be available 

for recipients. In the interim, the Office of Management and Budget released a 

September 2011 memorandum stating that Recovery Act funds should be spent 

by September 2013. 

A long-term Weatherization Assistance Program goal is to increase energy 

efficiency through cost-effective weatherization work. March 2010 estimates from 

an Oak Ridge National Laboratory study project that energy savings will likely 

exceed the program’s costs, so that every $1 spent on the weatherization 

program for 2009 through 2011 would result in almost $2 in energy savings over 

the useful life of the investment; the laboratory plans to issue more definitive 

estimates in 2013. In response to GAO’s prior recommendation that DOE revisit 

methodologies used to determine the most cost-effective work, DOE officials 

stated that the results of this 2013 study will be used to strengthen current 

protocols for determining the most cost-effective weatherization work.

According to GAO’s analysis, the quality of FTE data reported by recipients to 

FederalReporting.gov has improved over time. DOE performs quality assurance 

steps on the data that recipients provide to FederalReporting.gov, and DOE 

officials reported that data quality continues to improve. According to 

Recovery.gov, the Recovery Act funded approximately 14,090 FTEs for the 

quarter ending September 30, 2011. FTEs are declining since the quarter ending 

December 2010 as weatherization work is completed.

View GAO-12-195. For more information, 

contact Frank Rusco at (202) 512-3841 or 

ruscof@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

Letter 1 

Background 4

Progress in Spending and Production Targets 8

Recipients Reported Fewer Implementation Challenges over Time 19

Early Estimates Indicate Cost-Effective Energy Savings 31

Quality of FTE Data Has Improved over Time, and the Number of 

FTEs Is Declining 35

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 38

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 41

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Energy 46

Appendix III Technical Appendix (Survey) 49

Appendix IV Status of Prior Open Recommendations and Matters for 

Congressional Consideration 55

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 62

Tables

Table 1: Funding Allocation for Selected DOE National Training 

and Technical Assistance Initiatives 12

Table 2: Percentage of Recipients Responding to Our Survey That 

Identified Challenges in the First and Third Years of the 

Weatherization Assistance Program under the Recovery 

Act 19

Table 3: ORNL’s 2010 Preliminary Estimates of Energy Savings and 

Costs under the Recovery Act’s Weatherization Assistance 

Program 33

Table 4: Percentage of Recipients Responding That Certain Areas 

Were Challenging and Not Challenging in 2009, the First 

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

Year of the Recovery Act-Funded Weatherization 

Assistance Program, and during June 2011 51

Table 5: Percentage of Recipients Responding That Switched from 

Challenging to Not Challenging and Not Challenging to

Challenging 53

Table 6: Status of Prior Open Recommendations and Matters for 

Congressional Consideration 56

Figures

Figure 1: DOE Allocation of the $5 Billion Recovery Act 

Weatherization Assistance Program Appropriation and 

DOE and Recipient Expenditures, as of September 30, 

2011 9

Figure 2: Insulation Installed in the Basement of a House in Maine 

and beneath a House in Washington State 10

Figure 3: Weatherization Test House at a Training Center in South 

Carolina 11

Figure 4: Solar Panels Installed at a SERC Project in Massachusetts 13

Figure 5: Percentage of Planned Weatherization Production 

Completed by Each Recipient, September 2009, 

September 2010, and September 2011 15

Figure 6: Percentage of Total Allocation Expended by Each 

Recipient, September 2009, September 2010, and 

September 2011 16

Figure 7: FTEs Recipients Reported for the Weatherization 

Assistance Program under the Recovery Act, October 

2009 through September 2011 37
Page iii GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

Abbreviations

DOE Department of Energy

DOT Department of Transportation

EECBG Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FTE full-time equivalent

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

LIHEAP Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program

NEAT National Energy Audit Tool

OHS Office of Head Start

OMB Office of Management and Budget

ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory

PAGE Performance and Accountability for Grants in Energy

SERC Sustainable Energy Resources for Consumers

TCAP Tax Credit Assistance Program

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

December 16, 2011

Report to the Congress

In response to the recent economic crisis, Congress enacted the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) to, 

among other things, preserve and create jobs and promote economic 

recovery.1 Since the Recovery Act was enacted, the Department of the 

Treasury has paid out approximately $420 billion in Recovery Act funds 

for use by, among others, state and local governments.2 The Recovery 

Act directed states to use the funds for various purposes, including 

assisting those most affected by the recession and investing in 

transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure to 

provide long-term economic benefits. Furthermore, the Recovery Act 

gave preference to activities that could be started and completed 

expeditiously. The Recovery Act provided $5 billion to the Department of 

Energy’s (DOE) Weatherization Assistance Program (weatherization 

program), which assists low-income families in reducing their energy bills 

by making long-term energy efficiency improvements to their homes. 

These improvements include installing insulation, sealing leaks, and 

modernizing heating equipment and air conditioning equipment. DOE 

distributed the Recovery Act funds for weatherization assistance to 58 

recipients (state-level agencies), including all 50 states, the District of 

Columbia, 5 territories, and 2 Indian tribes, to be spent by March 31, 

2012.

The Recovery Act requires that GAO conduct bimonthly reviews of how 

the act’s funds are used by recipients. As part of this review, we 

examined whether the act is achieving its stated purposes. The Recovery 

Act also requires GAO to comment and report quarterly on estimates of 

jobs funded and counted as full-time equivalents (FTE), as reported by 

 

1

Pub. L. No. 111-5, § 3, 123 Stat. 116 (2009).

2

This amount was current as of October 14, 2011. For updated information, see

Recovery.gov. 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

recipients of Recovery Act funds.3 In this report, we update our May 2010 

report and include new information on the use of Recovery Act funds 

provided for the weatherization program.4 Specifically, our objectives 

were to examine (1) the status and use of weatherization grant program 

funds under the Recovery Act; (2) the challenges, if any, that recipients 

faced in implementing the weatherization program under the Recovery 

Act; (3) the extent to which the weatherization program under the 

Recovery Act has achieved its energy and cost savings goals; and (4) the 

changes, if any, over time in the quality of the FTE data reported by 

Recovery Act recipients (state-level agencies), particularly by 

weatherization program recipients.

To address all four objectives, we conducted a web-based survey of all 

58 recipients of weatherization funding under the Recovery Act and 

received 55 responses.5 We also interviewed officials from DOE and 

national associations that focus on weatherizing low-income housing, and 

10 selected state and territorial offices responsible for overseeing the 

weatherization program.6 We selected these states using several criteria, 

including the percentage of Recovery Act funds spent, the percentage of 

households weatherized, the size of the Recovery Act grant, the 

percentage of funding received out of the total funding amount of $5 

billion, and geographic location. We also conducted site visits and spoke 

with state officials and select local agencies in 7 states and conducted 

 

3

Pub. L. No. 111-5§, 1512(e), 123 Stat. 115, 288. FTE data provide insight into the use 

and impact of the Recovery Act funds, but recipient reports cover only direct jobs funded 

by the Recovery Act. These reports do not include the employment impact on suppliers 

(indirect jobs) or on the local community (induced jobs). Both data reported by recipients 

and other macroeconomic data and methods are necessary to understand the overall 

employment effects of the Recovery Act.

4

GAO, Recovery Act: States’ and Localities’ Uses of Funds and Actions Needed to 

Address Implementation Challenges and Bolster Accountability, GAO-10-604

(Washington, D.C., May 26, 2010).

5

The grant recipients who did respond may not represent all Recovery Act weatherization 

grant recipients. Consequently, the survey results may not be generalized to include the 

Navajo Nation, Northern Arapaho, or the District of Columbia—the recipients who did not 

respond to the survey.

6

We selected a nonprobability sample of 10 states, which represents 17 percent of the 58 

recipients; because this is a nonprobability sample, information derived from this sample is 

not generalizable to all states but is illustrative. We spoke with officials in Georgia, Maine, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, 

and Washington.
 

Page 3 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

telephone interviews with officials in the other 2 state-level agencies.7 In 

September 2011, we also attended the National Association for State 

Community Services Programs’ Annual Conference in Seattle, 

Washington, where we met with a number of recipients and DOE 

weatherization officials. In addition, to determine the status and use of 

weatherization grant program funds under the Recovery Act, we reviewed 

the relevant laws, regulations, and program guidance; analyzed funding 

and production data provided by DOE; and spoke with officials from 

national associations, DOE, state weatherization offices, and select local 

agencies. To determine the challenges recipients faced in implementing 

the weatherization program under the Recovery Act, we analyzed 15 

DOE Inspector General reports and 27 state auditors’ reports that had 

examined the Weatherization Assistance Program under the Recovery 

Act between October 2009 and August 2011. We interviewed DOE, state, 

and local agency officials on challenges, if any, they faced and continue 

to face in implementing the program, including monitoring, training, and 

closing out their Recovery Act weatherization program grants. To 

determine the extent to which the Recovery Act’s weatherization program 

is expected to achieve energy and cost savings goals, we reviewed Oak 

Ridge National Laboratory’s (ORNL) 2010 cost-benefit estimates of 

expected costs and benefits of the weatherization program under the 

Recovery Act and its plan for a more detailed evaluation of impacts after 

the program ends in 2012. ORNL is conducting these analyses under a 

Recovery Act–funded DOE weatherization grant. We also interviewed the 

laboratory officials who prepared these documents. To determine how the 

quality of the FTE data has changed over time, as reported by Recovery 

Act recipients, we reviewed nine rounds of data reported by recipients 

and made available on a website created for the Recovery Act—

Recovery.gov—and spoke with DOE and state weatherization officials 

about their processes for collecting and verifying the data they report.8

See appendix I for a detailed discussion of our overall scope and 

methodology and appendix III for further information on our survey.

 

7

We conducted site visits to all the selected states, except Nebraska and Puerto Rico. 

8

In addition to conducting our analyses of recipient report data for the weatherization 

program under the Recovery Act, we continued, as in prior rounds, to perform edit checks 

and analyses on all prime recipient reports to assess data logic and consistency and 

identify unusual or atypical data.
 

Page 4 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

Our oversight of programs funded by the Recovery Act has resulted in 

more than 100 related products with numerous recommendations since 

we began reporting on the Recovery Act.9 This report updates agency 

actions in response to recommendations from previous bimonthly and 

recipient reporting reviews that have not been fully implemented (referred 

to in this report as open recommendations) in appendix IV. 

We conducted this performance audit from December 2010 through 

December 2011 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

DOE’s Weatherization Assistance Program was created under Title IV of 

the Energy Conservation and Production Act of 1976. By making longterm energy efficiency improvements, such as installing insulation, 

sealing leaks, and modernizing heating and air conditioning equipment, 

the weatherization program aims to, among other things, increase the 

energy efficiency of homes owned or occupied by low-income persons, 

reduce their total residential expenditures, improve their health and 

safety, and reduce the burden of energy prices.10 According to DOE, such 

improvements allow these households to spend the money saved on 

energy costs for other pressing needs. DOE makes weatherization 

program funds available through formula-based grants to state-level 

agencies in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, U.S. territories, and 

Indian tribes.11 State-level agencies (recipients) then contract with local 

 

9

See http://www.gao.gov/recovery for related GAO products.

10“Homes” refers to housing units, which include single-family units, units within a 

multifamily building, and mobile homes. DOE defines a weatherized unit as a dwelling unit 

that has received a DOE-approved energy audit or been placed on a priority list and as a 

unit on which weatherization work has been completed and for which a final energy audit 

has taken place.

11DOE is required to allocate a base level of appropriated funds to states each year. 

According to DOE regulations, when the appropriated amount exceeds about $209 million, 

DOE distributes the remaining funds using an allocation formula. The allocation formula 

considers a number of factors but is particularly affected by the number of low-income 

households in a state. The grant awards for the two Indian tribes were subtracted from the 

overall grants to Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming.

Background 
 

Page 5 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

agencies (also referred to as subrecipients) to deliver weatherization 

services to eligible residents. In addition to awarding the state-level 

grants, under the Recovery Act, DOE awarded Sustainable Energy 

Resources for Consumers (SERC) grants to 27 recipients on a 

competitive basis. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 

included a provision that in any year the weatherization program funding 

is at least $275 million; up to 2 percent of the funding can be apportioned 

for SERC grants to pay for “materials, benefits, and renewable and 

domestic energy technologies” that are not traditionally allowed under the 

weatherization program. DOE awarded SERC grants for the first time in 

August 2010 under the Recovery Act.

The Recovery Act appropriated $5 billion for the Weatherization 

Assistance Program, which represents a significant increase for a 

program that had received about $225 million per year in recent years. 

Using Recovery Act funds, DOE awarded grants that will allow local 

agencies to weatherize approximately 607,000 homes by March 31, 

2012, according to agency officials.12 In the absence of a spending 

deadline for the weatherization grant program, DOE established a 

deadline of March 31, 2012, for recipients to complete spending Recovery 

Act weatherization funds.13 In addition to receiving Recovery Act funds, 

DOE continued to receive no-year weatherization funds through regular 

appropriations for fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011: DOE received $450 

million in fiscal year 2009;14 $210 million in fiscal year 2010; and $174 

million in fiscal year 2011. Recipients of these funds may carry over 

balances from previous fiscal years. DOE guidance instructs recipients to 

spend their Recovery Act weatherization funds first, but DOE also 

encourages recipients to use their appropriations in the year received to 

avoid carrying over balances.

 

12DOE originally set a target of weatherizing 593,000 low-income homes—that is, the total 

number of homes to be weatherized (production targets) as stated in state weatherization 

plans. As recipients amended their plans to reflect increased production, DOE revised its 

overall weatherization target to 607,000 homes.

13The Recovery Act required that DOE obligate funds for the program by September 

2010; as a grant program, the Weatherization Assistance Program faced no spending 

deadline for recipients until DOE set one. 

14Of the $450 million appropriation in fiscal year 2009, DOE received $200 million through 

its regular appropriations process. The remaining $250 million was supplemental funding 

appropriated by the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing 

Appropriations Act of 2009.
 

Page 6 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

In addition to being eligible for DOE funds, states and territories are 

eligible to receive Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program 

(LIHEAP) funds administered and distributed by the Department of Health 

and Human Services; recipients may spend up to 15 percent of these 

funds on weatherization activities. The maximum amount of LIHEAP 

funds available to states and territories for weatherization activities was 

approximately $750 million in fiscal year 2009, $750 million in fiscal year 

2010, and $705 million in fiscal year 2011. These funds represent a 

significant increase from previous years.15

The Recovery Act changed a few existing provisions for weatherization. 

Specifically:

• The income eligibility level to qualify for services increased from 150 

percent to 200 percent of the poverty level.

• The statewide average allowable assistance level per home increased 

from $2,500 to $6,500.

• The allowable funding for training and technical assistance increased 

from 10 percent up to 20 percent.16

In May 2010, we reported that recipients varied somewhat in how they 

determined income eligibility. We recommended that DOE establish best 

practices in how income eligibility should be determined and 

 

15Total LIHEAP appropriations in fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011 were about $5 billion, 

$5 billion, and $4.7 billion, respectively. The LIHEAP amounts available for weatherization 

activities cited above are estimates based on a calculation of 15 percent of the total 

LIHEAP appropriations in each fiscal year. States may spend up to 15 percent of LIHEAP 

funds on weatherization activities, but each state agency administering LIHEAP 

determines the specific percentage of its LIHEAP funding to use on weatherization. In 

recent years, states have spent about 10 percent of their LIHEAP funds on weatherization, 

but state agencies may ask for a waiver in order to spend up to 25 percent. The 

Department of Health and Human Services submitted a request for $2.6 billion in LIHEAP 

funding for fiscal year 2012; of this total, 15 percent—about $390 million—would 

potentially be available for weatherization. Before the Recovery Act, the estimated amount 

available through LIHEAP for weatherization activities ranged from about $256 million to 

about $362 million.

16Weatherization program training and technical assistance funds support a range of 

activities, including measuring and documenting performance, monitoring programs, 

promoting advanced techniques, collaborating to further improve program effectiveness, 

training, and developing training tools and information resources. 
 

Page 7 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

documented.17 In response to our recommendation, in September 2010, 

DOE issued guidance that clarified the definition of income eligibility and 

strengthened the income eligibility requirements.

The Recovery Act also applied Buy American and Davis-Bacon 

provisions to DOE’s weatherization program for the first time. Under the 

Recovery Act’s Buy American provision, all steel, iron, and manufactured 

goods used in Recovery Act-funded projects must be produced in the 

United States, subject to limited exceptions. Under the Davis-Bacon 

provision of the Recovery Act, recipients are required to pay the 

prevailing wage rate in the locality in which Recovery Act work is 

conducted, as determined by the Department of Labor.18 Davis-Bacon 

provisions had not previously applied to weatherization projects funded 

through regular DOE appropriations.

DOE provided the Recovery Act funds incrementally, as recipients 

completed certain requirements. Initially, each recipient received the first 

10 percent of its allocated funds, which could be used for start-up 

activities, such as hiring and training staff, purchasing needed equipment, 

and performing energy audits of homes, among other things. Before a 

recipient could receive the next 40 percent of its funds, the recipient had 

to submit a weatherization plan outlining how Recovery Act 

weatherization funds would be used. In this plan the recipient identified 

the number of homes to be weatherized and the strategies it would use to 

monitor its funds. To receive access to the final 50 percent of funds, a 

recipient had to weatherize at least 30 percent of the homes identified in 

its weatherization plan and meet other requirements. These other 

requirements included implementing the monitoring and inspection 

protocols established in its weatherization plan; monitoring its local 

agencies at least once each year to determine compliance with 

administrative, fiscal, and state policies and guidelines; ensuring that local 

quality controls are in place; inspecting at least 5 percent of completed 

homes during the course of the respective year; submitting timely and 

accurate progress reports; and conducting monitoring reviews to confirm 

acceptable performance.

 

17GAO-10-604. 

18Furthermore, under Davis-Bacon, contractors and subcontractors are required to pay 

covered workers weekly and submit weekly certified payroll records to the contracting 

agency, generally the local agency. 
 

Page 8 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

The Recovery Act sought to increase transparency and accountability in a 

program’s use of funds. Accordingly, DOE requires recipients to report 

detailed expenditure and performance information to the Weatherization 

Assistance Program through a web-based application—the Performance 

and Accountability for Grants in Energy (PAGE) system. Recipients are to 

provide quarterly reports in PAGE within 30 calendar days of the end of 

each quarter year. The information to be reported includes hours worked, 

expenditures, and homes completed by each subrecipient. In addition, 

section 1512 of the Recovery Act requires recipients to report certain 

information quarterly. Recipients report, among other types of information, 

expenditures, the progress of their projects, and FTEs. Recipients provide 

the reports through FederalReporting.gov, and the data are then made 

available to the general public through the Recovery.gov website.

According to DOE data, as of September 30, 2011, recipients had spent 

most funds, primarily to weatherize low-income housing and provide 

training and technical assistance to train state and local agency officials 

as well as private contractors. In addition, DOE weatherization officials 

told us that the department is on track to meet or exceed its production 

target of weatherizing 607,000 low-income homes by March 2012,19 but 

some individual recipients may not meet the production targets outlined in 

their state plans.

 

19The deadline for completing DOE’s Recovery Act funded weatherization training and 

technical assistance activities varies. Deadlines range from September 2011 through 

September 2013.

Progress in Spending 

and Production 

Targets 
 

Page 9 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

As of September 30, 2011, recipients had been awarded approximately 

$4.75 billion for implementing the weatherization program under the 

Recovery Act and spent about $3.46 billion, or nearly 73 percent, of this 

total, according to DOE data. Figure 1 shows how DOE allocated the 

funds provided by the weatherization program under the Recovery Act, 

and DOE and recipients’ expenditures as of September 2011.

Figure 1: DOE Allocation of the $5 Billion Recovery Act Weatherization Assistance Program Appropriation and DOE and 

Recipient Expenditures, as of September 30, 2011

Recipients Spent Most 

Funds Primarily to 

Weatherize Low-Income 

Housing and Provide 

Training and Technical 

Assistance 
 

Page 10 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

Recipients spent about 88 percent of their funds—about $3.04 billion—on 

weatherizing about 563,000 low-income homes. These expenditures were 

for labor and materials, transportation of workers and materials to the job 

sites, and the purchasing of vehicles.20 Figure 2 shows two examples of 

weatherization work performed on homes in Maine and Washington 

states.

Figure 2: Insulation Installed in the Basement of a House in Maine and beneath a House in Washington State

As figure 1 also shows, for training and technical assistance, recipients 

spent about $0.16 billion of their total allocation, as of September 30, 

2011. According to DOE guidance, training and technical assistance 

expenditures are intended to maintain the efficiency, quality, and 

effectiveness of the weatherization program. The recipients used these 

funds to train state and local agency officials, and private contractors. For 

example, South Carolina reported that the state used its training and 

technical assistance funds to work with six technical colleges in the state 

to set up classes, such as Hot Climate Whole House Weatherization—

Site-Built and Hot Climate Whole House Weatherization—Mobile-Home. 

From April 2010 through March 2011, over 1,500 participants received

 

20Program operations and materials expenditures also include expenses related to health 

and safety, financial audits, liability insurance, leveraging, and special projects. 
 

Page 11 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

training in these classes. Figure 3 shows a South Carolina weatherization 

test house used in training. Furthermore, according to Oregon officials we 

interviewed, the Recovery Act technical assistance and training funds 

allowed them to administer the weatherization program at two tribal 

agencies. Before the Recovery Act, these officials told us, the state did 

not have sufficient funds to initiate a weatherization program with those 

tribes. With the Recovery Act funds, Oregon officials said they were able 

to spend a month with each tribal agency to help set up the 

weatherization programs.

Figure 3: Weatherization Test House at a Training Center in South Carolina

For program administration, recipients spent about $0.26 billion, 

according to DOE data. This amount is about 7.5 percent of total recipient 

expenditures, or less than the 10 percent that DOE weatherization 

program regulations generally allow for administrative purposes. 

Administrative costs include salaries and fringe benefits for fiscal and 

administrative staff.

As figure 1 also shows, DOE allocated about $0.25 billion of the $5 billion 

in weatherization funds under the Recovery Act for other weatherization 

purposes, including DOE training and technical assistance, SERC grants, 

and DOE management and oversight. DOE’s weatherization training and 
 

Page 12 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

technical assistance plan for the Recovery Act noted that the expansion 

of the weatherization program under the Recovery Act necessitated a 

significant growth in training capacity. To that end, the plan outlined a 

range of program operation activities: training, including developing tools 

and information resources; and technical assistance, including measuring 

and documenting performance, monitoring programs, and promoting 

advanced techniques and collaborations to further improve program 

effectiveness. Table 1 outlines some of the training and technical 

assistance efforts that DOE undertook.

Table 1: Funding Allocation for Selected DOE National Training and Technical Assistance Initiatives 

Recipient(s) Training and technical assistance activity Allocation

34 weatherization training centers in 27 

states

Develop and expand weatherization training centers $28,760,810

Energy Enterprise Solutions Develop the National Platform for Weatherization Training to provide 

interactive online weatherization training 

19,658,348

Oak Ridge National Laboratory Conduct the national evaluation of the weatherization program under the 

Recovery Act, including estimate of energy savings and cost effectiveness 

18,836,000

Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the 

Institute of Building Technology and 

Safety

Conduct quality assurance program to ensure proper use of weatherization 

grants by recipients 

10,000,000

National Association for State 

Community Service Providers

Support DOE’s Weatherization Plus Health initiative, including partnership 

development and regional weatherization traininga 

8,495,293

National Institute of Building Sciences Develop multimedia modules for training weatherization technical auditors 

and installers

7,000,000

Data Tree, Inc., of Virginia Develop the PAGE module for the weatherization program $4,795,327

Source: GAO analysis of DOE data.

a

DOE’s Weatherization Plus Health initiative is a national effort to coordinate resources to improve the 

energy efficiency, health, and safety of low-income homes.

As we reported in May 2010, worker training and certification 

requirements varied among the recipients.21 We recommended that DOE 

accelerate its efforts to develop national standards for weatherization 

training, certification, and accreditation. DOE stated that it, along with the 

Department of Labor, released for comment a draft—“Workforce 

Guidelines for Home Energy Upgrades”—for single-family homes in 

November 2010. DOE weatherization officials noted that they received 

nearly 1,000 comments to the draft guidelines, which will likely delay 

publication of the final product.

 

21GAO-10-604. 
 

Page 13 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

In August 2010, DOE awarded SERC grants to 101 local agencies in 27 

states to install, test, and report on renewable and domestic technologies 

not currently covered by the weatherization program. Such technologies 

include solar photovoltaic systems, tankless or on-demand hot water 

systems, and geothermal heat pumps. As of September 30, 2011, the 27 

states had spent about $16 million of their SERC grants. Figure 4 shows 

the installation of solar panels on a SERC project in Massachusetts.

Figure 4: Solar Panels Installed at a SERC Project in Massachusetts

The Recovery Act sets aside up to 0.5 percent of the amount 

appropriated for the Weatherization Assistance Program for program 

management and oversight. As such, DOE allocated 0.5 percent of the $5 

billion weatherization appropriation, or $25 million ($0.03 billion), for this 

purpose. According to DOE weatherization officials, these funds were 

transferred to DOE’s Recovery Act administration account with all similar 

contributions from other programs to support DOE-wide Recovery Act 

activities. As a result, the weatherization officials could not provide 

specific information on how these funds were spent. In general, they said 

the department used these funds to add staff in DOE to enhance the 

program’s capacity to manage the $5 billion Recovery Act appropriation.
 

Page 14 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

According to DOE weatherization officials, the Weatherization Assistance 

Program under the Recovery Act will meet or exceed its production target 

of weatherizing 607,000 homes by DOE’s March 2012 grant deadline 

because some recipients exceeded their target even as others have fallen 

short. As shown in figures 5 and 6, some recipients greatly increased 

their rate of production and expenditures over the course of the Recovery 

Act grant period, but progress has been uneven. Figures 5 and 6 show 

the percentage of planned weatherization production completed and 

percentage of total allocation expended, respectively, by each recipient 

by September 2009, September 2010, and September 2011.

DOE Expects to Meet Its 

Overall Production Target
 

Page 15 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

Figure 5: Percentage of Planned Weatherization Production Completed by Each 

Recipient, September 2009, September 2010, and September 2011

Note: Some recipients have exceeded their production targets.
 

Page 16 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

Figure 6: Percentage of Total Allocation Expended by Each Recipient, September 

2009, September 2010, and September 2011
 

Page 17 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

DOE will likely meet or exceed its production target because some 

recipients have been able to exceed their production targets for the 

following reasons:

• The average cost of weatherizing homes was lower than anticipated.

Since 2001, the statewide average expenditure limit per home for 

DOE weatherization was about $2,500, but adjusted annually to 

reflect changes in consumer prices. The Recovery Act increased this 

limit to $6,500, and in their state plans, recipients use the average 

cost per home of $6,500 to calculate their planned production. As of 

September 2011, the actual average cost per home was about 

$4,900, according to DOE data. As a result, some recipients may be 

able to weatherize more homes than originally planned. Nebraska 

officials, for example, cited the current economy as a driving factor for 

the lower cost of weatherization services. As we reported in May 

2010, states were using a variety of methods to calculate the $6,500 

maximum average limit per house.22 In that report, we recommended 

that DOE develop and clarify weatherization program guidance that 

clarifies the specific methodology for calculating the average cost per 

home. In September 2011, DOE issued guidance that clarifies the 

methodology for calculating the average cost per unit weatherized and 

further defines the allowable cost categories used in calculating the 

average cost per unit. 

Additionally, Washington state officials attributed lower weatherization 

costs to their ability to weatherize more homes for less money when 

weatherizing multifamily units. For example, they said that when 

completing weatherization work in multifamily housing, such as 

caulking wall joints in the attic, the costs are spread out across more 

units, thereby reducing the cost per unit and hence the overall 

weatherization cost. We reported in May 2010 that some recipients 

had limited expertise with weatherizing large multifamily buildings. 

Some state officials told us that until the Recovery Act, they did not 

have sufficient funds to justify weatherizing multifamily buildings. 

Despite this unfamiliarity with weatherizing multifamily units, we 

reported that some recipients may feel compelled to focus on 

multifamily houses as a way to quickly increase their production 

numbers. We recommended in our May 2010 report that DOE 

consider and address how the weatherization program guidance is 

 

22GAO-10-604. 
 

Page 18 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

affected by the introduction of multifamily units.23 In response to our 

recommendation, DOE issued additional guidance in December 2010 

to the recipients regarding multifamily housing, including describing 

eligibility requirements for multifamily housing.

• Training and technical assistance expenses were less than originally 

anticipated. DOE’s initial allocation of $0.83 billion (nearly 17 percent) 

for training and technical assistance to the recipients represented a 

substantial increase over past funding under the weatherization 

program funded with regular appropriations. By the second year of the 

Recovery Act, DOE noted that many recipients believed that they had 

sufficiently built up their programs, and DOE provided guidance to 

allow the recipients to transfer training and technical funds into 

program operations. As of September 2011, the recipients had 

transferred about $0.33 billion from their training and technical 

assistance allocations, increasing their program allocations to $4.25

billion. As a result, some recipients now had more funds to weatherize 

homes. As DOE’s March 2012 deadline for spending Recovery Act 

weatherization funds approaches, DOE weatherization officials 

anticipate that more recipients will transfer training and technical 

assistance funds to program funds.

Some recipients may not achieve their spending and production targets. 

As previously discussed, when DOE obligated $4.75 billion in formula 

funds to the states, territories, and tribes, it released the funds to the 

recipients incrementally as they met certain requirements. By the end of 

December 2009, DOE had approved the weatherization plans for all 58 

recipients, and all recipients had received access to at least 50 percent of 

their funds. Furthermore, as of September 30, 2010, 26 of the 58 

recipients had not received access to their remaining funds; and as of 

September 30, 2011, with only 6 months to the March 2012 grant 

deadline, 6 recipients had not been granted full access to the remaining 

50 percent of funds.24

 

23GAO-10-604. 

24DOE has released increments of the remaining 50 percent to some of the recipients who 

had not received full access to their weatherization funds as of September 2011. As of 

December 2011, DOE reported that three recipients still had not received access to 

additional Recovery Act funds.
 

Page 19 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

In our May 2010 report, we found that there was some confusion among 

some states and local agencies regarding production targets, funding 

obligations, and the associated consequences of not meeting production 

and funding targets.25 We recommended that DOE clarify its production 

targets, funding deadlines, and associated consequences while providing 

a balanced emphasis on the importance of meeting program 

requirements. In response, DOE weatherization officials produced 

documentation showing extensive communication with the recipients over 

production and expenditures. However, they did not provide 

documentation showing how they clarified the consequences for not 

meeting these targets.

A majority of recipients responding to our survey reported initial 

challenges in implementing the weatherization program under the 

Recovery Act, but the percentage continuing to report these challenges 

had declined by the third year of the program. However, most recipients 

reported concerns about completing Recovery Act weatherization 

requirements and continuing to support weatherization efforts.

In the first year of the weatherization program funded under the Recovery 

Act, most recipients who responded to our survey reported facing 

challenges in 26 of the 29 program implementation areas identified. Table 

2 shows these 29 implementation areas and recipients’ responses to our 

survey in the first and third program years.

Table 2: Percentage of Recipients Responding to Our Survey That Identified Challenges in the First and Third Years of the 

Weatherization Assistance Program under the Recovery Act

Percentage of recipients responding that identified an area 

as a strong challenge or somewhat of a challenge

Program implementation area First program year Third program year

Balancing the requirements to meet production targets and to 

ensure the work is done correctly 91 68 

Meeting production targets 91 57

Having additional reporting requirements 90 75

 

25GAO-10-604. 

Recipients Reported 

Fewer 

Implementation 

Challenges over Time

Implementation 

Challenges Declined over 

Time
 

Page 20 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

Percentage of recipients responding that identified an area 

as a strong challenge or somewhat of a challenge

Program implementation area First program year Third program year

Implementing new program requirements that were developed as 

the program progressed 89 63

Implementing Davis-Bacon requirements 88 39

Balancing training and technical assistance requirements with 

production targets 88 63

Adjusting to changes in existing reporting requirements 87 44

Meeting federal reporting requirements (FederalReporting.gov 

and PAGE) 84 63

Meeting certification and training requirements 83 57

Lacking expertise weatherizing multifamily units 82 64

Having too few monitoring staff 81 40

Having insufficient number of administrative staff 76 40

Having additional reporting requirements for monitoring 75 47

Lacking expertise in weatherizing multifamily units 74 60

Conducting the required number of monitoring visits 73 42

Adjusting to changes in existing reporting requirements for 

monitoring 72 48

Ensuring consistency in monitoring results 71 50

Lacking expertise in monitoring multifamily units 71 47

Complying with historic preservation requirements 71 35

Lacking trained monitoring staff 69 26

State-level auditors lacking training or expertise 63 22

Lacking staff to appropriately handle external monitoring (DOEInspector General, state-level auditors, consultants) 63 57

Determining how to measure long-term energy savings 60 51

Meeting state’s requirements to monitor subgrantees 58 29

Lacking infrastructure at state level to handle the large influx of 

money from the Recovery Act 57 36

Determining how to measure cost savings (i.e., dollar savings) 55 38

Planning for “cliff effect” (i.e., decline in funding after Recovery Act 

funding expires in March 2012) 34 89

Determining and documenting income eligibility 25 17

Determining methodology for calculating $6,500 maximum 

average cost per home 18 4 

Source: GAO analysis of survey responses.

Note: Recipients that responded to the survey could identify each implementation area as either a 

strong challenge, somewhat of a challenge, or not a challenge.
 

Page 21 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

As the table shows, all but 3 areas were identified as a challenge in the 

first year of the program by more than 50 percent of the recipients who 

responded to our survey.26 Over time, however, the percentage of 

recipients identifying these areas as a challenge declined, although the 

amount of the decline varied considerably. In addition, DOE 

weatherization officials and recipients stated that these challenges initially 

delayed the weatherization of homes and spending of Recovery Act 

funds. By early 2011, however, having addressed some of these 

challenges, some recipients reported that they were weatherizing more 

homes in 1 month than they had previously weatherized in 1 year. As 

previously mentioned, however, following the initial delays common to 

many recipients, recipients’ progress in weatherizing homes and 

spending Recovery Act funds has been uneven. For example, as of 

September 2011, Idaho had weatherized about 128 percent of its planned 

houses and spent nearly 99 percent of its total Recovery Act allocation, 

while Alaska had weatherized about 28 percent and spent about 31 

percent.

Among the challenges that declined the most from the first year to the 

third year was implementing Davis-Bacon requirements. As table 2 

shows, 88 percent of the recipients responding to our survey identified 

implementing Davis-Bacon requirements as a challenge in the first year of 

the program, but only 39 percent continued to do so by the third year.27

According to DOE, state, and local officials, after the Department of Labor 

made the final wage determination for weatherization workers and as the 

program progressed, the process of complying with Davis-Bacon 

provisions became routine, and the challenge decreased for many 

recipients. As we have previously reported, the Recovery Act applied 

Davis-Bacon provisions to the weatherization program for the first time in 

2009.

28 State and local officials delayed weatherization contracts because 

they were concerned that wage rates for weatherization had not yet been 

 

26We received responses from 55 of the 58 recipients we surveyed, but not every 

respondent provided an answer to each question. Every question received a total of from 

45 to 54 responses. See appendix III for more information on the survey. Also, the 

percentage reporting that an implementation action presented a challenge reflects 

responses identifying the action as a strong or somewhat of a challenge. 

27We received 45 of 51 survey responses that identified implementing Davis-Bacon 

requirements as a strong challenge or somewhat of a challenge in the first program year.

28GAO-10-604. 
 

Page 22 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

determined by the Department of Labor, and they therefore waited for the 

department to determine county-by-county prevailing wage rates.29 In 

addition, some recipients reported facing challenges in complying with the 

Davis-Bacon requirement for local agencies to submit weekly certified 

payroll records for workers paid under Davis-Bacon wage provisions. 

Some recipients told us that the requirement to certify payroll discouraged 

some local agencies from participating. For example, in Maryland, state 

officials told us that this requirement was a considerable challenge 

because many local agencies handling weatherization work are small 

organizations with limited staff and therefore may face difficulty in meeting 

the requirement to certify payroll every week.

However, large numbers of survey respondents reported that their initial 

year challenges continued into the third year of the program. For 

example:

Having additional federal reporting requirements. As table 2 shows, 90 

percent of recipients responding to our survey identified having additional 

federal reporting requirements as a challenge in the first program year, 

and by the third year 75 percent still found this area to be a challenge.30

For example, under the Recovery Act, recipients are to report program 

information quarterly, such as the amount of funds spent, and full-time 

jobs created, to FederalReporting.gov and to DOE. Oregon officials told 

us meeting these requirements was challenging initially because state 

and local agencies had to learn how to manage, collect, and submit data. 

Additionally, state auditor and DOE Inspector General reports identified 

challenges for some recipients meeting federal reporting requirements. 

For example, the North Carolina State Auditor reported in March 2011 

that the state did not have effective internal controls—such as internal 

data review procedures to ensure the accuracy of submitted data—to 

ensure compliance with federal reporting requirements, specifically with 

 

29In July 2009, DOE and the Department of Labor issued a joint memorandum to 

weatherization program recipients, authorizing them to begin weatherizing homes using 

Recovery Act funds, with the condition to compensate workers for any differences in wage 

rates based on the final Department of Labor’s determination of local prevailing wage 

rates for weatherization activities. On September 3, 2009, the Department of Labor 

completed its initial determination of wage rates for weatherization work conducted on 

residential housing units in each county. These wage rates were later revised in 

December 2009.

30We received 47 of 52 survey responses that identified having additional federal reporting 

requirements as a strong challenge or somewhat of a challenge in the first program year.
 

Page 23 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

submitting quarterly reports to FederalReporting.gov.

31 According to DOE 

weatherization officials, as the program continued and reporting became 

routine, recipients began to meet federal reporting requirements and 

faced minimal challenges.

Adjusting to changes in existing reporting requirements for monitoring.

Seventy-two percent of the recipients responding to our survey initially 

identified this implementation area as a challenge, as table 2 shows; by 

the third year, 48 percent of recipients responding to our surveyed still 

identified this as a challenge.32 Recovery Act guidance directed federal 

agencies to take steps beyond standard practice to ensure compliance 

with grant rules and regulations. As a result, DOE enhanced its 

monitoring requirements for the Weatherization Assistance Program 

under the Recovery Act. For example, DOE’s weatherization project 

officers track recipients’ spending and weatherization of homes through 

the quarterly information recipients submitted to the PAGE system. The 

DOE Inspector General and state auditors identified problems with how 

recipients reported monitoring activities. For example, a DOE Inspector 

General report found that Virginia did not accurately report information on 

the number of weatherized homes reported by the local agencies to the 

state. The state’s quarterly monitoring report to DOE indicated that 316 

homes had been weatherized from July 2009 through September 2009, 

but the local agency, which keeps its own records, showed that 978 

homes had been weatherized.33

The need to develop new systems for monitoring and reporting has also 

yielded benefits, according to DOE program officials and some recipients 

we interviewed. DOE weatherization officials told us that monitoring and 

reporting have made the weatherization program stronger by identifying 

deficiencies and other weaknesses and having the department resolve 

them. Recipients also reported that the challenge of meeting federal 

 

31Office of the State Auditor, North Carolina, Single Audit Report for the Year Ended June 

30, 2010 (Raleigh, N.C.: March 28, 2011).

32We received 36 of 50 survey responses identifying adjusting to changes in existing 

reporting requirements as a strong or somewhat of a challenge in the first program year.

33U.S. Department of Energy, Office of inspector General, Preliminary Audit Report: 

Management Controls over the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Efforts to Implement the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Weatherization Assistance Program, OAS-RA10-11 (Washington, D.C.: May 2010).
 

Page 24 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

reporting requirements provided an opportunity to improve their 

programs. These improvements included replacing or enhancing their 

data collection systems, creating specific audit tools for weatherization 

work, and developing manuals on best practices. For example:

• Officials in Puerto Rico told us that they developed their own 

specialized audit tool based on the original tool developed by Oak 

Ridge National Laboratory for the weatherization program. Puerto 

Rico’s specialized tool focuses on the relevant weatherization 

activities—such as replacing refrigerators, water heaters, and light 

bulbs—to address the territory’s year-round tropical conditions in 

which, officials told us, the coldest temperature of the year typically 

reaches 60 degrees Fahrenheit.

• In Maine, officials identified best practices in the weatherization 

program and created a manual on weatherization procedures that 

provides additional guidance on the state’s program.

Balancing training and technical assistance requirements with production 

targets. As table 2 shows, 88 percent of recipients responding to our 

survey initially reported this implementation area as a challenge, and by 

the third year of the program, 63 percent of recipients still reported that 

this was a challenge.34 According to DOE, specialized knowledge and 

skills are required at the federal, state, and local levels to run an effective 

weatherization program; these include core competencies in areas such 

as evaluating buildings to determine weatherization needs, installing 

weatherization measures, and conducting final inspections of 

weatherization projects. For recipients to have enough weatherization 

workers with the specialized knowledge and skills, some recipients 

focused on increasing their training capacity with Recovery Act funding. 

According to these officials, many local agencies initially rushed to meet 

their monthly production targets, and the weatherization work suffered, 

requiring local agencies to conduct rework. Following the increase in 

training and experience, state officials found that local agencies have to 

redo less work. In Washington state, officials faced less of a challenge 

with balancing training with production targets because officials hired staff 

who had completed weatherization training previously and therefore could 

 

34We received 45 of 51 survey responses for the implementation area of balancing 

training and technical assistance requirements with weatherization production targets as a 

strong or somewhat of a challenge in the first program year.
 

Page 25 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

complete weatherization projects instead of focusing on meeting training 

requirements.

Many recipients cited the amount of training weatherization workers 

received as a positive and lasting impact of the Recovery Act. New 

weatherization workers were hired to meet the increased production 

targets under the Recovery Act and as a result received a substantial 

amount of training. For example, South Carolina officials told us that the 

training provided through the Recovery Act–funded weatherization 

program helped individuals gain new skills that are transferable to other 

areas, such as the private homebuilding industry and local utility energy 

auditing profession, and will increase their ability to obtain employment in 

the future. In addition, before the Recovery Act, Puerto Rico had not 

received weatherization program funding, and territorial officials stated 

that they used training and technical assistance funds to develop a 

training center, which will provide weatherization training to individuals in 

Puerto Rico and other neighboring Caribbean islands.35 The officials also 

stated that the center will be sustained with regular appropriations after 

the Recovery Act funding has ended.

Our interviews with recipients and our reviews of reports by the DOE 

Inspector General and state auditors, along with our survey data, showed 

that there were other notable challenges faced by recipients in 

implementing their programs:

• Building operational capacity. Building the operational capacity of 

weatherization programs to accommodate greater funding levels—

some of which were more than 10 times larger than their regular 

weatherization appropriations—was an initial challenge recipients 

faced. With funding increased to $5 billion over 3 years under the 

Recovery Act, recipients needed to scale up their operations—hiring 

and training staff and monitors, renting new facilities, and purchasing 

more vehicles and equipment—to handle the influx of funding and 

meet their individual state targets to weatherize homes and spend 

Recovery Act funding by the March 2012 deadline. For example, the 

 

35The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 amended the weatherization 

program definition of “state” to include the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the other

territories and possessions of the United States. Consistent with the statutory requirement, 

in 2009 DOE amended the definition of “state” and amended the allocation procedure to 

include American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas Islands, Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
 

Page 26 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

funding Florida received under the Recovery Act for weatherization 

was substantially more than the average funding it had received for 

the weatherization program supported with regular appropriations.36

Florida officials told us that they welcomed the opportunity to 

weatherize thousands of additional homes with the higher funding 

level under the Recovery Act, but it was difficult for the state to 

increase its capacity for the size and scope of the program. Similarly, 

funding for Georgia’s weatherization program under the Recovery Act 

was over 10 times larger than the average funding for the state’s 

weatherization program supported with regular appropriations. In 

response, Georgia contracted with the University of Georgia 

Cooperative Extension to help manage the increased amount of statelevel monitoring necessary for the weatherization program under the 

Recovery Act. Georgia officials stated that the University of Georgia 

hired 24 monitors to conduct monitoring. State officials told us that 

before the Recovery Act, state-level monitors conducted on-site 

monitoring at local agencies about once a year, while under the 

Recovery Act and using the University of Georgia monitors, the local 

agencies are visited by a monitor at least once a month.

• Monitoring deficiencies. Several DOE Inspector General and state 

auditor reports identified state-level deficiencies in monitoring efforts. 

For example, the DOE Inspector General identified significant 

problems in Illinois with on-site monitoring, inspection, and 

compliance.37 Additionally, 14 of the 27 state auditor reports we 

reviewed identified deficiencies with state-level monitoring of local 

agencies. For example, the Missouri State Auditor reported that the 

state had failed to review subrecipient expenditures to ensure costs 

were allowable, did not have policies and procedures to ensure review 

of expenditures in monitoring, and did not adequately document 

subrecipient compliance with federal and state procurement 

requirements.38 In May 2010, we recommended that DOE set time 

 

36The funding data are based on the average amount of funding received by the state 

from 2004 through 2008. In fiscal year 2009, the weatherization program received regular 

appropriations that are separate from the Recovery Act funding. 

37U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Inspector General, Audit Report: Management 

Alert on the Department’s Monitoring of the Weatherization Assistance Program in the 

State of Illinois, OAS-RA-10-02 (Washington, D.C.: December 2009).

38State of Missouri, Missouri State Auditor, Single Audit Year Ended June 30, 2010, 2011-

11 (Jefferson City, M.O.: March 2011).
 

Page 27 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

frames for states to develop and implement state monitoring 

programs.39 As of September 2011, DOE had taken limited action to 

address this recommendation, and it remains largely unaddressed.40

• Internal controls. Several DOE Inspector General and state auditor 

reports identified issues with internal controls. For example, the DOE 

Inspector General identified numerous internal control challenges for 

West Virginia, including the lack of adequate financial controls to 

ensure the accuracy and integrity of financial information and costs 

incurred.41 Similarly, a New Jersey state auditor found that the state 

was not complying with federal regulations on how to handle vehicle 

and equipment purchases over $5,000 that were made with Recovery 

Act funds.42 We reported previously that the extent of internal controls 

varied greatly across some recipients.43 We recommended that DOE, 

in conjunction with both state and local weatherization agencies, 

develop a best practices guide for key internal controls that should be 

present at the local weatherization agency level to ensure compliance 

with key program requirements. In response to our recommendation, 

DOE has taken some action, including issuing a memo in May 2011 to 

all weatherization recipients outlining key internal control 

requirements.44 DOE weatherization officials told us they did not 

intend to issue a best practice guide for key internal controls because 

they believed there were sufficient documents in place to require 

internal controls, such as grant terms and conditions, and a training 

 

39GAO-10-604. 

40See appendix IV for more information on the status of GAO recommendations for the 

weatherization program. 

41U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Inspector General, Audit Report: The Department 

of Energy’s Weatherization Assistance Program under the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act in the State of West Virginia, OAS-RA-11-09 (Washington, D.C.: June 

2011).

42New Jersey State Legislature, Office of the State Auditor, Department of Community 

Affairs American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Weatherization Assistance Program 

Weatherization Agencies (Trenton, N.J.: Nov. 8, 2010).

43 GAO-10-604. 

44See appendix IV for more information on the status of GAO recommendations for the 

weatherization program.
 

Page 28 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

module available on the Weatherization Assistance Program 

Technical Assistance Center website.45

DOE program and state officials we interviewed reported some 

challenges as they approach DOE’s deadline of March 31, 2012, for 

completing their use of Weatherization Assistance Program grants under 

the Recovery Act. These challenges included (1) satisfying DOE’s 

requirement to finish spending Recovery Act funds if the March 2012

deadline is not extended46 and (2) finding alternative funding sources for 

the weatherization program after March 2012.47

Satisfying DOE’s requirement to finish spending funds. Some recipients 

will still have Recovery Act weatherization funds remaining after the 

March 2012 deadline, even if they have already met their production 

targets, according to DOE projections based on data as of September 

2011. DOE program officials projected that at least 5 percent, or more 

than $300 million, of Recovery Act program and training and technical 

assistance funds may remain unspent by more than 30 recipients. The 

amount of funds remaining varies greatly among recipients. For example, 

DOE projections indicate that both Minnesota and Oregon will meet their 

production targets by March 2012, but the projections also indicate that 

Minnesota may have a $148,000 balance and Oregon a $5 million 

balance. If these remaining funds were to be spent, recipients might be 

able to weatherize an estimated additional 50,000 to 60,000 homes,

according to DOE projections.

In order to expend any remaining Recovery Act funds, DOE program 

officials told us that they requested an extension from the Secretary of 

Energy to allow recipients to spend their remaining Recovery Act 

weatherization funds until September 2013, rather than the March 2012 

 

45The website Weatherization Assistance Program Technical Assistance Center is a 

virtual library of all rules, regulations, policies, and procedures required by DOE’s 

weatherization program. The site is maintained by the National Association of State 

Community Services Program, which is funded through a DOE grant.

46DOE’s deadline applies not only to the distribution of funds by DOE and state-level 

agencies, but also to the use of the funds by the ultimate subrecipients to finish 

weatherizing homes. 

47According to DOE’s October 2011 guidance, any Recovery Act weatherization funds 

that remain unspent after closeout activities for the grant will be returned to the U.S. 

Treasury. 

Challenges Reported for 

Completing Recovery Act 

Requirements and 

Continuing Weatherization 

Efforts 
 

Page 29 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

deadline the department originally set.48 As of November 2011, it had not 

been determined if an extension would be available for recipients. DOE 

weatherization officials told us if an extension is granted, it will be 

available on a case-by-case basis, using criteria such as the amount of 

funds remaining, and the rate of expenditures, to determine the recipients 

who will receive extensions as well as the length of those extensions.

Finding alternative funding sources. As they enter the third and final year 

of the weatherization program under the Recovery Act, 89 percent of the 

recipients responding to our survey identified the expected decline in 

funding after the end of Recovery Act funds as a challenge.49 As a result, 

they will need to find alternative sources of funding for their 

weatherization efforts. DOE program and state officials also told us that 

without alternative sources of funding, many recipients will be unable to 

continue providing weatherization services at the current production level. 

In addition, as the Recovery Act funding has begun to be completely 

expended, many recipients have begun to lay off weatherization 

employees. For example, DOE program officials told us that Illinois had 

spent approximately 82 percent of its Recovery Act grant funds as of 

September 30, 2011, and had laid off approximately 1,000 employees. 

Washington state officials also told us that they had hired 15 new staff 

and 5 inspectors, to help achieve the state’s Recovery Act weatherization 

targets. However, the five inspectors were no longer working for the state 

weatherization program by May 2011, when it met its Recovery Act 

production target. Georgia officials told us that neither the state nor the 

local agencies will have sufficient funding to sustain their current 

production after their Recovery Act weatherization grant ends.

Officials from several states, local agencies, and training centers stated 

that they are searching for alternative funding sources in anticipation of 

the decrease in overall weatherization assistance funding. Recipients 

have received funding from several sources, such as regular DOE 

 

48DOE program officials originally told us that they had requested a 2-year extension, so 

that the new deadline would be March 2014. However the Office of Management and 

Budget released a memorandum in September 2011 stating that Recovery Act funds 

should be spent by September 2013.

49Fifty-two survey respondents answered the question about this implementation area. Of 

those 52, 47 respondents identified planning for an expected decline in funding after the 

end of Recovery Act funds as a strong or somewhat of a challenge in the third program 

year.
 

Page 30 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

weatherization appropriations, LIHEAP funding, and assistance from 

utility companies. In particular:

• According to DOE data, all 58 recipients currently receive regular 

DOE weatherization appropriations, which are available until 

expended, and they have a combined carryover balance of 

approximately $317 million in these appropriations that they can 

spend after March 31, 2012.50 Some recipients are currently using 

their regular DOE weatherization appropriations. Recipients such as 

Idaho and Washington state, which have already spent more than 75 

percent of their Recovery Act weatherization grants, are currently 

using their regular DOE weatherization appropriations and therefore 

may have fewer funds to carry over and spend after March 31, 2012. 

In addition, 74 percent of those we surveyed reported that they 

received LIHEAP funds.51

• Weatherization funds from nonfederal sources, such as local utility 

companies, are also decreasing, according to some state program 

officials. In Maryland, for example, officials told us that they had 

previously had two nonfederal sources of weatherization funds: the 

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and the Electric Universal Service 

Program. However, because the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative 

has generated only limited revenue recently, no funding has been 

allocated for the weatherization program through this initiative.52 The 

state has not received funding through the Electric Universal Service 

Program for the past 2 years.53 Officials in Georgia stated that the 

grant they received from one utility company ended in May 2011, 

leaving them with funding from one other nonfederal entity. Two state 

officials we spoke with, from Rhode Island and Massachusetts, told us 

that they have sufficient funds from utility companies to compensate 

for the end of their Recovery Act weatherization grants.

 

50The total amount remaining, about $317 million, is based on data as of August 2011. 

The data cover fiscal year 2008, fiscal year 2009, fiscal year 2010, and fiscal year 2011. 

51Fifty-four of the 55 recipients responding to our survey answered the question about 

LIHEAP funds.

52The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is a market-based regulatory program in 10 

Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

53The Electric Universal Service Program provides financial assistance with electric bills. 

The program is administered by the Maryland Office of Home Energy Programs.
 

Page 31 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

Many recipients and local agencies we spoke with are identifying new 

sources of funding and strategies to continue providing weatherization 

services after Recovery Act funding ends. For example, Baltimore 

Housing officials told us that they are trying to combine weatherization 

measures along with, for example, health and safety measures in one 

project so that they can draw upon multiple revenue sources. At training 

centers in Georgia and Maryland, officials told us that they are looking to 

fund their programs by converting some of their weatherization courses 

into fee-based training. Also, in Maryland, the training center officials 

stated that they will collaborate with a local community college to offer an 

academic degree in weatherization.

A long-term goal of the weatherization program is to increase energy 

efficiency through cost-effective weatherization work, and according to 

the Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s March 2010 preliminary estimates, 

the Recovery Act weatherization program is expected to result in energy 

savings whose value will significantly exceed program costs.54 ORNL 

plans to issue a report with more definitive estimates of the benefits and 

costs of the program in 2013 that describes the results of its extensive 

evaluation of the weatherization program under the Recovery Act. For this 

purpose, the ORNL plan includes an extensive data collection effort on 

program costs and impacts on energy consumption for residential units 

weatherized during the program years 2009 through 2011.55

According to ORNL’s March 2010 preliminary estimates, every $1 spent 

on the weatherization program for 2009 through 2011 would result in 

$1.80 in energy savings over the useful life of the investment.56 Because 

 

54Oak Ridge National Laboratories, Weatherization Assistance Program Technical 

Memorandum Background Data and Statistics, prepared by Joel F. Eisenberg, March 

2010 (ORNL/TM-2010/66).

55GAO reviewed an early draft of the ORNL evaluation plan, Evaluation of the National 

Weatherization Assistance Program during Program Years 2009-2011 (American 

Reinvestment and Recovery Act Period), prepared by Bruce Tonn, and others, May 20, 

2011. (ORNL/TM-2011/87).

56For its estimates, ORNL considered the 50 states and the District of Columbia and not 

the Native American tribes and the U.S. territories that are also recipients of the 

weatherization program under the Recovery Act. ORNL assumed that the weatherization 

investment would yield energy savings over a 20-year period.

Early Estimates 

Indicate CostEffective Energy 

Savings 

March 2010 Preliminary 

Estimates
 

Page 32 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

of the prospective nature of the March 2010 analysis—preceding the 

program’s actual implementation and results—ORNL relied on estimates 

of the costs of weatherization investments and energy savings to be 

expected over the 3 years covered by the Recovery Act; these estimates 

were generated using ORNL’s computer-based program, the National 

Energy Audit Tool (NEAT). The detailed ORNL estimates reflect the 

differences among states in energy consumption for heating and cooling 

and in the sources of energy used in the residential sector. For example, 

these differences include the following considerations:

• Energy consumption for home heating in New England is generally 

much higher than in the Southwestern states of Arizona and New 

Mexico, where energy consumption for air conditioning is relatively 

higher.

• Home heating in the Midwest relies heavily on natural gas, which is 

more economical for this purpose than electricity, which is more 

heavily used in the Southeast.

• Electric utility rates in New England are, on average, considerably 

higher than in the Mountain states.

As a result of these differences, the estimated energy savings and the 

dollar values associated with these savings in the ORNL analysis vary 

widely from region to region.

ORNL’s March 2010 estimates also included estimates of program

savings in electric bills from weatherization projects to reduce energy 

consumption by installing more efficient appliances. However, because 

ORNL had more limited information on energy consumption by residential 

electric appliances, it simplified its assumption. It assumed that energy 

savings from improved efficiency would result in a uniform savings of 870 

kilowatt-hours per year regardless of location.57

ORNL’s March 2010 estimates also accounted for geographic differences 

in the cost of weatherizing homes. For example, the cost used in the 

 

57The ORNL estimates did, however, account for differences in electric rates across 

regions of the United States. Hence, while making the simplifying assumption of a uniform 

reduction in electric consumption of 870 kilowatt-hours, the value of these savings varied 

across regions. 
 

Page 33 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

model for weatherizing a home in New York City is about 15 percent 

higher than for a home in Charleston, South Carolina. The difference 

reflects the need for different weatherization projects for the two locations, 

as well as differences in the costs of labor and materials. Table 3 shows 

some of the principal factors considered and the resulting estimates of 

savings and costs in ORNL’s 2010 preliminary estimates.

Table 3: ORNL’s 2010 Preliminary Estimates of Energy Savings and Costs under the 

Recovery Act’s Weatherization Assistance Program 

Principal factors considered (per household) Estimates 

Average heating and cooling bill reduction for the year 2010 $440

Savings in electricity bills for electric appliances (excluding heating and 

cooling) for 2010

$100-$180

Average cost of weatherizing a housing unit under the program $5,760

Average value of energy saving $10,350

Energy benefit cost ratio (benefit of $10,350 divided by cost of $5,760) 1.8

Source: ORNL.

Note: All dollar values were converted from 2008 dollar values in the original ORNL report to 2010 

dollar values using the “Calendar Year Chain-Weighted GDP Price Index,” and we rounded the 

figures.

In its preliminary estimates, ORNL also examined the nonenergy benefits 

of the weatherization program under the Recovery Act, such as income 

generated from indirect employment,58 reduced emissions of carbon 

dioxide and pollutants resulting from lower residential fuel and electricity 

consumption, and improved health and safety for program recipients. 

According to ORNL’s estimates, these nonenergy benefits add an 

additional $0.70 in nonenergy benefits for every dollar spent on the 

program, or about $4,200 for each home weatherized.

It is beyond the scope of our review to evaluate the reliability of ORNL’s 

2010 preliminary estimates, but their prospective nature as projections 

means that there is inherent uncertainty about how well they predict 

actual future outcomes. As mentioned above, ORNL’s 2010 analysis 

relied on estimates of weatherization investment costs and expected 

 

58In addition to increasing the number of workers employed directly in weatherizing 

homes, the weatherization program resulted in increased employment in the manufacture 

of materials and equipment used in weatherization and support services, according to 

ORNL.
 

Page 34 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

energy savings generated using ORNL’s computer-based program, 

NEAT; and the ORNL report mentioned that the analysis adjusted the 

NEAT energy savings downward because of evidence that NEAT tends to 

overestimate energy savings. ORNL told us, however, that the use of the 

NEAT energy estimates is one of many uncertainties surrounding the 

preliminary estimates. In contrast, the forthcoming 2013 report will rely on 

extensive data from household units actually weatherized over the period 

2009 through 2011.

DOE has contracted with ORNL to conduct an in-depth evaluation of any 

energy cost savings achieved through the Recovery Act’s weatherization 

program for homes weatherized across the nation and in U.S. territories 

from 2009 through 2011. According to ORNL’s plan for carrying out this 

evaluation, ORNL expects to issue its analysis in 2013. ORNL’s analysis 

will be based on an extensive data collection effort. We reviewed the 

energy cost-effectiveness portion of this evaluation plan and found it to be 

methodologically sound.59

This evaluation of the Recovery Act weatherization program impacts is a 

more extensive effort and likely to lead to more definitive estimates of 

costs and benefits than the preliminary, prospective March 2010 

estimates, according to our review of ORNL’s study plan. With a budget 

of $19 million to complete its evaluation, ORNL plans to use more 

researchers and collect extensive data. The data collection will include a 

large sample of homes weatherized and cover recipients across the 

United States and its territories. For example, ORNL will collect data on 

natural gas and electric utility billing histories and use data from surveys 

of homes weatherized in 2007 and 2008 to estimate Recovery Act period 

savings for homes that use fuel oil or propane for heating. State and local 

government officials involved in administering the program will also be 

surveyed, and various federal government databases will be used.

In addition, ORNL’s 2013 evaluation will be based on an analysis of 

homes actually weatherized by each state. Because the costs and 

benefits of weatherization vary by region, the number of homes 

completed and the distribution of these homes among the regions directly 

 

59We limited our review of this document to the energy-only benefits discussion. We did 

not review the nonenergy benefits portion of the study plan.

ORNL’s 2013 Evaluation
 

Page 35 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

influence total costs and benefits. The March 2010 estimates avoided this 

issue and estimated the costs and benefits of a “weighted average” of 

single homes nationwide, where the weighting was based on each 

recipient’s share of total program allocations. In contrast, the forthcoming 

evaluation will be based on data on the number of homes actually 

weatherized by the individual recipients, reflecting differences in 

performance among them; and it will produce regional, as well as 

national, estimates of program costs and benefits.

In our May 2010 report, we found variation in how some local officials 

considered cost-effectiveness in determining what weatherization work 

should be performed.60 We recommended that DOE revisit the 

methodologies used in determining the weatherization work that should 

be performed based on consideration of cost-effectiveness and develop 

standard methodologies that ensure that priority is given to the most costeffective weatherization work. In response to our recommendation, DOE 

weatherization officials cited ORNL’s ongoing 2013 evaluation. Officials 

told us the study results will be used to strengthen current protocols for 

determining weatherization work for both single and multifamily homes 

and to ensure cost-effectiveness.

To meet our Recovery Act mandate to comment on recipient reports, we 

continued to monitor the data recipients reported from October 1, 2009, 

through September 30, 2011. For this report, we focused our review on 

the quality of FTE data as reported by recipients of weatherization funds 

under the Recovery Act to FederalReporting.gov and efforts DOE made 

to validate those data.61 Each quarter, DOE performs quality assurance 

steps on the data that recipients provide to FederalReporting.gov, and 

officials reported that data quality continues to improve. Through these 

reviews and their interactions with recipients, DOE weatherization officials 

concluded that recipients now understand the reporting process and 

stated that the data reported for each reporting period have been of 

higher quality than the previous period. Reviewing the weatherization 

program data in FederalReporting.gov from the second reporting period, 

which ended on December 31, 2009, to the ninth reporting period, which 

 

60GAO-10-604. 

61We also used our survey data from the 55 of the 58 weatherization recipients 

responding to our survey and interviews with selected recipients to identify the validation 

efforts recipients used. 

Quality of FTE Data 

Has Improved over 

Time, and the Number 

of FTEs Is Declining
 

Page 36 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

ended on September 30, 2011, we continued to check for errors or 

potential problems by repeating analyses and edit checks discussed in 

previous reports. We reviewed data associated with the 58 weatherization 

program recipient reports and 34 training center grants made to 

weatherization recipients posted on Recovery.gov for the ninth reporting 

quarter.62

Overall, the recipients reported on Recovery.gov that the Recovery Act 

weatherization program funded an increasing number of FTE positions for 

recipients and subrecipients from the quarter ending December 2009 

through the quarter ending December 2010, increasing from about 8,300 

FTEs to 15,400 FTEs over that period. After December 2010, the number 

of FTEs began to decline because some recipients completed 

weatherization work as the end of the program draws near. As of the 

quarter ending September 30, 2011, FTEs declined to about 14,090 as 

weatherization work was completed and funds spent. DOE weatherization 

officials told us recipients are reducing the number of FTEs by an average 

of 200 jobs per month, which will continue to decrease until no FTEs 

remain by the scheduled end of the program in March 2012. Following 

Office of Management and Budget guidance, recipients reported on FTEs 

directly paid for with Recovery Act funding and not the employment 

impact on suppliers of materials (indirect jobs) or on the local 

communities (induced jobs). DOE weatherization officials and recipients 

told us that the number of jobs funded by the Recovery Act would be 

greater than the peak of 15,400 FTEs if the data on jobs funded included 

the associated jobs from the manufacturers of weatherization products, 

such as companies producing caulking guns or blower door technologies. 

Figure 7 shows the changes in the number of FTEs recipients reported 

from the quarter ending December 31, 2009, through September 30, 

2011. According to DOE officials, all weatherization recipients reported to 

FederalReporting.gov for the quarter ending September 2011.

 

62According to Recovery.gov, recipients reported on 58 grants across the weatherization 

program, in addition to 34 training center grants.
 

Page 37 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

Figure 7: FTEs Recipients Reported for the Weatherization Assistance Program 

under the Recovery Act, October 2009 through September 2011

Note: Beginning in the quarter ending September 2010, FTEs include the Recovery Act 

weatherization program and the FTEs associated with the 34 training centers funded by the Recovery 

Act. The number of FTEs associated with the training center funds is minimal compared with the 

number of FTEs from the 58 recipients for the overall weatherization program. We did not include 

FTE data for the quarter ending September 2009 because of concerns about comparability with 

subsequent quarters of FTE reporting.

As in previous quarters, DOE performed a number of quality assurance 

steps on the data to help ensure the quality of the weatherization 

program’s Recovery Act data. To support recipients’ data quality, DOE 

asks the 58 recipients to report data on expenditures and weatherization 

production each month in DOE’s PAGE system. DOE program officers 

who work directly with each recipient review the data submitted to ensure 

consistency. Also, DOE weatherization officials reported that they check 

data quality for data submitted by the 58 recipients in each recipient 

report against data collected in internal databases, such as PAGE. 

According to officials, data that do not correspond to the recipient report 

are flagged for comment and review. If discrepancies are found, DOE 

project officers work with the weatherization recipients to resolve them.
 

Page 38 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

According to DOE weatherization officials, DOE does not plan to use 

recipient-reported data internally, but the officials cited the data’s 

usefulness in providing independent data on the numbers of jobs funded 

by the weatherization program. DOE weatherization officials told us that

these data help support the program and its relevance by highlighting the 

extent to which DOE has achieved its program targets of funds spent, 

homes weatherized, and jobs funded.

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Energy for its 

review and comment. In its comments, DOE generally concurred with the 

majority of the findings and conclusions in our draft report. DOE noted 

that we characterized grant extensions differently on the first page than 

we did in the main body of the report; we added clarifying language in the 

highlights page to address DOE's comment. DOE also noted that, as of 

December 8, 2011, the number of recipients who have not received 

access to the additional Recovery Act funds is now three. We have added 

language to reflect the new number. Also in its comments, DOE provided 

clarifications to actions it has taken to address recommendations we 

made in May 2010 on the weatherization program under the Recovery 

Act. With respect to our May 2010 recommendation that DOE develop 

and clarify weatherization program guidance that clarifies the specific 

methodology for calculating the average cost per home, DOE stated that 

its September 2011 guidance provides a formula for this calculation. We 

concur and will close this recommendation as implemented. Regarding 

our May 2010 recommendation that DOE set time frames for states to 

develop and implement state monitoring programs, DOE identified 

training events and the issuance of a program notice announcing the 

rollout of “The Weatherization Toolkit,” a compact disc that explains the 

steps to be followed in procuring materials and contractors. This 

recommendation remains largely unaddressed because these actions do 

not set time frames. Because we noted uneven progress among 

recipients in developing and implementing their monitoring programs, we 

believe that it is important for DOE to establish time frames. Moreover, 

the program notice cited by DOE predates our May 2010 

recommendation, and we did not find it adequate for satisfying the need 

for time frames. DOE also provided technical comments, which we 

incorporated as appropriate. DOE’s comments are reproduced in 

appendix II.

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 39 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional 

committees, the Secretary of Energy, the Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget, and other interested parties. The report is 

available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix V.

Frank Rusco

Director, Natural Resources and Environment
 

Page 40 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

List of Congressional Committees

The Honorable Daniel Inouye

Chairman

The Honorable Thad Cochran

Vice Chairman

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Jeff Bingaman

Chairman

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski

Ranking Member

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

United States Senate

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman

Chairman

The Honorable Susan M. Collins

Ranking Member

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Harold Rogers

Chairman

The Honorable Norman D. Dicks

Ranking Member

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

The Honorable Fred Upton

Chairman

The Honorable Henry Waxman

Ranking Member

Committee on Energy and Commerce

House of Representatives

The Honorable Darrell E. Issa

Chairman

The Honorable Elijah Cummings

Ranking Member

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 41 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

Our objectives were to examine (1) the status and use of weatherization 

grant program funds under the Recovery Act; (2) the challenges, if any, 

that recipients faced in implementing the weatherization program under 

the Recovery Act; (3) the extent to which the weatherization program 

under the Recovery Act has achieved its energy and cost savings goals; 

and (4) the changes, if any, over time in the quality of full-time equivalent 

(FTE) data reported by Recovery Act recipients, particularly by 

weatherization program recipients.

To address these objectives, we reviewed relevant federal laws and 

regulations and the Department of Energy’s (DOE) program notices on 

the use of funds, monitoring, reporting, and closeout requirements under 

the Recovery Act’s weatherization program. We analyzed DOE data on 

production, expenditures, and projections of funds remaining. We 

interviewed DOE weatherization officials who oversee the program about 

recipient progress in achieving production targets and spending their 

allocated funds, the grant closeout process, the program after the end of 

the Recovery Act, lessons learned, a potential deadline extension, the 

reliability of recipient reports, DOE’s monitoring efforts, and progress on 

implementing GAO’s previous recommendations.1 We also interviewed 

one project officer in DOE’s field office in Golden, Colorado, and two at 

the National Energy Technology Laboratory; these project officers 

oversee several states in which we conducted site visits. We met with 

officials from the National Association for State Community Services 

Programs, National Association of State Energy Officials, National 

Governors Association, and National Community Action Foundation to 

understand their role in helping their members implement the 

weatherization program under the Recovery Act and the challenges their 

members faced in using funds, monitoring projects, and reporting 

outcomes. In September 2011 we attended the National Association for 

State Community Services Programs’ Annual Conference in Seattle, 

Washington, where we met with a number of recipients and DOE 

weatherization officials.

 

1

In GAO, Recovery Act: States’ and Localities’ Uses of Funds and Actions Needed to 

Address Implementation Challenges and Bolster Accountability, GAO-10-604

(Washington, D.C., May 26, 2010), we made eight recommendations to DOE. See 

appendix IV for a detailed discussion of the status of the remaining five open 

recommendations.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 42 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

To examine the status and use of weatherization grant program funds 

under the Recovery Act, we analyzed DOE-funding and production data 

provided by DOE. We assessed the reliability of the data by interviewing 

knowledgeable DOE officials about the quality and potential limitations of 

the data and what checks and controls were in place to ensure data 

accuracy. We determined the data were sufficiently reliable for our 

purposes. We also selected a nonprobability sample of 10 states, which 

represents 17 percent of the 58 recipients of weatherization funding under 

the Recovery Act. We selected these states using six criteria: the 

percentage of funds spent and homes weatherized, the amount of 

Recovery Act funding, geographic region, percentage of funding received 

out of the total Recovery Act weatherization funding, the average funds 

spent per completed household, and survey responses from the 55 of the 

58 recipients to our web-based survey. In all 10 states, we interviewed 

state program representatives. We conducted these interviews by 

telephone with state officials in Nebraska and Puerto Rico, and we visited 

state officials in Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, 

Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Washington.2 In addition, in seven of 

these states,3 we spoke with officials at a local agency,4 and visited 11 

Recovery Act-funded weatherization projects, including three training 

centers in 3 of the states; and one Sustainable Energy Resources for 

Consumer Grants project in Massachusetts. For a copy of the survey 

instrument, see www.gao.gov/special.pubs/gao-12-195/index.html. 

To examine the challenges, if any, that DOE and recipients faced in 

implementing the weatherization program under the Recovery Act, we 

first conducted a web-based survey of all 58 recipients; the survey went 

to the 58 state weatherization program managers and was open for 1 

month. During that time, we also provided e-mail and telephone 

reminders. We administered the survey to all 58 Recovery Act grant 

recipients and received responses from 55 recipients. The grant 

recipients who did respond may not represent all Recovery Act 

weatherization grant recipients. Consequently, the survey results may not 

be generalized to include the Navajo Nation, the Northern Arapaho, or the 

 

2

In Massachusetts, we also spoke with representatives from the Massachusetts Recovery 

and Reinvestment Office.

3

In Oregon, we spoke with state officials but did not speak with local agencies or visit 

Recovery Act-funded projects.

4

The local agencies we spoke with in 6 states were selected by the state program offices. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 43 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

District of Columbia—the recipients who did not respond to the survey. 

This survey asked recipients about revenue sources; the level of contact 

with project officers; the timeliness and helpfulness of DOE guidance; any 

challenges recipients faced in using funds, monitoring, and achieving 

program goals in the first 2 years of the Recovery Act; and any remaining 

challenges they face. See appendix III for a detailed explanation of the 

analysis of the survey data.

To further examine the challenges state program offices had 

implementing and monitoring their weatherization assistance programs 

under the Recovery Act, we also analyzed 15 DOE Inspector General and 

27 state auditors’ reports published between October 2009 and August 

2011. In addition, with the DOE project officers we interviewed, we 

discussed the initial challenges that they faced implementing the 

Recovery Act requirements, resolving recipient questions on program 

guidance, and the differences among the recipients they oversee in 

implementing weatherization programs using Recovery Act funds. With 

recipients and local agencies, we discussed completing the Recovery Act 

requirements and finding additional sources of revenue to help continue 

their programs after March 2012. With officials from the four national 

associations, we discussed initial implementation challenges their 

members faced.

To determine the extent to which the weatherization program is expected 

to achieve energy and cost savings goals, we reviewed Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory’s (ORNL) 2010 cost-benefit estimates of expected 

costs and benefits of the Recovery Act weatherization program and its 

plan for a more detailed evaluation of impacts for homes weatherized 

during the years 2009 through 2011.5 ORNL provided an electronic 

spreadsheet containing the model and the data that it used to estimate 

expected costs and benefits of the program. To better understand the 

model and sources of data used, including the electronic spreadsheet, we 

conducted follow-up interviews with the principal ORNL analyst in charge 

of the study.

 

5

The estimates come from Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Weatherization Assistance 

Program Technical Memorandum: Background Data and Statistics, prepared by Joel F. 

Eisenberg, March 2010 (ORNL/TM-2010/66). See the plan, Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory, Evaluation of the National Weatherization Assistance Program during 

Program Years 2009—2011 (American Reinvestment and Recovery Act Period), prepared 

by Bruce Tonn, et al., May 20, 2011 (ORNL/TM-2011/87).
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 44 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

The recipient reporting section of this report responds to the Recovery 

Act’s mandate that GAO comment on the estimates of jobs created or 

retained by direct recipients of Recovery Act funds.6 For our review of the 

ninth submission of recipient reports, covering July 1, 2011, through 

September 30, 2011, we built on findings from our eight prior reviews of 

the reports, which covered February 2009 through June 30, 2011. To 

understand how the quality of jobs data reported by weatherization 

program recipients has changed over time, we compared the nine 

quarters of recipient reporting data that were publicly available at 

Recovery.gov as of October 31, 2011; performed edit checks; and 

conducted other analyses on weatherization recipients’ reports for the 

Recovery Act.7 We also matched DOE-provided data from the PAGE 

system. As part of the matching process, we examined the reliability of 

recipient data in the PAGE system with the information recipients 

reported directly to FederalReporting.gov. Our reliability assessment 

included interviewing weatherization program officials and state 

weatherization officials and conducting logic tests for key variables. Our 

matches showed a high degree of agreement between funding 

information from the PAGE system and the information recipients 

reported directly to FederalReporting.gov. However, we observed that for 

half of the recipients, the discrepancy between the FTE value shown on 

their quarterly reports and the FTE value derived from the hours they 

reported to the PAGE system for the same period exceeded 10 FTEs. 

Our examination of these discrepancies and interviews with DOE 

program officials indicated that the values observed in the PAGE data 

were most likely erroneous. DOE program officials stated that they track 

expenditures, but not FTE data, in PAGE. In general, we consider the 

recipient data used in this report to be sufficiently reliable, with attribution 

to official sources for the purposes of providing background information 

and a general sense of the status of recipients’ reporting on the 

weatherization program.

To update the status of open recommendations from previous bimonthly 

and recipient report reviews, we obtained information from agency 

 

6

Pub. L. No. 111-5, § 1512(e), 123 Stat. 288.

7

As with our previous reviews, we conducted these checks and analyses on all prime 

recipient reports to assess data logic and consistency and identify unusual or atypical 

data. For this ninth round of reporting, we continued to see only minor variations in the 

number or percentage of reports appearing atypical or showing some form of data 

discrepancy.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 45 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

officials on actions taken in response to recommendations. Our findings 

based on analyses of FTE data are limited to the Recovery Act 

weatherization program and time periods examined and are not 

generalizable to any other programs’ FTE reporting.

We conducted this performance audit from December 2010 through 

December 2011 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Energy

Page 46 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Energy
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Energy

Page 47 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Energy

Page 48 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act
Appendix III: Technical Appendix 

(Survey)

Page 49 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

This appendix discusses survey, design, distribution, and results of our 

web-based survey of the 58 state-level recipients of the Weatherization 

Assistance Program funds under the Recovery Act and presents the 

survey we used. For a copy of the survey instrument, see 

www.gao.gov/special.pubs/gao-12-195/index.html.

To determine the extent to which recipients of the weatherization program 

funded under the Recovery Act spent Recovery Act funds, met monitoring 

requirements, and achieved weatherization program goals, we conducted 

a web-based survey of weatherization program recipients in the 50 states, 

the District of Columbia, 5 territories, and 2 tribes. We asked recipients to 

provide information on their experience with the program and the extent 

to which they found certain aspects of the program implementation 

challenging, from April 2009 through June 2011. 

We conducted pretests on our draft questionnaire to determine whether 

the (1) questions were clear and unambiguous, (2) terminology was used 

correctly, (3) questionnaire did not place an undue burden on state-level 

officials, (4) information could be readily obtained, and (5) survey was 

comprehensive and unbiased. We chose five pretest sites to include 

recipients in locations across a wide geographic area and in various 

stages of meeting spending and production targets. We conducted all five 

pretests over the telephone. We made changes to the content and format 

of the questionnaire after each of the pretests, based on the feedback we 

received. 

We developed and administered a web-based questionnaire accessible 

through a secure server. Recipients were notified that the questionnaire 

was available online and were given unique passwords and usernames 

on May 16, 2011. We sent follow-up e-mail messages on May 31, 2011, 

June 9, 2011, and June 13, 2011, to those who had not yet responded. 

We contacted all remaining nonrespondents by telephone, starting on 

May 24, 2011. The questionnaire was available online until June 17, 

2011. Questionnaires were completed by 55 weatherization program 

recipients, for a response rate of 95 percent. We telephoned the 

remaining three recipients (the District of Columbia, the Northern Arapaho 

Tribe, and the Navajo Nation), but they declined to participate within the 

study’s time period.

Because this was not a sample survey, it has no sampling errors. 

However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce 

errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, 

difficulties in interpreting a particular question, sources of information 

Appendix III: Technical Appendix (Survey)

Survey Design, 

Distribution, and 

Results 
Appendix III: Technical Appendix 

(Survey)

Page 50 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

available to respondents, entering data into a database, or analyzing data 

can introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. We took steps 

in developing the questionnaire, collecting the data, and analyzing them 

to minimize such nonsampling error.

For example, social science survey specialists designed the 

questionnaire in collaboration with GAO staff who had subject matter 

expertise. Then, we pretested the draft questionnaire with a number of 

state-level officials to ensure that the questions were relevant, clearly 

stated, and easy to understand. When we analyzed the data, an 

independent analyst checked all computer programs. Because this was a 

web-based survey, respondents entered their answers directly into the 

electronic questionnaire, eliminating the need to key data into a database, 

minimizing error.

In the report we showed the percentage of recipients responding to the 

survey who reported that certain program areas were strongly challenging 

or somewhat of a challenge, as opposed to not challenging. In table 4 we 

show the percentages of recipients responding who reported each area 

as initially challenging and not challenging, and still challenging and not 

challenging at the time of our survey. In almost all cases, there was 

decline in the percentage of recipients reporting the implementation area 

as continuing to be a challenge. The only exception was in responding to 

the challenges of the “cliff effect,” or the decline in funding after Recovery 

Act funding expires in March 2012. For that item, the percentage of 

respondents who reported that it was challenging increased from 34 

percent to 89 percent. For all of the other challenges, the percentage of 

recipients responding that a program area was challenging decreased 

and the percentage reporting an area as not challenging increased. For 

example, implementing Davis-Bacon requirements was reported to be 

challenging by 88 percent of respondents initially, but by only 39 percent 

of respondents at the time of the survey, June 2011. Also, lacking trained 

monitoring staff was reported to be challenging by 69 percent of 

respondents initially, but by only 26 percent of respondents at the time of 

our survey.
Appendix III: Technical Appendix 

(Survey)

Page 51 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

Table 4: Percentage of Recipients Responding That Certain Areas Were Challenging and Not Challenging in 2009, the First 

Year of the Recovery Act-Funded Weatherization Assistance Program, and during June 2011

Percentage of recipients responding

Initially 

(first year)

During June 2011 

(third year)

Challenges identified in survey Challenging

Not 

challenging Challenging

Not 

challenging

Number 

responding

Balancing the requirements to meet production 

targets and to ensure the work is done correctly 90.6 9.4 67.9 32.1 53

Meeting production targets 90.6 9.4 56.6 43.4 53

Having additional reporting requirements 90.4 9.6 75.0 25.0 52

Implementing new program requirements that 

were developed as program progressed 88.9 11.1 63.0 37.0 54

Implementing Davis-Bacon requirements 88.2 11.8 39.2 60.8 51

Balancing training and technical assistance 

requirements with production targets 88.2 11.8 62.7 37.3 51

Adjusting to changes in existing reporting 

requirements 86.5 13.5 44.2 55.8 52

Meeting federal reporting requirements 

(FederalReporting.gov and PAGE) 84.3 15.7 62.7 37.3 51

Meeting certification and training requirements 83.0 17.0 56.6 43.4 53

Lacking expertise weatherizing multifamily units 82.0 18.0 64.0 36.0 50

Having too few monitoring staff 80.8 19.2 40.4 59.6 52

Having insufficient number of administrative staff 75.5 24.5 39.6 60.4 53

Having additional reporting requirements for 

monitoring 74.5 25.5 47.1 52.9 51

Lacking expertise in weatherizing multifamily 

units 74.0 26.0 60.0 40.0 50

Conducting the required number of monitoring 

visits 73.1 26.9 42.3 57.7 52

Adjusting to changes in existing reporting 

requirements for monitoring 72.0 28.0 48.0 52.0 50

Ensuring consistency in monitoring results 71.2 28.8 50.0 50.0 52

Lacking expertise in monitoring multifamily units 71.1 28.9 46.7 53.3 45

Complying with historic preservation 

requirements 70.6 29.4 35.3 64.7 51

Lacking trained monitoring staff 68.6 31.4 25.5 74.5 51

State-level auditors lacking training or expertise 63.3 36.7 22.4 77.6 49

Lacking staff to appropriately handle external 

monitoring (DOE-Inspector General, state-level 

auditors, consultants) 63.3 36.7 57.1 42.9 49
Appendix III: Technical Appendix 

(Survey)

Page 52 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

Percentage of recipients responding

Initially 

(first year)

During June 2011 

(third year)

Challenges identified in survey Challenging

Not 

challenging Challenging

Not 

challenging

Number 

responding

Determining how to measure long-term energy 

savings 59.6 40.4 51.1 48.9 47

Meeting state’s requirements to monitor 

subgrantees 58.3 41.7 29.2 70.8 48

Lacking infrastructure at state level to handle the 

large influx of money from the Recovery Act 56.6 43.4 35.8 64.2 53

Determining how to measure cost savings (i.e., 

dollar savings) 54.3 45.7 37.0 63.0 46

Planning for cliff effect (i.e., decline in funding 

after Recovery Act funding expires in March 

2012) 34.0 66.0 89.4 10.6 47

Determining and documenting income eligibility 25.0 75.0 17.3 82.7 52

Determining methodology for calculating $6,500 

maximum average cost per home 17.6 82.4 3.9 96.1 51

Source: GAO analysis of recipients’ responses. 

An overall decline in the percentage of respondents that report a specific 

item to be challenging could result from a more considerable shift of 

respondents from challenging to not challenging than from not 

challenging to challenging or, alternatively, from a smaller shift from 

challenging to not challenging accompanied by no shift in the reverse 

direction.

As shown in table 5, all but one challenge (planning for the cliff effect) 

moves in the direction from challenging to not challenging. In every case, 

this is more pronounced than moving in the opposite direction—from not 

challenging to challenging—though for a number of items some 

respondents identified something as initially not challenging but changed 

to identify as challenging at the time of the survey. For 16 of the 29 items, 

however, all of the change moved from challenging to not challenging.
Appendix III: Technical Appendix 

(Survey)

Page 53 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

Table 5: Percentage of Recipients Responding That Switched from Challenging to Not Challenging and Not Challenging to 

Challenging

Percent

Challenges identified in survey

Reporting 

initially 

challenging

Switching from 

challenging to not 

challenging

Switching from not 

challenging

to challenging

Balancing the requirements to meet production targets and 

to ensure the work is done correctly 90.6 25.0 0 

Meeting production targets 90.6 37.5 0 

Having additional reporting requirements 90.4 17.0 0 

Implementing new program requirements that were 

developed as program progressed 88.9 31.3 16.7

Implementing Davis-Bacon requirements 88.2 55.6 0 

Balancing training and technical assistance requirements 

with production targets 88.2 28.9 0 

Adjusting to changes in existing reporting requirements 86.5 48.9 0 

Meeting federal reporting requirements 

(FederalReporting.gov and PAGE) 84.3 25.6 0 

Meeting certification and training requirements 83.0 31.8 0 

Lacking expertise weatherizing multifamily units 82.0 22.0 0 

Having too few monitoring staff 80.8 57.1 30.0 

Having insufficient number of administrative staff 75.5 47.5 0 

Having additional reporting requirements for monitoring 74.5 42.1 15.4

Lacking expertise in weatherizing multifamily units 74.0 24.3 15.4

Conducting the required number of monitoring visits 73.1 47.4 14.3

Adjusting to changes in existing reporting requirements for 

monitoring 72.0 33.3 0 

Ensuring consistency in monitoring results 71.2 32.4 6.7

Lacking expertise in monitoring multifamily units 71.1 34.4 0 

Complying with historic preservation requirements 70.6 55.6 13.3

Lacking trained monitoring staff 68.6 62.9 0 

State-level auditors lacking training or expertise 63.3 64.5 0 

Lacking staff to appropriately handle external monitoring 

(DOE Inspector General, state-level auditors, consultants) 63.3 19.4 16.7

Determining how to measure long-term energy savings 59.6 17.9 5.3

Meeting state’s requirements to monitor subgrantees 58.3 53.6 5.0

Lacking infrastructure at state level to handle the large 

influx of money from the Recovery Act 56.6 36.7 0 

Determining how to measure cost savings (i.e., dollar 

savings) 54.3 32.0 0 
Appendix III: Technical Appendix 

(Survey)

Page 54 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

Percent

Challenges identified in survey

Reporting 

initially 

challenging

Switching from 

challenging to not 

challenging

Switching from not 

challenging

to challenging

Planning for “cliff effect” (i.e., decline in funding after 

Recovery Act funding expires in March 2012) 34.0 12.5 90.3

Determining and documenting income eligibility 25.0 38.5 26

Determining methodology for calculating $6,500 maximum 

average cost per home 17.6 88.9 2.4

Source: GAO analysis of recipient response.

` 
Appendix IV: Status of Prior Open 

Recommendations and Matters for 

Congressional Consideration

Page 55 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

In this appendix, we update the status of agencies’ efforts to implement 

the 16 recommendations that remain open and are not implemented and 

2 newly implemented recommendations that resulted from our Recovery 

Act mandate reports.1 Recommendations that were listed as implemented 

or closed in a prior report are not repeated here. Last, we address the 

status of our matters for congressional consideration.

 

1

GAO, Recovery Act: As Initial Implementation Unfolds in States and Localities, Continued 

Attention to Accountability Issues Is Essential, GAO-09-580 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 23, 

2009); Recovery Act: States’ and Localities’ Current and Planned Uses of Funds While 

Facing Fiscal Stresses, GAO-09-829 (Washington, D.C.: July 8, 2009); Recovery Act: 

Funds Continue to Provide Fiscal Relief to States and Localities, While Accountability and 

Reporting Challenges Need to Be Fully Addressed, GAO-09-1016 (Washington, D.C.: 

Sept. 23, 2009); Recovery Act: Recipient Reported Jobs Data Provide Some Insight into 

Use of Recovery Act Funding, but Data Quality and Reporting Issues Need Attention, 

GAO-10-223 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 19, 2009); Recovery Act: Status of States’ and 

Localities’ Use of Funds and Efforts to Ensure Accountability, GAO-10-231 (Washington, 

D.C.: Dec. 10, 2009); Recovery Act: One Year Later, States’ and Localities’ Uses of Funds 

and Opportunities to Strengthen Accountability, GAO-10-437 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 3, 

2010); Recovery Act: States’ and Localities’ Uses of Funds and Actions Needed to 

Address Implementation Challenges and Bolster Accountability, GAO-10-604

(Washington, D.C.: May 26, 2010); Recovery Act: Opportunities to Improve Management 

and Strengthen Accountability over States’ and Localities’ Uses of Funds, GAO-10-999

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 20, 2010); Recovery Act: Head Start Grantees Expand Services, 

but More Consistent Communication Could Improve Accountability and Decisions about 

Spending, GAO-11-166 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 15, 2010); Recovery Act: Energy 

Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Recipients Face Challenges Meeting Legislative 

and Program Goals and Requirements, GAO-11-379 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 7, 2011); 

Recovery Act: Funding Used for Transportation Infrastructure Projects, but Some 

Requirements Proved Challenging, GAO-11-600 (Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2011); 

Recovery Act: Funds Supported Many Water Projects, and Federal and State Monitoring 

Shows Few Compliance Problems, GAO-11-608 (Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2011); and 

Recovery Act Education Programs: Funding Retained Teachers, but Education Could 

More Consistently Communicate Stabilization Monitoring Issues, GAO-11-804

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 22, 2011).

Appendix IV: Status of Prior Open 

Recommendations and Matters for 

Congressional Consideration
Appendix IV: Status of Prior Open 

Recommendations and Matters for 

Congressional Consideration

Page 56 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

Table 6: Status of Prior Open Recommendations and Matters for Congressional Consideration

Department of Education

Newly implemented recommendation Agency action

1. To ensure all states receive appropriate communication and 

technical assistance for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund 

(SFSF), consistent with what some states received in response to 

SFSF monitoring reviews, we recommend that the Secretary of 

Education establish mechanisms to improve the consistency of 

communicating monitoring feedback to states, such as 

establishing internal time frames for conveying information found 

during monitoring.a

1. Education agreed with our recommendation, and on November 

21, 2011, submitted a letter to GAO discussing how it has refined 

its SFSF monitoring procedures to include time frames for 

communicating monitoring issues and feedback with states. For 

example, within five days of an exit meeting, the Department will 

send a state a written summary of the issues identified during the 

review and request any additional documentation to help resolve 

the issues. In addition, the Department will communicate in writing 

with the state at least once a month, if needed, for ongoing 

monitoring discussions; and twice a month to facilitate the

resolution of monitoring issues after the issuance of the draft 

interim report.

Department of Energy

Newly Implemented recommendation Agency action 

Weatherization Assistance Program

1. Given the concerns we have raised about whether 

weatherization program requirements were being met, we 

recommended that DOE, in conjunction with both state and local 

weatherization agencies, develop and clarify weatherization 

program guidance that clarifies the specific methodology for 

calculating the average cost per home weatherized to ensure that 

the maximum average cost limit is applied as intended.b

1. In September 2011, DOE issued guidance that clarifies the 

methodology for calculating the average cost per unit weatherized 

and further defines the allowable cost categories used in 

calculating the average cost per unit. 

Open recommendation Agency action

Weatherization Assistance Program

Given the concerns we have raised about whether weatherization 

program requirements were being met, we recommended that 

DOE, in conjunction with both state and local weatherization 

agencies, develop and clarify weatherization program guidance 

that:

b

 

1. Accelerates current DOE efforts to develop national standards 

for weatherization training, certification, and accreditation, efforts 

that are currently expected to take 2 years to complete.

1. DOE stated that it, along with the Department of Labor, 

released for comment a draft—”Workforce Guidelines for Home 

Energy Upgrades”—for single-family homes in November 2010. 

DOE weatherization officials noted that they received nearly 1,000 

comments to the draft guidelines, which will delay publication of 

the final product.

2. Sets time frames for development and implementation of state 

monitoring programs.

2. As of October 2011, DOE had taken limited action to address 

the recommendation that it set time frames for the development 

and implementation of state monitoring programs. The 

recommendation remains largely unaddressed.
Appendix IV: Status of Prior Open 

Recommendations and Matters for 

Congressional Consideration

Page 57 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

3. Revisits the various methodologies used in determining the 

weatherization work that should be performed based on the 

consideration of cost-effectiveness and develops standard 

methodologies that ensure that priority is given to the most costeffective weatherization work. To validate any methodologies 

created, this effort should include the development of standards 

for accurately measuring the long-term energy savings resulting 

from weatherization work conducted.

3. In response to our recommendation that it revisit methodologies 

used to determine the most cost-effective weatherization work, 

DOE weatherization officials cited Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory’s ongoing March 2014 evaluation. Officials told us the 

study results will be used to strengthen current protocols for 

determining weatherization work for both single and multifamily 

homes and to ensure cost-effectiveness.

4. Given that state and local agencies have felt pressure to meet a 

large increase in production targets while effectively meeting 

program requirements and have experienced some confusion 

over production targets, funding obligations, and associated 

consequences for not meeting production and funding goals, we 

recommended that DOE clarify its production targets, funding 

deadlines, and associated consequences while providing a 

balanced emphasis on the importance of meeting program 

requirements.

4. In response to our recommendation, DOE weatherization 

officials produced documentation showing extensive 

communication with the recipients over production and 

expenditures. However, they did not provide documentation 

showing how they clarified the consequences for not meeting 

these targets.

Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program

1. To better ensure that Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block 

Grant (EECBG) funds are used to meet Recovery Act and 

program goals, we recommended that DOE explore a means to 

capture information on the monitoring processes of all recipients 

to make certain that recipients have effective monitoring 

practices.c

1. DOE generally concurred with this recommendation, stating

that “implementing the report’s recommendations will help ensure 

that the Program continues to be well managed and executed.” 

DOE also provided additional information on changes it has 

implemented. DOE added additional questions to the on-site 

monitoring checklists related to subrecipient monitoring to help 

ensure that subrecipients are in compliance with the terms and 

conditions of the award. These changes will help improve DOE’s 

oversight of recipients, especially larger recipients, which are 

more likely to be visited by DOE project officers. However, not all 

recipients receive on-site visits. In November 2011, DOE also 

provided us with an update of its oversight of recipients following 

the addition of subrecipient monitoring questions to its on-site 

monitoring checklists. DOE officials stated that since July 2011, of 

the 171 recipients that have received a site visit by DOE staff, 162 

were found to be using at least one of the monitoring practices 

identified by DOE. In total, only 1 of the recipients visited was 

formally determined to be insufficiently meeting requirements for 

subrecipient monitoring. As noted previously, we continue to 

believe that the program could be more effectively monitored if 

DOE captured information on the monitoring practices of all 

recipients.

Department of Health and Human Services: Office of Head 

Start 

Open recommendation Agency action

1. To help ensure that grantees report consistent enrollment 

figures, we recommended that the Director of the Department of 

Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office of Head Start (OHS) 

better communicate a consistent definition of “enrollment” to 

grantees for monthly and yearly reporting and begin verifying 

grantees’ definition of “enrollment” during triennial reviews.d

1. OHS issued informal guidance on its website clarifying monthly 

reporting requirements to make them more consistent with annual 

enrollment reporting. This guidance directs grantees to include in 

enrollment counts all children and pregnant mothers who are 

enrolled and have received a specified minimum of services. 

According to officials, OHS is considering further regulatory 

clarification.
Appendix IV: Status of Prior Open 

Recommendations and Matters for 

Congressional Consideration

Page 58 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Open recommendation Agency action

1. Because the absence of third-party investors reduces the 

amount of overall scrutiny Tax Credit Assistance Program (TCAP) 

projects would receive and the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) is currently not aware of how many projects 

lacked third-party investors, we recommended that HUD develop 

a risk-based plan for its role in overseeing TCAP projects that 

recognizes the level of oversight provided by others.e

1. HUD responded to our recommendation by saying it must wait 

for project completion information to be entered into its reporting 

system in order to identify those projects that are in need of 

additional monitoring. HUD is currently in the process of 

identifying funding sources used for all TCAP projects completed 

as of September 30, 2011, and developing a report on that 

information. HUD will use the report to identify TCAP projects with 

little tax credit equity or no other federal funds leveraged that may 

need additional monitoring. HUD said it will develop a plan for 

monitoring those projects by November 30, 2011. 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

Open recommendation Agency action

1. We recommended that OMB provide timelier reporting on 

internal controls for Recovery Act programs for 2010 and 

beyond.f

1. We previously reported that to address our recommendation, 

OMB had implemented a voluntary Single Audit Internal Control 

Project for states receiving Recovery Act funds.g One of the goals 

of the project was to achieve more timely communication of 

internal control deficiencies for higher-risk Recovery Act programs 

so that corrective action could be taken more quickly. The project 

encouraged participating auditors to identify and communicate 

deficiencies in internal control to program management 3 months 

sooner than the 9-month time frame required under statute. The 

project also required that program management provide corrective 

action plans aimed at correcting any deficiencies to the federal 

awarding agency 2 months earlier than required under statute.

In Phase 1 of the project, which commenced in October 2009, 16 

states participated and auditors audited 26 Recovery Act 

programs and reported 127 internal control deficiencies for which 

corrective action plans were developed by program managers. In 

Phase 2 of the project, which commenced in August 2010, 14 

states participated and auditors audited 36 individual Recovery 

Act programs and reported 173 internal control deficiencies for 

which corrective action plans were developed by program 

managers. In Phase 3 of the project, which commenced in 

October 2011, 10 states are participating and the project is 

expected to conclude in June 2012.

While the project was successful in encouraging earlier reporting 

of internal control deficiencies for the participants, the voluntary 

nature of the project limited its effectiveness and may also have 

biased the project’s results by excluding from analysis states or 

auditors with practices that cannot accommodate the project’s 

requirement for early reporting of control deficiencies. We believe 

that OMB needs to take additional steps to encourage more 

comprehensive and timely reporting on internal control through 

single audits for Recovery Act programs. We will continue to 

monitor OMB’s efforts for implementing this recommendation.
Appendix IV: Status of Prior Open 

Recommendations and Matters for 

Congressional Consideration

Page 59 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

2. We recommended that OMB evaluate options for providing 

relief related to audit requirements for low-risk programs to 

balance new audit responsibilities associated with the Recovery 

Act.h

2. OMB has developed an option for providing some audit relief to 

the state auditors that participated in the Single Audit Internal 

Control project by modifying the requirements under OMB Circular 

No. A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit 

Organizations. The relief enabled the participating auditors to 

reduce the number of low-risk programs that were included in their 

risk assessment requirements. OMB officials acknowledged that 

as yet no viable alternative has been established to provide relief 

to all state auditors or other auditors that conduct single audits. 

However, according to OMB officials, initiatives are currently 

under way that, if approved, could provide audit relief in the future 

to auditors performing single audits. We will continue to monitor 

OMB’s efforts in this area. 

3. We recommended that OMB issue Single Audit guidance in a 

timely manner so that auditors can efficiently plan their audit 

work.i

4. We also recommended that OMB issue the OMB Circular No. 

A-133 Compliance Supplement no later than March 31 of each 

year.j 

3, 4. OMB has worked with federal agencies and other entities 

involved in developing single audit guidance, and revised 

production schedules and deadlines in an effort to achieve an 

earlier issuance date. However, to date OMB has not yet achieved 

its goal of timely issuance of this important guidance. For 

example, OMB officials intended to issue the 2011 Compliance 

Supplement by March 31, 2011, but did not issue this guidance 

until June 1, 2011. OMB officials have developed a timeline for 

issuing the 2012 Compliance Supplement by March 31, 2012, and 

have begun working with federal agencies and others involved in 

issuing the Compliance Supplement. We will continue to monitor 

OMB’s efforts in this area. 

5. We recommended that OMB explore alternatives to help ensure 

that federal awarding agencies provide management decisions in 

a timely manner.k

6. We also recommended that OMB shorten the time frames 

required for issuing management decisions by federal agencies to 

grant recipients.l

5, 6. Regarding the need for agencies to provide timely 

management decisions, OMB officials identified alternatives for 

helping to ensure that federal awarding agencies provide 

management decisions for corrective action plans in a timely 

manner, such as shortening the time frames required for federal 

agencies to provide these decisions to grant recipients. OMB 

officials have acknowledged that this issue continues to be a 

challenge. In fiscal year 2011, most of the federal awarding 

agencies that had grantees with deficiencies identified as a result 

of the Single Audit Internal Control Project did not submit all of 

their management decisions for corrective actions by the specified 

due date. We will continue to monitor OMB’s efforts in this area.

Department of Transportation

Open recommendation Agency action

1. To ensure that Congress and the public have accurate 

information on the extent to which the goals of the Recovery Act 

are being met, we recommended that the Secretary of 

Transportation direct the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to develop additional 

rules and data checks in the Recovery Act Data System, so that 

these data will accurately identify contract milestones such as 

award dates and amounts, and provide guidance to states to 

revise existing contract data.m 

1. In its response, DOT stated that it had implemented measures 

to further improve data quality in the Recovery Act Data System, 

including additional data quality checks, as well as providing 

states with additional training and guidance to improve the quality 

of data entered into the system. We have requested 

documentation of these changes, but DOT has not yet provided it. 

We are therefore keeping our recommendation on this matter 

open.
Appendix IV: Status of Prior Open 

Recommendations and Matters for 

Congressional Consideration

Page 60 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

2. We recommended that the Secretary of Transportation direct 

FHWA to make publicly available—within 60 days after the 

September 30, 2010, obligation deadline—an accurate accounting 

and analysis of the extent to which states directed funds to 

economically distressed areas, including corrections to the data 

initially provided to Congress in December 2009.n

2. DOT stated that as part of its efforts to respond to our draft 

September 2010 report in which we made this recommendation 

on economically distressed areas, it completed a comprehensive 

review of projects in these areas, which it provided to GAO for that 

report. DOT recently posted an accounting of the extent to which 

states directed Recovery Act transportation funds to projects 

located in economically distressed areas on its website. We have 

requested documentation of the underlying data from DOT to 

verify this accounting, but DOT has not provided it. We are 

therefore keeping our recommendation on this matter open.

3. To better understand the impact of Recovery Act investments in 

transportation, we believe that the Secretary of Transportation 

should ensure that the results of these projects are assessed and 

a determination is made about whether these investments 

produced long-term benefits.o Specifically, in the near term, we 

recommended that the Secretary direct FHWA and Federal 

Transit Authority to determine the types of data and performance 

measures they would need to assess the impact of the Recovery 

Act and the specific authority they may need to collect data and 

report on these measures.

3. In its response, DOT noted that it expected to be able to report 

on Recovery Act outputs, such as the miles of road paved, 

bridges repaired, and transit vehicles purchased, but not on 

outcomes, such as reductions in travel time, nor did it commit to 

assessing whether transportation investments produced long-term 

benefits. DOT further explained that limitations in its data systems, 

coupled with the magnitude of Recovery Act funds relative to 

overall annual federal investment in transportation, would make 

assessing the benefits of Recovery Act funds difficult. DOT 

indicated that, with these limitations in mind, it is examining its 

existing data availability and, as necessary, would seek additional 

data collection authority from Congress if it became apparent that 

such authority was needed. Because DOT has not committed to 

assessing the long-term benefits of Recovery Act investments in 

transportation infrastructure, we are keeping our recommendation 

on this matter open.

Matters for Congressional Consideration—Office of Management and Budget

Matter Status 

1. To the extent that appropriate adjustments to the Single Audit 

process are not accomplished under the current Single Audit 

structure, Congress should consider amending the Single Audit 

Act or enacting new legislation that provides for more timely 

internal control reporting, as well as audit coverage for smaller 

Recovery Act programs with high risk.p

1. We continue to believe that Congress should consider changes 

related to the Single Audit process.

2. To the extent that additional coverage is needed to achieve 

accountability over Recovery Act programs, Congress should 

consider mechanisms to provide additional resources to support 

those charged with carrying out the Single Audit Act and related 

audits.q

2. We continue to believe that Congress should consider changes 

related to the Single Audit process.

Source: GAO.

a

GAO-11-804, 47.

b

GAO-10-604, 124–125.

c

GAO-11-379, 36.

d

GAO-11-166, 39.

e

GAO-10-999, 189.

f

GAO-10-604, 247.
Appendix IV: Status of Prior Open 

Recommendations and Matters for 

Congressional Consideration

Page 61 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

g

GAO-10-999. 

h

GAO-09-829, 127.

i

GAO-10-604, 247.

j

GAO-10-999, 194.

k

GAO-10-604, 247–248.

l

GAO-10-999, 194.

mGAO-10-999, 187-188.

n

GAO-10-999, 187-188.

o

GAO-10-604, 241-242.

p

GAO-09-829, 128.

q

GAO-09-829, 128.
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 62 GAO-12-195 Recovery Act

Frank Rusco, (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov

In addition to the contact above, Kim Gianopoulos, Phyllis Anderson, 

Thomas Beall, Catherine Bombico, Mark Braza, Swati Deo, Philip Farah, 

Colin Gray, Sharon Hogan, Yvonne Jones, Jonathan Kucskar, Joshua 

Ormond, Carol Patey, Beverly Ross, Kelly Rubin, Carol Herrnstadt 

Shulman, Douglas Sloane, Jonathan Stehle, Kiki Theodoropoulos, Sonya 

Vartivarian, and Arvin Wu made key contributions to this report.

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgements 

(361257)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.