U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE 

COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

FINAL REPORT: 

2008 Election Data Collection Grant Program 

Award Number: 08-EDC-800168 

State of Ohio 

MAY 27, 2008 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2010 

Report No. 

E-GR-OH-02-12 

September 2013 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
 

1201 New York Ave. NW - Suite 300
 

Washington, DC 20005
 

Memorandum 

September 12, 2013 

To:	 Alice Miller 

Acting Executive Director 

From:	 Curtis W. Crider 

Inspector General 

Subject: Final Performance Audit Report – 2008 Election Data Collection Grant 

Program Award Number: 08-EDC-800168, State of Ohio 

(Assignment Number E-GR-OH-02-12) 

We contracted with the independent certified public accounting firm of McBride, Lock 

& Associates to conduct the subject audit. The objectives of the audit were to identify costs 

claimed in the Grant’s Financial Status Reports that were not allocable, allowable, reasonable, 

and in conformity with United States Election Assistance Commission’s award terms and 

conditions and applicable Federal grant requirements. 

In its audit, McBride, Lock & Associates concluded that the Ohio Secretary of State 

(SOS) generally accounted for and expended the Election Data Collection grant funds in 

accordance with applicable requirements for the period from May 27, 2008 through June 30, 

2010. However the following exceptions were identified; 

•	 The SOS did not credit interest earnings to the grant fund in a timely manner. 

•	 The SOS paid invoices which did not have adequate detail of hours and hourly 

rates to support contractor billings as outlined in the agreed-upon contract 

provisions. 

In its August 7, 2013 response to the draft report (Attachment A-1), the SOS agreed with 

the report’s finding and recommendations, and provided corrective actions. McBride, Lock & 

Associates summarized the SOS’s response to the recommendations, as well as their comments 

on the responses after the recommendations. Also included in the report is the EAC response to 

the draft report (Appendix A-2), dated August 12, 2013, which indicated that the EAC would 

work with the SOS to ensure corrective action. 

We would appreciate being kept informed of the actions taken on our recommendations 

as we will track the status of their implementation. Please respond in writing to the finding and 

recommendation included in this report by November 13, 2013. Your response should include 

information on actions taken or planned, targeted completion dates, and titles of officials 

responsible for implementation. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To fulfill our responsibilities under Government Auditing Standards, the Office of 

Inspector General: 

• Reviewed McBride, Lock & Associates’ approach and planning of the audit; 

• Evaluated the qualifications and independence of the auditors; 

• Monitored the progress of the audit at key points; 

• Reviewed the audit report, prepared by McBride, Lock & Associates to ensure 

compliance with Government Auditing Standards; and 

• Coordinated issuance of the audit report. 

McBride, Lock & Associates is responsible for the attached auditor’s report and 

the conclusions expressed in the report. We do not express any opinion on the 

conclusions presented in McBride, Lock & Associates audit report. 

The legislation creating the Office of Inspector General requires that we report to 

Congress semiannually on all audit reports issued, actions taken to implement our 

recommendations, and recommendations that have not been implemented. 

If you have any questions regarding this report, please call me at (202) 566-3125. 

Attachment 

cc: Director of Grants and Payments 
 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Performance Audit Report 

2008 Election Data Collection Grant Program
 

Award Number: 08-EDC-800168
 

State of Ohio
 

May 27, 2008 through June 30, 2010
 

United States
 

Election Assistance Commission
 

McBRIDE, LOCK & ASSOCIATES 

CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 

KANSAS CITY 
 

 

 


 


 


 


 

Performance Audit Report
 

2008 Election Data Collection Grant Program
 

Award Number: 08-EDC-800168
 

State of Ohio
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 

BACKGROUND 1 

AUDIT OBJECTIVES 3 

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 3 

AUDIT RESULTS 3 

APPENDICES: 

Appendix A-1: Response of the Ohio Secretary of State to the Draft Report 

Appendix A-2: Response of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

to the Draft Report 

Appendix B: Audit Methodology 

Appendix C: Schedule of Awards as of June 30, 2010 

Appendix D: Monetary Impact as of June 30, 2010 
 

 

 

 

 


 


 


 


 


 

	 

	 

	 


 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission
 

Performance Audit Report
 

2008 Election Data Collection Grant Programs
 

Award Number: 08-EDC-800168
 

State of Ohio
 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

McBride, Lock & Associates was engaged by the United States Election Assistance Commission 

(EAC) Office of the Inspector General to conduct a performance audit of award 08-EDC800168, Election Data Collection Grant (Grant), to the Ohio Secretary of State’s Office (Office) 

from inception on May 27, 2008 through the award conclusion date of June 30, 2010 to 

determine whether the Office was in compliance with EAC’s and Federal regulations concerning 

award administration and management. 

We conducted this performance audit 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 the audit objectives. 

Based on the audit procedures performed, except for the matters discussed below, we concluded 

that the Office accounted for and expended the Grant funds in accordance with the requirements 

mentioned above for the period from May 27, 2008 through June 30, 2010. The exceptions to 

applicable compliance requirements are as follows: 

1.	 The Office did not credit interest earnings to the EAC-DCG fund in a timely manner. 

2.	 The Office paid invoices which did not have adequate detail of hours and hourly rates to 

support contractor billings as outlined in the agreed-upon contract provisions. 

We have included in this report as Appendix A-1 the Secretary of State’s written response to the 

draft report. Such response has not been subjected to the audit procedures and, accordingly, we 

do not provide any form of assurance on the appropriateness of the response or the effectiveness 

of the corrective actions described therein. 

BACKGROUND 

In December 2007 Congress authorized the fiscal year 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Act 

(Public Law 110-161, Title V), which directed the EAC to award grants of $2 million to each of 

five eligible states to improve the collection of precinct level data relating to the November 2008 

Federal elections. The act provided for the creation of the Election Data Collection Grant 

Program, the purpose of which was to: 

•	 Develop and document a series of administrative and procedural best practices in election 

data collection that can be replicated by other States; 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 
 


 

	 


 

•	 Improve data collection processes; 

•	 Enhance the capacity of States and their jurisdictions to collect accurate and complete 

election data; and 

•	 Document and describe particular administrative and management data collection
 

practices, as well as particular data collection policies and procedures.
 

The States were to use the Grant funds to implement programs to improve the collection of data 

relative to the November 2008 Federal general election and to improve the reporting of election 

data at the precinct level. The Grants were awarded in May 2008 and were for a period of 

13 months. The Grants were awarded on a cost-reimbursement basis, and some States had laws 

in place that required legislative approval of funding for the Grant program prior to 

reimbursement by EAC. The Ohio Secretary of State’s office obtained EAC approval to receive 

in advance $1,500,000 on September 4, 2008. 

The States were to provide their report on the data collected from the November 2008 election to 

the EAC by March 2009. In turn, the EAC was required to submit, by June 30, 2009, a report 

to Congress on the impact of the Election Data Collection Grant Program on States’ abilities to 

effectively collect Federal Election data. The EAC granted the Office a no-cost extension on the 

grant beyond June 30, 2009 until June 30, 2010. 

In its Performance Report for the period ended June 1, 2009, the Ohio Secretary of State reported 

expenditures of $1,419,293, or 71 percent of the total award amount. The report disclosed that, 

“While not all deliverables have been completed at the time of this report (June 1, 2009), all 

required deliverables have been submitted, and all Ohio proposed outcomes are either 

“Accomplished” or “In process” as noted in the status.” The outcomes that were reported as “In 

process” related to completing the upgrade of systems infrastructure, pilot testing and 

deployment of system modifications which was delayed due to enhancement and clean-up of 

data quality, data conversion to new system, demonstrating data analytics capabilities to 

prospective users, and a precinct mapping application. 

Data Collection Grant Activity 

(a) (b) (c) (d) 

Proposed As of As of As of (d) - (c) = (e) 

Category Amount June 1, 2009 June 30, 2009 Jan. 31, 2010 Difference 

Personnel $ 123,707 $ - $ - $ - $ ­

Contractual 1,676,293 797,099 797,099 1,352,674 555,575 

Maintenance and Supplies - 73,044 97,850 97,850 ­

Equipment 200,000 549,150 549,150 549,150 ­

Totals	 $ 2,000,000 $ 1,419,293 $ 1,444,099 $ 1,999,674 $ 555,575 

The Office requested and was granted by EAC a one year no-cost extension so they could 

complete the remaining outcomes. The majority of the $555,575 of disbursements charged to the 

award during the no-cost extension period and subsequent to June 30, 2009 were continuations 

of existing contractual agreements, and 61 percent, or $341,147, were paid within 60 days of 

June 30, 2009. In its Final Performance Report for the period ended June 30, 2010, the Office 

2 
 

 

 


 

reported successful completion of all grant award requirements, and did not require $16,570 of 

the authorized $2,000,000 award. 

AUDIT OBJECTIVES 

The objectives of our performance audit were to identify costs claimed in the Grant’s Financial 

Status Reports that are not allocable, allowable, reasonable, and in conformity with EAC award 

terms and conditions and applicable Federal grant requirements. The Office is required to follow 

the requirements of the Grant program’s legislation and program regulations, Grant award terms 

and conditions, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87 (2 CFR 225), 

Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments, and OMB Circular A-102 (41 CFR 

105-71), Grants and Cooperative Agreements with State and Local Governments. 

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 

We audited the Grant funds received and disbursed by the Office from May 27, 2008 through 

June 30, 2010 as shown in the following table: 

Award amount $ 2,000,000 

Award funds received $ 1,983,429 

Program income 16,245 

Total Available $ 1,999,674 

Program expenditures $ 1,999,674 

Our audit methodology is set forth in Appendix B. 

AUDIT RESULTS 

We conducted this performance audit 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 the audit objectives. 

Based on the audit procedures performed, except for the matters discussed below, we concluded 

that the Office accounted for and expended the Grant funds in accordance with the requirements 

mentioned above for the period from May 27, 2008 through June 30, 2010. The exceptions to 

applicable compliance requirements are described below. 

Finding No. 1 – Interest Earned on Federal Funds 

Untimely crediting of interest earnings to the EAC Data Collection Grant (DCG) fund resulted in 

lost interest earnings to the fund. 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Cash management requirements as set forth in 41 CFR §105-71.121 (f) address the effect of 

interest income on grant payments, and states that “grantees and subgrantees shall disburse 

program income, rebates, refunds, contract settlements, audit recoveries and interest earned on 

such funds before requesting additional cash payments.” 

Due to State Statutes (Title 1, Chapter 126.07) which require a certification of available funds 

before contracts can be validated, the EAC allowed the State to receive advance payments of 

DCG funds prior to incurring the related expenditures. However, the EAC advised the Secretary 

of State (Office) in an August 7, 2008 communication that DCG monies were to be accounted 

for in a separate fund and that interest earned on those monies was to be credited to the fund and 

used to offset the amount of DCG monies requested. 

Grant funds amounting to $1,500,000 were received on September 4, 2008. The Office 

calculated the interest earned on these grant funds and to be credited to the DCG fund. On 

September 23, 2009 the Accounting Division of the State’s Office of Budget and Management 

posted a journal entry to record interest of $16,245 to the DCG fund. The calculation supporting 

the entry applied a rate of interest to the available balances in the DCG fund each month. The 

calculation should have recognized the effect of increasing the balance of the DCG fund by the 

interest that would have been earned each month, had the fund balances been invested and 

credited with interest during the course of the Grant award. However, the journal entry did not 

recognize the fact that compound interest would have also been earned on the recalculated higher 

balances each month. 

The Office requested the State Controlling Board on July 21, 2008 to create a new fund and 

establish appropriation authority of $2.0 million for the EAC DCG. While the Controlling Board 

has statutory authority to create funds, it does not have authority to designate what funds are to 

receive interest earnings; only the General Assembly has that authority through legislative 

action. As part of the State’s budgetary process for fiscal year 2010-2011, the Ohio Legislature 

passed a bill which provided for the transfer of interest that should have been earned and credited 

during fiscal year 2009 to the DCG fund. However, the amount transferred as calculated by the 

Office did not include consideration of the amounts that would have been earned had the interest 

been credited to the DCG fund on a timely basis. The Office subsequently requested that the 

Ohio Office of Budget and Management calculate the interest in accordance with the standard 

methodology used for all other State funds participating in the State’s investment pool. This 

calculation, which utilizes quarterly rather than monthly investment balances of the participating 

funds, resulted in an amount of interest earned on the DCG monies which supports the adequacy 

of the amount credited by the State. Accordingly, as this methodology is a structured, 

documented and accepted methodology used by the State, the auditors accept the resulting 

calculation of interest earnings as reasonable. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the EAC require the Office to adopt procedures to ensure future calculations 

of interest earnings on Federal funds be performed in a manner consistent with the methodology 

used by the Ohio Office of Budget and Management. 

4
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Office of the Secretary of State Response: 

The Office noted that, ideally, the calculation of interest earned should have been performed 

by the Ohio Office of Budget and Management consistent with the normal business practices 

of the State. The Office concurred with the auditor’s suggestion that the interest amount 

credited to the DCG fund be accepted and no further adjustment made. The Office also 

agreed to request the Ohio Office of Budget and Management to perform future interest 

calculations should a similar situation arise. 

Auditor’s Response: 

We appreciate the additional effort expended by the Office to obtain an appropriate 

calculation of interest earnings consistent with the methodology used for other participants in 

the State’s investment pool. We agree with the Office’s conclusion and its expressed intent to 

ensure future interest calculations are consistent with the State’s adopted methodology. 

Finding No. 2 – Inadequate Invoice Documentation 

The Office paid invoices which did not have adequate detail of hours and hourly rates as outlined 

in the agreed-upon contract provisions. 

Per Secretary of State Contract Number 2009-005, Article II, 2.01(a) the Secretary agreed to 

“Pay the Contractor, upon submission of appropriately detailed and accurate invoices for 

services performed by the contractor”. 

Per the State Term Contract, Terms and Conditions 2.6 “To be a proper invoice, the invoice must 

include the following information... (e) A description of the Deliverables, including, as 

applicable... unit price, quantity, and total price of the Deliverables”. 

The sample selection of four payments for contractual services found one payment for which the 

invoice did not have the required detailed information to support the invoiced amount. 

Specifically, this vendor, which provided project management services, agreed to be paid on an 

hourly basis yet submitted a lump sum invoice without the necessary detail of hours worked and 

price per hour charged. As a result, the audit testwork was expanded to include all 

nine disbursements made to this vendor, totaling $299,674. The tests revealed that none of the 

invoices submitted by the vendor had the required detail. Accordingly, it was not possible to 

determine whether the vendor incurred a sufficient number of hours to support the costs billed. 

Therefore, these costs were considered to be unsupported and the total amount of $299,674 was 

initially questioned. It should be noted that compensation to the above contractor did not exceed 

the contractual amounts, and the Board’s project manager asserted that the contractors met all 

deliverables outlined in the statement of work. 

Requiring the vendor to provide unit price and quantity detail provides assurance that billings are 

based upon and are consistent with the contractually agreed upon rates and services. Subsequent 

to this audit, the Office requested and obtained from the vendor the detail of labor hours which 

support the vendor invoices. Accordingly, the related costs of $299,674 are accepted as 

adequately supported. 

5 
 

 

 

 


 

The Office’s internal controls over the processing of vendor invoices were not sufficient to 

ensure that those involved in the approval and payment of invoices were aware of and considered 

the terms of the vendor’s contract. The Office’s policy was to pay an invoice after it is approved 

by a director or higher level administrator responsible for the area. Accordingly, because the 

contractor invoices were approved by the IT Director and he was in charge of the project, the 

invoices were paid by the Finance Division as submitted. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the EAC address and resolve the following recommendation that the Ohio 

Secretary of State’s Office implement procedures to ensure that all invoices are in compliance 

with the agreed upon contractual provisions before being approved for payment. The Office 

should document appropriate policies and procedures in written manuals and also providing 

training to personnel involved in the administration of contracts as necessary to ensure that the 

expenditure of future Federal award funds is adequately supported. 

Office of the Secretary of State Response: 

The SOS agreed with the finding and requested and obtained from the vendor Billing Detail 

Reports showing dates, number of hours worked and other details for all nine invoices 

totaling $299,674. The SOS states that this information was validated and provides 

documentation that no excess funds were paid to the vendor. The SOS also asserts that it has 

already implemented procedures requiring Finance division employees to first review and 

verify that an invoice meets contractual requirements before it is forwarded to the director or 

senior level administrator for their approval. The SOS commits to update its written payable 

policies to include these new requirements and to ensure that current and future SOS 

employees handling contract invoices will receive communications and training to ensure 

awareness of them. 

Auditor’s Response: 

We commend the SOS for promptly obtaining the information necessary to validate and 

support the award charges. The policy changes as described and the planned means of 

implementing them should adequately address the concern identified during the audit. 

Further, we inspected the additional detailed information provided by the Office to validate 

the nine invoices in question and found them to provide adequate support for the award 

charges. 

We provided a draft of our report to the appropriate individuals of the Office of the Secretary of 

State. We considered any comments received prior to finalizing this report. 

The Office responded on August 7, 2013 and generally agreed with the report’s findings and 

recommendations. The EAC responded on August 12, 2013 and stated that they would work with 

the Office to resolve the issues and ensure appropriate corrective action. The Office’s complete 

response is included as Appendix A-1 and EAC’s complete response as Appendix A-2. 

6
 
 

McBride, Lock & Associates performed the related audit procedures between January 28, 2013 

and June 6, 2103. 

(Original Signed by McBride, Lock & Associates) 

McBride, Lock & Associates 

June 6, 2013 

7 
Jon Husted 

Ohio Secretary of Sta te 

180 East Broad Street, 16th Floor 

Columbus, Ohio 43215 

Tel: (877) 767-6446 Fax: (614) 644-0649 

www.OhioSecretaryofState.gov 

August 7,2013 

Curtis Crider, Inspector General 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Office of Inspector General 

1201 New York Ave. NW - Suite 300 

Washington, DC 20005 

Dear Inspector General Crider: 

We have reviewed the Draft Audit Report for the audit conducted of award 08-EDC-8000168, Election 

Data Collection Grant for Ohio. This is our written response to the report. 

The SOS office provided a June 27, 2013 written response to the Notice of Findings and 

Recommendations (NFR) and also additional information on August 1, 2013 regarding the interest earned 

on federal funds finding. Our exit conference was conducted on August 6,2013. We thank you for your 

consideration of the information we have provided in our earlier responses and are pleased that each has 

been resolved satisfactorily. 

Finding No.1 - Interest Earned on Federal Funds 

As noted in the follow-up information, the actual interest earnings transferred to the Election Data 

Collection Grant (DCG) Fund 3ACO, were in fact greater than what would have been transferred using 

the state's usual methodology for apportioning interest earnings to funds. While, interest was not 

transferred in a timely manner, when it was eventually transferred, it was an amount that exceeded what 

would have been transferred under the usual methodology, even accounting for compounding. 

In the future, any interest earnings due to a fund will be calculated based on the data and typical 

methodology utilized by the state's accounting system (OAKS) to apportion interest earnings, after 

adjusting the fund's average daily balance by a compounding factor. 

Finding No.2 - Inadequate Invoice Documentation 

The office was able to provide detailed back-up documents to support the invoiced amounts paid to the 

vendor. In addition, the office immediately implemented procedures for handling contract invoices 

(regardless of the funding sources) to review and ensure they are in compliance with contract provisions. 

Again, we thank you for the open communication and productive working relationship during the audit 

process and for your careful consideration ofthe subsequent information provided. 

Veronica Sherman, CFO 

c: 	 Arnie Garza, U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Office ofInspector General 

Ray Miller, McBride, Lock & Associates 

Robert Lock, McBride, Lock & Associates 

Peggy McBride, McBride, Lock & Associates 
EAC RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT AUDIT: 

OIG Performance Audit Report - Election Data Collection 

Grant Program Award Number: 08-EDC-800168, State of 

Ohio 

August 12, 2013 


MEMORANDUM 


To: Curtis Crider 

Inspector General 

From: Alice ~'i W~~~rating Officer & 

Acti~~xecutive Director 

Subject: Draft Performance Audit Report - Election Data Collection Grant 

Program Award Number: 08-EDC-800168, State of Ohio 

Thank you for this opportunity to review and respond to the draft audit report of 

the Ohio Secretary of State (SOS). 

The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) will work with the SOS to ensure 

appropriate corrective action. 
 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

Appendix B 

AUDIT METHODOLOGY 

Our audit methodology included: 

•	 Assessing audit risk and significance within the context of the audit objectives. 

•	 Obtaining an understanding of internal control that is significant to the administration of 

the Grant funds and of relevant information systems controls as applicable. 

•	 Identifying sources of evidence and the amount and type of evidence required. 

•	 Determining whether other auditors have conducted, or are conducting, audits of the 

program that could be relevant to the audit objectives. 

To implement our audit methodology, below are some of the audit procedures we performed. 

•	 Interviewed appropriate Office employees about the organization and operations of the 

Grant program. 

•	 Reviewed prior State audits and other audits related to the state’s financial management 

systems and the Grant program for the period under review. 

•	 Reviewed policies, procedures and regulations for the Office management and 

accounting systems as they relate to the administration of the Grant program. 

•	 Analyzed the inventory lists of equipment purchased with Grant funds 

•	 Tested major purchases of equipment and contractual services and the supporting 

documentation. 

•	 Tested other randomly sampled payments made with Grant funds. 

•	 Evaluated compliance with the requirements for accumulating financial information 

reported to the Commission on the financial status reports and progress reports, Form SF269 and SF-PPR, accounting for property, and purchasing Grant related goods and 

services. 

10
 
 

 

 

 


 

Appendix C 

SCHEDULE OF AWARDS AS OF JUNE 30, 2010 

Project Staffing Costs: 

Information Technology Specialist 

Budget and Grant Administration 

Legal Counsel 

Total Project Staffing Costs 

Contractual Management and Implementation Costs: 

Project Management 

System Design, Development, Testing, and Deployment 

Total Contractual Management and Implementation Costs 

Maintenance and Supplies: 

Capital Costs: 

Equipment 

Total Costs 

Budget Actual 

$ 114,082 $ ­

7,375 -

2,250 -

$ 123,707 $ -

$ 313,290 $ 299,674 

1,363,003 1,053,000 

$ 1,676,293 $ 1,352,674 

$ - $ 97,850 

$ 200,000 $ 549,150 

$ 2,000,000 $ 1,999,674 

11
 
Appendix D 

MONETARY IMPACT AS OF JUNE 30, 2010 

The findings did not result in any monetary impact. 

12 
 

 

 

OIG’s Mission 

The OIG audit mission is to provide timely, high-quality 

professional products and services that are useful to OIG’s clients. 

OIG seeks to provide value through its work, which is designed to 

enhance the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in EAC 

operations so they work better and cost less in the context of 

today's declining resources. OIG also seeks to detect and prevent 

fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement in these programs and 

operations. Products and services include traditional financial and 

performance audits, contract and grant audits, information systems 

audits, and evaluations. 

Obtaining 

Copies of 

OIG Reports 

Copies of OIG reports can be requested by e-mail. 

(eacoig@eac.gov). 

Mail orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Office of Inspector General 

1201 New York Ave. NW - Suite 300 

Washington, DC 20005 

To order by phone: Voice: (202) 566-3100 

Fax: (202) 566-0957 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste and Abuse 

Involving the U.S. 

Election Assistance 

Commission or Help 

America Vote Act 

Funds 

By Mail: U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Office of Inspector General 

 1201 New York Ave. NW - Suite 300 

 Washington, DC 20005 

E-mail: eacoig@eac.gov 

OIG Hotline: 866-552-0004 (toll free) 

FAX: 202-566-0957