OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

AUDIT OF THE HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT 

GRANTS AWARDED TO THE STATE OF OHIO

Report No. G22OH0013-22-02

August 9, 2022
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- - - -

AUDIT OF THE HELP AMERICA VOTE

HIGHLIGHTS ACT GRANTS AWARDED TO THE STATE

OF OHIO

Report No. G22OH0013-22-02 August 9, 2022

What OIG Audited 

The Office of Inspector General, through the

independent public accounting firm of McBride, 

Lock & Associates, LLC, audited funds received by

the State of Ohio under the Help America Vote Act

(HAVA), including state matching funds and interest

earned, totaling $45.2 million. This included

Election Security and Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and

Economic Security (CARES) Act grants.

What OIG Found

The Office of Inspector General found that the Ohio

Secretary of State accounted for HAVA funds in

accordance with applicable requirements, properly 

accounted for and controlled property purchased

with HAVA payments, and used the funds in a

manner consistent with the informational plans that

they had submitted. 

What OIG Recommended

The audit did not identify any findings. Therefore, 

the Office of Inspector General made no 

recommendations.

The objectives of the audit were to determine 

whether the State of Ohio:

(1) Used funds for authorized purposes in

accordance with Section 101 of HAVA and other

applicable requirements;

(2) properly accounted for and controlled property

purchased with the HAVA payments; and

(3) used funds in a manner consistent with the

informational plans provided to EAC.

U.S. Election Assistance Commission | Office of Inspector General
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

DATE: August 9, 2022 

TO: U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Interim Executive Director, Mark Robbins 

FROM: U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Inspector General, Brianna Schletz 

SUBJECT: Audit of the Help America Vote Act Grants Awarded to the State of Ohio (Report 

No. G22OH0013-22-02) 

This memorandum transmits the final report on Help America Vote Act grants awarded to the 

state of Ohio. The Office of Inspector General contracted McBride, Lock & Associates, LLC, an 

independent certified public accounting firm, to conduct the audit. The contract required that 

the audit be performed in accordance with U.S. generally accepted government auditing 

standards. We monitored the firm’s work to ensure that it adhered to those standards. 

The report does not contain any recommendations. 

We appreciate the assistance you and your staff provided to us during this audit. 

cc: Commissioner Thomas Hicks, Chair 

Commissioner Christy McCormick, Vice Chair 

Commissioner Benjamin W. Hovland 

Commissioner Donald L. Palmer 
 

 

McBRIDE, LOCK & ASSOCIATES, LLC 

Certified Public Accountants 

Established 1980 

Performance Audit Report 

Administration of Payments Received Under the Help America Vote Act by 

the Ohio Secretary of State 

Prepared for 

The United States Election Assistance Commission (EAC) 

Office of Inspector General 

By 

McBride, Lock & Associates, LLC 

July 2022 

4151 N. Mulberry Drive, Suite 275 p. 816-221-4559 admin@mcbridelock.com 

Kansas City, Missouri 64116 f. 816-221-4563 www.mcbridelock.com 
 

 

 

 

 

Performance Audit Report 

Administration of Payments Received Under the Help America Vote Act by 

the Ohio Secretary of State 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 

BACKGROUND 2 

AUDIT OBJECTIVES 3 

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 4 

AUDIT RESULTS 5 

APPENDICES: 

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

to the Draft Report 

Appendix B: Audit Scope and Methodology 

Appendix C-1: Election Security Expenditures by Budget Category and Program 

Category 

Appendix C-2: CARES Act Expenditures by Program Category 

Appendix D: Monetary Impact as of September 30, 2020 for Election Security and as 

of December 31, 2020 for CARES Act Grant 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Performance Audit Report 

Administration of Payments Received Under the Help America Vote Act by 

the Ohio Secretary of State 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

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

Commission (EAC) Office of the Inspector General to conduct a performance audit of the of the 

administration of payments received under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA or the Act) by the 

Ohio Secretary of State’s Office (Office). The payments received by the Office are identified as 

Election Security and the CARES Act. The scope of the audit includes: Election Security 

administration from inception on June 29, 2018 through September 30, 2020; CARES Act 

administration from inception on April 17, 2020 through December 31, 2020, including matching 

fund expenditures made after December 31, 2020. The objective of the audit was to determine 

whether the Office used payments authorized by Section 101 of the Help America Vote Act of 

2002 (the HAVA) in accordance with HAVA and applicable requirements; properly accounted for 

and controlled the funds and property purchased with HAVA payments; and, used the funds in a 

manner consistent with the budget plan provided to EAC. 

In addition, the Commission requires states to comply with certain financial management 

requirements, specifically: 

• Expend payments in accordance with Federal cost principles established by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) – (2 CFR 200). 

• Submit detailed annual financial reports on the use of Title I payments. 

• Maintain documents and records subject to audit to determine whether payments were used 

in compliance with HAVA. 

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, we concluded that the Office accounted for and 

expended the Grant funds in accordance with the requirements mentioned above and for the 

periods mentioned above. Therefore, there are no findings or recommendations. 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) created the U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

(Commission) to assist States and insular areas (hereinafter referred to as States) with improving 

the administration of federal elections and to provide funds to States to help implement these 

improvements. The Commission administers grants to States authorized by HAVA under Title I, 

as follows: 

• Title I, Section 101 payments are for activities such as complying with Title III of HAVA 

for uniform and nondiscriminatory election technology and administration requirements; 

improving the administration of elections for Federal office; educating voters; training 

election officials and poll workers; developing a state plan for requirements payments; 

improving, acquiring, leasing, modifying, or replacing voting systems, and methods for 

casting and counting votes; improving the accessibility and quantity of polling places; and 

establishing toll-free telephone hotlines that voters may use. 

The HAVA Election Security and CARES Act grants also require that states must: 

• Maintain funds in a state election fund (as described in Section 104 (d) of HAVA). 

• Expend payments in accordance with Federal cost principles established by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) – (2 C.F.R. § 200). 

• Submit detailed annual financial reports on the use of Title I payments. Reports must 

include a summary of expenditures aligned with budget categories in the grantee’s plan, a 

list of equipment obtained with the funds, and a description of how the funded activities 

met the goals of the plan. 

• Provide matching funds of the Federal funds within a period stipulated by the award to be 

documented on the annual SF-425 submission 

• Maintain documents and records subject to audit to determine whether payments were used 

in compliance with HAVA. 

The Awardee – The Ohio Secretary of State 

The HAVA funds were awarded to the Ohio Office of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of 

State serves as the chief election officer in the state of Ohio, which includes oversight of campaign 

finance for statewide and legislative candidates, verifying initiatives and referenda for the ballot, 

and certifying the official results of each election. A statewide or legislative election is scheduled 

for every even-numbered year unless a special election is required. 

Help America Vote Act State of Ohio State Plans 

The Ohio Secretary of State’s HAVA budget narratives were prepared by the Secretary of State. 

Election Security 2018 and 2020 

The main objectives of the 2018 project funded by HAVA, as set forth in the budget letter, were 

for county boards of elections to make high security upgrades to enhance overall election security 

and protect information technology systems and to provide the redundancy required for a strong 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

election system infrastructure. All county boards of elections were awarded a block grant to assist 

with the implementation of high security upgrades. A Security Information and Event Management 

system was to be implemented at the Secretary of State’s Office along with monitoring support 

services. Several security improvements and technology enhancements were planned for the 

Statewide Voter Registration System Database. Additional funds for cyber security were to be 

made as sub-grants to the counties. 

The main objective of the 2020 project funded by HAVA, as set forth in the budget letter, was to 

build upon the work currently underway to make high security upgrades a priority. All county 

boards of elections were awarded a block grant to assist in compliance with security directives, 

including continued compliance with the Elections Infrastructure Security Assessment high 

priority requirements and mitigation of physical security vulnerabilities identified by Department 

of Homeland Security physical security assessment. Each county boards of elections received grant 

funding to provide individuals with disabilities the same opportunity for access and inclusion in 

the electoral process. The Secretary of State’s Office provided Security Information and Event 

Management system and security monitoring support services to all county boards of elections 

through December 31, 2022. This project provided for cybersecurity experts who assisted the 

county board of elections with IT support needs to promote best practices that further enhance and 

improve the cybersecurity baseline of the election security system. 

CARES Act 

The objectives of the 2020 CARES Act project funded by HAVA, as set forth in the budget letter, 

was to use the funds to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus domestically or 

internationally, for the 2020 Federal election cycle. Funds were to be utilized to supplement state 

funding to implement the requirements of legislation, including reimbursement to the county 

boards of elections for eligible costs. Eligible costs included but were not limited to: vote by mail 

printing, postage, and equipment; secure receptacles for the return of ballots; temporary elections 

staffing; cleaning supplies; and protective masks and equipment. 

AUDIT OBJECTIVES 

The objectives of our audit were to determine whether the Office: 

1. Used funds for authorized purposes in accordance with Section 101 of HAVA and other 

applicable requirements; 

2. Properly accounted for and controlled property purchased with HAVA payments; and 

3. Used the funds in a manner consistent with the informational plans provided to EAC. 

In addition to accounting for Grant payments, the Grant requires states to maintain records that are 

consistent with sound accounting principles that fully disclose the amount and disposition of the 

payments, that identify the project costs financed with the payments and other sources, and that 

will facilitate an effective audit. The Commission requires states receiving Grant funds to comply 

with certain financial management requirements, specifically: 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Expend payments in accordance with Federal cost principles established by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) – (2 CFR 200). 

• Submit detailed annual financial reports on the use of Title I payments. 

• Maintain documents and records subject to audit to determine whether payments were used 

in compliance with HAVA. 

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 

We audited the Election Security grant funds received and disbursed by the Office from June 29, 

2018 through September 30, 2020. These funds are related to the appropriation of $380 million 

under the Consolidated Appropriations Act (CAA), 2018 (P.L. 115-151) and $425 million under 

the CAA, 2020 (P.L. 115-141). We audited the CARES Act grant funds received and disbursed by 

the Office from April 17, 2020 through December 31, 2020. These funds are related to the $400 

million authorized by the U.S. Congress under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security 

Act (P.L. 116-136). The scope of activity audited is shown in the following table: 

Election CARES 

Description Security Funds Act Funds 

Funds Received from EAC $ 25,907,133 $ 12,861,311 

State Matching Funds 3,353,523 2,572,262 

Program Income 468,849 41,808 

Total Funds $ 29,729,505 $ 15,475,381 

Less Disbursements (15,972,017) (15,475,381) 

Fund Balance $ 13,757,488 $ -

Program income in the above table consists entirely of interest earned on the federal funds as 

reported in the program income section of the federal financial reports. 

The Office’s Election Security expenditures detailed by budget and program category are included 

as Appendix C-1. The Office’s CARES Act expenditures detailed by cost category are included as 

Appendix C-2. 

In planning and performing our audit, we identified the following internal control components and 

underlying internal control principles as significant to the audit objective: 

4 
 

 

 

 

Objective Component Principle 

1 Control Activities Selects and develops control activities 

Selects and develops general controls over technology 

Deploys through policies and procedures 

Information and Communication Uses Relevant Information 

Communicates Internally 

2 Control Activities Selects and develops control activities 

Selects and develops general controls over technology 

Deploys through policies and procedures 

Information and Communication Communicates Externally 

3 Control Activities Selects and develops control activities 

Selects and develops general controls over technology 

Deploys through policies and procedures 

We assessed the design, implementation, and operating effectiveness of these internal controls and 

identified deficiencies that we believe could affect the Office’s ability to use funds for authorized 

purposes, and properly account for and control property. There were no internal control 

deficiencies found. 

Additionally, for the components and principles which we determined to be significant, we 

assessed the internal controls and compliance with laws and regulations necessary to satisfy the 

audit objective. 

However, because our review was limited to these internal control components and underlying 

principles, it may not have disclosed all internal control deficiencies that may have existed at the 

time of this audit. 

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, we concluded that the Office accounted for HAVA funds 

in accordance with the requirements mentioned above, properly accounted for and controlled 

property purchased with HAVA payments, and used the funds in a manner consistent with 

informational plans submitted during the audit period. Therefore, there are no findings or 

recommendations. 

The EAC responded on July 26, 2022. The EAC’s response is included as Appendix A. 

5 
 

McBride, Lock & Associates, LLC performed the related audit procedures between July 20, 2021 

and July 8, 2022. 

McBride, Lock & Associates, LLC 

Kansas City, Missouri 

July 8, 2022 

6 
APPENDIX A 

Response of the 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

to the Draft Report 
 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

633 3rd Street, NW. Suite 200 

Washington, DC 20001 

TO: Brianna Schletz, Inspector General 

FROM: Kinza Ghaznavi 

Grants Manager 

DATE: July 26, 2022 

RE: Response to Draft Audit Report of Help America Vote Act Grants 

Awarded to the State of Ohio, OIG Report G22OH0013-22-01 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the audit of EAC’s grants to the Ohio 

Office of the Secretary of State. We are pleased to note there were no findings in the 

audit report. We appreciate the working relationship we have with your office and will 

work with you to identify and share best practices resulting from conducting grant audits. 
 

 

Appendix B 

AUDIT SCOPE AND 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 HAVA 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. 

As part of our audit, we gained an overall understanding of the internal control environment at the 

Office. Based on this understanding, we identified certain internal controls that we considered to 

be significant (or key controls) to achieving each objective. All components of internal control are 

relevant, but not all may be significant. Significance is defined as the relative importance of a 

matter within the context in which it is being considered, and is a matter of professional judgment. 

We made the following determination as to the significance of the underlying internal control 

principles: 

8 
 

 

 

 

Objective 

1 2 3 

Control Environment 

1 Demonstrates Commitment to integrity and ethical values No No No 

2 Exercises oversight responsibility No No No 

3 Establishes structure, authority, and responsibility No No No 

4 Demonstrates commitment to competence No No No 

5 Enforces accountability. No No No 

Risk Assessment 

6 Specifies suitable objectives No No No 

7 Identifies and analyzes risk No No No 

8 Assesses fraud risk No No No 

9 Identifies and analyzes significant change No No No 

Control Activities 

10 Selects and develops control activities Yes Yes Yes 

11 Selects and develops general controls over technology Yes Yes Yes 

12 Deploys through policies and procedures Yes Yes Yes 

Information and Communication 

13 Uses relevant information Yes No No 

14 Communicates internally Yes No No 

15 Communicates externally No Yes No 

Monitoring 

16 Conducts ongoing and/or separate evaluations No No No 

17 Evaluates and communicates deficiencies No No No 

The significance was determined as follows: 

Objective 1: Control Activities and its underlying principles were deemed to be significant to our 

determination of the awardee’s compliance with the objective. The Control Activities component 

includes the design and implementation of specific tasks performed by individuals within the entity 

to fulfill their duties and responsibilities and to respond to identified risks. These principles address 

the design and implementation of activities related to management review, segregation of duties 

(including restriction of access with the information system), and documentation of internal 

controls and transactions. We determined these principles to be the most significant to the state’s 

proper use of funds and compliance with award requirements. 

The Information and Communication principles of Use Relevant Information and Communicate 

Internally were deemed to be significant to our determination of the awardee’s compliance with 

the federal financial reporting portion of this objective. These principles address the relevance of 

the information and the internal communication processes used to compile the data necessary to 

meet the state’s reporting objectives. 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Objective 2: Control Activities and its underlying principles were deemed to be significant to our 

determination of the awardee’s compliance with the objective. The Control Activities component 

includes the design and implementation of specific tasks performed by individuals within the entity 

to fulfill their duties and responsibilities and to respond to identified risks. These principles address 

the design and implementation of activities related to management review, segregation of duties 

(including restriction of access with the information system), and documentation of internal 

controls and transactions. We determined these principles to be the most significant to the state’s 

proper accounting and control over equipment purchased with HAVA funds. 

The Information and Communication principle of Communicate Externally was deemed to be 

significant to our determination of the awardee’s compliance with the objective because the state 

communicated with and relied on information from the counties where the equipment is located as 

part of the control system for accounting and controlling equipment purchased with HAVA funds. 

Objective 3: Control Activities and its underlying principles were deemed to be significant to our 

determination of the awardee’s compliance with the objective. The Control Activities component 

includes the design and implementation of specific tasks performed by individuals within the entity 

to fulfill their duties and responsibilities and to respond to identified risks. These principles address 

the design and implementation of activities related to management review, segregation of duties 

(including restriction of access with the information system), and documentation of internal 

controls and transactions. We determined these principles to be the most significant to the state’s 

use of funds in a manner consistent with the plans provided to EAC. 

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 

HAVA program. 

• Reviewed prior single audit reports and other reviews related to the State’s financial 

management systems and the HAVA 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 HAVA program. 

• Tested major purchases and the supporting documentation. 

• Tested randomly sampled payments made with HAVA funds. 

• Evaluated compliance with the requirements for accumulating financial information 

reported to the Commission on the financial status reports and progress reports, accounting 

for property, purchasing HAVA related goods and services, and using funds in a manner 

consistent with the budget plan provided to EAC. 

• Verified the establishment and maintenance of an election fund. 

• Observed the physical security/safeguards of selected equipment purchased with HAVA 

funds and ensure compliance with federal regulation. 

• Verified whether the matching requirement was met and, if so, that matching expenditures 

met the prescribed criteria and allowability requirements of HAVA. 

• Verified program income and interest income were properly accounted for and not 

remitted to the State’s general fund. 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C-1 

ELECTION SECURITY EXPENDITURES BY BUDGET CATEGORY AND PROGRAM CATEGORY 

JUNE 29, 2018 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 

Program Categories 

Budget Categories 

Personnel (Including Fringe) 

Equipment 

Subgrants 

Training 

All Other Costs 

Voting 

Equipment 

$ -

-

-

-

-

Election 

Auditing 

$ -

-

-

-

-

Voter 

Registration 

Systems 

$ -

-

-

-

719,149 

Cyber Security 

$ -

613,913 

6,420,601 

83,954 

2,804,782 

Communications 

$ -

-

-

-

-

$ 

Other 

-

-

1,932,193 

-

43,902 

$ 

Total 

-

613,913 

8,352,794 

83,954 

3,567,833 

Total Direct Costs 

Indirect Costs (if applied) 

$ -

-

$ -

-

$ 719,149 

-

$ 9,923,250 

-

$ -

-

$ 1,976,095 

-

$ 12,618,494 

-

Total Federal Expenditures 

Non-Federal Match 

Total Program Expenditures 

$ 

$ 

-

-

-

$ -

-

$ -

$ 719,149 

271,828 

$ 990,977 

$ 9,923,250 

368,644 

$ 10,291,894 

$ -

-

$ -

$ 

$ 

1,976,095 

2,713,051 

4,689,146 

$ 12,618,494 

3,353,523 

$ 15,972,017 

11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C-1 (Cont’d) 

County 

Voting 

Equipment 

Subgrant Spending By Program Categories 

Voter 

Election Registration Cyber 

Auditing Systems Security Communications Other Total 

Adams $ - $ - $ - $ 75,000 $ - $ 19,218 $ 94,218 

Allen - - - 75,000 - 20,000 95,000 

Ashland - - - 75,000 - 17,454 92,454 

Ashtabula - - - 75,000 - 20,500 95,500 

Athens - - - 75,000 - 21,000 96,000 

Auglaize - - - 75,000 - 27,500 102,500 

Belmont - - - 75,000 - 24,000 99,000 

Brown - - - 75,000 - 18,685 93,685 

Butler - - - 75,000 - 15,000 90,000 

Carroll - - - 75,000 - 31,875 106,875 

Champaign - - - 75,000 - 21,000 96,000 

Clark - - - 75,000 - 44,125 119,125 

Clermont - - - 75,000 - 22,500 97,500 

Clinton - - - 75,000 - 29,525 104,525 

Columbiana - - - 75,000 - 16,705 91,705 

Coshocton - - - 75,000 - 31,875 106,875 

Crawford - - - 75,000 - 17,698 92,698 

Cuyahoga - - - 75,000 - 39,500 114,500 

Darke - - - 75,000 - 21,000 96,000 

Defiance - - - 75,000 - 17,500 92,500 

Delaware - - - 75,000 - 23,000 98,000 

Erie - - - 75,000 - 20,201 95,201 

Fairfield - - - 75,000 - 23,000 98,000 

Fayette - - - 75,000 - 20,000 95,000 

Franklin - - - 75,000 - 23,000 98,000 

12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C-1 (Cont’d) 

County 

Voting 

Equipment 

Subgrant Spending By Program Categories (Cont'd) 

Voter 

Election Registration Cyber 

Auditing Systems Security Communications Other Total 

Fulton $ - $ - $ - $ 75,000 $ - $ 21,765 $ 96,765 

Gallia - - - 75,000 - 21,000 96,000 

Geauga - - - 75,000 - 21,000 96,000 

Greene - - - 75,000 - 23,000 98,000 

Guernsey - - - 75,000 - 17,800 92,800 

Hamilton - - - 75,000 - 23,000 98,000 

Hancock - - - 75,000 - 21,000 96,000 

Hardin - - - 75,000 - 21,000 96,000 

Harrison - - - 75,000 - 22,750 97,750 

Henry - - - 75,000 - 15,000 90,000 

Highland - - - 75,000 - 19,500 94,500 

Hocking - - - 55,000 - 15,000 70,000 

Holmes - - - 75,000 - 23,000 98,000 

Huron - - - 75,000 - 16,911 91,911 

Jackson - - - 75,000 - 19,467 94,467 

Jefferson - - - 75,000 - 21,000 96,000 

Knox - - - 75,000 - 21,000 96,000 

Lake - - - 75,000 - 45,000 120,000 

Lawrence - - - 75,000 - 21,094 96,094 

Licking - - - 75,000 - 31,875 106,875 

Logan - - - 75,000 - 21,000 96,000 

Lorain - - - 75,000 - 23,000 98,000 

Lucas - - - 75,000 - 22,800 97,800 

Madison - - - 75,000 - 21,000 96,000 

Mahoning - - - 75,000 - 23,000 98,000 

13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C-1 (Cont’d) 

County 

Voting 

Equipment 

Subgrant Spending By Program Categories (Cont'd) 

Voter 

Election Registration Cyber 

Auditing Systems Security Communications Other Total 

Marion $ - $ - $ - $ 75,000 $ - $ 21,000 $ 96,000 

Medina - - - 75,000 - 23,000 98,000 

Meigs - - - 75,000 - 23,000 98,000 

Mercer - - - 75,000 - 21,000 96,000 

Miami - - - 55,000 - 15,000 70,000 

Monroe - - - 75,000 - 21,000 96,000 

Montgomery - - - 75,000 - 23,000 98,000 

Morgan - - - 75,000 - 21,000 96,000 

Morrow - - - 75,000 - 17,698 92,698 

Muskingum - - - 75,000 - 22,500 97,500 

Noble - - - 75,000 - 21,000 96,000 

Ottawa - - - 75,000 - 17,300 92,300 

Paulding - - - 75,000 - 21,000 96,000 

Perry - - - 75,000 - 22,300 97,300 

Pickaway - - - 75,000 - 21,000 96,000 

Pike - - - 75,000 - 19,477 94,477 

Portage - - - 75,000 - 43,750 118,750 

Preble - - - 75,000 - 21,000 96,000 

Putnam - - - 75,000 - 21,000 96,000 

Richland - - - 75,000 - 17,674 92,674 

Ross - - - 75,000 - 21,500 96,500 

Sandusky - - - 75,000 - 15,000 90,000 

Scioto - - - 75,000 - 22,500 97,500 

Seneca - - - 75,000 - 21,200 96,200 

Shelby - - - 75,000 - 21,930 96,930 

14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C-1 (Cont’d) 

Subgrant Spending By Program Categories (Cont'd) 

Voter 

Voting Election Registration 

County Equipment Auditing Systems Cyber Security Communications Other Total 

Stark $ - $ - $ - $ 75,000 $ - $ 18,711 $ 93,711 

Summit - - - 75,000 - 23,000 98,000 

Trumbull - - - 75,000 - 17,500 92,500 

Tuscarawas - - - 75,000 - 15,000 90,000 

Union - - - 75,000 - 25,060 100,060 

Van Wert - - - 75,000 - 21,000 96,000 

Vinton - - - 75,000 - 17,747 92,747 

Warren - - - 75,000 - 23,000 98,000 

Washington - - - 75,000 - 17,500 92,500 

Wayne - - - 75,000 - 15,000 90,000 

Williams - - - 75,000 - 21,930 96,930 

Wood - - - 55,000 - 22,095 77,095 

Wyandot - - - 75,000 - 21,000 96,000 

Total Direct Costs $ - $ - $ - $ 6,540,000 $ - $1,932,193 $ 8,472,193 

Indirect Costs (if applied) - - - - - - -

Total Federal Expenditures $ - $ - $ - $ 6,540,000 $ - $1,932,193 $ 8,472,193 

Note: Difference between subgrant detailed spending and subgrant spending of $8,352,794 in previous table is due to grant repayments 

of $119,399. 

15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C-2 

CARES ACT EXPENDITURES BY COST CATEGORY 

APRIL 17, 2020 TO DECEMBER 31, 2020 

Expenditure Type 

Cost Category Federal Match Total 

Contractual Staffing $ 30,681 

Security and Training 7,173 

Communications 1,794,863 

Supplies 55,098 

Subgrants 11,015,304 

$ -

-

1,692,262 

-

880,000 

$ 30,681 

7,173 

3,487,125 

55,098 

11,895,304 

Total CARES Expenditures $ 12,903,119 $ 2,572,262 $ 15,475,381 

16 
Appendix D 

MONETARY IMPACT AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 FOR ELECTION 

SECURITY AND AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2020 FOR CARES ACT GRANT 

Additional 

Questioned Unsupported Funds for 

Description Costs Costs Program 

None $ - $ - $ -

Total $ - $ - $ -

17 
Visit our website at eac.gov/inspector-general

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Office of Inspector General

633 3rd Street, NW, Second Floor

Washington, DC 20001

Report Waste, Fraud, and Abuse

eacoig@eac.gov | Online Complaint Form