U.S. ELECTION 

ASSISTANCE

COMMISSION

 

 

 

 

 

 

AGENCY FINANCIAL REPORT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

November 15, 2017
Election Assistance Commission

0

ABOUT THIS REPORT

For FY 2017 reporting purposes, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) has again 

elected to submit an Agency Financial Report (AFR), with an Annual Performance Report along 

with the Congressional Budget Justification, and a Citizens’ Report. The reports are targeted to 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Congress, and the Public, respectively. The AFR 

allows EAC to focus on and lay out its financial position at this time, providing summary 

performance data. A combined Annual Performance Report/Congressional Budget 

Justification, and a Citizen’s Report, will follow per guidance in OMB Circulars A-11, 

Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget and A-136, Financial Reporting 

Requirements. 

Information about EAC’s programs is available at www.EAC.gov. 
1

 

 November 15, 2017

MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIRMAN

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is an independent bipartisan agency. The Vision 

of EAC is:

For the Election Assistance Commission to be a service agency and the go-to resource on election 

information, best practices, data, technology, technical advice and assistance for election 

administrators, officials, and voters across America.

EAC’s mission:

The Commission shall serve as a national clearinghouse and resource for the compilation of 

information and review of procedures with respect to the administration of Federal elections 

by –

(1) creating and maintaining voluntary voting system guidelines;

(2) providing for the testing, certification, decertification, and recertification of voting 

system hardware and software by accredited laboratories;

(3) periodically conducting and making available to the public studies regarding 

election administration issues; 

(4) making payments to states to help them procure new voting equipment;

(5) developing and carrying out the Help America Vote College Program.

 - Public Law 107-252

Following is EAC’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Agency Financial Report. The report describes EAC’s 

accomplishments, financial activity results during the past fiscal year, and efforts to strengthen 

internal controls and financial management activities.

This is the tenth year that the EAC has undergone a financial statement audit per the 

Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002, and the ninth year that EAC has chosen the option 

available in the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-136, Financial Reporting 

Requirements to submit an Agency Financial Report and Annual Performance Report instead of 

the Performance and Accountability Report. EAC presents summarized performance data in 

this report, and will provide more detailed data in conjunction with the FY 2019 Congressional 

Budget Justification.
2

Fifteen years ago, on October 29, 2002, the Help America Vote Act was signed into law to 

make sweeping reforms to the nation's voting process, including creation of Voluntary Voting 

System Guidelines, a national voting system certification program, and the U.S. Election 

Assistance Commission. Since its inception, EAC has:

 Issued 54 voting system certifications, including 10 full systems that remain certified, 

16 systems that have been terminated, and 28 system modifications;

 Conducted manufacturing facility audits, quality assurance audits of voting system 

manufacturers, and formal and informal investigations of voting systems in the field;

 Accredited voting system test laboratories;

 Drafted, approved, and implemented two versions of the Voluntary Voting System 

Guidelines and are near completion of adopting the next generation standard that will 

inspire innovation and result in cost savings;

 Awarded, monitored, and audited state HAVA grants totaling nearly $3.3 billion for 

election administration and voting system modernization;

 Administered discretionary grant programs for Mock Election and College Poll Worker 

programs, Data Collection grants, Accessible Voting Technology innovations with

Military Heroes Voting Grants aimed at improving voting technology and processes for 

recently injured military personnel, and the Pre-Election Logic and Accuracy Testing and 

Post-Election Audit Initiative;

 Created, administered, and reported the biennial Election Administration and Voting 

Survey for all federal elections, issuing reports and data sets for each survey year, 

including 2016;

 Created and maintained a clearinghouse for election information including 19 EAC 

Election Management Chapters, 21 Quick Start Guides, 15 Quick Tip Guides, Voter’s 

Guides, and educational materials in several languages and Braille to assist voters, 

conducted original research, and facilitated collection of best practices;

 Brought together state and local election officials, academics and voter advocates for a 

series of roundtables, webinars, Election Data Summits, Language Accessibility 

Summits, and a Future of Voting Symposium with the U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); and

 In preparation for the 2016 Presidential Election cycle, EAC created the “BeReady16” 

election initiative designed to help election administrators prepare for and administer 

the 2016 elections by providing a host of resources, including public forums, events, 

videos, training materials, best practices, webisodes, toolkits, and other administrative 

resources. 

On September 8, 2016, EAC hosted a Public Meeting to review contingency planning and 

security preparations for Election Day. The panel featured the Louisiana Secretary of State, the 

West Virginia Secretary of State, Professor Merle King from the Center for Election Systems at 

Kennesaw State University, the Pro V&V Laboratory Director, and the Virginia Elections 
3

Commissioner. The meeting also featured information about the EAC’s Election Worker 

Competition and National Voter Registration Month. 

Later that month, on September 15, 2016, the EAC and the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) hosted a meeting of the EAC’s Technical Guidelines Development 

Committee (TGDC). TGDC is a HAVA-mandated committee charged with assisting EAC’s 

Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) development efforts. TGDC is composed of 14 

other members appointed jointly by EAC and the Director of NIST, who is the chairperson of 

TGDC. During this session, working and constituency groups provided updates on activities 

associated with development of next iteration of the VVSG.

EAC started its Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 activities with a Public Hearing on December 15, 2016. The 

hearing featured a debrief on the 2016 Federal Election from the National Association of 

Secretaries of State (NASS), election officials from North Carolina and Rhode Island, advocacy 

groups and the U.S. Department of Defense Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP). The 

meeting also focused on the 10th anniversary of EAC’s Testing and Certification program, and 

featured testimony from election system manufacturers and the head of the EAC’s Testing and 

Certification Program.

During FY 2017, EAC took lessons gleaned from the 2016 Federal Election and turned its 

attention to strengthening resources and best practices in key areas such as cybersecurity, 

accessibility, and election administration efficiency. 

In addition, EAC played a leading role in discussing election administration with the U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and coordinating DHS interactions with stakeholders 

impacted by DHS’s January 2017 decision to designate election systems as part of the nation’s 

critical infrastructure. 

On January 16, 2017, then Chairman Thomas Hicks published an opinion article that 

underscored the importance of congressional support for election assistance. The piece noted 

EAC’s efforts to enhance election-related cybersecurity, put federal voting rights at Americans’ 

fingertips, tear down election-related language barriers, and ensure Americans have access to 

certified voting systems. 

On January 31, 2017, EAC issued its mandated annual report, covering FY 2016 activities, to 

the Committee on House Administration of the House of Representatives and the Committee 

on Rules of the United States Senate.

On February 6, 2017, Commissioner Christy McCormick published an opinion piece detailing 

the importance of ensuring military and overseas voters have the ability to participate in 

elections.

On February 8, 2017, EAC’s Testing and Certification Program certified the Democracy Suite 5.0 

voting system manufactured by Dominion Voting. The system is the second full Dominion 
4

Voting System certified as meeting federal standards and was the ninth overall Dominion 

certified system, including modifications. 

The TGDC convened again on February 13 and 14, 2017, to discuss moving forward with the 

development of the next generation of the VVSG. The meeting featured presentations from 

election system testing experts, cybersecurity experts, election officials, advocacy experts, and 

TGDC board members.

EAC issued a fact sheet about how the Commission empowers voters with disabilities and the 

election officials who serve them. The fact sheet notes that more than 25 million Americans 

with disabilities are eligible to vote in the United States. This accounts for a broad range of 

disabilities, including mobility, communicative, physical, and cognitive impairments. This evergrowing population of voters also faces educational, cultural and political barriers that can 

make participating in elections even more difficult. 

On February 27, 2017, I assumed the role of EAC Chairman and Commissioner Thomas Hicks 

became Vice Chair. I published an opinion article detailing the vision for my tenure, including a 

focus on strengthening cybersecurity, accessibility and election efficiency. 

Also on February 27, 2017, EAC’s Testing and Certification Program certified a modification to 

Election Systems & Software (ES&S) voting system EVS 5.4.0.0. The EVS 5.4.0.0 was the 

seventheenth ES&S voting system certified as meeting VVSG 1.1 federal standards, including 

modifications. On February 28, 2017, EAC’s Testing and Certification Program certified 

modifications to ES&S voting system EVS 5.2.1.0. 

EAC released a fact sheet about its testing and certification program on March 7, 2017. The 

resource described the program and how it is used to fulfill the mission of the Help America 

Vote Act.

On March 9, 2017, I published an opinion piece discussing the importance of voter list 

maintenance.

On March 14, 2017, EAC’s Testing and Certification Program certified modifications to the Hart 

InterCivic Verity Voting 2.2.1 voting system.

On March 15, 2017, EAC issued a fact sheet about the Commission’s Election Administration 

and Voting Survey (EAVS). Elections generate a tremendous amount of data that can be 

collected and analyzed to improve voter experience and guide how officials administer 

elections. All of this data is collected regularly by the thousands of jurisdictions that oversee 

elections across the country. Since 2004, EAC has captured and analyzed much of this data for 

all states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands 

via EAVS. Every two years, the Commission takes a deep dive into this wealth of data including

information such as voter registration numbers, the number of votes cast for every race on a 

ballot, and where and when people cast their ballots - by mail, at an early voting location, from 
5

an overseas military base, or at the polls. The end goal is to use this information to improve 

the way America votes.

On March 21, 2017, EAC turned its attention to providing state and local election officials with 

information about voter list maintenance. The Commission hosted a webcast moderated by 

myself, featuring the West Virginia Secretary of State, the Douglas County (Kansas) County 

Clerk, and the Bipartisan Policy Center staff. During this streamed event, panelists provided 

examples of successful state voter list maintenance approaches, offered best practices and 

examined tools available to help election officials improve the accuracy of voter registration 

rolls. They also discussed how election officials can measure the success of their efforts. The 

timing of the panel coincided with election officials across the nation preparingd to conduct 

list maintenance in preparation for the next election cycle. Earlier in the month, on March 10, 

EAC also issued a new Fact Sheet on voter list maintenance. 

On March 29, 2017, EAC’s Testing and Certification Program certified a modification to Unisyn 

Voting Solutions, Inc.’s OpenElect Voting System 1.3.0.2.

On April 3, 2017, EAC launched a new website (www.EAC.gov). The site better serves the 

needs of EAC’s key audiences, including voters and the election officials who serve them. 

I convened my first Public Hearing on April 4, 2017. The hearing focused on the Department of 

Homeland Security’s January 2017 designation of election systems as part of the nation’s 

critical infrastructure. Two DHS representatives provided an overview of the designation and 

next steps. A separate panel featuring the NASS President and Connecticut Secretary of State, 

Clay County (Florida) Supervisor of Elections, Weber County (Utah) County Clerk, Chicago 

Board of Elections Executive Director, and Colorado Secretary of State’s Office Chief 

Information Officer addressed state and local reaction to the designation and steps DHS could 

take to clarify its intent. 

On April 24, 2017, EAC’s three commissioners published a joint opinion piece previewing the 

Commission’s upcoming Standards Board meeting and the importance of assisting military and 

overseas voters. 

From April 27 to April 28, 2017, EAC convened its Standards Board in San Antonio, Texas. The 

Standards Board, like the TGDC, is mandated by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). HAVA 

designates a 110-member Standards Board to assist EAC in carrying out its mandates under 

the law. The Board consists of 55 state election officials (the 50 states, the District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands) selected by their respective chief 

state election official, and 55 local election officials selected through a process supervised by 

the chief state election official. EAC Commissioners; state and local election officials; and EAC 

staff and staff representing DHS, NIST, FVAP, Department of Justice, Google all presented at 

this meeting. Board members who are also on the TGDC provided a status of the Committee’s 

work to the Standards Board. The Board unanimously approved the 17 core functions at the 
6

heart of the new VVSG. On April 26, those attending the meeting visited to the Wounded 

Warrior Treatment Center at Fort Sam Houston and the Bexar County Election Office.

On May 11, 2017, EAC launched a “CI Scoop” blog to provide a forum for sharing information 

about DHS’s decision to designate election systems as part of the nation’s critical 

infrastructure. 

The EAC’s three commissioners published a joint opinion piece on May 22, 2017. The piece 

discussed the EAC’s upcoming Board of Advisors meeting in Minneapolis and the importance 

of best practices, such as ensuring language access, ahead of elections. 

On May 23 and May 24, 2017, EAC convened a meeting of the HAVA-mandated Board of 

Advisors in Minneapolis, Minnesota. HAVA designates a 37-member Board of Advisors to assist 

EAC in carrying out its mandates under the law. Membership on the Board of Advisors includes 

groups, as specified by HAVA, representing governors; mayors; state legislatures; secretaries of 

state; state election directors; county recorders, election officials and clerks; voter advocacy 

groups; federal agencies; and professionals in the fields of science and technology. The 

Commissioners and Board members heard reports from EAC staff, EAC commissioners, DHS, 

FVAP, the Overseas Voting Initiative, and Council of State Governments (CSG), NASS, staff from 

the U.S. Department of Justice, and Board of Advisors committees on the status of their work. 

On May 22, those attending the meeting visited the Minneapolis elections office and attended 

a discussion with the Minneapolis’s Assistant City Clerk and Director of Election and Voter 

Services. 

On June 6, 2017, I issued a statement calling for full disclosure of election security intelligence 

that state and local election officials can used to better secure elections. The statement 

followed news reports that in the fall of 2016 a Russian-based hacker launched a phishing 

cyberattack targeting more than 100 local U.S.-based election officials. In the statement, I

reiterated the Commission’s commitment to continue to 

monitor potential threats and work with federal entities such as the Department of Homeland 

Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to provide information and services to state 

and local election administrators.

EAC convened its second Language Access for Voters Summit on June 6, 2017, at the Northern 

Virginia Community College. The summit was co-sponsored by the Democracy Fund Voice, a 

nonpartisan not-for-profit organization dedicated to helping America build a stronger, 

healthier democracy. Citizens for whom English is a second language may need language 

assistance when voting, such as having ballots and voting materials translated into their native 

languages. Federal law requires over 250 jurisdictions nationwide, to provide language 

assistance based on Census results. Panelists at the summit included election officials, voting 

rights groups, academics, and translation experts. Topics included federal legal requirements 

for language assistance, outreach to voters and community leaders, recruiting, training, and 
7

retaining bilingual election workers, challenges with serving voters whose first language is not 

English, and, tools and best practices for effective language assistance.

EAC released “Starting Point: U.S. Election Systems as Critical Infrastructure” on June 20, 2017. 

The EAC white paper explores critical infrastructure and provides a good “starting point” for 

anyone who wants to learn about the issue. The paper describes the background and history 

of the critical infrastructure concept, describes the current state of critical infrastructure 

across the government, defines key terms, and provides a base of information designed to give 

readers what they need to navigate and understand critical infrastructure conversations.

On June 23, 2017, I published an opinion piece calling for a coordinated approach to election 

security. 

On June 29, 2017, EAC released the 2016 Election Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS), 

the most comprehensive nationwide data about election administration in the United States. 

The survey is a deep dive into a wealth of election and voting data and includes findings such 

as an increase in registered voters since 2012, a growing number of Americans voting early, 

before Election Day, and a larger number of jurisdictions using technologies such as e-poll 

books. The 2016 EAVS included responses from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, 

American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Data is collected at the state and 

local level by county or county equivalent. EAVS was administered by a vendor overseen by 

EAC and in partnership with the Pentagon’s Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP). The 

Commission is supplementing EAVS with a series of “deep data dive” white papers that 

provide even more in-depth information about various parts of the survey’s findings.

EAC hosted a roundtable discussion entitled, “Election Innovations: Helping Veterans with 

Disabilities in the Voting Process,” on July 18, 2017. The discussion examined initiatives that 

improve voting accessibility for veterans with disabilities. The livestream event coincided with 

National Disability Voter Registration Week and the 27th anniversary of the Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA). Panelists underscored the importance of efforts to ensure accessible 

and independent voting for all Americans, including more than 3.9 million U.S. military 

veterans with service-connected disabilities. I moderated the panel which featured the Iowa 

Deputy Secretary of State, Virginia Department of Elections Absentee and Disabilities 

Coordinator, Paralyzed Veterans of American Associate Director of Advocacy, Information 

Technology and Innovation Foundation Vice President, and a staff member of the Bipartisan 

Policy Center. Later that month, on July 26, the commissioners issued a joint statement 

marking the 27th anniversary of the ADA.

Also on July 26, 2017, I published an opinion piece discussing the need to coordinate 

preparations to protect Federal Elections from potential cyber threats.

During the week of July 27, a two-day meeting hosted by EAC in coordination with DHS. 

National security and election stakeholders from across the nation addressed next steps in the 

process to incorporate elections as part of the country’s critical infrastructure. The meeting, 
8

which took place at the Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center in Albany, New 

York, preliminarily set the structure of the sector’s coordinating council and established 

baseline understanding about information-sharing needs and processes.

On August, 14, 2017, EAC’s Testing and Certification Program certified a modification to 

Dominion Democracy Suite voting system version D-Suite 5.0-A.

On August 16, 2017, EAC hosted a Public Meeting featuring a report from EAC’s Executive 

Director, Brian Newby, and an update about the Commission’s payments and grants work from 

EAC’s grants director. The Public Meeting also included a cybersecurity update from the Cook 

County (Illinois) Director of Elections, who discussed the issue from a local perspective. The 

EAC’s Inspector General also provided the Commissioners with an update regarding her 

activities. EAC’s vendor discussed the 2016 EAVS. 

Also on August 16, 2017, EAC released its Annual Grant Expenditure Report for 

FY 2016. The report documents the allocation and spending of funds established by the Help 

America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). The Commission reiterated during a public meeting held the 

same day that it has awarded more than $3,248,946,231 in formula grants to the 50 states, 

American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the 

United States Virgin Islands. The formula is based on the voting age population in the most 

recent decennial census.The grant funds accrued an additional $352,759,159 in interest, which 

was also available to the states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico 

and the Virgin Islands.

On August 17, 2017, EAC launched its second annual competition for election administration 

best practices. This year, EAC presented three awards in the categories of best practices 

related to voting accessibility; outstanding innovations in elections; and recruiting, training and 

retaining election workers.

On August 21, 2017, EAC helped to coordinate efforts to bring together the Elections Critical 

Infrastructure Working Group (ECIWG), a precursor to the Election Critical Infrastructure 

Government Coordinating Council, to meet for the second time to follow up on initial 

discussions that took place in Albany in late July 2017. ECIWG is comprised of national security 

and election stakeholders from across the nation. The working group is focused developing the 

election infrastructure subsector partnership framework to include national strategic 

objectives, governance guidance, information sharing protocols and other related partnership 

objectives. The meeting was held in conjunction with the Election Center National Conference 

and the National Association of State Election Directors Summer Conference in Orange County, 

California. 

On August 23, 2016, EAC, in conjunction with DHS, hosted a Sector Coordinating Council 

listening session to provide election system vendors with information about the National 

Infrastructure Protection Plan partnership framework and how
9

non-governmental partners will participate in this effort going forward. The session included 

discussions about subsector developments to date, prospective roles within the partnership,

and proposed activities moving forward. The meeting was also held in conjunction with the 

Election Center National Conference and the National Association of State Election Directors 

Summer Conference.

EAC announced on August 29, 2017, that Votem Corporation was officially registered to 

participate in the Commission's Voting System Testing & Certification Program. The 

designation followed an EAC determination that the Cleveland, Ohio-based company meets all 

requirements of of the Commission’s voting system certification Program Manual. The 

corporation is now permitted to submit voting systems for EAC examination and certification.

Throughout September, EAC conducted a “Registration =>Participation” campaign to highlight 

the importance to voters of registering to vote and keeping voter registration information such 

as place of residence current. The campaign included blogs, social media engagement, the 

release of new resources, and other innovate approaches to reaching EAC’s key audiences.

TGDC reconvened on September 11 and September 12, 2017, to discuss and vote to approve 

the next generation of the VVSG. The committee adopted the VVSG 2.0. The structure of the 

new VVSG reflects modifications proposed by the election community, EAC, NIST and the

TGDC, which is comprised of election officials, voting system manufacturers, disability experts, 

cybersecurity experts, technology experts, and other 

key election stakeholders. The new guidelines are a nimble, high-level set of principles that will 

be supplemented by accompanying documents that detail specific requirements for how 

systems can meet the new guidelines and obtain certification. The supplemental documents 

will also detail assertions for how the accredited test laboratories will validate that voting 

systems comply with those requirements. The next step is to share the guidelines with 

members of EAC’s Board of Advisors and Standards Board, who will review and provide 

comments on the approved guidelines. Following the board reviews, there will be a 90-day 

period for public comment on the guidelines.

On September 20, 2017, EAC released the first in a series of “deep dives” into election 

administration trends and voting behavior ahead of the 2018 election cycle. The brief focused 

on the impact of technology, methods of voter enrollment and list maintenance techniques on 

voter registration using data from the 2016 EAVS.

To round out its FY 2017 activities, EAC’s Commissioners issued a resolution commending the 

efforts of local election officials and thousands of organizations around the country to 

promote National Voter Registration Day. 

During FY 2017, EAC’s programs were responsible for numerous accomplishments. The 

agency’s organizational structure is aligned with five primary goals, including:
10

 Learn and Communicate: EAC helps election officials by collecting, analyzing, and 

communicating information related to election administration practices, techniques, 

and experiences.

 Testing and Certification: EAC helps election officials procure, understand, and use 

high quality voting equipment by testing and certifying vendor-created voting systems 

against EAC-created standards for security, functionality, and accessibility. 

 Help Americans Access and Engage in the Voting Process: EAC helps to ensure that 

Americans are able to access and engage in the voting process, including but not 

limited to administering and maintaining the National Voter Registration Form.

 Fund and Oversee: EAC helps election officials procure modern election systems by 

distributing federal funds used for voting systems purchased by the states.

 Operate Effectively: EAC seeks to operate in a way that reflects its status as a highperformance organization.

Over the years, EAC’s Inspector General has conducted operational audits and investigations of 

the agency. The vast majority of recommendations made in the internal audits have been 

implemented by the Commission. The financial and performance data in this report is reliable 

and complete, with no material internal control weaknesses. The Commission provides an 

unmodified statement of assurance that the agency’s internal control and financial 

management systems meet the objectives of the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act.

The Election Assistance Commission stands ready to continue assisting state and local election 

officials to help America vote.

Sincerely yours,

Matthew Masterson

Chairman
11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 Page

SECTION I - Management Discussion and Analysis ..................................................... 1

I.A. Background, Vision, Mission and Organizational Structure........................................1

 Funding ......................................................................................................................4 

 Organization by Program............................................................................................6

 Organization Chart......................................................................................................9

I.B. Performance Goals, Objectives, and Results ............................................................10

How EAC Assesses Performance...............................................................................10

Accomplishments by Goal ........................................................................................10

FY 2017 Performance Summary ...............................................................................24

Program Performance Indicators .............................................................................25

Portfolio Analysis..................................................................................................... 26 

I.C. Financial Results........................................................................................................26

Budgetary Resources................................................................................................26

 Financial Position......................................................................................................27

 Results of Operations ...............................................................................................27

 Limitations of the Financial Statements...................................................................27

I.D. Analysis of Controls, Management Systems, and Legal Compliance........................28

 Internal Control Environment ..................................................................................28

 Federal Manager’s Financial Integrity Act................................................................28

 Entity-Wide Security Program..................................................................................29

 Federal Information Security Management Act.........................................................29

 Audit Follow-Up........................................................................................................29

 Federal Financial Management Improvement Act...................................................29

 Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 ................................................................30

 Inspector General Act Amendments of 1988...........................................................30

 Grants Oversight and New Efficiency (GONE) Act........................................................30

 Fraud Reduction Report.................................................................................................30

 Annual Assurance Statement on Internal Control ...................................................35

 

SECTION II – Financial Section ................................................................................. 36

II.A. Message from the Chief Financial Officer.................................................................36

II.B. Inspector General’s Assessment...............................................................................37

II.C. Independent Auditor’s Report ..................................................................................39

II.D. Required Supplementary Stewardship Information.................................................67

SECTION III - Other Accompanying Information ....................................................... 69

III.A. Major Management and Performance Challenges Facing the EAC.........................69

III.B. Improper Payments..................................................................................................75

III.C. Summary of Financial Statement Audit and Management Assurances ..................75
1

SECTION I 

Management Discussion and Analysis

The Management Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) is presented in accordance with Statement of 

Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS) 15. The MD&A is intended to provide a clear and 

concise description of the agency’s mission and organizational structure; high-level discussion of 

key performance goals, results and measures; analysis of financial statements, systems, controls, 

and legal compliance; and actions taken or planned to address issues. It provides a balanced 

analytical assessment, with both positive and negative information, of key program and financial 

performance. The MD&A is a vehicle for communicating insights about the agency, its 

operations, programs, successes, challenges and future outlook. Contents of this report and the

MD&A are in conformance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-136,

Financial Reporting Requirements. 

I.A. BACKGROUND, VISION, MISSION AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

In October 2002, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002. The law recognized 

the need for states to invest in their election infrastructure. The Act set out comprehensive 

programs of funding, voluntary guidance, and research. To foster those programs and to promote 

and enhance voting for United States citizens, HAVA established the Election Assistance 

Commission (EAC). The vision for the agency is:

For the Election Assistance Commission to be a service agency and the go-to resource on election 

information, best practices, data, technology, technical advice and assistance for election 

administrators, officials, and voters across America.

EAC’s mission: 

The Commission shall serve as a national clearinghouse and resource for the compilation of 

information and review of procedures with respect to the administration of Federal elections by –

(1) creating and maintaining voluntary voting system guidelines;

(2) providing for the testing, certification, decertification, and recertification of voting 

system hardware and software by accredited laboratories;

(3) periodically conducting and making available to the public studies regarding election 

administration issues; 

(4) making payments to states to help them procure new voting equipment;

(5) developing and carrying out the Help America Vote College Program.

 - Public Law 107-252

EAC is an independent, bipartisan agency. By statute, four full-time Commissioners, appointed by 

the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and three Federal advisory committees -- the 

Standards Board, Board of Advisors, and Technical Guidelines Development Committee -- guide 

the EAC. Currently, there are three Commissioners. The EAC is statutorily charged with:
2

 adopting voluntary voting system guidelines available for use by the states, 

 accrediting voting system testing laboratories and certifying voting systems, 

 developing guidance for state and local election officials to meet HAVA requirements,

 serving as a national Clearinghouse of information on election administration, including 

tools and best practices,

 maintaining the National Mail Voter Registration Form, developed in accordance with the 

National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993, 

 promoting accessibility for voters with disabilities,

 providing grantees with technical assistance on use of payments and grant funds, and 

 auditing the use of HAVA funds.

The Standards Board and the Board of Advisors provide advice and guidance to EAC on the 

Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) and other election administration issues. HAVA 

established the Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) to assist EAC in the 

preparation of the VVSG. The VVSG sets the standards against which voting systems are tested. 

The Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) of the U.S. Department 

of Commerce serves as the Chair of the TGDC, and provides technical support to the Committee. 

Additionally, HAVA specifies that NIST provide recommendations to EAC regarding voting system 

test laboratories. Since Fiscal Year (FY) 2004, EAC’s annual appropriations have included a total to 

date of $36.7 million for NIST support. 

In Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004, Congress appropriated nearly $3 billion in Federal financial 

assistance for payments to states under Titles I and II of HAVA. States received the funds to 

upgrade their voting systems, establish statewide voter registration databases, train election 

officials, and educate voters. In Fiscal Year 2003, the General Services Administration (GSA)

distributed $649.5 million in HAVA funds to the fifty states, Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin 

Islands, American Samoa and the District of Columbia on the EAC’s behalf. The funds were 

distributed for activities to improve the administration of elections (HAVA Section 101) and to 

replace punch card and lever voting machines (Section 102). 

The Senate confirmed four Commissioners in December 2003, and EAC began operations in 

January 2004. The Agency’s Fiscal Year 2004 operating budget was $1.7 million. At the close of 

the fiscal year, the EAC had a staff of 18. The EAC’s focus in 2004 was to assemble staff, obtain 

office space, arrange for administrative support from the GSA, establish a website, start election 

administration clearinghouse operations, and distribute Federal financial assistance to the states.

In FY 2004, EAC also appointed a statutorily-required General Counsel. During Fiscal Year 2005, 

EAC appointed its other statutorily-required positions: the Executive Director, and an interim 

Inspector General. EAC’s focus in subsequent years was on upgrading the VVSG, completing 

required research to promote effective Federal elections and present key data on election 

practices and voting, instituting a voting system testing and certification program, auditing state 

use of HAVA funds, and providing information on improving elections to its stakeholders. 
3

In FY 2007, Congress recognized the expanding Agency responsibilities and lifted the full-time 

equivalent staffing ceiling of 24. As of the end of FY 2017, the EAC had 23 full-time and four parttime staff. Since its inception, EAC has received $2,606,150,000 in requirements payments; and 

$24,350,000 in discretionary grant funds for Poll Workers, Mock Elections, Election Data 

Collection, Voting Technology Improvement Research and Equipment, and Pre-Election Logic and 

Accuracy Testing and Post-Election Verification. EAC also tracks and provides technical assistance 

on the Section 101 funds to improve the administration of Federal electionis reported by the 

states as available. The time period for using the Section 102 punch card/lever replacement 

funds expired, and EAC collected all unused funds by the end of FY 2017.

In FY 2015, the Senate confirmed three Commissioners appointed by the President. The three 

commissioners constitute a quorum. There is currently one Commissioner vacancy. 
4

 FUNDING

EAC Appropriation History Fiscal Years 2003 - 2017 

(Dollars in Thousands)

Fiscal Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total

EAC

EAC Salaries & Expenses 

Operations 2,000 1,674 1

11,110 10,986 11,313 12,330 12,909 13,409 13,024 8,750 8,292 8,100 8,100 8,100 8,200 138,297 

Mock 

Election 

Grants 200 300 300 800 

Poll Worker 

Grants 300 750 750 750 2,550 

Transfer to 

NIST 2,778 2,772 4,950 3,250 4,000 3,500 3,243 2,750 2,745 1,900 1,900 1,500 1,400 36,688 

Election Reform Grants

Requirements 

Payments 830,000 2

1,491,150 115,000 100,000 70,000 2,606,150 

Poll Worker 

Grants 1,500 1,500 

Foundation 1,500 1,500 

Voting 

Technology 

Research 5,000 3,000 8,000 

Testing & 

Verification 1,000 2,000 3,000 

Election Data 

Collection 10,000 10,000 

TOTAL EAC 835,000 1,492,824 13,888 14,058 16,263 141,530 123,959 92,959 16,267 11,500 11,037 10,000 10,000 9,600 9,600 2,808,485 

GSA 

Sections 101 

and 102 649,500 649,500 

Administrative 

Expenses 500 500 

 TOTAL 

GSA 650,000 650,000 

TOTAL EAC 

& GSA 1,485,000 1,492,824 13,888 14,058 16,263 141,530 123,959 92,959 16,267 11,500 11,037 10,000 10,000 9,600 9,600 3,458,485 

1/ Includes $481,092 transferred from the Federal Election Commission

2/ Carried forward to FY 2005
5

Status of Help America Vote Act Authorization versus Appropriations

(in whole dollars)

Authorized

Appropriated 

FYs 2003-2017 Remaining

GSA (FY 2003)

Election Administration Improvement 

(Section 101) $ 324,750,000 $ 324,750,000 $ - 

Punch Card/Lever Machine Replacement 

(Section 102) 324,750,000 324,750,000 - 

Administrative Expenses for 101 and 102 500,000 500,000 - 

EAC (FY 2003 – 2016)

Requirements Payments (Section 251) 3,000,000,000 ** 2,606,150,000 393,850,000

Voting Technology Improvement 

Research Grants (Section 271) 20,000,000 8,000,000 12,000,000

Equipment and Technology Testing Pilot 

Program (Section 281) 10,000,000 - 10,000,000

Pre-Election Logic and Accuracy Testing 

& Post-Election Verification 3,000,000 1,4 3,000,000 - 

Operations (Section 210) 178,335,000 2 178,335,000 - 

Election Data Collection Grants 10,000,000 3 10,000,000 - 

National Student and Parent Mock 

Election Organization (Section 295) 200,000 ** - 200,000.00 

Poll Worker Grants (Section 501) 5,000,000 ** 1,500,000 3,500,000.00 

Help America Vote Foundation (Section 

601) 5,000,000 ** 1,500,000 3,500,000.00 

Total $3,881,535,000 $3,458,485,000 $423,050,000 

1/ Authorized by P.L. 111-8

2/ $30 million per HAVA, balance per appropriations. Includes $2.55 million Poll Worker grants and $800,000 Mock 

Election Grants

3/ Authorized by P.L. 110-161

4/ Authorized by appropriations

**Plus such sums as may be necessary in 

succeeding years

Note: excludes $140 million plus such sums authorized for HHS under Disability Access Section 261 and Participation 

Section 291, $15 million appropriated to GSA in FY 2003 for Title I, and $5 million plus such sums for the Help America 

Vote Foundation Section 601
6

Organization by Program

EAC has organized its offices around the mandates of HAVA. Below are brief descriptions of the 

four offices responsible for implementing the Strategic Plan programmatic goals. Following the 

descriptions is EAC’s organization chart. It should be noted that EAC is in the process of revising 

its Strategic Plan and structure in accordance with government reform plan efforts. The new plan 

is scheduled for release with the FY 2019 Congressional Budget Justification. Until the new plan 

comes into effect, the current structure is presented for purposes of this section, and later in the 

Statement of Net Cost.

Clearinghouse

Clearinghouse staff is responsible for external communications, and the tools and platforms used 

to provide information to election officials and the general public. Areas of responsibility include:

 the EAC Website and Clearinghouse,

 social media,

 media inquiries,

 external communications,

 Congressional relations,

 the Freedom of Information Act, and

 editorial support including press releases, speeches, and Congressional testimony.

The agency’s website, www.EAC.gov, is the primary communications tool. EAC.gov contains 

thousands of documents and information about voting systems, informational videos, research, 

data, and program-related information. It also features on-demand webcasts and related 

information from public meetings, hearings, summits, and roundtables. 

The website features a user-driven notification system, allowing visitors to customize how they 

receive information. Users sign up for daily or weekly automatic e-mail alerts on a variety of 

election topics and events, including public meetings, advisory board meetings, reports, policies,

and other agency news. 

Payments and Grants Management

The Payments and Grants Management Division:

 provides technical assistance to the states on administering Federal funds,

 processes and disburses payments to the states,

 tracks the submission of and reviews the content of financial and performance reports 

submitted by states,
7

 analyzes audit reports and works with fund recipients on recommendations to resolve 

audit findings applicable to EAC’s programs,

 reviews amended State Plan submissions on the use of Requirements Payments funds so 

states can comply with HAVA Title III, Uniform and Nondiscriminatory Election Technology 

and Administration Requirements, and

 drafts advisory opinions for Commission approval and issuance. 

Research

The Research Division: 

 administers the biennial Election Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS) to 50 states, 

the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands (the 

states). The survey produces data and reports mandated by HAVA. Topics include the 

impact of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, and the impact of the Uniformed 

and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) on military and overseas voters’ 

participation in Federal elections. EAVS is the only comprehensive collection and report of 

data on elections in the United States,

 conducts research on election administration topics as mandated by Congress and at the 

discretion of the Commission. Research has included administering elections in urban and 

rural areas; the feasibility and advisability of establishing free absentee ballot return 

postage; the feasibility of alternative voting methods; and the voting experiences of firsttime voters who register to vote by mail,

 manages the National Mail Voter Registration Form as prescribed by the National Voter 

Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), also known as “Motor Voter,”

 administers the Election Management Guidelines Program to assist state and local 

election officials with conducting secure, efficient, accurate, and accessible elections. The 

educational materials provide information and “Quick Tips” on topics such as: Employing 

Poll Workers, Polling Place Management, Voting Accessibility, Communicating with the 

Public, Contingency Planning, Managing Change in an Election Office, Serving UOCAVA 

voters, and Developing an Audit Trail for the verification of votes,

 manages the Language Accessibility Program that provides informational materials on the 

Federal election process, glossaries of election terminology in English and other 

languages, and translates the National Mail Voter Registration Form into languages other 

than English, and

 provides materials to voters and election administration officials to facilitate successful 

participation in Federal elections. 

Voting System Testing and Certification

Under the Help America Vote Act, EAC is responsible for assisting states with improvements to 

voting systems through the distribution of Federal funds. EAC accredits voting system test 

laboratories and certifies voting equipment. Participation by states in the certification program is 
8

voluntary. Throughout the certification process, test plans, test reports, and reports on voting 

system anomalies in the field are provided to election officials. Staff works with the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to evaluate and accredit voting system test 

laboratories, and on management of the voting system certification process. 

The Testing and Certification (T&C) Division:

 assists states with voluntary certification of voting systems,

 supports local elections officials in the areas of engineering change order updates, 

acceptance testing, and pre-election system verification for EAC-certified systems, 

issuance of Requests for Proposal, and information on how to maintain aging voting 

technology,

 promotes quality control in test laboratories and voting system manufacturing through 

the EAC Quality Monitoring Program, including periodic lab and manufacturing facility 

audits of EAC-registered entities,

 provides procedures to voting system manufacturers for the testing and certification of 

voting systems to specified Federal standards consistent with the requirements of HAVA 

Section 231(a)(1),

 upon invitation or with permission from election officials, the EAC conducts reviews of 

systems in use in the field, and

 along with its advisory boards, EAC and NIST work together to update and implement 

voluntary testing guidelines for voting systems. 
9

Inspector General Commissioners

Executive Director

General Counsel Chief Financial Officer/ Budget Officer Clearinghouse

Advisory Board (37 members) Standards Board (110 members) and Technical Guidelines Development Committee (15 members). Statutory, non-monetary positions

Payments and Grants Management

Accounting

Procurement

Voting System Testing and Certification Research, Policy & Programs

Information Technology Human Resources Administrative Services

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION ORGANIZATION CHART

Communications
10

I.B. PERFORMANCE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND RESULTS

The EAC formalized its planning, reporting, and execution activities with its first five-year 

Strategic Plan 2009-2014. The plan was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget, and 

presented to EAC’s Board of Advisors and Standards Board for comment, as required by HAVA.

EAC adopted the Plan in March 2009. A new five-year plan is under development in the 

governmentwide process of Strategic Plan revision. The new EAC Strategic Plan is scheduled for 

release with the 

FY 2019 Congressional Budget Justification in February 2019.

How EAC Assesses Performance

The EAC objectives listed in each Performance Goal below describe in general terms the results 

needed to accomplish its goals. Outcomes measure the effect program outputs have on their 

stakeholders. Outputs are quantifiable targets that directly measure the results of a program. A 

program may have multiple outputs, but each output is associated with one program.

Performance measures are quantifiable and documentable representations of a capacity, 

process, or outcome that is relevant to the assessment of performance. 

Performance Goal 1: Help election officials administer elections by collecting, 

analyzing, and communicating information related to election administration 

practices, techniques, and experiences and related EAC services and operations 

and services. The anticipated outcome of the goals is to provide Congress, Federal agencies, 

state and local election officials, and the public with reliable, accurate, and non-partisan 

information about the administration of Federal elections. The goal will be accomplished through 

three objectives: 1) operating the EAC clearinghouse effectively; 2) responding to outside 

requests about the EAC timely and accurately; and 3) conveying the results of the EAC’s 

operations and accomplishments. Goal 1’s aim of communication of timely and accurate 

information is the responsibility of Communications and Clearinghouse staff. 

Goal 1 FY 2017 Accomplishments

Building on the EAC’s BeReady16 Campaign, a year-long campaign to help the Nation’s election 

officials prepare for the 2016 general election, the EAC achieved its Learn and Communicate goal 

by proactively collecting resources, information, and data that helped election officials around 

the country navigate election day and the days that followed this year’s unique election. 

EAC’s efforts focused on four major areas: 

(1) Cybersecurity, 

(2) Research and the release of the bi-annual Election Administration and Voting Survey 

(3) Accessibility, and 

(4) General Best Practices. 
11

Please note that the areas of research, accessibility and best practices are described in Goal 3 in 

keeping with EAC’s draft Strategic Plan. As mentioned earlier, the draft plan is going through a 

government-wide strategic plan revision process. The final plan will be presented in the FY 2019 

Congressional Budget Justification. Corresponding changes will be made to the cost allocation 

model and other 

Cybersecurity

Cybersecurity of elections and of state and local election systems was the headline issue of FY17. 

Federal agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), reported attempts to 

affect the 2016 General Election by infiltrating the nation’s election system through cyberattacks. In order to best help the country prepare for, defend against, and investigate the 

potential effects of these attacks, EAC distributed best practices for cybersecurity and managing 

voting machines, conducted Information Technology (IT) training for election officials and 

administrators, and worked with DHS and state and local election officials to understand how to 

best leverage the DHS designation of elections infrastructure as “critical infrastructure.”

Best practices are critical for election officials because the thousands of election jurisdictions 

with autonomous practices and procedures that make up the nation’s election administration 

system need a central location to find examples of high-quality procedures and practices. This 

repository of information helps even the smallest jurisdictions, that may not have the resources 

needed to develop these practices themselves, operate effectively and efficiently. 

To help election officials with cybersecurity in FY 2017, EAC distributed and posted to 

www.EAC.gov best practices, checklists, and educational materials. For example, in the latter half 

of FY 2017, EAC created the “Glossary – Common Cybersecurity Terminology.” This common set 

of cybersecurity terms helps election officials communicate with each other, the federal 

government, and educate their own staffs by creating a commonly understood set of terms for 

cybersecurity. Additional examples of EAC cybersecurity resources include, “Ten Things to Know 

About Managing Aging Voting Systems,” and “Cyber Incident Response Best Practices.”

EAC conducted IT training for election officials and administrators. EAC Commissioner Matthew 

Masterson and the Director of EAC’s Testing and Certification Division conducted the training at 

the local level so that state and local election officials can have a better understanding of how to 

best manage and secure their IT systems. Election officials are managers of complex IT systems, 

and EAC uses its unique ability to collect information and practices from around the country to 

help election officials be effective IT managers.

A DHS designation of infrastructure as “critical” can greatly increase federal resources provided 

to the owners and operators of that space’s infrastructure. The elections designation 

encompasses election officials such as Secretaries of State and local election officials. The 

designation also means an increased federal presence in that area. The administration of 

elections has always been an area where federal presence and activity has controversial. In order 

to help election officials and DHS engage in a meaningful way and to help ensure that those who 

could benefit from federal resources are aware and able to access them when they need them, 
12

EAC brought election officials and DHS together and facilitated conversations that all parties 

agreed were beneficial. Additionally, EAC has produced educational materials – a white paper, 

presentations, and blog posts – for election officials so that they can engage in the conversations 

around and understand the critical infrastructure designation and its affects in a robust manner. 

EAC highlighted some of this work and convened election officials whose practices were good 

models for the rest of the country at public meetings in FY 2017. As an essential part of EAC’s 

charge to be a clearinghouse of information, these public meetings convene experts, allow for 

testimony on issues, and allow EAC to communicate with its broad audience of more than 8,000

election officials around the country. EAC webcast these meetings and posts recordings of them 

to www.EAC.gov so that the valuable information from testimony of witnesses can be accessed in 

the future. Two meetings in particular helped the country with cybersecurity of elections: an 

April 4, 2017 public hearing examining DHS’s decision to designate election systems as part of the 

nation’s critical infrastructure ,and an August 16 public meeting that focused on cybersecurity at 

the local level. At both of these meetings, experts testified to cybersecurity issues so that those 

securing the nation’s election systems could learn from their experiences and their knowledge.

Cybersecurity is a fast-moving field in which election officials must be proficient. While EAC and 

election officials have known this for some time, the 2016 general election demonstrated this to 

the general public. In FY 2017, EAC has dedicated time and resources to effectively help election 

officials secure their systems, train their staffs, and interact in a meaningful manner with new 

federal resources.

Media Outreach and Produced Reports

In FY 2017, EAC distributed 33 press releases, 10 media advisories, and four fact sheets. The 

Commission placed 11 original opinion pieces authored by commissioners, including placements 

in several widely read newspapers. EAC produced the following original documents:

o Annual Report

o 2016 Election Administration & Voting Survey

 

o Starting Point: U.S. Election Systems as Critical Infrastructure (White Paper)

o Common Cybersecurity Terminology (Glossary)
13

WEBSITE 

In FY 2017, 506,335 unique visitors accessed the site 597,146 times consuming 1,290,243 pages –

an average of 2.16 pages per session. This represents a 48.63 percent decrease in unique visitors, 

a 47.15 percent decrease in overall sessions, and a 43.53 percent decrease in number of pages 

viewed, in comparison to the same time period in FY 2016.

The decreases should not be taken as an indication of a static website or a decline in interest in 

www.EAC.gov content. The top 10 days for site traffic over the last two fiscal years demonstrate 

that our web traffic is closely tied to the election cycle. 

The three days that resulted in our highest spike in traffic, in order, were:

 Election Day 2016, 

 Super Tuesday and 

 the deadline to register to vote for the 2016 Presidential election. 

Two of those days (October 11, 2016 and November 8, 2016) fell within FY 2017 while the 

remaining eight days that the site saw the largest flux in traffic were all primary elections that fell 

within FY 2016:

Overall, our returning audience is growing and spending more time on the site. In FY 2016, 87 

percent of online users coming to www.EAC.gov were new and 13 percent were returning. In 

FY 2017, 83.9 percent of online users coming to the website were new, and 16.1 percent were 

returning. Online users who navigated to www.EAC.gov in FY 2017 consumed on average 2.16 

pages per session, a 6.86 percent increase over FY 2016 when online visitors consumed 2.02 on 

average. The average session duration increased as well. The average time users spent on the site 

overall was 1 minute 30 seconds in FY 2017 versus 1 minute 21 seconds in FY 2016. The “bounce 

rate,” or percentage of users who accessed the site and then immediately navigated away 

without 

having any interaction with the content, was at 59.09 percent in FY 2016. This too has decreased 

to 58.65 percent in FY 2017. Following are graphic representations of the website traffic data:
14

There was also a growing audience of users who came back to the site once a week or more, 

compared to FY 2016. In FY 2017, 8,142 users, comprising 1.36 percent of our audience, visited 

www.EAC.gov 50 times or more during that year, and viewed 42,575 total pages, or an average of 

19.12 pages per visit. This is up from FY 2016 when 7,354 users, comprising 0.65 percent of our 

audience, who visited the website 50 times or more during that year, and viewed 34,688 total 

pages, or an average of 21.2 pages per visit. This increase reflects on the wealth of data EAC can 

provide to relevant audiences. 

The value of EAC as a source to those “in the know” about the agency and its brand is also

evidenced by its referral traffic. The top way online users get to EAC is through directly entering 

the URL into their browsers. Direct search accounted for 36.25 percent of traffic in FY 2017 and 

39.39 percent of traffic in FY 2016. This closely followed organic (user-initiated) traffic, which 

indicates the organization has a healthy, good blogging strategy, a dynamic site with new 

content, and high profile sites such as DMV.org, NPR.org and state websites from across the 

country linking to EAC resources. 

A major referrer of note is email. Email accounted for 0.04 percent of referral traffic in FY 2016. 

In FY 2017, email drove 13.13 percent of all visits to EAC’s website. The last email distributed 

that drove this kind of traffic was sent out in April 2017. Going forward, the agency will look back 

on that model and work to resume it in FY 2018. 

The EAC’s social media (“social”) channels are also driving an increasing percentage of traffic to 

the agency’s website. Social drove 2.57 percent of all sessions in FY 2017, compared with 1.29 

percent of all sessions in FY 2016, a 5.12 percent increase. It is also worth noting that users who 

came to www.EAC.gov in FY 2017 via the organization’s Facebook or Twitter accounts consumed 
15

more pages and stayed on the site longer once they were there, both compared to FY 2016 and 

compared to these site averages overall. 

In FY 2017, users referred to the site via social media consumed an average of 2.31 pages and 

spent an average of 2 minutes and 24 seconds on the site. In FY 2016 users referred via social 

media consumed an average of 1.91 pages and spent 1 minute 22 seconds on the website. This 

indicates that EAC’s social media activity is capturing our target audience and driving people with

a genuine interest in the agency’s content to the site. Three voter resource pages were the top 

drivers of the site’s traffic:

 www.eac.gov/voter_resources/ive_moved_recently_can_i_still_vote.aspx (10 tips for 

voters)

 www.eac.gov/voter_resources/register_to_vote.aspx (national mail voter registration form 

in 9 languages) 

 www.eac.gov/voter_resources/contact_your_state.aspx (50 state and U.S. territories voter 

information map) 

October 11, 2016, Deadline to Register to Vote for Presidential Election – www.EAC.gov saw 

22,625 unique sessions, resulting in 47,048 pageviews in one day, a huge spike in traffic from the 

days preceding and following it. 56.41 percent of those users came to the site as a result of 

organic search. 12.43 percent of users came to the site as a result of a direct search. 30,175, or 

64.14 percent, of those pageviews were due to the three voter resource pages referenced above.

November 8, 2016, Election Day – www.EAC.gov saw 32,290 unique sessions, resulting in 49,178 

pageviews in one day, a huge spike in traffic from the days preceding and following it. 66.03 

percent of those users came to the site as a result of organic search. 11.93 percent of those users 

came to the site as a result of direct search. Election Day was an outlier because just 9,602, or 

19.53 percent, of those pageviews were due to the three voter resource pages referenced above. 

The biggest driver of traffic that day, comprising 43.83 percent of all pageviews, was EAC’s 

Korean translation page: https://www.eac.gov/translations/korean/default.aspx.

FACEBOOK 

Our total Facebook page Likes have grown from 302 total page Likes at the beginning of FY 2017 

to 776 as of this writing, representing a growth of 474 followers. In comparison, EAC’s Facebook 

page began FY 2016 with 42 followers and ended with 302, a growth of 260 followers. 

Organic reach, reactions, comments and shares have also increased compared to FY 2016. EAC’s 

Facebook averaged 11 reactions, five shares and one comment per post in FY 2017, compared to 

five reactions, two shares and no comments in FY 2016.

TWITTER

EAC’S Twitter following was 4,868 at the end of FY 2017, up from 3,391 followers at the end of 
16

FY 2016. EAC Tweeted 1,454 times in FY 2017. Banner months for the account were May 2017 

when it secured 4,391 new followers and February 2017 when the agency’s Tweets received a 

combined 256,000 impressions. 

Our top Tweet during FY 2017 was on Election Day. The following Tweet received over 20,200 

impressions, five shares, 40 re-Tweets, and 30 Favorites: 

 

Another top Tweet was on National Voter Registration Day. The following Tweet received over 

10,500 impressions, two shares, 70 re-Tweets, and 60 Favorites: 

 

Our top mention on Twitter during FY 2017 came in December 2016 from a research analyst at 

Bloomberg BNA, which received over 11,100 engagements, 47 shares, 712 re-Tweets, and 572 

Favorites:
17

 

Another top mention came in June 2017 from a cybersecurity reporter at POLITICO, which 

received 1,710 engagements, 235 Favorites, 144 re-Tweets and six shares. 

YOUTUBE

During FY 2017, EAC posted 60 videos to its YouTube channel.

 

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) Activities

EAC managed the successful completion of the Congressionally-mandated Annual 

Comprehensive Review Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2017, and published Sunshine Act 

Notices in the Federal Register for the Federal Advisory Committee Meetings (the boards and 

TGDC).

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Activity

Clearinghouse staff completed 23 FOIA requests for during FY 2017.

Performance Goal 2: Help election officials procure modern election systems by 

distributing federal funds used for voting systems purchased by the states. The 

anticipated outcome of the goal is for the states and other recipients to promptly and accurately 

receive Federal funds administered by EAC, and use the funds appropriately to improve the 
18

administration of elections for Federal office in accordance with HAVA. The goal will be achieved 

via three strategic objectives: 1) accurately and timely disburse Federal financial assistance 

administered by EAC, 2) effectively monitor Federal financial assistance administered by the 

Commission, and 3) provide technical assistance and guidance on the management of Federal 

financial assistance administered by EAC to reduce the risk of inappropriate use of funds and 

accounting errors. Goal 2’s aim of delivering and managing Federal funds effectively is the 

responsibility of the Payments and Grants Management division and the Office of the Inspector 

General (OIG).

Goal 2 FY 2017 Accomplishments

In FY 2017, the Payments and Grants Management Division disbursed a net total of $1,967,436 of 

Section 251 Requirements Payments to one State that requested funds and that certified

compliance with the provisions of HAVA. By law, Section 251 funds are calculated according to a 

formula based on the voting age population of each State according to the last census and the 

total voting age population of all States, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto 

Rico, and the Virgin Islands. 

Requirements Payments are used to meet the requirements of Title III Uniform and 

Nondiscriminatory Election Technology and Administration Requirements of HAVA. Title III 

requirements include voting system standards, voting information requirements, provisional 

voting, statewide voter registration lists, and identification requirements for voters who register 

by mail. States may also use Requirements Payments to improve the administration of Federal 

elections once they certify that the State has implemented the requirements of Title III or they 

certify they will use only up to a “minimum payment” amount for the administration of federal 

elections as defined by HAVA. 

The division provided technical assistance to and monitored grant and payment recipients who 

are responsible for establishing and maintaining internal controls over the funds. During FY 2017, 

staff made pre-audit technical assistance visits to four states, and conducted remote technical 

assistance to seven states. The internal controls are intended to provide reasonable assurance of 

compliance with Federal laws, regulations, the provisions of HAVA, and payments and grant 

agreements. Staff also provided indirect cost rate negotiations for three states, and resolves any 

issues identified in state OMB Circular A-133 single audit reports. The division reviewed 2017 

Draft Audit Reports conducted by the EAC’s Inspector General for four states, and provided 

support to states as needed throughout the audit process. 

During FY 2017, staff reviewed 85 Federal Financial Reports (FFRs) and accompanying narrative 

reports submitted by the States for HAVA Sections 101 Payments to States for activities to 

improve administration of elections, and 251 Requirements payments funds. Information from 

the FFRs as of September 30, 2016 was used to compile the annual grant expenditure report 

during FY 2017. The report is available on www.EAC.gov.
19

Performance Goal 3: Identify and develop information on areas of pressing 

concern regarding the administration of elections for Federal office; issue 

recommended improvements, guidance, translations, and best practices as 

required by HAVA; and help to ensure that Americans are able to access and 

engage in the voting process, including but not limited to administering and 

maintaining the National Voter Registration Form created by the National Voter 

Registration Act (NVRA).

The anticipated outcomes for this goal are: 1) that the elections community and other key 

stakeholders may improve the administration of elections for Federal office based on having 

pertinent, impartial, high-quality information, recommendations, guides, and other tools on 

election and voting issues, and 2) that the National Mail Voter Registration Form is available to 

citizens to register to vote, register with a political party, or report a change of name, address, or 

other information.

Goal 3 consists of three strategic objectives: 1) collect and release data on certain election 

administration practices, on various voting methods and on various voting practices that are 

useful and required by HAVA; 2) administer programs and release information which provides 

timely and useful guidance to election officials and voters; and 3) administer the National Mail 

Voter Registration Form.

Goal 3 FY 2017 Accomplishments

Research

EAC administers the most comprehensive survey on data and practices concerning the 

administration of U.S. elections on a bi-annual basis, the Election Administration and Voting 

Survey (EAVS). The survey contains data from all fifty states, the District of Columbia, American 

Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, with more than one million data points. EAVS 

provides a data set as well as conclusions relating to the data that are used by other federal 

agencies, election officials, academics and other researchers to understand and improve the 

administration of U.S. elections. Additionally, through the successful administration of EAVS, EAC 

meets numerous legislative mandates, related to the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee 

Voting Act and the National Voter Registration Act, for the collection of information relating to 

the administration of U.S. elections. Following is a chart in EAVS on the source of new voter 

registration forms in 2016:
20

EAC finished and published the most recent version of EAVS in June of 2017. The publication was 

the result of a multi-year effort, and the agency is proud to present it. EAVS is a high-quality, 

comprehensive survey that provides an in-depth understanding of how elections are being 

administered in the United States. Researchers are using the data collected to produce 

informational research on U.S. elections, and EAC is building products on top of the data.

Examples of these products include EAC’s EAVS Deep Dives. The Deep Dives are a series of white 

papers that EAC creates after examining EAVS data, examining it for trends and information, and 

presenting the findings. Each Deep Dive focuses on an individual trend in the data, and presents 

the information in a non-partisan, easy-to-understand format. An example is the EAVS Deep Dive 

on Voter Registration. EAC publishes these papers on www.EAC.gov so that the agency’s 

stakeholders can easily access them. EAC is also producing fact sheets for each state for another 

easy-to-digest and granular resource based on EAVS data. EAC plans to publish these fact sheets 

soon.

Accessibility

Accessibility of elections and the voting process is a major component of EAC’s charge to collect 

and distribute information on election administration. Millions of Americans with disabilities and 

voters with limited English proficiency go to the polls every election, and election officials must 

ensure that they can access the polls and can vote independently and with privacy. To help 

election officials ensure this, EAC focuses clearinghouse resources to help election officials 

understand and discuss best practices. 

In FY 2017, EAC carried the accessibility charge by holding two events where best practices were 

presented, discussed, and distributed by experts in their fields. First, EAC held the Language 

Access for Voters Summit on June 6, 2017. EAC and its partner held the full-day conference 

where experts on language access, election administration, federal requirements, community 

relationships, and voter needs presented their research and experiences in panels, talks, and 

workshops. Election officials, advocates, and voters were given the opportunity to interact with, 
21

educate, and learn from experts and the officials who impact voters with limited English 

proficiency’s voting experience every election cycle. This was the second year that the EAC held 

this event, and the EAC is confident that, as it was in the past, this Summit was a success. 

Next, the EAC convened and webcast a roundtable of innovators who have helped Veterans with 

disabilities in the voting process. EAC held this event on July 18, 2017. Election officials, expert 

researchers, and state-level operators and coordinators who have made strides in helping 

Veterans with disabilities in the voting process discussed how they have innovated in the field 

and how they might continue to help this invaluable group of voters. The meeting transcript and 

a copy of the video are available on www.EAC.gov.

Election Administration Best Practices

While the 2016 general election presented unique and new challenges for EAC’s stakeholders 

and EAC responsively helped with the unique and new needs that they face. EAC also conducted 

its ongoing efforts to collect and distribute information about and best practices in election 

administration. Highlights of this work include EAC’s best practice awards, the “Clearies.” These 

awards highlight leaders in the field of election administration so that others may learn from 

them and their success. EAC collected information and submissions from election officials around 

the country in FY 2017, and will award the winners in FY 2018. Additionally, EAC held a 

retrospective analysis public meeting concerning the 2016 election and lessons learned in FY 

2017, and the agency distributed many best practices throughout the year. 

Access and Engage in the Voting Process

EAC helps Americans access and engage in the voting process by working directly with voters, 

administering the National Voter Registration Form, and engaging with the accessibility 

community to best help Americans get to and navigate the voting process. EAC understands that 

it must not only help election officials improve the administration of their elections, but EAC 

must also directly help voters. Voter resources is one of the most frequently visited portions of 

the agency’s website. Vvoters can find a Voter’s Gguide to Federal Elections, resources for 

overseas and military voters, information on registering to vote – including the National Mail 

Voter Registration Form, information about becoming a poll worker, general educational 

information, and Election Day contact information. September 26, 2017, is National Voter 

Registration Day, and EAC conducted a month-long “Registration -> Participation” public 

education campaign leading up to that day. The effort included a series of social media 

engagement efforts, blogs, videos and news releases. It also features a new data “Deep Dive” 

examination of the voter registration data contained in EAVS. Information about this effort is 

available on www.EAC.gov, and EAC is leveraging its communications platforms, including social 

media, to distribute information.

We worked closely with the Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living (APRIL) to 

ensure that EAC had a presence at the APRIL October 2017 National Conference in Spokane, 

Washington. The group included EAC’s “Your Federal Voting Rights” card (available in Braille, 

large print, and pocket-size) in its materials for all conference attendees. 
22

Helping America Vote, as is called for in the EAC’s authorizing legislation, requires helping 

election officials and voters. The agency has worked in FY 2017 and will continue to work in FY 

2018 to ensure that this charge is carried.

Performance Goal 4: Help election officials procure, understand, and use high 

quality voting equipment by testing and certifying vendor-created voting systems 

against EAC-created standards of security, functionality, and accessibility. The 

anticipated outcome of the goal is voting equipment that operates more reliably and securely,

and is more accessible to individuals with disabilities. States voluntarily participate in the EAC 

testing and certification program to help ensure that their voting systems meet the Voluntary 

Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) standards, and voting system manufacturer specifications. 

The goal consists of three strategic objectives: 1) develop and update the VVSG; 2) provide for 

the accreditation of independent laboratories qualified to test voting systems to Federal 

standards, and for the revocation of accreditation as appropriate; and 3) administer the testing, 

certification, decertification, and recertification of voting system hardware and software by 

accredited laboratories. Goal 4 is administered by the Voting System Testing and Certification 

division. 

Goal 4 FY 2017 Accomplishments 

EAC administers and manages the only national standard-setting program for building, testing, 

and certifying voting machines. States’ use of this program and its standard is voluntary. More 

than 40 states use the program in some way. The program operates by creating the VVSG, 

certifying test laboratories to test to these guidelines, and administering test campaigns – where 

vender-built voting machines are submitted to the test laboratories for testing voting systems 

against the guidelines. If a voting system meets all of the requirements established in the 

guidelines, then EAC certifies the machines as meeting said guidelines. Election officials use this 

information to help them know that they are procuring high-quality, reliable, voting machines. 

Certain states only allow their officials to procure and use voting machines that have been 

certified to the VVSG. Other states use the standard by itself, and still others use the testing 

program’s labs to help with their own certifications.

In order to ensure that EAC is setting a standard of modern quality that helps ensure voting 

machines are secure, accessible, up-to-date and functional, EAC’s Testing and Certification 

Division works to update the standard and its underlying components. In FY 2017, EAC made 

significant progress in the continued crafting and presentation of the newest set of standards, 

VVSG 2.0. This certification standard includes modern security, accessibility, and functionality 

standards. Technology, its uses, and the threats against it, is changing, and EAC is working to help 

ensure voting machines are ready for current challenges. The completion of VVSG 2.0 is a critical 

part of this effort. 

New versions of the VVSG must be approved by the EAC’s FACAs (the board and TGDC). The first 

FACA to examine VVSG 2.0 approved it in September 2017. EAC hopes to finish the approval 
23

process in FY 2018 when the remaining two FACA boards convene and examine the standard. 

Information about the testing program and the standard are available on www.EAC.gov In 

addition to completing VVSG 2.0, EAC’s Testing and Certification Division tested and certified six

voting systems from four manufacturers, conducted two manufacturer quality audits, and 

conducted one voting system test laboratory re-accreditation audit. These on-going, regular 

efforts are critical to successful operation of the program. Thousands of election jurisdictions 

around the country are continually researching and procuring voting equipment, and EAC’s

Testing and Certification Division helps them navigate this process with confidence.

Performance Goal 5 is to operate effectively to implement a high-performance 

organization. The anticipated outcome of the goal is that the EAC Commissioners and staff 

proficiently and efficiently carry out EAC’s strategic objectives. The objectives of Goal 5 are to 

improve performance, strengthen internal controls, and maximize efficiencies. 

During FY 2017, EAC held a Standards Board Meeting in April, a Board of Advisors Meeting in 

May, and a TGDC meeting in September pursuant to the Help America Vote Act.

Pursuant to initiatives for government reform, EAC is actively working with the Office of 

Management and Budget, looking at our funding mechanism with NIST, examining ourselves 

internally including hiring the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to perform an assessment 

of our structure and positions for creation of the Human Resources Plan, addressing our planning 

and strategy processes, and evaluating internal policies and procedures.

Efforts of the agency resulted in achievement of the measure to obtain an unmodified audit 

opinion on agency financial statements in FY 2017. On the metric regarding meeting annual 

performance measures, management works to foster a culture of accountability among staff and 

continuous improvement of internal controls. Agency directors responsible for implementation 

of EAC’s goals report on their division metrics throughout the year: 1) the Agency Financial 

Report each November, 2) the Congressional Budget Justification, usually in February each year, 

and 3) actual planned metrics in the OMB Budget Justification in September. 

EAC continues to focus on setting up sound systems and policies and procedures, working with 

managers on the relationship between budget and performance, maximizing efficient use of staff 

and financial resources, and training EAC’s staff on financial management processes and their 

specific, individual responsibilities. Financial responsibilities are being built into position 

descriptions. Budget holders complete assessable unit risk and fraud assessment questionnaires 

and individual letters of assurance to assess risk to accomplish of goals, and provide a review of 

the effectiveness of internal controls in their areas of responsibility for the fiscal year. The risk 

and fraud assessments and letters of assurance are reviewed by the Executive Director and the 

Chief Financial Officer, and rolled into the agency’s Annual Statement of Assurance that is 

presented in this report.

In FY 2017, EAC provided financial management tools and support to staff. Agency staff is able to 

utilize five automated systems (procurement, travel, purchase card, invoice, and time and 
24

attendance) via interagency agreements with the General Services Administration and the U.S. 

Department of Treasury Bureau of the Fiscal Service. EAC staff Contracting Officer’s 

Representatives (CORs) were provided annual accrual training, and have access to free online 

COR and invoice approval training via the procurement service provider agency. On-site training 

on the travel system and process was provided in FY 2017.

The agency is set up to participate in secure telecommuting, which provides the added benefit of 

equipping EAC with the ability to deal with any continuity of operations disruptions. Staff is 

provided with a “virtual office” of folders and files accessible remotely.

FY 2017 Performance Summary

The following table presents key EAC FY 2017 program performance results data. As much 

detailed performance information as possible will be presented, and variances discussed, in 

the FY 2017 Annual Performance Report. 
25

FY 2017 Program Performance Indicators

 Performance Indicator

Type of 

Indicator Planned Actual

Strategic Goal 1: Clearinghouse

Regularly issue information on EAC 

activities

Output 30 blog posts, 5 press 

releases, 30 e-alerts 

to subscribers

89 blog posts, 33 press releases, 

1,454 tweets, 60 YouTube videos, 

10 media advisories, 4 fact sheets, 

11 opinion pieces

Produce the annual report of EAC 

activities to Congress by January 31 

of each year for the preceding year 

ending September 30, and other 

original documents

Output Disseminate report 

1/31/17

Disseminated report on 1/31/17. 

Produced a white paper, “Starting 

Point: US Election Systems as 

Critical Infrastructure,” and a 

glossary, “Common Cybersecurity 

Terminology”

Strategic Goal 2: Fund and Oversee

Resolve 100 percent of audit 

findings within established time 

frames

Output 100% 67% -- 4 of 6 audits

Review financial and performance 

reports from grantees and notify 

recipients of reporting anomalies or 

failures to file within 30 days 

Output 100% 100%

Strategic Goal 3: Study, Guide, Assist

Issue required biennial reports 

to Congress on UOCAVA, NVRA 

and EAVS by the June 30 

statutory deadline.

Output Issue required 

biennial reports to 

Congress on 

UOCAVA, NVRA and 

EAVS

Submitted the 2016 Election 

Administration and Voting Survey 

(EAVS) on June 29, 2017; one 

report consolidating UOCAVA, 

NVRA, and EAVS

Serve as a clearinghouse of 

information for election 

administration best practices

Output Create and share 

documents, events, 

and other products 

on best practices in 

election 

administration

Co-hosted summit on best 

practices related to language 

accessibility; shared state and local 

information about recounts and 

post-election audits; shared state 

and local best practices related to 

voter list maintenance, including 5 

blog posts from state or local 

election officials about how they 

conduct list maintenance, hosted a 

discussion with election officials 

about list maintenance, and 

released 1st EAVS Deep Data Dive 

using EAVS data about the voter 

process registration including list 

maintenance; announced 2nd 

annual awards on election 

administrative best practices in 3 
26

Portfolio Analysis

Since 2004, EAC has received funds in three appropriations: Salaries and Expenses, Election 

Reform Programs, and for FY 2008 only, Election Data Collection Grants. In FY 2017, EAC received 

appropriations in the Salaries and Expenses appropriation of $9.6 million. The appropriation was 

used for a $1.4 million transfer to NIST, payroll, travel, rent, telecommunications, printing, 

contracts, supplies, subscriptions, equipment and software. 

I.C. FINANCIAL RESULTS

The following analysis is intended to provide information on EAC’s financial results, position, and 

condition as portrayed in the financial statements and the notes to the statements presented in 

Sections II.D and II.E of this report. Changes in assets, liabilities, costs, revenues, obligations, and 

outlays are explained; comparisons are made between amounts in FY 2017 to FY 2016; and the 

relevance of balances and amounts in the financial statements and notes are discussed. The 

changes provide context as to how the year’s activities impacted the agency’s financial position. 

Budgetary Resources 

Budgetary resources are the amounts made available and their status at the end of the fiscal 

year. The majority of EAC’s available budgetary resources are in the one year Salaries and 

Expenses appropriation. Budgetary resources include new Budget Authority from annual Salaries 

and Expenses appropriations, unpaid obligations, recoveries, offsetting collections, carryover no 

year grant funds, and unobligated balances. 

For FY 2017, the available budgetary resources were $17.3 million, down from $19.6 million in 

FY 2016. In FY 2017, as mentioned previously, EAC’s appropriations totaled $9.6 million for 

Salaries and Expenses, including a $1.4 million non-expenditure transfer to NIST. 

Obligations Incurred decreased from $9.8 million in FY 2016 to $8.5 million in FY 2017. The 

decrease was due primarily to disbursement of no year Requirements Payments in the Election 

categories: accessibility, election 

workers, and innovation 

Strategic Goal 4: Test and Certify

Test and certify voting systems Output Certify and test 

systems 

Certified 6 voting systems; 

conducted 2 manufacturer quality 

audits and 1 voting system test lab 

re-accreditation audit

Produce voting system guidance for 

use in the field

Output Produce VVSG 

revisions

TGDC approved VVSG 2.0 in 

September 2017; the revision will 

go through further approvals and 

adoption in FY 2018
27

Reform Programs account. The Unobligated Balance – Apportioned decreased from $1.9 million 

in FY 2016 to $1.0 million in FY 2017. 

Financial Position

Assets

EAC had $14.0 million in total assets (Fund Balance with Treasury; Accounts Receivable; Property, 

Equipment, and Software; and Other Assets) as of September 30, 2017, compared to $16.8

million in FY 2016. The decrease is largely the result of disbursement of Requirements Payments. 

Liabilities

EAC had total liabilities (Accounts Payable, accrued salaries and benefits, and unfunded leave) of 

$983,134 as of September 30, 2016. Liabilities decreased to $852,304 as of September 30, 2017. 

Net Position

Net position (Unexpended Appropriations and Cumulative Results of Operations) decreased from

$15.8 million in FY 2016, to $13.1 million in FY 2017. Unexpended Appropriations decreased 

primarily due to disbursement of Requirements Payments. 

Results of Operations

EAC, as presented in the Statement of Net Costs, reports the results of operations within four 

programs: Clearinghouse; Fund and Oversee (Grants Management and the Office of the 

Inspector General; Study, Guide and Assist (Research); and Testing and Certification. Costs 

specifically identified with each of the programs, such as direct personnel costs and specific 

program contract expenses, are allocated to the programs directly. The Fund and Oversee 

program reports the expenditures for the Requirements Payments. Other general agency 

overhead costs, such as rent, information technology, and financial management, are allocated 

on a per employee basis. The methodology is outlined in EAC’s Cost Allocation Model and is 

reviewed by the financial statement auditors each year to ensure the accurate allocation of 

expenses to each program. 

The Total Net Cost of Operations (expenses in the Salaries and Expenses, and Election Reform 

Programs appropriations) for the EAC was $10.8 million for Fiscal Year 2016, decreasing to $9.7

million in FY 2017. 

Limitations of the Financial Statements

The principal financial statements have been prepared to report the financial position and results 

of operations of the entity, pursuant to the requirements of 31 U.S. Code 3515(b). The 

statements have been prepared from the books and records of EAC in accordance with Generally 
28

Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) for Federal entities and the formats prescribed by the 

Office of 

Management and Budget. The statements are in addition to the financial reports that are used to 

monitor and control budgetary resources during execution of the budget, which are prepared 

from the same books and records. 

The statements should be read with the understanding that they are for a component of the U.S. 

Government, a sovereign entity. 

I.D. ANALYSIS OF CONTROLS, MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, AND LEGAL COMPLIANCE

Internal Control Environment

EAC is subject to numerous legislative and regulatory requirements that promote and support 

effective internal controls. EAC believes that maintaining integrity and accountability in its 

programs and operations is critical for good government, demonstrates responsible stewardship 

over assets and resources, helps ensure high-quality and responsible leadership, allows for 

effective delivery of services to customers, and maximizes desired program outcomes. 

EAC has developed and implemented management, administrative and financial system controls 

with the aim of ensuring that: 1) programs and operations achieve intended results efficiently 

and effectively, 2) resources are used in accordance with the mission of the agency, 3) programs 

and resources are protected from waste, fraud and abuse, 4) program and operational activities

are in compliance with laws and regulations, and 5) reliable, complete and timely data are 

maintained and used for decision-making. 

The agency can provide unqualified assurance that internal control over financial reporting is 

effective, ensuring that transactions are executed in accordance with budgetary and financial 

laws and other requirements, consistent with the purposes authorized, and recorded in 

accordance with Federal accounting standards. EAC ensures that assets are properly acquired 

and used, and safeguarded to deter theft, accidental loss or unauthorized disposition, and fraud. 

Laws that help the EAC improve the management of its financial operations and programs are as 

follows: 

Federal Manager’s Financial Integrity Act

The Federal Manager’s Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) of 1982 requires Executive Branch agencies 

to establish, maintain, and assess internal controls to ensure that agency program and financial 

operations are performed effectively and efficiently. To help ensure that controls have been 

identified and implemented, the heads of agencies must annually evaluate and report on the 

effectiveness of internal controls (FMFIA Section 2) and financial management systems (FMFIA 

Section 4) that protect the integrity of Federal programs. 
29

Entity-Wide Security Program 

EAC’s Information Technology (IT) staff explores innovations to update and improve network 

services for security, availability, efficiency, and productivity. For example, EAC is working with 

the General Services Administration (GSA) to leverage GSA’s private cloud computing strategy to 

host the EAC continuity of operations plan (COOP) site. We are moving to GSA’s cloud email 

service in FY 2018. 

Currently, EAC operates its own infrastructure, using GSA’s network backbone for security 

purposes. The EAC IT staff of two maintains personal computers, smart phones, and servers; 

provides software requested by EAC staff, remote access services, Voice Over Internet Protocol 

and Interactive Voice Response telecommunications tools; and performs vulnerability scans (in 

addition to GSA’s backbone infrastructure scans). IT staff remediates and updates security 

patches so that staff is equipped to perform work both on- and off-site in a secure environment. 

GSA manages a firewall, external intrusion detection, T1 lines, and routers and switches for 

Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) compliance on EAC’s behalf. EAC’s 

cybersecurity management needs are covered by GSA through an annual Memorandum of 

Understanding for IT services and equipment at $31,000 for FY 2017. The agreement funds the 

tools that enable GSA to continuously monitor EAC's IT systems security as described in OMB M10-15, FY 2010 Reporting Instructions for the FISMA and Agency Privacy Management, dated 

April 21, 2010. 

Federal Information Security Management Act

EAC was in compliance with the Federal Information Security Management Act at the end of 

FY 2017. The audit is available on EAC’s website.

Audit Follow-Up

EAC’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducts audits and reviews of the agency’s 

operations. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) works closely with EAC management 

and the OIG to complete actions necessary to respond to audit findings. EAC’s Inspector 

General’s statement of major management and performance challenges are documented in 

Section III.A. of this report. EAC also considers and responds to recommendations from audits 

and reviews conducted by the Government Accountability Office. 

Federal Financial Management Improvement Act

Per OMB Bulletin No. 14-02, “Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements,” EAC as an 

Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002-covered agency, is not subject to the requirements of 

the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act. 
30

Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 

The Fiscal Year 2017 financial statement audit report identified no material weaknesses in

internal control over financial reporting. One recommendation was resolved during the fiscal 

year.

Inspector General Act Amendments of 1988

The EAC Office of the Inspector General audits HAVA funds administered by recipients of HAVA 

payments and grants, and transmits OMB Circular A-133 single audit reports that present findings 

on HAVA funds to EAC. The principal recipients of HAVA payments and grant funds are state 

governments. 

Grants Oversight and New Efficiency (GONE) Act

As of October 11, 2017, all EAC open grants (27) are no year HAVA Section 251 requirements 

payments, with no period of performance expiration date. The funds in the amount of 

$1,899,221 are available until expended to 21 states.

Fraud Reduction Report

Pursuant to the Fraud Reduction and Data Analytics Act of 2015 (Public Law 114-186, 32 U.S. 

Code 3321 note), EAC is reporting on its fraud reduction efforts since the final quarter of FY 2016 

in three key areas:

I. Implementation of financial and administrative controls

Financial and administrative controls are described in EAC’s Annual Accounting Handbook, 

Annual Financial Statement Preparation Guide, Procurement Handbook, Budget Policy, 

Administrative Control of Funds Policy, Internal Control Procedures, Grants Handbook, and Travel 

Handbook. Standard Forms 49 Requisitions are used for credit card approvals. The forms are 

used to reconcile monthly purchase card statements in the Citi system, entered by cardholders 

and reviewed and approved by the CFO as cardholder agency point of contact.

Financial and administrative controls are further described in annual cycle memoranda prepared 

as part of the annual financial statement audit, which lasts from April through mid-November. 

The memos are in the areas of: Fund Balance with Treasury, Accounts Receivable, Accounts 

Payable, Payroll, Budget, Cash Receipts and Disbursements, and Undelivered Orders.

II. The fraud risk principle in the Standards for Internal Control in the Government (the GAO 

Green Book)

Principle 8 of the Green Book requires agency management, “to consider the potential for fraud 

when identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks.” The Green Book defines fraud as “obtaining 
31

something of value through willful misrepresentation.” Historically, EAC has not experienced 

willful fraud. Management views the risk of fraud as minimal given the agency’s size, budget, 

existence of shared service providers, and a culture of zero tolerance for fraud. Further, 

management signed a document stating that they are not aware of instances of fraud in FY 2017.

Annually, EAC completes the independent financial statement auditor’s comprehensive 

Fraud, Waste and Abuse questionnaire. The nineteen point questionnaire is completed 

and signed each year by the agency’s Chair, Executive Director, General Counsel and 

CFO. Assertions are made that managers are not aware of allegations of fraud or 

suspected fraud, and that they understand risks specific to EAC.

The Green Book identifies three types of fraud:

1. Fraudulent financial reporting (intentional misstatements or omissions or disclosures)

2. Misappropriation of assets (theft, embezzlement, fraudulent payments)

3. Corruption (bribery and other illegal acts)

Another fraud risk is misconduct (e.g., waste or abuse of government resources). 

EAC, has built-in segregation of duties with a contractual financial, travel and procurement 

services provider at another federal agency via interagency agreement, a second federal agency 

provider for payroll and human resources services, a third interagency for a large contract, and a 

full-time Inspector General. Most financial transactions involve three indiviudals. 

EAC is assessed to have a low risk of fraud in these areas: 

 Fraudulent financial reporting risk: financial reporting is provided by one of the four OMBauthorized financial service providers. All financial reporting, including financial statements 

and necessary journal entries, is reviewed and approved by the EAC CFO prior to publication. 

Further, EAC has undergone a financial statement audit by an independent financial auditor 

each year since Fiscal Year 2008. The auditors’ working papers are reviewed by the agency’s 

Inspector General.

 Misappropriation of assets: assets are recorded in the general ledger, inventoried and 

tagged by two offices within EAC, and schedules of depreciation of the assets are maintained 

by the financial services provider. EAC’s building and its assets are secured by the Federal 

Protective Service via interagency agreement. Property removed from the building requires 

presentation of a signed property pass to a guard.

 Bribery: contracting officers are located at other agencies, EAC staff serves as vendor 

contract proposal evaluation panel reviewers, funds for procurements are certified by the 

CFO, and staff is made aware in mandatory training and at all staff meetings that taking gifts 

valued over $20 is prohibited.

 Illegal acts: staff is encouraged to report perceived illegal acts to the General Counsel as 

Ethics Officer, supervisors, and the Inspector General. EAC’s Human Resource Handbook 
32

provides thorough descriptions of standards of conduct, fitness for duties based on 

character and conduct, disciplinary and adverse actions for misconduct, and ethics. 

 Waste of government resources and abuse of authority or position: the IG maintains a fraud, 

waste, abuse hotline. Staff and the public can call the hotline anonymously to report 

perceived cases of fraud, waste, or abuse. Further, staff is provided with Whistleblower 

training, so they know how to protect themselves from repercussions related to reporting 

wrongdoing. Other EAC mandatory training includes Privacy Act and IT security training. 

Standards of conduct are laid out in EAC’s Office of Human Resources Handbook, available 

on the agency’s shared drive, and reviewed at New Employee Orientation. The manual 

specifies that the agency’s General Counsel serves as the Designated Agency Ethics Officer, 

who should be consulted on specific issues of concern. 

Fraud risk factors in the Green Book are incentive/pressure, opportunity (e.g., absence of or 

ineffective controls, override of controls), and attitude/rationalization. The risk factors are used 

by management to identify fraud risks. As mentioned above, EAC relies on Inspector General and 

internal auditors and other internal and external individuals to provide information about 

suspected fraud or allegations of fraud.

The risk of opportunity is greatly reduced with financial staff at EAC separate from the accounting 

and procurement service provider. Independent auditors recommendations are taken seriously 

and implemented timely, at times in conjunction with the service providers’ controls. EAC does 

not have identified material weaknesses in internal controls over operations in FY 2017. Any 

management override of controls would necessarily involve staff at two federal agencies since 

EAC does not have “write” access to the core financial system.

Management communicates the consequences of committing fraud in mandatory Ethics, 

Prohibited Practices and Whistleblower Protection, Information Technology Security, Privacy Act, 

and Privacy Rules of Behavior training. 

III. OMB Circular A-123 with respect to leading practices for managing fraud risk

EAC management and its independent financial statement and Federal Information Security 

Management Act (FISMA) auditors are responsible for disclosing detected risks. This and other 

information helps management identify and assess risks. Assessment of fraud risk is crucial so 

that it can be mitigated or prevented and does not adversely impact agency mission and 

operations objectives by affecting its ability to effectively and efficiently use its resources.

EAC is required to report on progress in identifying risks and vulnerabilities to fraud, including the 

areas of: payroll, beneficiary payments (such as life insurance), grants, large contracts, 

information technology and security, asset safeguards, purchase cards, and travel cards. EAC has 

assessed its vulnerabilities to fraud in these areas as low, taking into account use of another

federal agency for payroll, IT and human resources services, and a second federal agency for 

accounting services, disbursement of grant funds, and purchase and travel card programs. Via 

interagency agreement, two agencies award EAC’s large contracts. As mentioned elsewhere in 

this report, assets are protected by 
33

Federal Protective Service guards assigned to the building, and by a key card system protecting 

EAC’s suite within the building.

Due to its size and relationship with federal service providers, where the majority of financial 

transactions involve separation of duties and involvement by at least three staff, the risks within 

the agency are assessed to be low. Grant risks are remediated by Inspector General audits and 

agency assistance to grantees on technical assistance and audit resolution. EAC controls include 

controls related to its use of service organizations. Separation of duties between federal entities 

is laid out in the roles and responsibilities sections of their interagency agreements.

EAC utilizes automated time and attendance, procurement, contract payments, and travel and 

purchase card systems housed at other agencies. EAC has agency points of contact for purchase 

and travel cards, as does the financial service provider. EAC’s CFO reviews all travel receipts for 

reimbursement before approving travel vouchers, generally entered into the travel system by 

EAC travel arrangers. Travel service provider accountants reconcile EAC’s Central Billing Account 

each month. Agency-specified types of vendors allowed for use are established under the 

procurement card program via the use of Master Contract Codes. All other vendors will result in a 

card decline until the type of procurement is reviewed and access is given temporarily for the 

purchase.

Grantees, as well as vendors, are required to be registered in the federal System for Award 

Management (SAM). Grantee requests for payment are reviewed by several staff at EAC,

recorded on route slips prior to sending the requests to the service provider’s Accounts Payable 

office. Further, grantee Federal Financial Reports are reviewed and analyzed each year. The 

process includes confirmation of period of performance of the award, report type (annual or 

final), Dun & Bradstreet Number and Employer Identification Number. Total award, Required 

Match, and Program Incomes are reviewed for accuracy. The reports are reconciled against prior 

year submission to analyze spending rates over time. Questions and errors are relayed back to 

the 

grantee timely. EAC creates reports tracking key metrics related to expenditure of federal funds 

and State match. Grant expenditure reports are provided to Congress and posted on eac.gov.

Requests for payments to vendors are reviewed by trained and certified Contracting Officer’s 

Representatives. Payments are made by service provider staff for interagency agreements, and in 

the Internet Payment Platform for the two federal agencies that award contracts on EAC’s behalf 

for commercial vendors by EAC CORs. If a vendor claims nonpayment of bills, Treasury reports 

are requested to provide banking information confirming payment with banking information. It 

should be noted that grantees and vendors contact the agency if a payment is not received 

timely, which could be an indicator of fraud, so misdirection of funds is considered low risk.

Financial system controls prevent vendor overpayment.

Further, CORs and the EAC CFO provide quarterly accruals and deobligations to the financial 

service provider on all open obligations. The CFO is required to certify that the open obligations 

are valid. The certification is reviewed by the financial statement auditors each year.
34

Each year, EAC performs an Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act 

review for the financial statement audit. Due to the budget of the agency, EAC reports that the 

IPERIA is not applicable in the annual Agency Financial Report.

Strategies, Procedures and Other Steps

EAC is required to report progress to curb fraud by establishing strategies, procedures, and 

other steps. Steps include agency requirement for ethics training for all staff, which includes how 

to avoid a conflict of interest. Several staff members complete confidential and public Financial 

Disclosure reports annually. The reports are reviewed by the Ethics Officer for conflicts of 

interest. Further, Contracting Officer’s Representatives (about one-third of all full-time staff) are 

required to take Ethics in Contracting training, which further reinforces the need to avoid 

conflicts of interest in procurements. Contracting Officer’s Representative can also take a free 

online course entitled Procurement Fraud Indicators.

Cards and system access are cancelled for exiting employees. The financial service provider asks 

for annual certification from the CFO on all systems access by EAC staff. The process includes 

review of roles and transaction amount limits for authorized staff.

EAC has started an A-123 revised review of information technology by an independent party. 

Plans are that the review structure established to review IT for risk including fraud risk will be 

used in future for other functions of the agency. If risks are identified, EAC would proceed with 

actions such as reallocation of roles to enhance segregation of duties.

EAC undergoes annual financial statement and Federal Information Security Management Act 

audits. EAC reviews grant audit findings and works with grantees pre- and post-audit. EAC 

reviews financial transactions for error and potential fraud, and the financial service provider has 

staff accountants with CPAs who review financial transactions. Generally, the requestor of a 

transaction, his or her supervisor, and the EAC funds certifier sign off on transactions. The service 

providers obligate procurement funds. EAC analyzes its shared service provider’s regular audits 

throughout the year including purchase card payment timeliness, completeness of card logs, and 

accuracy of payments; Internet Payment Platform invoice post-payment audits of timeliness and 

accuracy, prompt pay reports; accounts payable delinquencies; and travel audits of compliance 

with the Federal Travel Regulation, attachment of required receipts to vouchers, and accuracy 

and timeliness of payment amounts.

Finally, EAC is working to finalize its Strategic Plan for presentation in the FY 2019 Congressional 

Budget Justification. Fraud risks are considered in the development of the plan.
35

Annual Assurance Statement on Internal Control

November 15, 2017

The management of the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is responsible for establishing and 

maintaining effective internal control and financial management systems that meet the 

objectives of the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) and Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) Circular A-123, Management's Responsibility for Enterprise Risk Management and 

Internal Control. Internal control is an integral component of EAC's management, providing

reasonable assurance that the following objectives are being achieved: effectiveness and 

efficiency of operations, reliability of financial reporting, and compliance with applicable laws and 

regulations.

EAC's assessment of internal controls for ensuring the effectiveness and efficiency of operations 

focused on assessing controls for ensuring the reliability of information associated with the 

performance measures presented in its strategic plan, and on self-assessments. With respect to 

assessing internal control designed to ensure the reliability of financial reporting, EAC relied 

upon the evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting conducted by its independent 

auditors, on reports issued by the Inspector General, and on agency risk assessments and letters 

of assurance over the program offices, financial management functions (accounting, budget, 

payments and grants, and procurement), and administrative offices. Regarding internal controls 

to ensure compliance with laws and regulations, EAC relied upon the evaluation conducted by its 

independent auditors and the Inspector General.

In FY 2017, the auditors found no material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal 

controls over financial management reporting. Further, the auditors found no instances of 

noncompliance with laws and regulations.

The Commission provides an unmodified statement of assurance that internal control and 

financial management systems meet the objectives of the Federal Managers’ Financial 

Integrity Act. 

 Matthew V. Masterson

 Chairman
36

SECTION II

Financial Section

II.A. MESSAGE FROM THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

EAC’s financial statements for FY 2017 are an integral component of the Agency Financial Report 

(AFR). This is the tenth year that EAC has prepared financial statements and submitted them for 

audit. This is the ninth year that EAC is presenting an AFR in place of the Performance and 

Accountability Report. EAC presents summarized performance data in this report, and plans on 

providing detailed data in conjunction with the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Congressional Justification. 

 For FY 2017, EAC received an unmodified (“clean”) audited financial statement opinion, with no 

material weaknesses and one audit finding. The recommendation for the finding was 

implemented in FY 2017. 

As part of continuous internal control improvement, EAC requested a third party review of risks 

and internal controls. Further, staff was provided training related to accruals, procurement 

system requisitions, travel system authorizations and vouchers, and contract administration. 

Following for your review are the EAC’s auditor’s report including financial statements and notes

to the statements. 

Annette Lafferty

November 15, 2017
37

II.B. INSPECTOR GENERAL’S ASSESSMENT

U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

1335 EAST-WEST HIGHWAY, SUITE 4300

SILVER SPRING, MO 20910

 OFFICE OF THEINSPECTOR GENERAL

MEMORANDUM

To: Matthew Masterson, Chairman

From: Patricia L. Layfield, Inspector General Date: 

November 14, 2017

Subject: Audit of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission's Financial Statements

for Fiscal Year 201 7 (Assignment No. l-PA-EAC-01 -17))

INTRODUCTION

The Chief Financial Officer's (CFO) Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-576) as amended, requires the

Inspector General for the U. S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) or an independent

external auditor, as determined by the Inspector General, to audit EAC's financial

statements. The independent public accounting firm of Brown & Company CPAs, PLLC

(Brown & Company) performed the audit of the EAC's financial statements under contract

with the Office of Inspector General (OIG). The contract required the audit to be performed

in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; 

Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States;

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin 17-03, Audit Requirements for Federal

Financial Statements; and the Financial Audit Manual issued jointly by the Council of the

Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency and the Government Accountability Office.

RESULTS OF AUDIT

In Brown & Company's opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material

respects, the financial position of EAC as of September 30, 201 7 and 2016, and its net

costs, changes in net position, budgetary resources, and custodial activities for the years

then ended, in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United

States of America.

Telephone: 301-734-3104 Fax: 301-734-311 5 Toll free: 1- 866-552-0004

https://www.eac.gov/inspector_general/eacoig@eac.gov
Election Assistance Commission

38

In its response to the draft audit report, EAC agreed with the facts stated in the

report and the audit results.

EVALUATION OF BROWN & COMPANY'S AUDIT PERFORMANCE

To fulfill our responsibilities under the CFO Act of 1990, as amended, and other

related financial management requirements, the OIG:

 Reviewed Brown & Company's approach and planning of the audit;

 Evaluated the qualifications and independence of the auditors;

 Monitored the progress of the audit at key points;

 Coordinated periodic meetings with EAC management to discuss

progress, findings, and recommendations;

 Reviewed Brown & Company's draft audit report;

 Performed other procedures we deemed necessary; and

 Coordinated issuance of the audit report.

Brown & Company is responsible for the attached auditor's report and the

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

financial statements or conclusions on the effectiveness of internal control, or

compliance with laws and regulations.

REPORT DISTRIBUTION

The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, requires semiannual reporting to

Congress on all reports issued, actions taken to implement recommendations, and

recommendations that have not been implemented. Therefore, we will report the 

issuance of this audit report in our next semiannual report to Congress. The

distribution of this report is not restricted and copies are available for public

inspection.

If you have any questions regarding this report, please call me at (301) 734-3104.

Attachment

2
39

 ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT

AND

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

FOR THE YEARS ENDED

SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 AND 2016

Prepared By

Brown & Company CPAs Management Consultants, PLLC

November 14, 2017
ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT

AND

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 AND 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS............ 1

BALANCE SHEET ............................................................................................................... 5

STATEMENT OF NET COST ............................................................................................. 6

STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN NET POSITION............................................................. 7

STATEMENT OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES................................................................ 8

NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.................................................................. 9
1

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Washington, D.C.

Report on the Financial Statements

We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC)

as of September 30, 2017 and 2016, and the related statements of net cost, changes in net position and 

budgetary resources, for the years then ended (collectively referred to as the financial statements), and 

the related notes to the financial statements.

Management’s Responsibility for the Financial Statements

Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in

accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles; this includes the design, implementation, 

and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial 

statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.

Auditor’s Responsibility

Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We 

conducted our audit in accordance with U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards and the 

standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the 

Comptroller General of the United States; and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin No. 

17-03, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements. Those standards and OMB Bulletin No. 17-

03 require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial 

statements are free from material misstatements.

An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in 

the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgment, including the 

assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. 

In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity’s preparation 

and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in 

the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s 

internal control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit includes tests of compliance with 

provisions of applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements that have a direct effect on the 

determination of material amounts and disclosure in the financial statements. The purpose was not to 

provide an opinion on compliance with provisions of applicable laws, regulations, contracts and grant 

agreements and, therefore, we do not express such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the 

appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates 

made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements.

We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for 

our audit opinion.
2

Opinion on the Financial Statements

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the 

financial position of the EAC as of September 30, 2017 and 2016, and its net costs, changes in net 

position and budgetary resources for the years then ended, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted 

accounting principles. 

Other Matters

Required Supplementary Information

U.S. generally accepted accounting principles require that the information in the Management’s 

Discussion and Analysis (MD&A), also regarded as Required Supplementary Information (RSI) be 

presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic 

financial statements, is required by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board, who considers it 

to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate 

operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the required 

supplementary information in accordance with U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards, 

which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the information and 

comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic 

financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. 

We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures 

do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance.

Other Information 

Our audits were conducted for the purpose of forming an opinion on the financial statements as a whole. 

The Message from the Chairman, Message From The Chief Financial Officer and Other Information

sections are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not required part of the financial 

statements. Such information has not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audits of 

the financial statements, and accordingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on it.

Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the EAC’s internal

control over financial reporting (internal control) to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the 

circumstances for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the financial statements, but not for the 

purpose of providing an opinion on internal control. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow 

management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or 

detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency or combination 

of deficiencies in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement 

of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A 

significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less 

severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with 

governance.

Our consideration of the internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of 

this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting 

that might be deficiencies, significant deficiencies or material weaknesses. During the audit of the 
3

financial statements no deficiencies in internal control were identified that were considered to be a 

material weakness. However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been identified.

We also identified other deficiencies in EAC’s internal control over financial reporting that we do not 

consider to be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. Nonetheless, these deficiencies warrant EAC 

management’s attention. We have communicated these matters to EAC management and, will report on 

them separately in a management letter.

Report on Compliance and Other Matters

As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the EAC’s financial statements are free from

material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, 

contracts and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the 

determination of financial statement amounts. We limited our tests of compliance to the provisions 

described in the preceding sentence, and we did not test compliance with all laws, regulations and 

contracts applicable to EAC. The objective was not to provide an opinion on compliance with those 

provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grant agreements, and we do not express such an opinion. 

The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters required to be reported 

under Government Auditing Standards or OMB Bulletin No. 17-03.

Management’s Responsibility for Internal Control and Compliance

EAC’s management is responsible for (1) evaluating effectiveness of internal control over financial 

reporting based on criteria established under the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA), (2) 

providing a statement of assurance on the overall effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, 

and (3) ensuring compliance with other applicable laws and regulations.

Auditor’s Responsibilities

We are responsible for (1) obtaining a sufficient understanding of internal control over financial reporting 

to plan the audit, (2) testing compliance with certain provisions of laws and regulations that have a direct 

and material effect on the financial statements and applicable laws for which OMB Bulletin No. 17-03 

requires testing, and (3) applying certain limited procedures with respect to the MD&A.

We did not evaluate all internal controls relevant to operating objectives as broadly established by the 

FMFIA, such as those controls relevant to preparing statistical reports and ensuring efficient operations. 

We limited our internal control testing to testing internal control over financial reporting. Because of 

inherent limitations in internal control, misstatements due to error or fraud, losses, or noncompliance may 

nevertheless occur and not be detected. We also caution that projecting our audit results to future periods 

is subject to risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or that the degree 

of compliance with controls may deteriorate. In addition, we caution that our internal control testing may 

not be sufficient for other purposes.

We did not test compliance with all laws and regulations applicable to the EAC. We limited our tests of 

compliance to certain provisions of laws and regulations that have a direct and material effect on the 

financial statements and those required by OMB Bulletin No. 17-03 that we deemed applicable to the 
4

EAC’s financial statements for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2017. We caution that 

noncompliance with laws and regulations may occur and not be detected by these tests and that such 

testing may not be sufficient for other purposes. 

Purpose of the Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and the Report on Compliance 

and Other Matters

The purpose of the Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and the Report on Compliance 

and Other Matters sections of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control 

and compliance and the result of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of EAC’s 

internal control or on compliance. These reports are an integral part of an audit performed in accordance 

with Government Auditing Standards in considering EAC’s internal control and compliance. 

Accordingly, these reports are not suitable for any other purpose.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the management of the EAC, OMB, and the 

U.S. Congress, and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified 

parties.

Largo, Maryland

November 14, 2017
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

5

2017 2016

Assets:

Intragovernmental

Fund Balance With Treasury (Note 2) $ 12,845,226 $ 15,415,600

Other (Note 4) 840,898 999,687

Total Intragovernmental 13,686,124 16,415,287

Accounts Receivable, Net (Note 3) 8,171 20

Property, Equipment, and Software, Net (Note 5) 256,087 335,063

Total Assets $ 13,950,382 $ 16,750,370

Liabilities:

Intragovernmental

Accounts Payable $ 101,738 $ 63,859

Other (Note 7) 37,295 28,979

Total Intragovernmental 139,033 92,838

Accounts Payable 325,055 332,772

Other (Note 7) 388,216 557,524

Total Liabilities (Note 6) $ 852,304 $ 983,134

Net Position:

Unexpended Appropriations - Other Funds $ 13,066,800 $ 15,654,783

Cumulative Results of Operations - Other Funds 31,278 112,453

Total Net Position $ 13,098,078 $ 15,767,236

Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 13,950,382 $ 16,750,370

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

BALANCE SHEET

AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 AND 2016

(In Dollars)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

6

2017 2016

Program Costs 

Communication and Clearinghouse

Gross Costs (Note 9) $ 1,774,387 $ 900,228

 Net Program Costs $ 1,774,387 $ 900,228

Fund and Oversee

Gross Costs (Note 9) $ 4,030,104 $ 6,343,333

 Net Program Costs $ 4,030,104 $ 6,343,333

Research, Policy, and Programs

Gross Costs (Note 9) $ 810,650 $ 1,268,535

 Net Program Costs $ 810,650 $ 1,268,535

Testing and Certifications

Gross Costs (Note 9) $ 3,072,956 $ 2,327,712

 Net Program Costs $ 3,072,956 $ 2,327,712

Net Cost of Operations $ 9,688,097 $ 10,839,808

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

STATEMENT OF NET COST

FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 AND 2016

(In Dollars)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

7

2017 2016

Cumulative Results of Operations:

Beginning Balances $ 112,453 $ 268,981

Budgetary Financing Sources:

Appropriations Used 9,472,623 10,505,624

Other Financing Sources (Non-Exchange):

Imputed Financing Sources (Notes 1 and 13) 134,299 177,656

Total Financing Sources 9,606,922 10,683,280

Net Cost of Operations (Notes 9 and 13) (9,688,097) (10,839,808)

Net Change (81,175) (156,528)

Cumulative Results of Operations $ 31,278 $ 112,453

Unexpended Appropriations:

Beginning Balances $ 15,654,783 $ 21,761,683

Beginning Balances, as Adjusted 15,654,783 21,761,683

Budgetary Financing Sources:

Appropriations Received $ 9,600,000 $ 9,600,000

Appropriations Transferred In/Out (1,400,000) (1,500,000)

Other Adjustments (1,315,360) (3,701,276)

Appropriations Used (9,472,623) (10,505,624)

Total Budgetary Financing Sources $ (2,587,983) $ (6,106,900)

Total Unexpended Appropriations $ 13,066,800 $ 15,654,783

Net Position $ 13,098,078 $ 15,767,236

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN NET POSITION

FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 AND 2016

(In Dollars)
8

2017 2016

Budgetary Resources:

Unobligated Balance Brought Forward, October 1 $ 9,805,066 $ 14,723,380

 Unobligated Balance Brought Forward, October 1, as adjusted 9,805,066 14,723,380

Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations 529,577 454,338

Other changes in unobligated balance (1,315,361) (3,701,275)

Unobligated balance from prior year budget authority, net 9,019,282 11,476,443

Appropriations 8,200,000 8,100,000

Spending authority from offsetting collections 65,221 10,995

Total Budgetary Resources $ 17,284,503 $ 19,587,438

Status of Budgetary Resources:

New Obligations and upward adjustments (Note 11) $ 8,513,756 $ 9,782,372

Unobligated balance, end of year:

 Apportioned, unexpired account 1,036,881 1,869,503

Unexpired unobligated balance, end of year 1,036,881 1,869,503

Expired unobligated balance, end of year 7,733,866 7,935,563

Total unobligated balance, end of year 8,770,747 9,805,066

Total Budgetary Resources $ 17,284,503 $ 19,587,438

Change in Obligated Balance

 Unpaid Obligations:

Unpaid Obligations, Brought Forward, October 1 $ 5,610,534 $ 7,208,769

Obligations Incurred (Note 11) 8,513,756 9,782,372

Outlays (gross) (9,520,234) (10,926,269)

Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations (529,577) (454,338)

Unpaid Obligations, End of Year (Gross) 4,074,479 5,610,534

Uncollected payments:

Memorandum entries:

Obligated Balance, Start of Year 5,610,534 7,208,769

Obligated Balance, End of Year 4,074,479 5,610,534

Budget Authority and Outlays, Net:

Budget authority, gross $ 8,265,221 $ 8,110,995

Actual offsetting collections (65,221) (10,995)

Budget Authority, net, (total) $ 8,200,000 $ 8,100,000

Outlays, gross $ 9,520,234 $ 10,926,269

Actual offsetting collections (65,221) (10,995)

Outlays, net, (total) 9,455,013 10,915,274

Agency outlays, net $ 9,455,013 $ 10,915,274

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

STATEMENT OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES

FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2017 AND 2016

(In Dollars)
Election Assistance Commission

NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

9

NOTE 1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT 

ACCOUNTING POLICIES

A. Reporting Entity

U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) 

is an independent, bipartisan commission 

charged with developing guidance to meet the 

Help America Vote Act (HAVA) 

requirements, adopting voluntary voting 

system guidelines, and serving as a national 

clearinghouse of information about election 

administration. EAC also accredits testing 

laboratories and certifies voting systems, as 

well as audits the use of HAVA funds.

Other responsibilities include distributing and 

monitoring HAVA funds provided to States 

and other grantees; and maintaining the 

national mail voter registration form developed 

in accordance with the National Voter 

Registration Act of 1993.

HAVA established the Standards Board and 

the Board of Advisors to advise EAC. The law 

also established the Technical Guidelines 

Development Committee to assist EAC in the 

development of voluntary voting system 

guidelines.

The four EAC commissioners are appointed by 

the president and confirmed by the United 

States Senate. EAC currently has three 

commissioners. EAC is required to submit an 

annual report to Congress as well as testify 

periodically about HAVA progress and related 

issues. The commission also holds public 

meetings and hearings to inform the public 

about its progress and activities.

The EAC reporting entity is comprised of 

General Funds.

General Funds are accounts used to record 

financial transactions arising under 

congressional appropriations or other 

authorizations to spend general revenues. 

EAC manages Salaries and Expenses, Election 

Reform Program and Election Data Collection 

Grants General Fund accounts.

EAC has rights and ownership of all assets 

reported in these financial statements. EAC 

does not possess any non-entity assets.

B. Basis of Presentation

The financial statements have been prepared to 

report the financial position and results of 

operations of EAC. The Balance Sheet 

presents the financial position of the agency. 

The Statement of Net Cost presents the 

agency’s operating results; the Statement of 

Changes in Net Position displays the changes 

in the agency’s equity accounts. The Statement 

of Budgetary Resources presents the sources, 

status, and uses of the agency’s resources and 

follows the rules for the Budget of the United 

States Government. The Statement of 

Custodial Activity accounts for sources and 

disposition of collections.

The statements are a requirement of the Chief 

Financial Officers Act of 1990, the

Government Management Reform Act of 1994 

and the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 

2002. They have been prepared from, and are 

fully supported by, the books and records of 

EAC in accordance with the hierarchy of 

accounting principles generally accepted in the 

United States of America, standards issued by 

the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory 

Board (FASAB), Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) Circular A-136, Financial 

Reporting Requirements, as amended, and 

EAC accounting policies which are 

summarized in this note. These statements, 

with the exception of the Statement of 
10

Budgetary Resources, are different from 

financial management reports, which are also 

prepared pursuant to OMB directives that are 

used to monitor and control EAC’s use of 

budgetary resources. The financial statements 

and associated notes are presented on a 

comparative basis. Unless specified otherwise, 

all amounts are presented in dollars.

C. Basis of Accounting

Transactions are recorded on both an accrual 

accounting basis and a budgetary basis. Under 

the accrual method, revenues are recognized 

when earned, and expenses are recognized 

when a liability is incurred, without regard to 

receipt or payment of cash. Budgetary 

accounting facilitates compliance with legal 

requirements on the use of federal funds.

D. Fund Balance with Treasury

Fund Balance with Treasury is the aggregate 

amount of the EAC’s funds with Treasury in 

expenditure accounts. Appropriated funds 

recorded in expenditure accounts are available 

to pay current liabilities and finance authorized 

purchases. 

The EAC does not maintain bank accounts of 

its own, has no disbursing authority, and does 

not maintain cash held outside of Treasury. 

Treasury disburses funds for the agency on 

demand. 

E. Accounts Receivable

Accounts receivable consists of amounts owed 

to EAC by other Federal agencies and the 

general public. EAC has made advance 

payments for services from other Federal 

Agencies. When the period of performance for 

these services expires without fulfillment of 

the contract, a receivable is recorded. EAC has 

also made advance grant payments to the states 

for the primary purpose of replacing punch 

card or lever voting machines. The period of 

use of this grant money has expired. All 

unused funds that have not been returned have 

been recorded as a receivable. Amounts due 

from Federal agencies are considered fully 

collectible. Accounts receivable from the 

public include reimbursements from 

employees. An allowance for uncollectible 

accounts receivable from the public is 

established when, based upon a review of 

outstanding accounts and the failure of all 

collection efforts, management determines that 

collection is unlikely to occur considering the 

debtor’s ability to pay.

F. Property, Equipment, and Software

Property, equipment and software represent 

furniture, fixtures, equipment, and information 

technology hardware and software which are 

recorded at original acquisition cost and are 

depreciated or amortized using the straight-line 

method over their estimated useful lives. 

Major alterations and renovations are 

capitalized, while maintenance and repair costs 

are expensed as incurred. EAC's capitalization 

threshold varies based on the property 

classification for assets with a useful life of 2 

or more years. For general property and 

equipment, the capitalization threshold is 

$10,000 with a bulk purchase policy of 

$100,000. For leasehold improvements and 

software, the capitalization threshold is 

$25,000. 

Property, equipment, and software acquisitions 

that do not meet the capitalization criteria are 

expensed upon receipt. Applicable standard 

governmental guidelines regulate the disposal 

and convertibility of agency property, 

equipment, and software. The useful life 

classifications for capitalized assets are as 

follows:

Description Useful Life (years)

Leasehold Improvements 4 - 7

Office Furniture 5

Computer Equipment 5

Office Equipment 5

Software 5
11

G. Advances and Prepaid Charges

On occasion the EAC prepays amounts in 

anticipation of receiving future 

benefits. Although a payment has been made, 

an expense is not recorded until goods have 

been received or services have been 

performed. The EAC has prepayments and 

advances with non-governmental, as well as 

governmental, vendors.

H. Liabilities

Liabilities represent the amount of funds likely 

to be paid by the EAC as a result of 

transactions or events that have already 

occurred.

EAC reports its liabilities under two 

categories, Intragovernmental and With the 

Public. Intragovernmental liabilities represent 

funds owed to another government agency. 

Liabilities With the Public represents funds 

owed to any entity or person that is not a 

federal agency, including private sector firms 

and federal employees. Each of these 

categories may include liabilities that are 

covered by budgetary resources and liabilities 

not covered by budgetary resources.

Liabilities covered by budgetary resources are 

liabilities funded by a current appropriation or 

other funding source. These consist of 

accounts payable and accrued payroll and 

benefits. Accounts payable represent amounts 

owed to another entity for goods ordered and 

received and for services rendered except for 

employees. Accrued payroll and benefits 

represent payroll costs earned by employees 

during the fiscal year which are not paid until 

the next fiscal year. EAC also accrues 

liabilities for Section 251 grants, research and 

development grants for such items as 

improving voting technology and processes for 

injured military personnel, and logic and 

accuracy testing grants. See the required 

supplemental information for a more detailed 

explanation of the grants.

Liabilities not covered by budgetary resources 

are liabilities that are not funded by any 

current appropriation or other funding source. 

These liabilities consist of accrued annual 

leave. 

I. Annual, Sick, and Other Leave

Annual leave is accrued as it is earned, and the 

accrual is reduced as leave is taken. The 

balance in the accrued leave account is 

adjusted to reflect current pay rates. Liabilities 

associated with other types of vested leave, 

including compensatory, restored leave, and 

sick leave in certain circumstances, are accrued 

at year-end, based on latest pay rates and 

unused hours of leave. Funding will be 

obtained from future financing sources to the 

extent that current or prior year appropriations 

are not available to fund annual and other 

types of vested leave earned but not taken. 

Nonvested leave is expensed when used. Any 

liability for sick leave that is accrued but not 

taken by a Civil Service Retirement System 

(CSRS)-covered employee is transferred to the 

Office of Personnel Management (OPM) upon 

the retirement of that individual. Credit is 

given for sick leave balances in the 

computation of annuities upon the retirement 

of Federal Employees Retirement System 

(FERS)-covered employees effective at 50% 

beginning FY 2010 and 100% in 2015.

J. Accrued and Actuarial Workers’ 

Compensation

The Federal Employees' Compensation Act 

(FECA) administered by the U.S. Department 

of Labor (DOL) addresses all claims brought 

by the EAC employees for on-the-job injuries. 

The DOL bills each agency annually as its 

claims are paid, but payment of these bills is 

deferred for two years to allow for funding 

through the budget process. Similarly, 

employees that the EAC terminates without 

cause may receive unemployment 

compensation benefits under the 

unemployment insurance program also 

administered by the DOL, which bills each 

agency quarterly for paid claims. Future 

appropriations will be used for the 

reimbursement to DOL.
12

K. Retirement Plans

EAC employees participate in either the CSRS 

or the FERS. The employees who participate 

in CSRS are beneficiaries of EAC matching 

contribution, equal to seven percent of pay, 

distributed to their annuity account in the Civil 

Service Retirement and Disability Fund.

Prior to December 31, 1983, all employees 

were covered under the CSRS program. From 

January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1986, 

employees had the option of remaining under 

CSRS or joining FERS and Social Security. 

Employees hired as of January 1, 1987 are 

automatically covered by the FERS program. 

Both CSRS and FERS employees may 

participate in the federal Thrift Savings Plan 

(TSP). FERS employees receive an automatic 

agency contribution equal to one percent of 

pay and EAC matches any employee 

contribution up to an additional four percent of 

pay. For FERS participants, EAC also 

contributes the employer’s matching share of 

Social Security.

FERS employees and certain CSRS 

reinstatement employees are eligible to 

participate in the Social Security program after 

retirement. In these instances, EAC remits the 

employer’s share of the required contribution.

EAC recognizes the imputed cost of pension 

and other retirement benefits during the 

employees’ active years of service. OPM 

actuaries determine pension cost factors by 

calculating the value of pension benefits 

expected to be paid in the future and 

communicate these factors to EAC for current 

period expense reporting. OPM also provides 

information regarding the full cost of health 

and life insurance benefits. EAC recognized 

the offsetting revenue as imputed financing 

sources to the extent these expenses will be 

paid by OPM.

EAC does not report on its financial statements 

information pertaining to the retirement plans 

covering its employees. Reporting amounts 

such as plan assets, accumulated plan benefits, 

and related unfunded liabilities, if any, is the 

responsibility of the OPM, as the 

administrator.

L. Other Post-Employment Benefits

EAC employees eligible to participate in the 

Federal Employees' Health Benefits Plan 

(FEHBP) and the Federal Employees' Group 

Life Insurance Program (FEGLIP) may 

continue to participate in these programs after 

their retirement. The OPM has provided the 

EAC with certain cost factors that estimate the 

true cost of providing the post-retirement 

benefit to current employees. The EAC 

recognizes a current cost for these and Other 

Retirement Benefits (ORB) at the time the 

employee's services are rendered. The ORB 

expense is financed by OPM, and offset by the 

EAC through the recognition of an imputed 

financing source. 

M. Use of Estimates

The preparation of the accompanying financial 

statements in accordance with generally 

accepted accounting principles requires 

management to make certain estimates and 

assumptions that affect the reported amounts 

of assets, liabilities, revenues, and expenses. 

Actual results could differ from those 

estimates. 

N. Imputed Costs/Financing Sources

Federal Government entities often receive 

goods and services from other Federal 

Government entities without reimbursing the 

providing entity for all the related costs. In 

addition, Federal Government entities also 

incur costs that are paid in total or in part by 

other entities. An imputed financing source is 

recognized by the receiving entity for costs 

that are paid by other entities. EAC 

recognized imputed costs and financing 

sources in fiscal years 2015 and 2014 to the 

extent directed by accounting standards.
13

O. Grants

The EAC administers and oversees the grant 

making process in connection with federal 

Requirement Payments and grants made to 

recipient organizations and the HAVA. As 

Requirement Payments and grants are 

awarded, they are recorded as obligations and 

represent uses of budgetary resources. 

Payments made under the grant awards for 

expenditures already incurred by the recipients 

are fully expended and are included in the 

statement of net costs. Grant awards made to 

grantees in advance of expenditures are 

recorded as advances and are included in the 

balance sheet.
59

NOTE 2. FUND BALANCE WITH TREASURY

Fund balance with Treasury account balances as of September 30, 2017 and 2016, were as follows:

No discrepancies exist between the Fund Balance reflected on the Balance Sheet and the balances 

in the Treasury accounts.

The available unobligated fund balances represent the current-period amount available for 

obligation or commitment. 

The unavailable unobligated fund balances represent the amount of appropriations for which the 

period of availability for obligation has expired. These balances are available for upward 

adjustments of obligations incurred only during the period for which the appropriation was 

available for obligation or for paying claims attributable to the appropriations.

The obligated balance not yet disbursed includes accounts payable, accrued expenses, and 

undelivered orders that have reduced unexpended appropriations but have not yet decreased the 

fund balance on hand (see also Note 12).

2017 2016

Fund Balances:

Appropriated Funds $ 12,845,226 $ 15,415,600 

Other Fund Types - - 

Total $ 12,845,226 $ 15,415,600 

Status of Fund Balance with Treasury:

Unobligated Balance

 Available $ 1,036,881 $ 1,869,503 

 Unavailable 7,733,866 7,935,563 

Obligated Balance Not Yet Disbursed 4,074,479 5,610,534 

Non-Budgetary FBWT - - 

Total $ 12,845,226 $ 15,415,600 
60

NOTE 3. ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE

Accounts receivable balances as of September 30, 2017 and 2016, were as follows:

The accounts receivable is primarily made up of moneys due from funds that had been advanced 

for services that were not used and employee receivables.

Historical experience has indicated that the majority of the receivables are collectible. There are 

no material uncollectible accounts as of September 30, 2017 and 2016.

NOTE 4. ADVANCES AND PREPAYMENTS

Advances and Prepayments balances as of September 30, 2017 and 2016, were as follows:

NOTE 5. PROPERTY, EQUIPMENT, AND SOFTWARE

Schedule of Property, Equipment, and Software as of September 30, 2017:

2017 2016

Intragovernmental

Accounts Receivable $ - $ -

With the Public

Accounts Receivable 8,096 20

Employee Receivables - -

Total Accounts Receivable $ 8,096 $ 20

2017 2016

Intragovernmental

Advances and Prepayments $ 840,898 $ 999,687

With the Public

Advances and Prepayments - -

Total Other Assets $ 840,898 $ 999,687

Major Class

Acquisition 

Cost

Accumulated 

Amortization/

Depreciation

Net Book 

Value

Leasehold Improvements $ 1,205,830 $ 1,193,068 $ 12,762

Furniture & Equipment 1,013,741 850,306 163,435

Software 172,721 172,721 -

Construction-in-Progress - N/A -

Software-in-Development 79,890 N/A 79,890

Total $ 2,472,182 $ 2,216,095 $ 256,087
61

Schedule of Property, Equipment, and Software as of September 30, 2016

Depreciation expense was $174,004.48 and $212,571.01 for the twelve months ending September 

30, 2017 and 2016, respectively.

NOTE 6. LIABILITIES NOT COVERED BY BUDGETARY RESOURCES

The liabilities for EAC as of September 30, 2017 and 2016, include liabilities not covered by 

budgetary resources. Congressional action is needed before budgetary resources can be provided. 

Although future appropriations to fund these liabilities are likely and anticipated, it is not certain 

that appropriations will be enacted to fund these liabilities. 

FECA liabilities represent the unfunded liability for actual workers compensation claims on 

EAC’s behalf and payable to the DOL. 

Unfunded leave represents a liability for earned leave and is reduced when leave is taken. The 

balance in the accrued annual leave account is reviewed quarterly and adjusted as needed to 

accurately reflect the liability at current pay rates and leave balances. Accrued annual leave is 

paid from future funding sources and, accordingly, is reflected as a liability not covered by 

budgetary resources. Sick and other leave is expensed as taken. 

Major Class

Acquisition 

Cost

Accumulated 

Amortization/

Depreciation

Net Book 

Value

Leasehold Improvements $ 1,205,830 $ 1,060,414 $ 145,416

Furniture & Equipment 918,712 808,956 109,756

Software 172,721 172,721 -

Construction-in-Progress - N/A -

Software-in-Development 79,891 N/A 79,891

Total $ 2,377,154 $ 2,042,091 $ 335,063

2017 2016

Intragovernmental – FECA $ - $ 234

Intragovernmental – Unemployment Insurance - -

Unfunded Leave Actuarial FECA 

 232,905-

 

 222,396-

Total Liabilities Not Covered by Budgetary Resources $ 232,905 $ 222,630

Total Liabilities Covered by Budgetary Resources 619,399 760,504

Total Liabilities $ 852,304 $ 983,134
62

NOTE 7. OTHER LIABILITIES

Other liabilities account balances as of September 30, 2017 were as follows:

Other liabilities account balances as of September 30, 2016 were as follows:

Current Non Current Total

Intragovernmental

FECA Liability $ - $ - $ -

Unemployment Insurance Liability - - -

Payroll Taxes Payable 37,295 - 37,295

 Custodial Liability - - -

Total Intragovernmental Other Liabilities $ 37,295 $ - $ 37,295

With the Public

 Payroll Taxes Payable $ 6,185 $ - $ 6,185

 Accrued Funded Payroll and Leave 149,051 - 149,051

 Unfunded Leave 232,905 - 232,905

 Custodial Liability 75 - 75

 Other Liabilities w/related Budgetary Obligations - - -

Total Public Other Liabilities $ 388,216 $ - $ 388,216

Current Non Current Total

Intragovernmental

FECA Liability $ 738 $ - $ 738

Unemployment Insurance Liability - - -

Payroll Taxes Payable 28,241 - 28,241

Total Intragovernmental Other Liabilities $ 28,979 $ - $ 28,979

With the Public

 Payroll Taxes Payable $ 4,669 $ - $ 4,669

 Accrued Funded Payroll and Leave 129,228 - 129,228

 Unfunded Leave 222,396 - 222,396

 Custodial Liability - - -

 Other Liabilities w/related Budgetary Obligations 201,231 - 201,231

Total Public Other Liabilities $ 557,524 $ - $ 557,524
63

NOTE 8. LEASES

EAC has no capital leases. EAC relocated from its headquarters office located at 1201 New York Avenue 

NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC, on November 1, 2013. EAC also ended the lease for additional space at 

1225 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC, at the same time. EAC entered into a new lease for its 

headquarters office located at 1335 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD, which expires on or around 

November 1, 2018.

Scheduled of Future Lease Payments

The operating lease amount does not include estimated payments for leases with annual renewal 

options.

NOTE 9. INTRA-GOVERNMENTAL COSTS AND EXCHANGE REVENUE

Intra-governmental costs and revenue represent exchange transactions between EAC and other federal 

government entities, and are in contrast to those with non-federal entities (the public). Such costs and 

revenue are summarized as follows:

Fiscal Year Building Totals

2019 19,863 19,863

2020 -

2021 -

2022 - -

2023 - -

Thereafter - -

Total Future Payments $ 19,863 $ 19,863 
64

NOTE 10. BUDGETARY RESOURCE COMPARISONS TO THE BUDGET OF THE 

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

SFFAS No. 7, Accounting for Revenue and Other Financing Sources and Concepts for Reconciling 

Budgetary and Financial Accounting, calls for explanation of material differences between amounts 

reported in the Statement of Budgetary Resources and the actual balances published in the Budget of 

the U.S. Government (the President’s Budget). The FY 2018 President’s Budget, with actual 

amounts for FY 2016, has been reconciled to the Statement of Budgetary Resources. The FY 2019

President’s Budget, with actual amounts for FY 2017, will not be published until February 2018.

The budget that includes the fiscal year 2016 actual execution information is as follows:

2017 2016

Communications and Clearinghouse

 Intragovernmental Costs $ 411,906 $ 141,908

 Public Costs 1,362,481 758,320

 Total Costs 1,774,387 900,228

Fund and Oversee

 Intragovernmental Costs $ 935,547 $ 999,938

 Public Costs 3,094,557 5,343,396

 Total Costs 4,030,104 6,343,334

Research, Policy, and Programs

 Intragovernmental Costs $ 188,184 $ 199,967

 Public Costs 622,466 1,068,568

 Total Costs 810,650 1,268,535

Testing and Certification

 Intragovernmental Costs $ 713,355 $ 366,931

 Public Costs 2,359,600 1,960,781

 Total Costs 3,072,955 2,327,712

Total Intragovernmental costs 2,248,992 1,708,745

Total Public costs 7,439,105 9,131,064

Total Net Cost $ 9,688,097 $ 10,839,808

Budgetary Obligations Net

FY2016 Resources Incurred Outlays

Statement of Budgetary Resources $19,587,438 $ 9,782,372 $10,915,274

Spending Authority from Offsetting

 Collections 10,995

Unobligated Balance Not Available 7,935,563

Rounding 359,120 217,628 84,726

Budget of the U.S. Government $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $11,000,000
65

NOTE 11. APPORTIONMENT CATEGORIES OF OBLIGATIONS INCURRED

Obligations incurred and reported in the Statement of Budgetary Resources in 2017 and 2016 

consisted of the following:

Category B apportionments typically distribute budgetary resources by activities, projects, objects or a 

combination of these categories.

NOTE 12. UNDELIVERED ORDERS AT THE END OF THE PERIOD

For the twelve months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, budgetary resources obligated for 

undelivered orders are as follows:

NOTE 13. RECONCILIATION OF NET COST OF OPERATIONS TO BUDGET 

EAC has reconciled its budgetary obligations and non-budgetary resources available to its net cost 

of operations.

Direct Obligations, Category A $ 2017 - $ 2016 -

Direct Obligations, Category B Reimbursable Obligations, Category B $ 8,513,756 $ 9,782,372 

 - -

Total Obligations Incurred $ 8,513,756 $ 9,782,372 

2017 2016

Undelivered Orders $ 4,296,052 $ 5,849,717 

Total Undelivered Orders $ 4,296,052 $ 5,849,717 

2017 2016

 Obligations Incurred $ 8,513,756 $ 9,782,372

 Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections and Recoveries (594,798) (465,333)

 Obligations Net of Offsetting Collections and Recoveries 7,918,958 9,317,039

 Transfers in/out Without Reimbursement - -

 Imputed Financing from Costs Absorbed by Others 134,299 177,656

 Net Other Resources Used to Finance Activities 134,299 177,656

 8,053,257 9,494,695

 1,458,401 1,132,593

 9,511,658 10,627,288

Generate Resources in the Current Period 176,439 212,520

$ 9,688,097 $10,839,808

 Total Resources Used to Finance the Net Cost of Operations 

Resources Used to Finance Activities

Budgetary Resources Obligated

Other Resources

 Total Resources Used to Finance Activities 

 Total Resources Used to Finance Items Not Part of the Net Cost of 

Operations 

Net Cost of Operations
66

NOTE 14. REQUIREMENT PAYMENTS AND GRANT PROGRAMS

The largest of the EAC grant programs is the Help American Vote Act (HAVA) Section 251 

Requirements Payments to the states to help them meet the Title III requirements of HAVA. 

EAC’s discretionary grants have been completed and closed.

During FY 2017, EAC received a grant refund of $60,652. There were disbursements to one state totaling 

$1,967,436.

NOTE 15. CUSTODIAL CASH COLLECTIONS

A cash collection for an employee in the amount of $75 ($15.36 original debt plus $69.64 in fees 

and interest) was not reported for debt collection in the timeframe prescribed by the Debt 

Collection Improvement Act. The collection was deducted from the employee’s final paycheck, 

closing the activity.

2017 2016

FY 2009 Section 251 Requirements Payments $

FY 2010 Section 251 Requirements Payments 1,929,468 1,557,242

FY 2011 Section 251 Requirements Payments 37,968 40,034

Section 251 Requirements Payments (60,652)

Accessible Voting Technology 246,962

Logic and Accuracy Grant Program 2,010,998

Net Cost of Operations $ 1,906,784 $ 3,855,236

2017 2016

Miscellaneous $ 75 $ - 

Total Cash Collections $ 75 $ - 
67

II.D. REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY STEWARDSHIP INFORMATION (UNAUDITED)

Non-Federal Physical Property

Stewardship investments are substantial investments made by the Federal Government for the 

benefit of the nation, but are not physical assets owned by the Federal Government. When 

incurred, they are treated as expenses in determining the net cost of operations. However, 

these items merit special treatment so that users of Federal financial reports know the extent 

of 

investments that are made for long-term benefit. Such investments are measured in terms of 

expenses incurred for non-Federal physical property, human capital, and research and 

development. 

In October 2002, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). The law recognized the 

need for states to invest in their election infrastructure. A major provision of HAVA, Title III,

Uniform and Nondiscriminatory Election Technology and Administration Requirements, sets 

forth requirements for each voting system used in an election for Federal office. 

The following chart shows expenditures using Federal HAVA funds for voting and voting-related 

equipment, as well as applied voting research by states and other agency recipients of grants 

and payments funds. Amounts are reported in the fiscal year proceeding the year the expense 

was incurred.

FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Section 

102 Funds $ 19,905,709 $ 36,838,905 $ (163,130) $90,122 $137,401 $ (267,813) $ (10,769) $ 0 

 

$(60,652.18) 

Section 

251 Funds 262,018,224 143,247,989 104,356,159 40,410,437 43,417,090 168,169,476 75,586,153 110,248,566 72,618,422

Total

 

$281,923,933 180,086,894

 

$104,193,029

 

$40,500,559

 

$43,554,491 $167,901,663

 

$75,575,384 $110,248,566 

$72,557,770

Section 102 Funds. Section 102 funds were disbursed to states for the primary purpose of 

replacing punch card or lever voting machines. As such, section 102 funds were used to 

purchase physical property.

Section 251 Funds. HAVA Section 251 Requirements Payments are used to meet the 

requirements of Title III and improve the quality of Federal elections. As such, Requirements 

Payments have been used in part to purchase physical property, and to provide funds to the 

states to carry out other activities to improve the administration of Federal elections. 

Research and Development

EAC had two research and development initiatives completed in FY 2015. The initiatives 

provided funds to support the search for new or improved election voting technology that 
68

increases the accessibility and accuracy of voting for all citizens. Costs incurred on these 

initiatives are included in the calculation of net costs.

Accessible Voting Technology Initiative. EAC awarded $7.5 million in grants for three threeyear grants to fund research to identify and develop technological and administrative solutions 

that help ensure that all citizens can vote privately and independently, a requirement of HAVA 

(42 U.S. Code 15441). The initiative supported research and development activities to increase 

the accessibility of new, existing, and emerging technological solutions in areas such as assistive 

technologies, interoperability, and design of voting systems. One of the grants provided data on 

accommodations and assistance needed for recently-injured military personnel to participate in 

Federal elections. The initiative resulted in over 45 research and development proposals.

Pre-Election Logic and Accuracy and Post-Election Audit Grant Program. EAC awarded $1.4 

million in grant funds to develop and document processes and best practices for coordinating 

quality and cost-effective voting system pre-election logic and accuracy testing, and postelection audits. Funds supported the research, development, documentation, and 

dissemination of a range of procedures and processes used in managing and conducting high 

quality Logic and Accuracy testing and post-election audit activities by type of voting method, 

vendor specific equipment, jurisdiction size, and other ways.

FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Accessible Voting 

Technology Initiative $ 270,011 $ 1,630,476 $ 2,809,602 $ 2,429,159 $ - $ (6,605) $ 0 

Logic and Accuracy - 275,040 485,600 236,499 (17,638) (1,520) 0

Total $ 270,011 $1,905,516 $3,295,202 $2,665,658 $(17,638) $ (8,125) $ 0
69

SECTION III

Other Accompanying Information

III.A. Most Serious Management Challenges Facing the EAC

 U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

1335 East West Highway - Suite 4300 Silver Spring, MD 20910

 October 17, 2017 Memorandum

To: Matthew Masterson

Chairman, U.S. Election Assistance Commission

From: Patricia L. Layfield

Inspector General

Subject: Inspector General’s Statement Summarizing the Major Management and

Performance Challenges Facing the U.S. Election Assistance Commission

In accordance with the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000, I am submitting our annual

statement summarizing the areas which the Office of Inspector General considers to be the

most serious management and performance challenges facing the U.S. Election Assistance

Commission. This list is based upon our audit, inspection and evaluation work; and general

knowledge of the agency’s operations.

Two of this year’s management challenges are the same as last year: (1) performance

management and accountability and (2) records management. We have noted the progress

that EAC has made on each of the challenges identified.

For fiscal year 2017, I am reporting a new challenge: the effect on EAC of the Department of

Homeland Security’s designation of election systems as critical infrastructure.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (301) 734-

3104 or at playfield@eac.gov.

Attachment

cc: Commissioner Thomas Hicks, U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Commissioner Christy A. McCormick, U.S. Election Assistance

Brian Newby, Executive Director, U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Cliff Tatum, General Counsel, U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Annette Lafferty, Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Election Assistance Commission
70

Attachment

 U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

MAJOR MANAGEMENT AND PERFORMANCE CHALLENGES

Introduction

The Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 requires the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to report

annually on what it considers to be the most serious management and performance challenges

facing the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC). Management challenges are derived

from cross-cutting issues that arise during our regular audit, evaluation and investigatory work.

They are also influenced by our general knowledge of the agency’s operations and the works of

other evaluative bodies such as the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

For fiscal year 2017, the OIG is reporting on two management and performance challenges

facing the EAC that have been reported in prior years.

 Performance Management and Accountability

 Records Management

We have added one additional challenge for 2017: the designation of the nation’s elections

systems as critical infrastructure its effects.

In February of 2008, the OIG issued a report that identified long-standing and overarching

weaknesses related to EAC operations. The assessment disclosed that the EAC needed to

establish:

 Short and long-term strategic plans, performance goals and measurements to

guide the organization and staff.

 An organizational structure that clearly defines areas of responsibility and an

effective hierarchy for reporting.

 Appropriate and effective internal controls based on risk assessments.

 Policies and procedures in all program areas to document governance and

accountability structure and practices in place. It is imperative that the

Commissioners define their roles and responsibilities in relationship to the daily

operations of the EAC and to assume the appropriate leadership role.

Effective management and accountability are integral to any operation and must start with senior

management. The Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which created EAC, specified that direction

and management are carried out by four full-time Commissioners, an Executive Director, and

General Counsel. Generally, the Commissioners establish policy and the

1

CHALLENGE 1: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AND

ACCOUNTABILITY - ISSUED IN 2008
71

Attachment

U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

executive director carries out policy by administering the day-to-day operations of the organization.

The Help America Vote Act requires that any action of the Commissioners be carried out by the 

approval (vote) of at least three. For almost five years through December 2014, EAC lacked a

quorum and from May 2012 until December 2014, EAC leadership consisted solely of the Chief

Operating Officer, acting as Executive Director. Thus, critical business requiring a quorum of

Commissioners was not carried out during that period. These conditions and some confusion over

the roles and responsibilities of the Commissioners and the Executive Director resulted in a 

leadership vacuum, an inability of EAC to focus on key duties, a failure to hold people accountable,

and a decline in staff morale.

Prior to the loss of its quorum, EAC had taken some actions to address the OIG reported findings. In 

September 2008, the Commission adopted a document titled Roles and Responsibilities of the

Commissioners and Executive Director of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission Policy. In March

2009, the Commission adopted the United States Election Assistance Commission Strategic Plan,

Fiscal Years 2009 Through 2014. However, by the time the next strategic plan was due, the

Commission had lost its quorum, so no official actions on a new strategic plan were possible.

EAC’s Progress

Since the description of Challenge 1 was written in 2008, EAC has acquired an entirely new slate of 

three Commissioners, a new Executive Director and a new General Counsel. Together, they have 

made significant progress toward meeting this challenge. They have developed a comprehensive

communications strategic plan. The agency has also developed policies and procedures for the

Communications Division and the research process. An OIG audit completed in August 2017 

recommended the EAC develop, document and implement a 5-year strategic plan and enhance the

record management system to document decisions, operations, policies, procedures, and practice.

EAC reported they had made significant progress in strategic planning process when, in April 2017,

the new Administration issued guidance requiring development of Agency Reform Plans across the

government.

Maintaining complete and accurate records of the operations, policies, procedures and practices are

critical to effective agency performance. Furthermore, retention of government records is mandated

by federal law. Without these records, an agency cannot retain an institutional knowledge. In that 

regard, since its inception in December 2003, the EAC has seen eight commissioners, two general

counsels, and program directors come and go.

The EAC did not have documented policies and procedures for management and retention of

records. The OIG first noted the EAC’s lack of a records management system in 2008, when it

issued the Assessment of EAC’s Program and Financial Operations.

2

CHALLENGE 2: RECORDS MANAGEMENT - ISSUED

IN 2010
72

Attachment

U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

The lack an approved system for records retention leaves the EAC vulnerable to lawsuits by

information requesters and susceptible to waste, fraud, or abuse of its resources and the

intentional destruction of government records in violation of federal law. The EAC should take steps

to complete its remaining records retention schedules, obtain approval of those schedules as needed

from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and train its staff on the proper 

retention of federal government records.

EAC’s Progress

In March 2013, the Executive Director of EAC signed a document titled, U.S. Election Assistance

Commission (EAC) Records Management Standard Operating Procedures. EAC has completed

the records retention schedules for the Office of Inspector General, Human Resources, the

Executive Director, the Commissioners, the General Counsel, the Chief Financial Officer, and

Grants and Communications and submitted the schedules to NARA as needed. The schedules for 

the Research Division and Testing and Certification have been developed. EAC had begun to plan

for a system to organize and archive EAC emails, which was due to be completed by December 

31, 2016. The EAC is currently researching whether NARA intended its approval of one of the 

existing records retention schedules to be approval of an agency-wide records retention schedule. 

If EAC finds that it has an approved agency-wide retention schedule, management plans to begin 

staff training and implementation. 

Citing the vital role elections play in the country, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

designated elections systems as critical infrastructure in January 2017. EAC possessed the subject

matter expertise, the relationships with state and local elections officials, and the in-depth

understanding of local election operations necessary to provide much-needed support to DHS in

implementing that designation. As such, EAC has played a key role in helping DHS understand the

elections sub-sector. The agency has also used its communication channels with state and local

elections officials to educate officials and the public on critical infrastructure concepts, roles, 

responsibilities and DHS’ capabilities to apply cybersecurity intelligence to hardening the nation’s

elections systems against intrusion, disruption, and loss. As the nation’s clearinghouse for election 

administration information, EAC has taken on the challenge of supporting DHS as a crucial partner 

in spite of having limited human and financial resources that have steadily decreased over the past

few years due to decreases in congressional appropriations.

Interacting with a new Federal partner and introducing it to the members of a newly-created 

Crticial Infrastructure sector has required a significant effort and resources. To demonstrate the 

scope of this task, note that according to the The Election Administration and Voting Survey, in the

2016 election cycle, states and territories comprised of 6,467 jurisdictions operated 116,990

3

CHALLENGE 3: ELECTIONS SYSTEMS AS CRITICAL

INFRASTRUCTURE – ISSUED IN 2017
73

Attachment

U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

physical polling places nationwide. In addition, jurisdictions operated more than 8,500 early voting

locations in the days leading up to the election. The systems DHS seeks to protect are located 

across the nation and include a number of sub-systems that help election officials conduct elections, 

such as voter registration systems, e-poll book systems, and vote tabulation systems. The DHS 

designation has broad effect and the EAC is a central resource to DHS as it learns about and 

interacts with the elections industry.

4
Date: 

To: 

From: 

Re: 

U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

1335 EAST-WEST HIGHWAY, SUITE 4300 

SILVER SPRING, MD 20910 

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

Memorandum 

November 15, 2017 

Patricia Layfield, Inspector General n 

Brian D. Newby, Executive Directo ~~ 

Response to Inspector General's Statement Summarizing the Major Management and 

Performance Challenges Facing the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. 

Thank you for sending us the Inspector General's Statement Summarizing the Major Management and 

Performance Challenges Facing the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, dated October 17, 201 7. We 

have prepared brief responses to each item: 

Challenge 1: Performance Management and Accountability 

The EAC has made significant progress towards drafting and publishing a new strategic plan, meeting all 

OMB related deadlines, and is on track to publish this plan in-line with all other federal agencies. The 

EAC is concurrently developing short-term, operational plans and continues to develop and use agency 

performance plans as it has in the past. The agency also is reviewing its policies and procedures and will 

work to ensure that they align with the strategic plan, after it is completed. 

Challenge 2: Records Management 

As the IG states in her memorandum, the EAC is making progress towards remediating this management 

challenge and meeting the federal requirements relating to records management. The agency is dedicated 

to completing this work and plans to meet all federa lly mandated requirements for records retention 

moving forward. 

Challenge 3: Election Svstems as Critical Infrastructure 

When the Department of Homeland Security (OHS) examined designating and then designated elections 

infrastructure as Critical Infrastructure, it reached out to the EAC as the federal subject matter expert in 

election administration. Throughout the process of establishing the elections subsector, its guiding 

councils, and critical, foundational documents, OHS continues to leverage the EAC and its expertise. 

Through the Help America Vote Act (HAYA), Congress charged the EAC with administering and 

maintaining the nation's clearinghouse for election administration information so that election officials 

have a central resource for understanding American election administration and the issues, drivers, and 

restrainers involved in administering elections. DHS's Critical Infrastructure designation added an 

additional subject area to the EAC's clearinghouse duty, necessitating the EAC to dedicate previously 

allocated operational and financial resources to this new topic. The EAC continues to dedicate these 

resources so that its clearinghouse offers timely information to election officials on Critical Infrastructure. 

Congressional appropriations to the EAC have decreased over the years. The EAC continues to work 

towards its mission with the resources appropriated to the best of its ability, and is confident that key 

stakeholders see the EAC as a central election administration resource both within and outside of DHS's 

Critical Infrastructure designation. 

Telephone: 301 -563 - 3959 bnewby@eac.gov 
75

III.B. IMPROPER PAYMENTS

The Improper Payments Act requires each Federal agency to assess all programs and identify 

which, if any, may be subject to high risk with respect to improper payments. For Fiscal Year 

2017, the EAC does not believe that it has any programs where the erroneous payments could 

exceed 2.5 percent of program payments or $10.0 million threshold (set in OMB Guidance) to 

trigger further agency action. 

III.C. SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL STATEMENT AUDIT AND MANAGEMENT 

ASSURANCES

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2017 FINANCIAL STATEMENT AUDIT

Audit Opinion Unmodified

Material Weaknesses

Beginning 

Balance New Resolved Consolidated

Ending 

Balance

Financial Accounting & Reporting 0 0

Total Material Weaknesses 0 0

Summary of Management Assurances

Statement of Assurance (FMFIA§ 2) Unmodified

No. Summary

Beginning 

Balance New Resolved Consolidated

Ending 

Balance

1

Material Weaknesses 

(FMFIA§ 2) 0 0

Total 0 0
76