U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE 

COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

FINAL REPORT: 

ADMINISTRATION OF PAYMENTS 

RECEIVED UNDER THE HELP 

AMERICA VOTE ACT BY THE 

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY 

STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS 

MAY 1,2003 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2006

Report No. 

E-HP-KY-02-07 

AUGUST 2007

This report contained information that was redacted pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(6) of the Freedom of Information Act. 
U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

1225 New York Ave. NW - Suite 1100 

Washington, DC 20005

August 24, 2007 

Memorandum 

To: Thomas Wilkey 

 Executive Director 

From: Curtis W. Crider 

 Inspector General 

Subject: Final Audit Report - Administration of Payments Received Under the Help America 

Vote Act by the Commonwealth of Kentucky Sate Board of Elections 

 (Assignment Number E-HP-KY-02-07) 

We contracted with the independent certified public accounting firm of Clifton 

Gunderson LLP (Clifton Gunderson) to audit the administration of payments received under the 

Help America Vote Act (HAVA) by the Commonwealth of Kentucky State Board of Elections 

(Board of Elections). The contract required that the audit be done in accordance with U.S. 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Clifton Gunderson is responsible for the 

attached auditor’s report and the conclusions expressed therein. 

 Except for a need for the Board of Elections to provide for its shortfall in state matching 

funds and to demonstrate how it complied with the maintenance of effort requirements, Clifton 

Gunderson’s audit concluded that the Board of Elections generally accounted for and expended 

HAVA funds in accordance with the HAVA requirements and complied with the financial 

management requirements established by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. The Board 

of Elections also complied with section 251 requirement for an election fund. 

In a June 22, 2007 response to the draft report (Appendix A), the Board of Elections 

agreed with the report’s finding and recommendation related to the provision of additional state 

matching funds and related interest earnings; however, they disagreed with the finding that they 

had not met the maintenance of effort requirement. The response indicated that the state had 

provided the necessary funds to cover the state matching shortfall, including the interest earned. 

The response also included details on how the Board of Elections complied with the 

maintenance of effort regulations.

 Please provide us with your written response to the recommendations included in this 

report by October 24, 2007. Your response should contain information on actions taken or 

planned, including target dates and titles of EAC officials responsible for implementing the 

recommendations. 
 The legislation, as amended, creating the Office of Inspector General (5 U.S.C. § App.3) 

requires semiannual reporting to Congress on all audit reports issued, actions taken to implement 

audit recommendations, and recommendations that have not been implemented. Therefore, this 

report will be included in our next semiannual report to Congress. 

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

ADMINISTRATION OF PAYMENTS 

RECEIVED UNDER THE 

HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT BY THE 

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY 

May 1, 2003 Through December 31, 2006 

UNITED STATES ELECTION 

ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

This report contained information that was redacted pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(6) of the Freedom of Information Act.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................................................................1

BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................................................2 

AUDIT OBJECTIVES..................................................................................................................................2 

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................3 

AUDIT RESULTS..........................................................................................................................................4 

APPENDICES 

Appendix A: Board Of Election’s Response To Audit Results .........................................................9 

Appendix B: Audit Methodology..............................................................................................................14 

Appendix C: Monetary Impact as of December 31, 2006 ..................................................................16 

This report contained information that was redacted pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(6) of the Freedom of Information Act.
Offices in 15 states and Washington, DC

1 h

11710 Beltsville Drive, Suite 300

Calverton, Maryland 20705

tel: 301-931-2050 

fax: 301-931-1710 

www.cliftoncpa.com

A1

U.S. Elections Assistance Commission 

Performance Audit of the Administration of Payments Received Under the 

Help America Vote Act by the Commonwealth of Kentucky 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Clifton Gunderson LLP was engaged by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC or the 

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

Kentucky State Board of Elections (SBE) for the period May 1, 2003 through December 31, 2006 to 

determine whether the SBE used payments authorized by Sections 101, 102, and 251 of the Help 

America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA or the Act) in accordance with HAVA and applicable 

requirements; accurately and properly accounted for property purchased with HAVA payments and 

for program income, and met HAVA requirements for Section 251 funds for an election fund, for a 

matching contribution, and for maintenance of a base level of state outlays. In addition, the 

Commission requires states to comply with certain financial management requirements, specifically: 

• Comply with the Uniform Administrative Requirements For Grants And Cooperative Agreements With 

State And Local Governments (also known as the “Common Rule”) as published in the Code of 

Federal Regulations 41 CFR 105-71. 

• Expend payments in accordance with cost principles for establishing the allowance or 

disallowance of certain items of cost for federal participation issued by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) in Circular A-87. 

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

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing 

Standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, 

appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our 

audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on the audit objectives. Because of inherent limitations, a study and 

evaluation made for the limited purposes of our review would not necessarily disclose all weaknesses 

in administering HAVA payments. 

Except for the state’s matching of funds and maintenance of effort, which are discussed below, our 

audit concluded that SBE generally accounted for and expended HAVA funds in accordance with 

the requirements mentioned above. This includes compliance with section 251 requirements for an 

election fund. The exceptions noted above in two areas needing SBE’s management attention are as 

follows: 

• As of December 31, 2006, there was a shortfall in the amount of funds provided by the state 

as matching funds, as well as lost interest earnings because of a delay in providing the 

matching funds. 

This report contained information that was redacted pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(6) of the Freedom of Information Act.
2 

• The state did not provide sufficient detail regarding its maintenance of a base level of state 

outlays to determine it was meeting this requirement. 

We have included in this report the SBE’s formal responses to the findings and recommendations 

dated June 22, 2007. The SBE agreed with the recommendation related to the shortfall in state 

matching funds. The SBE disagreed with the recommendation regarding the maintenance of effort. 

BACKGROUND

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 created the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to assist 

states and insular areas with the improvement of the administration of Federal elections and to 

provide funds to states to help implement these improvements. HAVA authorizes payments to states 

under Titles I and II, as follows: 

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

uniform and nondiscriminatory election technology and administration requirements, 

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

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

• Title I, Section 102 payments are available only for the replacement of punch card and lever 

action voting systems. 

• Title II, Section 251 requirements payments are for complying with Title III requirements for 

voting system equipment; and for addressing provisional voting, voting information, 

statewide voter registration lists, and voters who register by mail. 

Title II also requires that states must: 

• Have appropriated funds “equal to 5 percent of the total amount to be spent for such 

activities [activities for which requirements payments are made].” (Section 253)(5)). 

• “Maintain the expenditures of the State for activities funded by the [requirements] payment at 

a level that is not less than the level of such expenditures maintained by the State for the fiscal 

year ending prior to November 2000.” (Section 254 (a) (7)). 

• Establish an election fund for amounts appropriated by the state “for carrying out the 

activities for which the requirements payment is made,” for the Federal requirements 

payments received, for “such other amounts as may be appropriated under law,” and for 

“interest earned on deposits of the fund.” (Section 254 )(1)). 

AUDIT OBJECTIVES

The objectives of our audit were to determine whether the Commonwealth of Kentucky: 

1. Used payments authorized by Sections 101, 102, and 251 of the Help America Vote Act 

(HAVA) in accordance with HAVA and applicable requirements; 

2. Accurately and properly accounted for property purchased with HAVA payments and for 

program income; 

This report contained information that was redacted pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(6) of the Freedom of Information Act.
3 

3. Met HAVA requirements for Section 251 funds for an election fund, for a matching 

contribution, and for maintenance of a base level of state outlays. 

In addition, to account for HAVA payments, the Act requires states to maintain records that are 

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

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

facilitate an effective audit. The Commission requires states receiving HAVA funds to comply with 

certain financial management requirements, specifically: 

4. Comply with the Uniform Administrative Requirements For Grants And Cooperative Agreements With 

State and Local Governments (also known as the “Common Rule”) as published in the Code of 

Federal Regulations at 41 CFR 105-71. 

5. Expend payments in accordance with cost principles for establishing the allowance or 

disallowance of certain items of cost for federal participation issued by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) in Circular A-87. 

6. Submit detailed annual financial reports on the use of Title I and Title II payments.1

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

We audited the HAVA funds received and disbursed by the SBE from May 1, 2003 through 

December 31, 2006. 

Funds received and disbursed from May 1, 2003 (program initiation date) to December 31, 2006 

(45-month period) are shown below: 

FUNDS RECEIVED 

TYPE OF 

PAYMENT

EAC 

PAYMENT

STATE 

MATCH 

INTEREST

EARNED 

TOTAL 

AVAILABLE

FUNDS 

DISBURSED

DATA 

AS OF

 

101 $ 4,699,196 $0 $471,704 $5,170,900 $ 325,730 12/31/06 

102 469,256 0 17,523 486,779 469,229 12/31/06 

251 32,899,292 1,575,200 1,812,229 36,286,721 19,554,337 12/31/06 

$38,067,744 $1,575,200 $2,301,456 $41,944,400 $20,349,296

Note: The above table does not include auditor’s adjustments for the state matching 

shortfall ($156,341) and estimated additional interest earned on the shortfall through 

December 31, 2006 ($4,700). 

Our audit methodology is set forth in Appendix B. 

 

1 EAC requires states to submit annual reports on the expenditure of HAVA Sections 101, 102, and 

251 funds. For Sections 101 and 102, reports are due on February 28 for the activities of the 

previous calendar year. For Section 251, reports are due by March 31 for the activities of the 

previous fiscal year ending on September 30. 

This report contained information that was redacted pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(6) of the Freedom of Information Act.
4 

AUDIT RESULTS

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing 

Standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, 

appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our 

audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on the audit objectives. Because of inherent limitations, a study and 

evaluation made for the limited purposes of our review would not necessarily disclose all weaknesses 

in administering HAVA payments. 

Except for the state matching funds and maintenance of effort, our audit concluded that SBE 

generally accounted for and expended HAVA funds in accordance with the requirements mentioned 

above. This includes compliance with section 251 requirements for an election fund and for 

maintenance of a base level of state outlays. The exceptions in two areas needing SBE’s 

management attention are described below: 

I. State Matching Funds 

As of December 31, 2006, there is a $156,341 shortfall in the amount of state matching funds 

required to augment Section 251 HAVA funds received, because the requirement to provide an 

additional amount equal to 5% of the state matching funds was not considered. The method of 

computing the amount of the state matching funds, as set forth in HAVA Section 253(b)(5), is to 

divide the requirements payments to be received from the federal government by 95%, and then 

multiply the grossed up number by 5%. For Kentucky, the $32,899,292 Section 251 proceeds, 

divided by 95%, equals $34,630,834. The difference of $156,341 is from the state matching 

requirement of $1,731,542, compared to the amount provided by the state totaling $1,575,200. 

In addition, 100% of the state matching funds transferred to the HAVA accounts were not 

deposited in advance of receiving the Sec. 251 requirements payments. They were paid in 

installments in July 2005 and June 2006. Although interest earned on the funds was recomputed by 

the State to ensure that earnings were not lost, there is lost interest on the shortfall, estimated to be 

$4,700, computed retroactively to the date the funds should have been deposited. The basis for the 

estimated interest computation was lower than the actual shortfall, since the recomputation by the 

state was based on a higher amount than was actually deposited.

Recommendations: 

1. Ensure that the state matching funds shortfall of $156,341 is transferred to the HAVA election 

fund. 

2. Determine the actual amount of lost interest income, which we estimated at $4,700 based on 

the required state matching funds total from the date of receipt of the Section 251 

requirements payment from the federal government, and transfer the earnings to the HAVA 

election fund. 

This report contained information that was redacted pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(6) of the Freedom of Information Act.
5 

SBE’s Response: 

In its response to the draft finding, the SBE agreed with the recommendation and contacted the 

Controller of the Finance and Administration Cabinet of Kentucky, and informed him of the 

findings of the auditor and requested that he determine what actions would be necessary to rectify 

the situation. 

On March 30, 2007, the Controller informed the State Board of Elections that the Finance and 

Administration Cabinet (“The Cabinet”) took the following actions to address the conditions 

identified in the recommendation concerning Kentucky’s State Matching Funds: 

1) The Cabinet appropriated, allotted, and transferred $156,341 to the Election Fund 

account; 

2) The Cabinet credited interest earnings in the actual amount of $9,238.01 to the Election 

Fund account. 

II. Maintenance of Effort 

1. The State did not identify the amount of its expenditures in fiscal year 2000 for HAVA Section 

251-type activities. Thus, the auditors were unable to determine if the State met its requirement 

to maintain the expenditures of the State for activities funded by the HAVA Section 251 

requirements payment in FYs 2004, 2005, and 2006. 

The State Board of Elections (SBE) received $4,699,196 in HAVA Section 101 funds and 

$32,899,292 in HAVA Section 251 funds. Kentucky’s state plan states that it would use its 

HAVA funds for the following: 

• Ensuring compliance with Voting System Standards as set forth in HAVA 

• Establish Provisional Voting and Voting Information Requirements 

• The Statewide interactive voter registration system 

• Voting Rights of Military and Overseas Citizens 

• Purchasing one HAVA compliant voting machine with software per polling place 

• Voter education programs 

• Polling place improvements/increased accessibility 

• Training 

The State, in its Preliminary 2006 Amended State Plan, described the activities for which the 

Section 101 funds would be used. However, it did not identify whether it had incurred any 

costs in fiscal year 2000 for similar activities. Thus, there was no benchmark or subsequent 

years’ state expenditures with which to evaluate compliance with maintenance of effort 

requirement. 

2. The State Plan only provides that the Governor’s Office of Policy and Management (GOPM) 

will ensure that the Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirement will be met, but there is no 

information in the Plan on what level of MOE is required or how it will be met. 

This report contained information that was redacted pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(6) of the Freedom of Information Act.
6 

Recommendations: 

1. Determine the level of state expenditures in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 

2006 for activities for which it received requirements payments. These amounts should be 

classified as expenditures which were funded by the State through annual appropriations. 

2. Compare the level of expenditures in Fiscal Year 2000 with the level of expenditures in fiscal 

years 2004, 2005, and 2006 funded by the State’s annual appropriations and determine if the 

State met its maintenance of effort requirements. 

3. If, the level of state expenditures for 251-type activities in fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006 were 

less than in 2000, require the state to obtain supplemental funding to meet its maintenance of 

effort requirements and adjust its accounts and annual financial status reports to the Election 

Assistance Commission accordingly. 

4. Amend the State Plan to provide more specific information on the required level of MOE, based 

on Title III category expenditures in FY2000. 

SBE’s Response: 

The SBE disagreed with the recommendation, and in its response to the draft finding stated that: 

Pursuant to HAVA §254(a)(7), all states were required to answer the following in each state’s State 

Plan: “How the State, in using the requirements payment, will maintain the expenditures of the 

State for activities funded by the payment at the level that is not less than the level of such 

expenditures maintained by the State for the fiscal year ending prior to November 2000. Kentucky’s 

State Plan provided that “The Governor’s Office of Policy and Management evaluated the budget of 

the Kentucky State Board of Elections to ensure that the Maintenance of Effort has been met.” 

(2003 Kentucky State Plan, p. 18). 

Since the Election Assistance Commission was not in existence in 2002 when the States were left 

alone to decipher the language and requirements of HAVA in drafting their State Plans, Kentucky, 

as well as other states, developed an understanding concerning Maintenance of Effort based on 

advice gathered from The Election Center’s HR 3295 Special Workshop in December of 2002, 

which included panel discussions with the HAVA bill drafters and other pertinent election officials. 

Considering Kentucky’s unique position of having its Voter Registration Database used as a model 

for HAVA, Maintenance of Effort does not apply in the same manner to Kentucky as it would to 

other states that did not have HAVA-compliant databases in 2002. Thus, Kentucky was left in the 

dark as to how to address Maintenance of Effort in its 2003 State Plan. Furthermore, as of the date 

of this Response, the Election Assistance Commission, which has been in existence since 2004, has 

failed to provide any guidance to Kentucky as to how to address this issue. 

 

With heretofore limited guidance from the EAC on this matter, it is the State Board of Elections’ 

understanding that “activities funded by the payment” include activities required under Title III, 

which are limited to the purchasing of voting systems, voter education, and computerized statewide 

voter registration systems. During the fiscal year ending prior to November 2000, 

This report contained information that was redacted pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(6) of the Freedom of Information Act.
7 

(1) Kentucky did not expend any funds to purchase voting systems as such systems are 

purchased and owned on the local level pursuant to Kentucky state law contained in KRS 

117.105, 117.115, and 117.135; 

(2) Kentucky did not expend any funds on conducting voter education; and 

(3) Kentucky’s Statewide Voter Registration Database was in existence and HAVA-compliant in 

the year 2000, as Kentucky’s system was used as a basis for the language in HAVA. 

Kentucky is not and has not used federal funds to set up or maintain its Statewide Voter 

Registration Database. 

Pursuant to the EAC’s Guidelines for conducting an audit listed on its website, on page 19 under 

Maintenance of Effort, Number 8(a), the auditor must “obtain from the state its total expenditures 

in fiscal year 2000 related to activities currently funded by requirements payments.” This 

language, which derives from HAVA §254(a)(7), states specifically that the activities that are covered

under Maintenance of Effort are those that are “currently funded” with HAVA funds. “Currently 

funded” does not mean activities that are eligible, but not funded by federal dollars, but must be 

defined as activities funded during FYs 2004, 2005 and 2006 (the periods covered by the audit) with 

HAVA funds. Any other interpretation would mean that Kentucky will be penalized for having an 

existing, HAVA-compliant voter registration database prior to HAVA’s enactment—a database that 

was used as a model for HAVA. This interpretation was not contemplated by the drafters of HAVA 

and is an anathema of the clear intent of the HAVA legislation. 

Kentucky contends that HAVA §254(a)(7), clearly states that Maintenance of Effort shall be 

determined by “the expenditures of the State for activities funded by the payment at the level that 

is not less than the level of such expenditures maintained by the State for the fiscal year ending prior 

to November 2000.” Activities currently funded by the payment include activities required under 

Title III, which are limited to the purchasing of voting systems, voter education, and computerized 

statewide voter registration systems that are being funded by Kentucky during FYs 2004, 2005 and 

2006, the time periods that were reviewed pursuant to the audit. As stated by the State Board of 

Elections, Kentucky expended zero funds to support activities for voter education and purchase of 

voting equipment during FY 2000. 

As for funds expended during FY 2000 for the maintenance of the voter registration database, 

Kentucky has not and will not expend federal funds to maintain the Kentucky Voter Registration 

Database because this system was and has been HAVA-compliant since the inception of HAVA. 

Therefore, Kentucky contends that the only proper interpretation of the language in HAVA 

§254(a)(7) is that maintenance of effort applies only to activities currently funded during FYs 2004, 

2005 and 2006 with HAVA funds. 

The SBE, in its response to the draft audit report, Appendix A, included a schedule of the amounts 

they have determined comprise the state’s Maintenance of Effort in compliance with HAVA. 

Auditor’s Response: 

Although we have not audited the amounts included in the Maintenance of Effort schedule prepared 

by the SBE, as set forth in Appendix A, and cannot attest to their accuracy, the amounts as shown 

support the state’s compliance with the HAVA requirements. 

**************************************** 

This report contained information that was redacted pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(6) of the Freedom of Information Act.
8 

We provided a draft of our report to the appropriate individuals of the Commonwealth of Kentucky 

State Board of Elections, and the United States Election Assistance Commission. We considered 

any comments received prior to finalizing this report. 

CG performed its work between January 22, 2007 and 

a1

May 21, 2007. 

Calverton, Maryland 

This report contained information that was redacted pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(6) of the Freedom of Information Act.
This report contained information that was redacted pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(6) of the Freedom of Information Act.
This report contained information that was redacted pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(6) of the Freedom of Information Act.
This report contained information that was redacted pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(6) of the Freedom of Information Act.
This report contained information that was redacted pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(6) of the Freedom of Information Act.
This report contained information that was redacted pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(6) of the Freedom of Information Act.
14 

Appendix B 

AUDIT METHODOLOGY 

Our audit methodology included: 

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

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

HAVA funds. 

• Understanding relevant information systems controls as applicable. 

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

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

that could be relevant to the audit objectives. 

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

• Interviewed appropriate SBE employees about the organization and operations of the HAVA 

program. 

• Reviewed prior single audit report and other reviews related to the state’s financial management 

systems and the HAVA program for the last 2 years. 

• Reviewed policies, procedures and regulations for the SBE’s management and accounting 

systems as they relate to the administration of HAVA programs. 

• Analyzed the inventory lists of equipment purchased with HAVA funds. 

• Tested major purchases and supporting documentation. 

• Tested randomly sampled payments made with the HAVA funds. 

• Verified support for reimbursements to local governments (counties, cities, and municipalities). 

• Reviewed certain state laws that impacted the election fund. 

• Examined appropriations and expenditure reports for state funds used to maintain the level of 

expenses for elections at least equal to the amount expended in fiscal year 2000 and to meet the 

five percent matching requirement for section 251 requirements payments. 

• Reviewed/examined information regarding source/supporting documents kept for maintenance 

of effort and matching contributions. 

This report contained information that was redacted pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(6) of the Freedom of Information Act.
15 

• Evaluated compliance with the requirements for accumulating financial information reported to 

the Commission on the Financial Status Reports, Form SF 269, accounting for property, 

purchasing HAVA related goods and services, and accounting for salaries. 

• Verified the establishment and maintenance of an election fund. 

• Verified whether the state has sustained the state’s level of expenditures for Elections. 

This report contained information that was redacted pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(6) of the Freedom of Information Act.
16 

Appendix C 

MONETARY IMPACT AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2006 

Description 

Questioned 

Costs 

Additional Funds for 

Program 

 

State Match Delayed Deposit Interest Shortfall $ 4,700 

 

State Match Shortfall 156,341 

 

Totals 0 $161,041 

This report contained information that was redacted pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(6) of the Freedom of Information Act.
OIG’s Mission 

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

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

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

enhance the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in EAC 

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

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

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

operations. Products and services include traditional financial and 

performance audits, contract and grant audits, information systems 

audits, and evaluations. 

Obtaining 

Copies of 

OIG Reports 

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

(eacoig@eac.gov). 

Mail orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Office of Inspector General 

1225 New York Ave. NW - Suite 1100 

Washington, DC 20005 

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

 Fax: (202) 566-0957 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste and Abuse 

Involving the U.S. 

Election Assistance 

By Mail: U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

 Office of Inspector General 

 1225 New York Ave. NW - Suite 1100 

 Washington, DC 20005

Commission or Help 

America Vote Act 

Funds

E-mail: eacoig@eac.gov

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

FAX: 202-566-0957