U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE 

COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

FINAL AUDIT REPORT: 

ADMINISTRATION OF PAYMENTS 

RECEIVED UNDER THE HELP AMERICA 

VOTE ACT BY THE ILLINOIS STATE 

BOARD OF ELECTIONS

Report No. 

E-HP-IL-07-06 

October 2006
October 18, 2006 

Memorandum 

To: Thomas Wilkey 

 Executive Director 

From: Curtis Crider 

 Inspector General 

Subject: Final Audit Report on the Administration of Payments Received Under the 

Help America Vote Act by the Illinois State Board of Elections (Assignment 

No. E-HP-IL-07-06) 

 This report presents the results of the subject audit. The objectives of the audit 

were to determine whether Illinois (1) expended Help America Vote Act (HAVA) 

payments in accordance with the Act and related administrative requirements and (2) 

complied with the HAVA requirements for replacing punch card or lever voting 

machines, for appropriating a 5 percent match for requirements payments, for 

establishing an election fund, and for maintaining state expenditures for elections at a 

level not less than expended in fiscal year 2000. 

 

 The report concluded that Illinois generally complied with requirements except as 

noted below: 

9 Counties did not keep records that sufficiently accounted for equipment purchased 

with HAVA funds. 

9 Illinois advanced HAVA funds to counties and to the Office of the Secretary of 

State that exceeded the recipients immediate cash needs. This resulted in lost 

interest of about $36,000 to State Vote Fund. 

9 Illinois expended HAVA funds of $3,889 for activity booklets intended to provide 

students with an understanding about electing the President. We questioned the 

costs because the booklets appeared to be targeted to children and not voters. 

9 Illinois miscalculated its matching fund requirement for Section 251 payments, 

and did not deposit into the Vote Fund interest earned on the matching funds 

which it had appropriated. Consequently, Illinois owes the Vote Fund additional 

matching funds $189,223 and interest of $227,996 

 U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

 1225 New York Ave. NW - Suite 1100 

 Washington, DC 20005
 In an October 2, 2006 response to the draft report (Appendix 2), Illinois agreed 

with the findings on equipment records and cash management and disagreed with the 

findings on the activity booklets and the matching funds. 

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

this report by December 22, 2006. Your response should contain information on actions 

taken or planned, including target dates and titles of EAC officials responsible for 

implementing the recommendations 

 Section 5(a) of the Inspector General Act (5 U.S.C. § App.1) requires the Office 

of Inspector General to list this report in its semiannual report to Congress. 

 If you have any questions regarding this report, please call me at (202) 566-3125. 
1 

BACKGROUND

 

HELP AMERICA 

VOTE ACT

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA or the Act) created the 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC or Commission) to assist 

states and insular areas with 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: 

9 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. 

9 Title I, Section 102 payments are available only for the 

replacement of punchcard and lever action voting systems. 

9 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: 

9 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(b)(5)). 

9 “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)). 

9 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 (b)(1)). 
2 

FUNDING FOR 

ILLINOIS

FINANCIAL 

MANAGEMENT 

REQUIREMENTS

HAVA funds received and expended by Illinois are as follows: 

TYPE OF AMOUNT OUTLAYS 

PAYMENT RECEIVED AMOUNT AS OF1

 

101 $11,129,030 $6,215,718 12/31/05 

102 $33,805,617 $22,810,128 12/31/05 

251 $98,595,252 $0 09/30/05 

 

Totals $143,529,899 $29,025,846 

In Illinois, HAVA payments are administered by the State Board of 

Elections (Board). To account for the payments, HAVA requires states 

to maintain records that are consistent with sound accounting 

principles, that fully disclose the amount and disposition of the 

payments, that identify project costs financed with the payments and 

with other sources, and that will facilitate an effective audit. 

In addition, the Commission notified Illinois of other management 

requirements. Specifically, that states must: 

9 Comply with the Uniform Administrative Requirements for 

Grants and Cooperative Agreements with State and Local 

Governments (also known as the “Common Rule” and 

published in 41CFR105-71). 

9 Expend payments in accordance with cost principles for 

establishing the allowability or unallowability of certain items 

of cost for federal participation issued by the Office of 

Management and Budget in Circular A-87. 

9 Submit annual financial reports on the use of Title I and Title II 

payments. 

OBJECTIVE The objective of our audit was to determine whether Illinois (1) 

expended HAVA payments in accordance with the Act and related 

administrative requirements and (2) complied with the HAVA 

requirements for replacing punch card or lever voting machines, for 

establishing an election fund, and for maintaining state expenditures 

for elections at a level not less than expended in fiscal year 2000. 

Specifically, we covered fiscal years 2003 through 2006 and reviewed 

controls to assess their adequacy over the expenditure of HAVA funds 

 

1

 EAC requires states to submit annual reports on the expenditure of 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 30 for the activities of the previous federal fiscal year. 
3 

and compliance with certain HAVA requirements for the following 

activities: 

9 Accumulating financial information reported to EAC on the 

Financial Status Reports (Standard Forms number 269). 

9 Accounting for property. 

9 Purchasing goods and services. 

9 Accounting for salaries. 

9 Charging indirect costs. 

9 Spending by counties. 

We also determined whether Illinois had complied with the 

requirements in HAVA for: 

9 Establishing and maintaining the election fund. 

9 Appropriating funds equal to five percent of the amount 

necessary for carrying out activities financed with Section 251 

requirements payments. 

9 Sustaining the State’s level of expenditures for elections. 

See Appendix 1 for the audit scope and methodology. 

RESULTS OF AUDIT

SUMMARY We concluded that the Board generally accounted for and expended 

HAVA funds in accordance with requirements. However, we 

identified: 

9 a need for the Board to improve its cash and property 

management procedures and/or processes to ensure that 

subrecipients expend HAVA funds in a timely manner and 

account for property in accordance with Federal requirements. 

Disbursing funds from its interest-bearing Help Illinois Vote 

Fund2

 to subrecipients sooner than needed resulted in lost 

interest of about $36,000 to the Vote Fund. 

9 a questionable state expenditure of $3,889 for an unauthorized 

activity. 

Regarding significant HAVA compliance requirements, we found that 

the Board miscalculated its matching fund requirement for Section 251 

payments, and did not deposit into the Vote Fund interest earned on the 

 

2

 HAVA requires states to establish an election fund, which Section 254(b)(1) of HAVA describes as 

containing all requirements payments, state appropriations for carrying out activities for which 

requirements payments are made, other appropriations, and interest earned on deposits of the fund. 
4 

matching funds which it had appropriated. Consequently, Illinois owes 

the Vote Fund additional matching funds $189,223 and interest of 

$227,996. 

CASH 

MANAGEMENT

The Board advanced HAVA funds to counties and to the Office of the 

Secretary of State that exceeded the recipients immediate cash needs. 

The cash management requirements included in 41 CFR 105-71.120 

provide that the time elapsing between the transfer of funds and the 

subsequent disbursement should be minimized. In addition, the State 

Board of Elections incorporated a provision in its agreements with the 

counties that the funds provided should be expended within 30 days. 

The Board’s agreement with the Office of the Secretary of State 

identified the funding and expected quarterly expenditures but did not 

include provisions for cash management. 

We found that two of the three counties we visited did not expend all 

funds granted by the Board, and that the Office of the Secretary of 

State did not expend funds at its forecasted rate of spending. Further, 

despite the Board’s requests, neither the counties nor the Office of the 

Secretary of State returned the unspent funds. As a result, we 

estimated that the State’s Help Illinois Vote Fund did not accumulate 

interest totaling about $36,071 on excess advances of approximately 

$1.6 million from the Vote Fund, as follows. 

UNEXPENDED ADVANCES 

Outstanding Amount *Estimate of 

Recipient Since: Outstanding Lost Interest

 

Champaign County October 7, 2004 $37,037 $2,136 

Rock Island County March 2, 2006 1,217,986 15,301 

Secretary of State December 31, 2005 353,057 **18,634 

 

 $1,608,080 $36,071

 

*We used three percent for estimating purposes because the Chief Fiscal Officer, State Board of 

Elections, advised us that the Vote Fund earned interest at an annual rate of approximately three 

percent. 

**Interest began to accrue on March 31, 2005, the date of the first advance payment to the Secretary 

of State. Total payments to the Secretary of State were $1,592,374. 

During our review, Champaign County returned the unexpended 

HAVA funds. 
5 

Recommendations: 

We recommend that the EAC require the Board to: 

1. Recover the unexpended funds from the Office of the 

Secretary of State and Rock Island County. 

2. Reimburse the Illinois Vote Fund for the interest lost on the 

outstanding advances to Champaign and Rock Island Counties 

and to the Office of the Secretary of State. 

3. Determine the extent of any other outstanding advances to 

counties and take the appropriate action as discussed in 

Recommendations 1 and 2. 

4. Reinforce with the entities receiving HAVA funds, the Federal 

and Board requirements regarding the time frame for 

expending HAVA funds. 

PROPERTY The three counties we visited did not maintain adequate records of 

equipment purchased with HAVA funds in compliance with 41 CFR 

105-71.132. Part 41 CFR 105-71.132 stipulates that property records 

must be maintained that include a description of the property; a serial 

number or other identification number; the source of property; who 

holds the title; the acquisition date; cost of the property; percentage of 

Federal participation in the cost of the property; the location, use and 

condition of the property; and any ultimate disposition data including 

the data of disposal and sale price of the property. 

The Board’s agreements with the counties did not include a provision 

to comply with Federal regulations regarding the management of 

equipment. As a result, at the counties we visited, we found that the 

property records did not contain all the required information. For 

example, Tazewell, Adams, and Cook3 counties did not maintain 

formalized inventory records that included the required data such as 

funding source, cost, and acquisition date. Instead, the counties 

maintained records of equipment that was assigned to the various 

voting precincts. Although these informal records did allow the 

counties to track the location of the equipment, they did not satisfy all 

of the control requirements in the CFRs. 

Recommendations: 

We recommend that the EAC require the Board to: 

5. Ensure that the counties comply with the Federal equipment 

management requirements. 

6. Include in future agreements the specific Federal equipment 

management requirements. 

 

3

 Cook County was in the process of developing an inventory database for the equipment. 
6 

QUESTIONED 

COSTS

The Board used $3,889 of Section 101 funds to purchase activity 

booklets intended to provide students with an understanding about 

electing the President. The Board distributed the booklets during the 

Illinois state fair. While the booklet did provide information related to 

voting, it appeared to be directed at grade school children. Section 

101(b)(1)(C) of the Help America Vote Act states that the funds can be 

used for educating voters concerning voting procedures, voting rights, 

and voting technology. In addition, number 23 of EAC’s frequently 

asked questions states that Section 101 funds must be expended to 

educate voters or groups of people who meet state voting requirements. 

Since the activity booklets appear to be intended for students not yet 

eligible to vote, we questioned the States purchase cost for the booklets 

of $3,889. 

The Board disagreed with this finding. Its response stated that 

. . . we believe the benefit [of the activity books] was 

not only for the children but also for the parents to work 

with the children in teaching them the importance of the 

voting process. We believe the benefit to the parents 

has a value that was sufficient enough to qualify as a 

HAVA expense. 

Recommendation:

7. We recommend that the EAC resolve the questioned costs 

totaling $3,889. 

MATCHING Illinois (a) understated its matching contribution by approximately 

$189,000 and (b) did not deposit into the State’s Help Illinois Vote 

Fund (Vote Fund) the $5,000,000 that it had appropriated to match the 

Help America Vote Act (HAVA) requirements payment. As a 

condition to receiving requirements payments, Section 253 (b)(5) of 

HAVA requires states to have: 

. . . appropriated funds for carrying out the activities 

for which the requirements payment is made in an 

amount equal to 5 percent of the total amount to be 

spent for such activities (taking into account the 

requirements payment and the amount spent by the 

State) . . . 

Illinois understated its matching funds because it miscalculated its 

matching requirement. In doing so, it applied the 5 percent to only the 

Federal payment of $98,595,252. This resulted in Illinois appropriating 

$5 million. The correct calculation is to first divide the Federal 
7 

payment by 95 percent to determine the total federal and state funds of 

$103,784,476. Then, to arrive at the state match, deduct the Federal 

payment ($98,595,252) from the total funds. This results in a state 

matching requirement of $5,189,223, or $189,223 more that the state 

actually appropriated. 

The Board disagreed with this portion of the finding. Its response 

stated: 

During the implementation process, many questions 

have arisen regarding the interpretation of the Act 

[HAVA] or supporting Federal rules. These questions 

(including state match questions) have been posed to 

authoritative bodies on the subject (including EAC 

staff), and the answers to these questions to this point 

had not indicated that our calculation of the State Match 

requirement was incorrect or insufficient relative to the 

HAVA Law. The SBE [State Board of Elections] also 

respectfully submits that the HAVA language regarding 

this match calculation is somewhat confusing and 

ambiguous, and therefore could be interpreted by a 

reasonable person in a manner different than that used 

by EAC. 

HAVA in Section 254 (b)(1) also requires states to deposit the funds 

appropriated to match the requirements payment into a state election 

fund, described as follows: 

. . . a fund which is established in the treasury of the 

State government, which is used in accordance with 

paragraph (2), and which consists of the following 

amounts: 

(A)Amounts appropriated or otherwise made 

available by the State for carrying out the 

activities for which the requirements 

payment is made to the State under this 

part. 

(B) The requirements payment made to the 

State under this part. 

(C) Such other amounts as may be 

appropriated under law. 

(D)Interest earned on deposits of the fund. 

We found that Illinois did not, however, deposit the $5,000,000 into its 

Vote Fund. This occurred because state officials were not aware of the 

requirement to deposit the funds in the Vote Fund and because State 

law required the funds to be deposited in the Illinois capital 
8 

development fund. As a result, Illinois lost interest that it would have 

earned had it deposited its full matching fund requirement into the 

Vote Fund. 

According to Chief Fiscal Officer, State Board of Elections, the Vote 

Fund earned interest at an annual rate of approximately 3 percent. 

Using the 3 percent interest rate, we estimated lost interest to be about 

$227,996.4

The Board did not agree with this portion of the finding. Its response 

stated 

. . . SBE respectfully submits that the sometimes 

confusing and ambiguous language in this area of the 

HAVA legislation is a significant factor in SBE’s 

assumption that amounts ‘otherwise made available’ (as 

opposed to direct appropriations and deposit) would be 

sufficient to meet the State match contribution rule. In 

addition, the significant fiscal crunch being experienced 

by the State of Illinois (as well as other states) severely 

limited the possible sources for this sizable State 

contribution. 

Recommendation: 

8. We recommend that the EAC require the Board to deposit state 

funds of $417,219 ($189,223 under match plus interest of 

$227,996) into the Vote Fund. 

 

4

 We calculated the $227,996 by applying the 3 percent rate to outstanding monthly balances of the 

matching fund appropriation through the final disbursement of funds in February 2006. 
9 

APPENDIX 1 

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 

To accomplish our objective, we reviewed: 

9 The prior single audit report and other reviews related to the 

Board’s financial management systems and the HAVA program for 

the last 2 years. 

9 Policies, procedures and regulations for Illinois’ management and 

accounting systems as they relate to the administration of HAVA 

programs. 

9 Inventory lists of all equipment purchased with HAVA funds. 

9 Major purchases. 

9 Supporting documents maintained in the accounting system for 

payments made with HAVA funds. 

9 Support for reimbursements to counties. 

9 Certain Illinois laws that impact the election fund. 

9 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. 

9 Information regarding source/supporting documents kept for 

maintenance of effort and matching contributions. 

We also interviewed appropriate Board employees about the 

organization and operation of the HAVA program. 

We conducted our audit in accordance with Government Auditing 

Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. As 

such, we included tests and procedures as considered necessary under 

the circumstances to evaluate the Board’s controls over the 

administration of HAVA payments. 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.
10 

APPENDIX 2 

MONETARY IMPACT 

Description 

Funds to be Put 

to Better Use 

Questioned 

Costs 

Additional Funds 

for Program 

 

Cash Management $36,071

 

Activity Booklet $3,889

 

Matching: 

 Under match $189,223

 Interest 227,996

 

Totals 36,071 3,889 417,219
STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS 

STATE OF ILLINOIS 

1020 South Spring Street, P.O. Box 41 87 

Springfield, Illinois 62708 

21 717824141 TTY: 21 71782-1518 

Fax: 2171782-5959 

James R. Thompson Center 

100 West Randolph, Sulte 14-100 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

3121814-6440 TTY: 3121814-6431 

Fax: 31 21814-6485 

XECUTNE DIRECTOR 

Daniel W. White 

Appendix 3 

Page 1 of 2 

BOARD MEMBERS 

Jesse Smart, Chairman 

Wanda Rednour, Vice Chairman 

Patrick Brady 

John Keith 

William McGuffage 

Albert Porter 

Bryan Schneider 

Robert Walten 

October 2, 2006 

Roger La Rouche, Acting Inspector General 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

1225 New York Avenue NW - Suite 1 100 

Washington, DC 20005 

Mr. La Rouche: 

The Illinois State Board of Elections (SBE) has evaluated the findings contained in your draft EAC audit 

report of Help America Vote Act (HAVA) activities dated September 1, 2006. Please find below the 

State Board of Elections' responses to these tentative findings: 

Findinn #I: Cash management - return of unexpended advances from specific counties. 

SBE Response: Concur. The SBE will take steps to correct this finding and recover outstanding funds 

and interest lost in the HAVA fund due to entities not spending the funds provided to them within the 

required 30-day period. The SBE will also notify the appropriate County Boards and County Auditors of 

each jurisdiction in question in order to facilitate payment of outstanding amounts and an estimate of 

tost interest which will be in turn deposited into the HAVA fund. 

Findina #2: Grant sub-recipients did not maintain adequate property control records for 

equipment purchased with HAVA grant monies. 

SEE Response: Concur. SBE did contain language in original sub-recipient grant agreements that 

expenditures made by local election sub-recipients with HAVA grant monies must be recorded and 

maintained according to all applicable Federal and State statutes. SBE will initiate additional 

communications with all sub-recipient counties to further explain specific Federal property control 

requirements and distribute Federal property control guidelines for corrective action purposes. SBE has 

already enhanced sub-recipient grant application documents to place added emphasis on compliance 

with Federal property control rules as a condition of receiving HAVA sub-recipient monies. Furthermore, 

SBE will also monitor sub-recipient feedback from future grant activities to help ensure that these rules 

are being applied to HAVA-purchased equipment items at the local jurisdiction level. 

Findinn #3: Questioned Costs (student activity booklets). 

SBE Response: Disagree. Although the SBE understands the Election Assistance Commission's 

philosophy on the issue of the activity books, we believe there are benefits not just to the children. We 

believe that the benefit was not only for the children but also for the parents to work with the children in 

teaching them the importance of the voting process. We believe the benefit to the parents has a value 

that was sufficient enough to qualify as a HAVA expense. 

11 

www.eleclions.il.gov 
Appendix 3 

Page 2 of 2 

Findina M: Undercalculation of State Match requirement and deposit into dedicated HAVA fund. 

SEE Res~onse: Disagree. During the tenure of the HAVA program, the SBE has taken great care to 

ensure that the language and mandates of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 have been interpreted 

and implemented in an accurate and reasonable manner. During this implementation process, many 

questions have arisen regarding interpretation of the Act or supporting Federal rules. These questions 

(including State match questions) have been posed to authoritative bodies on the subject (including 

EAC staff), and the answers to these questions to this point had not indicated that our calculation of the 

State Match requirement was incorrect or insufficient relative to the HAVA law. The SBE also 

respectfully submits that the HAVA language regarding this match calculation is somewhat confusing 

and ambiguous, and therefore could be interpreted by a reasonable person in a manner different than 

that used by the EAC. SBE continues to place high priority on full compliance with all Federal mandates 

in our implementation of HAVA program objectives , and would like to initiate discussion with the EAC 

on other possibilities to 'make up' this deficiency in the State match calculation. Such possibilities 

include, but are not limited to, inclusion of surplus SBE 'maintenance of effort' spending over FY2000 

levels and excess local jurisdiction contributions in fulfillment of HAVA Statellocal contribution quotas. 

With regards to the deposit of State match contributions directly into the dedicated HAVA fund, SBE 

respectfully submits that the sometimes confusing and ambiguous language in this area of the HAVA 

legislation is a significant factor in SBE's assumption that amounts 'otherwise made available' (as 

opposed to direct appropriation and deposit) would be sufficient to meet the State match contribution 

rule. In addition, the significant fiscal crunch being experienced by the State of Illinois (as well as other 

states) severely limited the possible sources for this sizeable State contribution. As a result it was the 

Illinois legislature, acting in good faith and not the SBE who directed that a spending authority 

contribution 'made available' from a shared bond fund would be the most economicaily feasible source. 

This funding option was decided by the lllinois legislature as the best compliant resource, and not 

recommended by the SBE. Spending from this fund is restricted, however, and can not be 'transferred' 

over to other funds prior to direct expenditure to vendors. 

Other issues also factor in to SBE's opinion on this draft finding. A complete discussion of each of 

these issues, however, would be outside the scope of this summary document. Consequently, the SBE 

would also like to open a dialogue with the EAC to examine potential solutions to this particular issue. 

The SBE's primary goal in resolving each of the findings listed above is a solution that is compliant, fair, 

and does not put unreasonable financial hardship on either the EAC or the State. We await word from 

your office as to the next process step in resolving these findings. Until then, if you have any questions 

regarding these responses or other HAVA issues, please feel free to contact our office at (217) 782- 

4141. 

Sincerely. 

Daniel W. White 

SBE Executive Director 

Cc: Becky Glazier, HAVA Operations Manager 

Michael Roate. Chief Fiscal Officer 
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) 566-3127 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste and Abuse 

Involving the U.S. 

Election Assistance 

Commission or Help 

America Vote Act 

Funds

By Mail: U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

 Office of Inspector General 

 1225 New York Ave. NW - Suite 1100 

 Washington, DC 20005 

E-mail: eacoig@eac.gov

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

FAX: 202-566-0957