Election Assistance Commission: Assessment of Lessons Learned Could Improve Grants Administration
Fast Facts
The Election Assistance Commission was established in 2002 to serve as an information clearinghouse on election administration, among other things. It administered $400 million in grants to help states conduct elections during the COVID-19 pandemic. It also provided information on in-person and absentee/mail voting, and more.
The EAC could report more clearly on how the grant money was spent. For example, we found issues with how states and the EAC categorized about 20% of the spending, making it hard to consistently determine how states spent funds. We recommended the EAC assess how it administered the grants to find ways to improve.
Highlights
What GAO Found
The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC)—established to serve as a national clearinghouse of information on election administration, among other responsibilities—shared information on a range of topics to help state and local election officials conduct elections during the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, it shared information on in-person voting, absentee/mail voting, and contingency planning. It also established National Poll Worker Recruitment Day and developed graphics as part of a related public awareness campaign (see fig.).
U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) National Poll Worker Recruitment Day Graphic
The EAC administered CARES Act grants by obligating funds and overseeing how states spent the funds, in part by reviewing states' grant reports to check how states spent funds to respond to the pandemic. It also reported information to Congress on how states spent approximately $326 million in grant funds, and to a committee overseeing the response to the pandemic on the specific activities undertaken by states using these funds.
The EAC identified and addressed some issues with its administration of CARES Act grants. For example, while administering CARES Act grants, the EAC revised required grant reporting forms to more clearly align with requirements and to address difficulties some states were having with narrative questions on the forms. The EAC and GAO identified other issues with administration of the grants. For example, GAO found issues with how states and the EAC categorized expenditures involving nearly 20 percent of the total reported spending nationwide. As a result, in the EAC's annual grant expenditure report to Congress, states' expenditures for similar or the same items or activities could be included under multiple categories, making it difficult to consistently determine, by category, how states spent the grant funds.
However, the EAC has not yet assessed its administration of CARES Act grants and documented lessons learned. According to EAC officials, assessing the administration of these grants could identify lessons learned beyond those that officials identified while administering the grants. Additionally, the EAC could document and implement any lessons learned. This could help improve the EAC's administration of ongoing or future grant programs, particularly in the event of a future emergency.
Why GAO Did This Study
During the 2020 federal elections, the EAC administered $400 million in grant funds provided by the CARES Act to help states prepare for and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The CARES Act included a provision for GAO to report on its ongoing monitoring and oversight efforts related to the COVID-19 pandemic. This report (1) describes information that the EAC provided to state and local election officials for conducting elections during the pandemic, (2) describes how the EAC administered CARES Act grant funding, and (3) examines the extent to which the EAC assessed its CARES Act grants administration. GAO reviewed information on the EAC's website on conducting elections during the pandemic and interviewed EAC officials regarding processes for developing and distributing this information. GAO obtained and reviewed the EAC's data on CARES Act grant expenditures, grant guidance for states on expending and reporting funding, and materials the EAC used to review state reports. GAO also interviewed EAC officials regarding grant administration procedures.
Recommendations
GAO recommends that the EAC assess its administration of CARES Act grants to document any lessons learned and, to the extent practicable, implement applicable lessons. The EAC identified ongoing and planned steps to assess and implement lessons learned from its administration of CARES Act grants.
Recommendations for Executive Action
| Agency Affected Sort descending | Recommendation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Election Assistance Commission | The EAC should assess its administration of CARES Act grants to document any lessons learned and resources needed for improving grants administration. (Recommendation 1) |
Closed – Implemented
During the course of the CARES Act grant cycle, the EAC identified a need for a modernized grants management system, with revised grant reporting formats and procedures to enable the agency to more efficiently process pre-award as well as post-award activities across all EAC grants. In August 2021, the EAC entered into an interagency agreement to be renewed annually with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for HHS to conduct a fit gap analysis of EAC's grants administration needs as well as to onboard several grants software services. The fit gap analysis was completed in January 2022, and the new grants system went live for grantees in November 2022. Subsequently, the EAC developed its own grants management system, which it implemented in October 2023. The steps to identify needed improvements to the EAC's grant management system and the resources required to support such improvements are consistent with our recommendation.
|
| Election Assistance Commission | The EAC should implement any applicable lessons learned, to the extent practicable, arising from assessing its administration of CARES Act grants. (Recommendation 2) |
Closed – Implemented
The EAC has implemented lessons learned based on assessing its administration of CARES Act grants. For example, in its new grant management system and in associated guidance for progress reporting by grantees, the EAC has clarified how states should report subgrant expenditures made by local jurisdictions in regular progress reports submitted by state officials. Additionally, the new grants management system automatically totals grant expenditures entered by grantee, which was a function that the old grant management system could not perform and an issue identified by the EAC as a deficiency while administering the CARES Act grants. The changes that the EAC has made to improve its grants administration, which reflect lessons learned during the administration of CARES Act grants, are consistent with our recommendation.
|