This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-648R
entitled 'Preliminary Observations on Funding, Oversight, and
Investigations and Prosecutions of ACORN or Potentially Related
Organizations' which was released on June 14, 2010.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
GAO-10-648R:
June 14, 2010:
Congressional Requesters:
Subject: Preliminary Observations on Funding, Oversight, and
Investigations and Prosecutions of ACORN or Potentially Related
Organizations:
Nonprofit organizations, such as the Association of Community
Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), play an important role in
providing a wide range of public services. To provide these services,
these organizations rely on funding through federal grants and
contracts, among other sources. Just as it is important for federal
agencies to be held accountable for the efficient and effective use of
taxpayer dollars, it is also important for these nonprofit
organizations to be held accountable for their use of federal funds.
ACORN was established in 1970 as a grassroots organization to advocate
for low-income families. By 2009, ACORN reportedly had 500,000 members
and had expanded into a national network of organizations involved in
the development of affordable housing, foreclosure counseling, voter
registration, and political mobilization, among other things. ACORN
organizations relied on membership dues and on federal and private
foundation funding to support various activities. Voter registration
fraud allegations in a number of states and widely distributed
videotapes depicting what appeared to be inappropriate behavior by
employees of several local ACORN chapters spurred calls to identify
federal funding provided to ACORN and ACORN-related organizations and
for legislation to restrict or eliminate funding.
Congress passed provisions restricting the funding of ACORN or any of
its affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied organizations in the fiscal
year 2010 continuing resolutions,[Footnote 1] which were followed by
several fiscal year 2010 appropriations acts that prohibited any
appropriated funds from being awarded to various ACORN or ACORN-
related organizations.[Footnote 2] ACORN officials reported similar
cuts in private foundation funding. In March 2010 ACORN officials
stated that the national ACORN organization would be terminating its
field operations and closing all of its field offices because of the
loss of federal and other funding, although some of its related
organizations were to remain open.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, directed us to issue a
report on ACORN within 180 days (by June 14, 2010).[Footnote 3] We
also received three request letters from a total of 23 members of
Congress asking that we provide information on federal funding
provided to ACORN and oversight of the use of this funding. A list of
the congressional requesters is provided in enclosure I. We have
combined our work for the mandate and requests to report on the
following objectives for fiscal years 2005 through 2009:
(1) How much funding did federal agencies award to ACORN or
potentially related organizations, and what was the source and purpose
of the funding?
(2) To what extent did federal agencies apply oversight mechanisms
when monitoring awards to ACORN or potentially related organizations
to ensure funding was spent appropriately, and how were problems, if
any, addressed?
(3) To what extent were federal investigations or prosecutions
conducted of ACORN or potentially related organizations, and what were
the nature and results of these investigations and prosecutions?
Given that our analysis related to these objectives is ongoing, the
information in this report is preliminary and subject to change. We
plan to issue a report later this year with our final results related
to ACORN and potentially related organizations.
For purposes of this report, we use the term "ACORN or potentially
related organizations," unless stated otherwise, to encompass the
national ACORN office and other organizations identified by the
Congressional Research Service (CRS) as having a potential
relationship with ACORN.[Footnote 4] While these organizations may
potentially be subsidiaries or affiliates of ACORN, we have not yet
made such a determination but will do so and include the results in
our final report on ACORN to be issued later this year.[Footnote 5]
Further, continuing resolutions and various appropriations acts for
fiscal year 2010 restricted certain federal agencies from providing
funding to ACORN and certain related entities, but we are not making a
determination that any organization on the CRS list or named in this
or our final report is subject to those restrictions.[Footnote 6]
Agencies are responsible for ensuring that they are implementing their
applicable appropriations statutes properly.[Footnote 7]
Scope and Methodology:
To identify funding awarded to ACORN or potentially related
organizations and its purpose, we asked 31 federal agencies to
identify funding (grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements)
awarded to ACORN or potentially related organizations from fiscal
years 2005 through 2009 and, to the extent possible, any funding that
may have gone to ACORN or a potentially related organization as a
subaward (subgrant or subcontract) during this period.[Footnote 8] We
requested information on federal funding that was awarded to ACORN or
potentially related organizations, regardless of whether the funding
had been dispersed to or expended by the organizations.
The federal agencies we included in our review are ones that we
determined might have awarded funding to ACORN or potentially related
organizations based on one or more of the following indicators:
* the agency participates in grants.gov, a Website through which
organizations can apply for federal grants;
* the agency is an executive department that was prohibited by
provisions in its fiscal year 2010 appropriations statute from
providing funding to ACORN or ACORN-related entities; or:
* the agency or its inspector general (IG) conducted a review of
funding to ACORN or potentially related organizations as a result of a
congressional request or self-initiated effort.
Agencies included in our scope are listed in enclosure II. For those
agencies that relied on databases to identify any ACORN funding, we
requested information that would enable us to determine whether the
databases were reliable for our purposes. For this preliminary report,
we have not received all the information needed to assess the
reliability for each of the data systems the 31 agencies searched to
respond to our request, but we will have completed this review for our
final report, making any adjustments as necessary. We also reviewed
various agency funding documents and government and nonprofit reports
about ACORN or potentially related organizations for additional
background information.
To enable the 31 agencies, for the purposes of this report, to
determine whether they had provided funding to ACORN or any
potentially related organizations, we suggested that they search their
grant and procurement databases using the organizations identified by
CRS as potentially having a relationship with ACORN. We selected the
CRS list in part because counsel for ACORN identified the majority of
organizations on the list as having some sort of relationship to
ACORN. Specifically, when providing the list to CRS, ACORN grouped
organizations into categories, such as "associated" organizations
(sharing a common mission) or organizations associated with ACORN
Housing Corporation or NY ACORN Housing Corporation, both of which
ACORN identified as separate, tax-exempt nonprofits that are not
controlled by ACORN.[Footnote 9] In addition to being identified by
ACORN counsel, many of the organizations on the CRS list were also
included on at least one of the other lists, indicating that there was
some consistency regarding a potential association with ACORN. Most of
the 31 agencies searched for funding using the CRS list or a method
that encompassed the organizations included on the CRS list. Several
agencies did not use the CRS list. For example, in response to an IG
review, one agency had recently searched for any funding it had
provided to ACORN or potentially related organizations using a list
that encompassed most, but not all, of the organizations identified by
CRS. As part of our ongoing review, we will continue our efforts to
develop our own list of ACORN subsidiaries and affiliates and include
a discussion of our methodology, as well as any updates on funding, in
our final report to be issued later this year.
To identify the monitoring processes for funds awarded to ACORN or
potentially related organizations, we obtained and compared the
agencies' monitoring protocols with documentation of the steps
agencies took to monitor these awards.[Footnote 10] We interviewed and
obtained documentation from grant program managers and staff from six
of the nine agencies that reported providing funding to organizations
on the CRS list: NeighborWorks, the Election Assistance Commission
(EAC), the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of the Treasury
(Treasury), and the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA).[Footnote
11] We discussed their monitoring processes and how they decided which
mechanisms to apply for particular awards. We also asked grant program
managers and staff to identify any problems that agencies found
through the oversight process and explain how these were resolved. In
addition, we asked all nine agencies that reported awarding funding to
ACORN or potentially related organizations to identify any work, in
addition to grant oversight, that agencies had or were conducting
related to ACORN or potentially related organizations. We limited our
work on oversight at three agencies--the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD)--because their IGs had conducted
or were conducting similar reviews and we did not want to engage in
potential duplication of effort. We will describe the results of any
reviews underway at the nine agencies, as well as any additional work
we conduct, in our report to be issued later this year. Although
governmentwide guidance exists regarding federal grant oversight,
because the guidance is general in nature and does not establish a
benchmark for what level of oversight would be considered sufficient
to safeguard against the misuse of funds, we did not independently
assess the sufficiency of agencies' oversight activities. Instead, we
reviewed the extent to which agencies applied their oversight
protocols to funds awarded to ACORN or potentially related
organizations.
For our third objective, we reviewed information from DOJ--including
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and DOJ litigating divisions
[Footnote 12]--as well as the 31 agencies within the scope of our
review and the investigative components of the IGs of those 31
agencies to identify any investigations or prosecutions they have
conducted of ACORN or potentially related organizations since fiscal
year 2005. To capture such information from DOJ's 94 U.S. Attorneys
Offices (USAO), we obtained information on cases and matters from the
Legal Information Office Network System (LIONS), which is the case
management system all USAOs use.[Footnote 13] We asked the Executive
Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA) to search LIONS to determine if
ACORN or any of its potentially related organizations identified on
the CRS list had been the subject of an investigation or case handled
by any of the USAOs. To identify potential cases that were related to
ACORN or potentially related organizations but that LIONS did not
identify because the defendant was an individual (for example, an
employee or executive) rather than an organization, an EOUSA official
asked all USAOs to identify any cases they recalled that involved
individuals associated with ACORN or potentially related
organizations. The EOUSA official also asked DOJ's Public Integrity
Section (a section that DOJ prosecutors must consult with prior to
prosecuting matters that involve the election process) whether there
were any election fraud cases that involved individuals associated
with ACORN or any potentially related organizations.[Footnote 14]
We conducted this performance audit from December 2009 through June
2010 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 our audit objectives:
Results in Brief:
Nine agencies--HUD, DHS, DOJ, EAC, NeighborWorks, CPB, EPA, Treasury,
and NEA--identified approximately $37.5 million in direct federal
grants and at least $2.9 million in subawards (i.e., grants and
contracts awarded by federal grantees) to ACORN or potentially related
organizations, primarily for housing-related purposes during fiscal
years 2005 through 2009. These agencies and others included in our
review were limited in their ability to identify how much funding they
provided to ACORN or potentially related organizations through
subawards, generally because agencies are not required to and thus do
not collect data on all subawards.
Agencies employed several mechanisms--ranging from reviews of progress
reports submitted by grant recipients to on-site monitoring--to
oversee the eight direct grants for which we received documentation on
their oversight process; agencies generally did not identify any
problems with seven of the eight grants.[Footnote 15] Agency officials
said that they considered the grant amount and availability of
personnel and resources as factors in deciding what type of monitoring
to conduct. Agency monitoring efforts identified and resolved a
problem with one of eight direct grants to ACORN or potentially
related organizations for which we obtained information on oversight.
Specifically, NeighborWorks determined that ACORN Housing Corporation
had not provided a description of what it planned to accomplish under
the grant, as required. After NeighborWorks brought this to the
attention of ACORN Housing Corporation officials, these officials
subsequently provided the documentation. Oversight of subawards is
generally delegated to grantees. EPA, Treasury, NEA, and NeighborWorks
grantees provided a total of 15 subawards to ACORN or potentially
related organizations. EPA reviewed the grantees' work plans which
included subaward information, finding no problem with the subawards.
Treasury officials reported that they reviewed grantees' work plans,
which identified subgrantees and grantees' related expenditures. They
also stated that they found no problem with a subgrant based on an
assessment of a grantee that was randomly selected to receive
additional oversight. In addition, NEA also reviewed the grantee's
final report, which included information on the subgrant, and the
subgrantee's program and budget reports, and found no problems with
the subgrant. Furthermore, NeighborWorks reported that it reviewed
progress reports submitted by its grantees, which included information
on their subgrantees, and found no problems with the subgrants awarded
to ACORN or potentially related organizations. All six of the agencies
that provided direct funding to ACORN or potentially related
organizations, in addition to their routine grant oversight, have IG
reviews or internal audits of funding to ACORN or potentially related
organizations that are completed or were still ongoing as of May 24,
2010. DOJ, which completed its review in November 2009, examined
whether internal controls were in place related to the use of DOJ
grant funds awarded to ACORN or potentially related organizations and
reported that the agency had not conducted an audit or other review of
the awards. EPA, Treasury, and NEA have not conducted additional
reviews of their subawards beyond the routine oversight.
DOJ and the Federal Election Commission (FEC) reported matters,
investigations, and cases related to voter registration and election
fraud for ACORN or four potentially related organizations, some of
which resulted in actions being taken. Specifically, DOJ and the FBI
identified six investigations, generally involving allegations of
voter registration fraud on the part of ACORN employees, all of which
were closed without action due to insufficient evidence and lack of
evidence. The FEC's four closed matters also resulted in no further
action. Six cases were identified by DOJ involving voter registration
fraud, with all but one case resulting in guilty pleas. Of the 31
federal IGs that we contacted, 29 stated that they had no ongoing or
closed investigations of ACORN or a potentially related organization.
Officials from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
(TIGTA) and HUD IG office declined to comment on whether their offices
had conducted any such investigations.
Agencies Reported Awarding More Than $40 Million to ACORN or
Potentially Related Organizations for Fiscal Years 2005 through 2009,
Primarily for Housing-Related Programs, but Had Limited Data on
Funding Awarded through Subgrants and Subcontracts:
Nine agencies identified approximately $40.4 million--$37.5 million in
direct federal grants and $2.9 million in subgrants and subcontracts--
awarded to ACORN or potentially related organizations during fiscal
years 2005 through 2009, with much of the funding designated for
housing-related purposes. Table 1 identifies direct grants awarded to
ACORN or potentially related organizations based on agency reviews of
their grant and procurement databases. For DOJ, we included funding
identified by the agency's IG in a 2009 ACORN audit report rather than
have the agency search its databases using the CRS list.[Footnote 16]
None of the agencies identified that it had awarded contracts or
cooperative agreements directly to ACORN or potentially related
organizations.
Table 1: Preliminary Information on Direct Grants Awarded to ACORN or
Potentially Related Organizations, Fiscal Years 2005-2009:
HUD:
Agency Office/Division: Office of Housing;
ACORN or Potentially Related Organizations: ACORN Housing Corporation;
Fiscal Year and Amount:
FY05 - $1,873,816;
FY06 - $1,821,596;
FY07 - $1,628,829;
FY08 - $1,623,570;
Grant Program Description: Housing Counseling Program -To provide
housing counseling services, including assisting eligible homebuyers
to find and purchase homes, helping renters locate and qualify for
assisted rental units, helping eligible homebuyers obtain affordable
housing, assisting homeowners to avoid foreclosures, assisting renters
to avoid evictions, helping the homeless find temporary or permanent
shelter, reporting fair housing and discrimination complaints.
Agency Office/Division: Public and Indian Housing;
ACORN or Potentially Related Organizations: ACORN National;
Fiscal Year and Amount:
FY06 - $362,378;
FY07 - $429,524;
FY08 - $313,495;
Grant Program Description: Resident Opportunities and Self-Sufficiency
Service Coordinator Program -To support coordinators who assess the
needs of residents and coordinate community resources to meet those
needs. Program goals, among other things, are to enable families to
increase economic independence, reduce or eliminate the need for
welfare assistance, and in the case of elderly or disabled residents,
to improve living conditions and enable residents to age in place.
Agency Office/Division: Public and Indian Housing;
ACORN or Potentially Related Organizations: ACORN Tenants
Union/National office;
Fiscal Year and Amount:
FY08 - $124,965;
Grant Program Description: Resident Opportunities and Self-Sufficiency
Service Coordinator Program -To support coordinators who assess the
needs of residents and coordinate community resources to meet those
needs. Program goals, among other things, are to enable families to
increase economic independence, reduce or eliminate the need for
welfare assistance, and in the case of elderly or disabled residents,
to improve living conditions and enable residents to age in place.
Agency Office/Division: Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity;
ACORN or Potentially Related Organizations: ACORN Housing Corporation;
Fiscal Year and Amount:
FY05 - $100,000;
FY07 - $100,000;
Grant Program Description: Fair Housing Initiative Program - To
support non-profit organizations that assist people who fee they have
been victims of housing discrimination by helping to identify
appropriate government agencies regarding discrimination claims and by
conducting preliminary investigations of such claims. In addition the
program has four initiatives that promote fair housing.
Agency Office/Division: Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard
Control;
ACORN or Potentially Related Organizations: ACORN Associates;
Fiscal Year and Amount:
FY05 - $1,999,920;
Grant Program Description: Lead Elimination Action Program - To
support non-profit organizations that identify and control lead-based
paint hazards in eligible privately owned housing by leveraging
private sector funding.
Agency Office/Division: Office of Community Planning and Development;
ACORN or Potentially Related Organizations: ACORN Housing Corporation;
Fiscal Year and Amount:
FY 05 - $527,000;
Grant Program Description: Self—help Ownership Program - To provide
funds for nonprofit organizations to purchase home sites to develop or
improve site infrastructure needed for home ownership programs for low
income persons and families.
DHS[A]:
Agency Office/Division: Federal Emergency Management Agency;
ACORN or Potentially Related Organizations: ACORN Institute;
Fiscal Year and Amount:
FY07 - $450,484;
Grant Program Description: Fire Prevention and Safety Program -To
reduce the loss of life and property from fires using fire prevention
strategies including smoke alarm installation, education and
awareness, code adoption and enforcement, and arson prevention. The
grant to the ACORN Institute was specifically to carry out fire
prevention programs, such as:
* a community outreach program;
* responding to general requests for in-home inspections.
Agency Office/Division: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention;
ACORN or Potentially Related Organizations: New York Agency for
Community Affairs;
Fiscal Year and Amount:
FY05 - $138,130
Grant Program Description: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention grant—(Based on congressional direction to the New York
Agency for Community Affairs) - To provide youth leadership training
to students at select New York City schools; form "ACORN Youth Union"
chapters; and coordinate student campaigns to address issues such as
school funding, neighborhood safety, and school governance.
EAC:
ACORN or Potentially Related Organizations: Project Vote - Delaware;
Fiscal Year and Amount:
FY06 - $16,875;
Grant Program Description: Help America Vote College Program—College
Poll Worker Grants -To develop programs that recruit and train college
students to serve as nonpartisan poll workers and poll assistants and
to encourage college students to assist state and local governments in
the administration of elections.
ACORN or Potentially Related Organizations: Project Vote - Michigan;
Fiscal Year and Amount:
FY06 - $16,875;
Grant Program Description: Help America Vote College Program—College
Poll Worker Grants -To develop programs that recruit and train college
students to serve as nonpartisan poll workers and poll assistants and
to encourage college students to assist state and local governments in
the administration of elections.
NeighborWorks:
ACORN or Potentially Related Organizations: ACORN Housing Corporation;
Fiscal Year and Amount:
FY08 - $25,050,939;
Grant Program Description: National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling
Program -To provide counseling services to people facing foreclosure
using a national network of nonprofit organizations.
CPB:
ACORN or Potentially Related Organizations: Arkansas Broadcasting
Foundation Inc. (KABF-FM);
Fiscal Year and Amount:
FY05 - $37,694;
FY06 - $84,801;
FY07 - $87,388;
FY08 - $77,475;
FY09 - $81,250;
Grant Program Description: Community Service Grants - To support radio
stations in their general operations and programming in order to
enhance the quality of programming and expand the scope of public
broadcasting services. Originally, the radio grant program admitted
all stations that met basic eligibility criteria but was later limited
in an effort to minimize redundancy and reward greater community use
of the services provided by stations.
ACORN or Potentially Related Organizations: Agape Broadcasting
Foundation Inc. (KNON FM);
Fiscal Year and Amount:
FY05 - $19,508;
FY06 - $115,484;
FY07 - $110,162;
FY08 - $103,839;
FY09 - $97,249
Grant Program Description: Community Service Grants - To support radio
stations in their general operations and programming in order to
enhance the quality of programming and expand the scope of public
broadcasting services. Originally, the radio grant program admitted
all stations that met basic eligibility criteria but was later limited
in an effort to minimize redundancy and reward greater community use
of the services provided by stations.
ACORN or Potentially Related Organizations: Arkansas Broadcasting
Foundation Inc. (KABF-FM);
Fiscal Year and Amount:
FY 05 - $15,000
Grant Program Description: Internet Acquisition Grant - To help rural
and minority radio stations use web technology to increase service to
their listeners through improving their web presence, enhancing
station outreach, deepening community relations, improving public
transparency and accountability; and offering listeners an easy and
secure way to support stations financially.
ACORN or Potentially Related Organizations: Agape Broadcasting
Foundation Inc. (KNON FM);
Fiscal Year and Amount:
FY 05 - $15,000;
Grant Program Description: Internet Acquisition Grant - To help rural
and minority radio stations use web technology to increase service to
their listeners through improving their web presence, enhancing
station outreach, deepening community relations, improving public
transparency and accountability; and offering listeners an easy and
secure way to support stations financially.
ACORN or Potentially Related Organizations: Agape Broadcasting
Foundation Inc. (KNON FM);
Fiscal Year and Amount:
FY 06 - S80,000;
Grant Program Description: Digital Radio Conversion Fund - To provide
funds to radio stations planning to convert to digital stations for an
improved audio quality such as supplemental audio channel on FM
stations.
Direct Grants Total: $37,503,246.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data and summary of November 2009 DOJ
Inspector General report.
[A] DHS awarded a second Fire Prevention and Safety Program grant to
the ACORN Institute in 2008 for $997,482; however, that grant was
rescinded in November 2009 in response to section 163 of the
Continuing Appropriations Resolution, which prohibited funding to
ACORN or any of ACORN's affiliates, subsidiaries or allied
organizations.
[A] DHS awarded a second Fire Prevention and Safety Program grant to
the ACORN Institute in 2008 for $997,482; however, that grant was
rescinded in November 2009 in response to section 163 of the
Continuing Appropriations Resolution, which prohibited funding to
ACORN or any of ACORN's affiliates, subsidiaries or allied
organizations.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data and summary of November 2009 DOJ
Inspector General report.
[End of table]
Agencies were limited in the extent to which they were able to
identify how much funding grantees in turn provided to ACORN or
potentially related organizations through subawards, generally because
agencies have not collected data on subawards (which would include
grants and contracts) that their grantees made, in part because
agencies generally have not been required to maintain this
information. Therefore, in order to obtain information on the number
and amount of any subawards that grantees made, agency officials, for
example, would have to be informed by the grantees of the subawards or
review hard copy files of their primary grant recipients. Given that
agencies can have tens of thousands of primary grant recipients,
agency officials said that they do not have the resources to conduct
such reviews. Although EPA, Treasury, NEA, and NeighborWorks do not
maintain information on subawards, the first three agencies said that
they were informed by their grantees of subawards made to ACORN or
potentially related organizations because of the funding restriction
in the agencies' respective fiscal year 2010 appropriations statutes.
In the case of NeighborWorks, the agency said that it required
grantees to provide the names of the subgrantees in the grant
application. In another instance, we identified an EPA subaward based
on an Internet search.
Recognizing the importance of transparency in federal spending,
Congress passed the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency
Act of 2006 (FFATA)[Footnote 17] which, among other things, required
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to establish, no later than
January 1, 2008, a publicly accessible Website containing data on
direct federal awards. OMB was also to conduct a pilot program on
collecting subaward data beginning no later than July 2007, and to
include data on subawards in the accessible Website by January 2009.
However, as we reported in March 2010, OMB had only partially
satisfied the subaward requirements--it had begun two pilot programs
in 2008, after the statutory deadline, but had not yet developed a
plan or process for including subaward information on the public Web
site.[Footnote 18] Therefore, subaward data for ACORN or potentially
related organizations for 2009 were not readily available. We
recommended that OMB implement a specific plan for collecting and
reporting on subaward data, including a time frame for including
subaward data on its Web site. OMB generally agreed and on April 6,
2010, issued a memorandum to agencies, requiring the posting of
subaward information. The OMB memorandum directs agencies to initiate
subaward reporting on October 1, 2010 through USASpending.gov,
pursuant to FFATA.
Table 2 includes information agencies were able to provide on funding
that their grantees awarded to ACORN or potentially related
organizations through subgrants or subcontracts. Given the limitations
described above, this table may not include all of the subawards made
to ACORN or potentially related organizations.
Table 2: Selected Subawards Awarded to ACORN or Potentially Related
Organizations, Fiscal Years 2005-20091, 2005-2009(A,B]:
Funding Agency: HUD:
Subawardee: ACORN Housing Corporation;
Grantee: Tampa;
Fiscal Year and Amount: FY06 - $38,000;
Grant Program Description: Community Development Block Grant - To
support efforts, among other things, to promote affordable housing,
provide services to the most vulnerable community members, and create
jobs through the expansion and retention of businesses. The annual
CDBG appropriation is allocated to states and local jurisdictions
using a formula comprised of several measures of community need. A
majority of the funds are for activities that benefit low- and
moderate-income persons, and each activity must meet one of the
national program objectives, such as prevention or elimination of
slums or blight.
Funding Agency: HUD:
Subawardee: ACORN Housing Corporation;
Grantee: Chicago;
Fiscal Year and Amount:
FY 06 - $21,675;
FY 07 - $21,470;
Grant Program Description: Community Development Block Grant - To
support efforts, among other things, to promote affordable housing,
provide services to the most vulnerable community members, and create
jobs through the expansion and retention of businesses. The annual
CDBG appropriation is allocated to states and local jurisdictions
using a formula comprised of several measures of community need. A
majority of the funds are for activities that benefit low- and
moderate-income persons, and each activity must meet one of the
national program objectives, such as prevention or elimination of
slums or blight.
Funding Agency: HUD:
Subawardee: ACORN Housing Corporation;
Grantee: Oakland;
Fiscal Year and Amount:
FY 06 - $38,000;
FY 07 - $4,554;
Grant Program Description: Community Development Block Grant - To
support efforts, among other things, to promote affordable housing,
provide services to the most vulnerable community members, and create
jobs through the expansion and retention of businesses. The annual
CDBG appropriation is allocated to states and local jurisdictions
using a formula comprised of several measures of community need. A
majority of the funds are for activities that benefit low- and
moderate-income persons, and each activity must meet one of the
national program objectives, such as prevention or elimination of
slums or blight.
Funding Agency: HUD:
Subawardee: ACORN Housing Corporation;
Grantee: Philadelphia;
Fiscal Year and Amount:
FY 05 - $110,000;
FY 05 - $63,059;
FY 06 - $119,000;
FY 06 - $47,250;
FY 06 - $20,000;
FY 07 - $163,096;
FY 08 - $144,000;
FY 09 - $140,000;
Grant Program Description: Community Development Block Grant - To
support efforts, among other things, to promote affordable housing,
provide services to the most vulnerable community members, and create
jobs through the expansion and retention of businesses. The annual
CDBG appropriation is allocated to states and local jurisdictions
using a formula comprised of several measures of community need. A
majority of the funds are for activities that benefit low- and
moderate-income persons, and each activity must meet one of the
national program objectives, such as prevention or elimination of
slums or blight.
Funding Agency: HUD:
Subawardee: ACORN Housing Corporation;
Grantee: Houston;
Fiscal Year and Amount:
FY 05 - $21,925;
FY 06 - $5,000;
FY 09 - $155,000;
FY 09 - $31,546;
Grant Program Description: Community Development Block Grant - To
support efforts, among other things, to promote affordable housing,
provide services to the most vulnerable community members, and create
jobs through the expansion and retention of businesses. The annual
CDBG appropriation is allocated to states and local jurisdictions
using a formula comprised of several measures of community need. A
majority of the funds are for activities that benefit low- and
moderate-income persons, and each activity must meet one of the
national program objectives, such as prevention or elimination of
slums or blight.
Funding Agency: HUD:
Subawardee: ACORN Housing Corporation;
Grantee: Baltimore;
Fiscal Year and Amount:
FY 05 - $41,743;
FY 06 - $41,899;
Grant Program Description: Community Development Block Grant - To
support efforts, among other things, to promote affordable housing,
provide services to the most vulnerable community members, and create
jobs through the expansion and retention of businesses. The annual
CDBG appropriation is allocated to states and local jurisdictions
using a formula comprised of several measures of community need. A
majority of the funds are for activities that benefit low- and
moderate-income persons, and each activity must meet one of the
national program objectives, such as prevention or elimination of
slums or blight.
Funding Agency: HUD:
Subawardee: ACORN Housing Corporation;
Grantee: New Orleans;
Fiscal Year and Amount: FY 08 - $75,000;
Grant Program Description: Community Development Block Grant - To
support efforts, among other things, to promote affordable housing,
provide services to the most vulnerable community members, and create
jobs through the expansion and retention of businesses. The annual
CDBG appropriation is allocated to states and local jurisdictions
using a formula comprised of several measures of community need. A
majority of the funds are for activities that benefit low- and
moderate-income persons, and each activity must meet one of the
national program objectives, such as prevention or elimination of
slums or blight.
Funding Agency: DOJ;
Subawardee: ACORN;
Grantee: Citizens Community for New York City;
Fiscal Year and Amount: FY 08 - $20,000;
Grant Program Description: Byrne Discretionary Grant - To assist
state, local, and tribal governments in developing programs
appropriate to the needs of their jurisdictions. Issued through a
competitive process, these grants assist state and local governments
in addressing community concerns, such as developing
anticrime/community improvement activities. Nongovernmental entities
will also be eligible for funding under this program.
Funding Agency: DOJ;
Subawardee: ACORN Institute;
Grantee: St. Louis Weed and Seed;
Fiscal Year and Amount: FY 07 - $13,000;
Grant Program Description: Weed and Seed Grant - To prevent, control,
and reduce violent crime, drug abuse, and gang activity in designated
high-crime neighborhoods across the country. The strategy involves law
enforcement "weeding our criminals and also to "seed" the
neighborhoods with human services.
Funding Agency: DOJ;
Subawardee: ACORN Institute;
Grantee: Phoenix 's Neighborhood Services Department;
Fiscal Year and Amount: FY 08 - $8,539;
Grant Program Description: Weed and Seed Grant - To prevent, control,
and reduce violent crime, drug abuse, and gang activity in designated
high-crime neighborhoods across the country. The strategy involves law
enforcement "weeding our criminals and also to "seed" the
neighborhoods with human services.
Funding Agency: EPA;
Subawardee: ACORN;
Grantee: Ysleta Tribe;
Fiscal Year and Amount: FY 07 - $23,770;
Grant Program Description: Lead Poisoning Baseline Assessment of
Children and Education Outreach - To provide grants for crib education
on lead exposure prevention poisoning detection and treatment routes.
It is a grant for federally-recognized tribal nations within the
United States. Also under this grant, a recipient is allowed to make a
subaward to non-profit organizations.
Funding Agency: EPA;
Subawardee: Arkansas ACORN;
Grantee: University of Arkansas;
Fiscal Year and Amount: FY 08 - $32,651;
Grant Program Description: National Community-Based Lead Outreach and
Training Grant - To promote efforts to prevent or reduce childhood
lead poisoning. These grants fund local efforts to reduce the
incidence of childhood lead poisoning in communities with older
housing, including community outreach efforts, training, and local
ordinance development projects. Grant recipients range from city
health departments to universities and colleges, community
organizations religious groups, and other non-profit organizations
Funding Agency: Treasury;
Subawardee: ACORN New Mexico;
Grantee: Central New Mexico Community College;
Fiscal Year and Amount: FY 09 - $1,584;
Grant Program Description: Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Program -To
provide free tax help to low-moderate income people. Certified
volunteers sponsored by various organizations receive training to
assist in preparing basic tax returns in communities across the
country.
Funding Agency: Treasury;
Subawardee: ACORN Maryland;
Grantee: Maryland Volunteer Lawyers Services;
Fiscal Year and Amount: FY 09 - $17,260;
Grant Program Description: Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Program -To
provide free tax help to low-moderate income people. Certified
volunteers sponsored by various organizations receive training to
assist in preparing basic tax returns in communities across the
country.
Funding Agency: Treasury;
Subawardee: ACORN California;
Grantee: United Way-Bay Area;
Fiscal Year and Amount: FY 09 - $44,000;
Grant Program Description: Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Program -To
provide free tax help to low-moderate income people. Certified
volunteers sponsored by various organizations receive training to
assist in preparing basic tax returns in communities across the
country.
Funding Agency: Treasury;
Subawardee: ACORN Connecticut;
Grantee: Co-Opportunity Inc.
Fiscal Year and Amount: FY 09 - $4,825
Grant Program Description: Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Program -To
provide free tax help to low-moderate income people. Certified
volunteers sponsored by various organizations receive training to
assist in preparing basic tax returns in communities across the
country.
Funding Agency: Treasury;
Subawardee: ACORN Connecticut;
Grantee: Connecticut Association of Human Services;
Fiscal Year and Amount: FY 09 - $4,500;
Grant Program Description: Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Program -To
provide free tax help to low-moderate income people. Certified
volunteers sponsored by various organizations receive training to
assist in preparing basic tax returns in communities across the
country.
Funding Agency: NeighborWorks;
Subawardee: ACORN Housing Corporation;
Grantee: Connecticut Housing Finance Authority;
Fiscal Year and Amount: FY 08 - $93,060;
Grant Program Description: National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling
Program - To provide counseling services to people facing foreclosure
using a national network of nonprofit organizations.
Funding Agency: NeighborWorks;
Subawardee: NY ACORN Housing Corporation;
Grantee: State of New York Mortgage Agency/New York State Housing
Finance Agency;
Fiscal Year and Amount: FY 08 - $110,716;
Grant Program Description: National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling
Program - To provide counseling services to people facing foreclosure
using a national network of nonprofit organizations.
Funding Agency: NeighborWorks;
Subawardee: ACORN Housing Corporation;
Grantee: Florida Housing Finance Corporation;
Fiscal Year and Amount: FY 08 - $162,464;
Grant Program Description: National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling
Program - To provide counseling services to people facing foreclosure
using a national network of nonprofit organizations.
Funding Agency: NeighborWorks;
Subawardee: ACORN Housing Corporation;
Grantee: Missouri Housing Development Commission;
Fiscal Year and Amount: FY 08 - $201,800;
Grant Program Description: National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling
Program - To provide counseling services to people facing foreclosure
using a national network of nonprofit organizations.
Funding Agency: NeighborWorks;
Subawardee: ACORN Housing Corporation;
Grantee: Minnesota Housing;
Fiscal Year and Amount: FY 08 - $126,225;
Grant Program Description: National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling
Program - To provide counseling services to people facing foreclosure
using a national network of nonprofit organizations.
Funding Agency: NeighborWorks;
Subawardee: ACORN Housing Corporation;
Grantee: California Housing Finance Agency;
Fiscal Year and Amount: FY 08 - $611,340;
Grant Program Description: National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling
Program - To provide counseling services to people facing foreclosure
using a national network of nonprofit organizations.
Funding Agency: NeighborWorks;
Subawardee: ACORN Housing Corporation;
Grantee: Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency;
Fiscal Year and Amount: FY 08 - $120,400;
Grant Program Description: National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling
Program - To provide counseling services to people facing foreclosure
using a national network of nonprofit organizations.
Funding Agency: NEA;
Subawardee: Arkansas Broadcasting Foundation Inc. (KABF-FM);
Grantee: Arkansas Arts Council;
Fiscal Year and Amount: FY 08 - $5,853;
Grant Program Description: Partnership Agreements-State Partnership
Grant Program - To support the state arts agencies and regional arts
organizations to make arts available to more communities.
Funding Agency: Subawards Total;
Amount: $2,904,204.
Source; GAO analysis of agency data and summary of November 2009 DOJ
Inspector General report.
Notes: The subawards included here do not include all subawards as
agencies in general do not systematically capture subaward information.
[A] Except for EPA, the subawards were in the form of subgrants. The
two EPA subawards were subcontracts.
[B] Funding awarded may not have been disbursed to or spent by the
subawardees. DOJ OIG stated in its comments on a draft of this report
that as of November 2009, no funds had been provided to ACORN or ACORN
Institute through the subawards granted by the Citizens Community for
New York City or Phoenix Weed and Seed. Similarly, Affordable Housing
Centers of America (formerly ACORN Housing Corporation) indicated that
funding awarded was not spent in several instances, with some or all
of NeighborWorks subgrants returned in three states and the subaward
for some CDBG program grants were not received.
[End of table]
Extent of Agencies' Oversight of ACORN or Potentially Related
Organizations Was Based Primarily on Award Amount or Available
Resources; Agencies Generally Did Not Identify Problems with Grants,
but Additional Agency Reviews Are Ongoing:
Agencies' selection of oversight mechanisms--ranging from the review
of progress reports to on-site observations--used to monitor ACORN or
potentially related organizations' use of funds depended primarily on
factors such as the award amount or available personnel and resources
to carry out the monitoring. Of the nine agencies that provided
funding to ACORN or potentially related organizations from fiscal
years 2005 through 2009, we identified the mechanisms that CPB,
NeighborWorks, and EAC utilized in overseeing a total of eight direct
grants to ACORN or potentially related organizations. We also
identified the mechanisms that EPA, Treasury, NEA, and NeighborWorks
used to oversee a total of 15 subawards that their grantees provided
to ACORN or potentially related organizations.[Footnote 19]
Agencies conduct oversight to ensure that grantees are using funds and
implementing activities in accordance with the intended purposes of
their grants, as described in the grant agreements. For example, the
2006 grant agreement between EAC and Project Vote - Michigan states
that the grantee will recruit and train college students to assist
state and local governments in the administration of elections by
serving as poll workers, whose duties would include setting up voting
equipment and greeting voters. Therefore, as part of its oversight,
EAC requested that Project Vote --Michigan submit documentation
showing that it had met these terms. In addition to the routine
oversight conducted by agencies, agencies or their IGs--on their own
initiative or by request--may also conduct evaluations of grant
programs or specific grantees through audits or program evaluations.
Since fiscal year 2005, six of the nine agencies that provided funding
to ACORN or potentially related organizations reported that they have
conducted or are in the process of conducting additional reviews of
federal funds provided to these organizations; the reviews were
initiated by congressional requests or third-party complaints.
Administrative requirements for federal grants are set by OMB Circular
No. A-110, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and
Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other
Non-Profit Organizations. For monitoring program performance, the
circular provides that the federal agency awarding the grant
prescribes the frequency at which grantees should submit performance
reports. These reports should generally contain information including
(1) a comparison of actual accomplishments with goals and objectives
established for the period; (2) reasons why goals were not met, if
applicable; and (3) other pertinent information. For financial
reporting, Circular No. A-110 requires the federal agency awarding the
funds to require recipients to use an OMB-approved form to report
financial information, such as income, expenditures, and unobligated
balances for the reporting period. While agencies must adhere to OMB
guidelines, they generally have the flexibility to develop grant
monitoring protocols that are tailored to specific grant programs. The
grant monitoring protocols we reviewed generally consisted of a range
of oversight mechanisms from which grant program officials could
choose, such as reviews of performance reports, reviews of financial
reports, desk reviews, or on-site reviews.[Footnote 20] Also, the
protocols typically suggest factors to help guide the officials'
selection. For example, the protocols may suggest that officials
consider the amount of the grant when determining how many resources
to put toward oversight. The oversight mechanisms that based on our
review, agencies used to monitor the grants to ACORN or potentially
related organizations are shown in table 3.
Table 3: Monitoring Activities of Direct Grant Programs Conducted by
Agencies, Fiscal Years 2005-2009:
Agency: Neighbor Works;
Grant Program: National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling Program;
Grantee: ACORN Housing Corporation;
Fiscal Year: 2008;
Grant Amount: $25,050,939;
Monitoring Activities:
On-site review: [Check];
Review financial information: [Check];
Review progress report: [Check];
Interview of officials: [Check];
Review work plans: [Check];
Subgrant review: [Check];
Insurance review: [Check];
Review documentation of services provided: [Check].
Agency: Election Assistance Commission;
Grant Program: Help America Vote College program - College Poll Worker
Grants;
Grantee: Project Vote - Delaware;
Fiscal Year: 2006;
Grant Amount: $16,875;
Monitoring Activities: [Empty];
On-site review: [Empty];
Review financial information: [Empty];
Review progress report: [Check];
Interview of officials: [Empty];
Review work plans: [Empty];
Subgrant review: [Empty];
Insurance review: [Empty];
Review documentation of services provided: [Empty].
Agency: Election Assistance Commission;
Grant Program: Help America Vote College program - College Poll Worker
Grants;
Grantee: Project Vote - Michigan;
Fiscal Year: 2006;
Grant Amount: $16,875;
Monitoring Activities: [Empty];
On-site review: [Empty];
Review financial information: [Empty];
Review progress report: [Check];
Interview of officials: [Empty];
Review work plans: [Empty];
Subgrant review: [Empty];
Insurance review: [Empty];
Review documentation of services provided: [Empty].
Agency: Corporation for Public Broadcasting;
Grant Program: Community Service Grant;
Grantee: Arkansas Broadcasting Foundation Inc. (KABF FM);
Fiscal Year: 2005;
Grant Amount: $37,694;
Fiscal Year: 2006;
Grant Amount: $84,801;
Fiscal Year: 2007;
Grant Amount: $87,388;
Fiscal Year: 2008;
Grant Amount: $77,475;
Fiscal Year: 2009;
Grant Amount: $81,250;
Monitoring Activities: [Empty];
On-site review: [Empty];
Review financial information: [Check];
Review progress report: [Empty];
Interview of officials: [Empty];
Review work plans: [Empty];
Subgrant review: [Empty];
Insurance review: [Empty];
Review documentation of services provided: [Empty].
Agency: Corporation for Public Broadcasting;
Grant Program: Community Service Grant;
Grantee: Agape Broadcasting Foundation Inc. (KNON FM);
Fiscal Year: 2005;
Grant Amount: $19,508;
Fiscal Year: 2006;
Grant Amount: $115,484;
Fiscal Year: 2007;
Grant Amount: $110,162;
Fiscal Year: 2008;
Grant Amount: $103,839;
Fiscal Year: 2009;
Grant Amount: $97,249;
Monitoring Activities: [Empty];
On-site review: [Empty];
Review financial information: [Check];
Review progress report: [Empty];
Interview of officials: [Empty];
Review work plans: [Empty];
Subgrant review: [Empty];
Insurance review: [Empty];
Review documentation of services provided: [Empty].
Agency: Corporation for Public Broadcasting;
Grant Program: Internet Services Acquisition Grant;
Grantee: Arkansas Broadcasting Foundation Inc. (KABF FM);
Fiscal Year: 2005;
Grant Amount: $15,000;
Monitoring Activities: [Empty];
On-site review: [Empty];
Review financial information: [Check];
Review progress report: [Empty];
Interview of officials: [Empty];
Review work plans: [Empty];
Subgrant review: [Empty];
Insurance review: [Empty];
Review documentation of services provided: [Empty].
Agency: Corporation for Public Broadcasting;
Grant Program: Internet Services Acquisition Grant;
Grantee: Agape Broadcasting Foundation Inc. (KNON FM);
Fiscal Year: 2005;
Grant Amount: $15,000;
Monitoring Activities:
On-site review: [Empty];
Review financial information: [Check];
Review progress report: [Empty];
Interview of officials: [Empty];
Review work plans: [Empty];
Subgrant review: [Empty];
Insurance review: [Empty];
Review documentation of services provided: [Empty].
Agency: Corporation for Public Broadcasting;
Grant Program: Digital Radio Conversion Fund;
Grantee: Agape Broadcasting Foundation Inc. (KNON FM);
Fiscal Year: 2006;
Grant Amount: $80,000;
Monitoring Activities: [Empty];
On-site review: [Empty];
Review financial information: [Check];
Review progress report: [Empty];
Interview of officials: [Empty];
Review work plans: [Empty];
Subgrant review: [Empty];
Insurance review: [Empty];
Review documentation of services provided: [Empty].
Source: GAO analysis of agency data.
Note: To avoid duplication of efforts, we did not assess the oversight
activities at DHS, DOJ, and HUD for this preliminary report. The IGs
for these agencies have reviewed or are in the process of reviewing
funding provided to ACORN or potentially related organizations. We
plan to include the results of their work and to conduct additional
work on oversight as needed in our report to be issued later this year.
[End of table]
When asked what factors they considered when determining which
oversight mechanisms to use for these direct grants, agency officials
stated that they considered the grant amount and the availability of
personnel and resources to conduct oversight. For example:
* NeighborWorks officials stated that they conducted onsite reviews
and reviewed extensive documentation regarding ACORN Housing
Corporation's use of funds for the National Foreclosure Mitigation
Counseling Program (NFMC), where the grant amount exceeded $25
million.[Footnote 21] NeighborWorks officials noted that it is their
oversight protocol to conduct on-site reviews when the grant amount
exceeds $10 million or if the grantee's risk rating is higher.
[Footnote 22]
* EAC officials stated that given the relatively small amount of the
grants ($16,800 in grants provided to Project Vote in Michigan and
Delaware), they decided to review progress reports submitted by the
grantees as their primary oversight mechanism.
* CPB officials said that they chose to base their monitoring of the
Arkansas Broadcasting Foundation (KABF-FM) and Agape Broadcasting
Foundation on self-reported information from the grantees because a
provision of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, limits them
to using no more than 5 percent of available funds (which equates to
approximately five employees) for administrative expenses, including
conducting grant oversight.[Footnote 23] According to CPB officials,
since CPB issues approximately 800 grants annually, it is not feasible
for these employees to conduct extensive oversight for many of CPB's
grants.
Agency monitoring efforts identified problems with one of the eight
direct grants to ACORN or potentially related organizations for which
we obtained information on oversight, but these problems have been
resolved. Specifically, NeighborWorks, as a result of its on-site
monitoring, determined that ACORN Housing Corporation had not
submitted the required counseling action plan, which is intended to
show the level of counseling services to be provided. However, after
NeighborWorks brought this to the attention of ACORN Housing
Corporation officials, they subsequently provided the documentation.
[Footnote 24] Additionally, after observing multiple housing
counseling sessions that were provided under the NFMC program,
NeighborWorks recommended that all housing counselors who participate
in this program--including those employed by ACORN Housing
Corporation--receive additional training. NeighborWorks made funding
available for this purpose. NeighborWorks officials said that ACORN
Housing Corporation and other NFMC grantees have taken advantage of
such training, even though they were not required to do so.
In the case of subawards, agencies typically rely on grantees to
monitor subgrantees' or subcontractors' use of federal funding,
consistent with OMB Circular No. A-110. While not all of the agencies
included in our review were able to provide information on any funding
awarded to, and oversight conducted of, ACORN or potentially related
organizations that were subrecipients of federal funds, EPA, Treasury,
NEA, and NeighborWorks were able to provide us with such information.
EPA was able to provide information on two subawards associated with
its lead poisoning outreach program; Treasury on five subgrants
related to its Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) grant program;
NEA on one subgrant associated with its state partnership agreement
grant program; and NeighborWorks on seven subgrants associated with
the NFMC program.
EPA issued grants in fiscal years 2007 and 2008 to the Ysleta Tribe
and the University of Arkansas to promote tribal and community
awareness on lead poisoning prevention. These two entities contracted
with ACORN and ACORN Arkansas, respectively, to assist in carrying out
their responsibilities under this grant program. EPA said that it
reviewed the contract work plan and related estimated costs for the
ACORN Arkansas subcontractor as one means to help ensure that federal
funds were used appropriately. The grantee submitted its work plan,
which included a description of the subcontractor's work and costs.
For the other subcontract to ACORN, EPA conducted a desk review of the
Ysleta Tribe grant, which entailed an assessment of the grantee's
administrative and financial systems, including a review of the Ysleta
Tribe's contractual services directly related to the project. EPA
officials said that they selected these particular oversight
mechanisms for ACORN or potentially related organizations because the
amount of the subcontracts to these organizations was small (under
$100,000) and EPA generally focuses more of its monitoring attention
on larger amounts. EPA concluded that the expenses charged by the
subawardees were authorized and allowable and were not questionable
costs.
Treasury issued VITA grants in fiscal year 2009 to five grantees--
Central New Mexico Community College, Maryland Volunteer Lawyers
Service, United Way of the Bay Area, Co-opportunity, Inc., and the
Connecticut Association for Human Services to assist, at no cost, low-
and moderate-income families in preparing their tax returns. These
five grantees awarded subgrants to organizations potentially related
to ACORN located in New Mexico, Maryland, California, and Connecticut.
Similar to EPA, Treasury officials reported that they reviewed
grantees' work plans which identified the subgrantees, and grantees'
related expenditures. Treasury officials also stated that the five
VITA grantees that provided subgrants to organizations potentially
related to ACORN were subject to site reviews as part of a randomly
selected sample, as were other program grantees. In addition,
according to Treasury officials, one of the five grantees that
provided subgrants to organizations potentially related to ACORN was
randomly selected for review by the agency's financial reviewer to
ensure that funds were used in support of the program; there were no
negative findings.
NEA issued a state partnership agreement grant in fiscal year 2009 to
the Arkansas Arts Council to support the agency's efforts to make the
arts more accessible to Arkansas communities. According to NEA, the
Arkansas Arts Council reported that it awarded a subgrant to KABF
radio station in partial support of the administrative salaries
associated with the station's operations and programming.[Footnote 25]
NEA reported that its grantees were required to obtain progress
reports and final reports from its subgrantees, which described how
the subgrantees used funding to achieve the purposes of the grant
program. According to NEA, the Arkansas Arts Council official stated
that it reviewed the subgrantee's final report and conducted site-
visits of the radio station and did not have negative findings related
to the subgrant. In addition, an NEA official stated that NEA reviewed
the Arkansas Arts Council's final report as well as the subgrantee's
final program and budget report which included a description of the
subgrantee's work and budget information, and did not identify any
problems with the subgrant.
NeighborWorks issued NFMC grants in fiscal year 2008 to seven state
finance agencies--located in California, Connecticut, Florida,
Minnesota, Missouri, New York, and Pennsylvania--to provide counseling
services to individuals facing foreclosure. According to
NeighborWorks, these agencies awarded subgrants to ACORN Housing
Corporation and NY ACORN Housing Corporation, which then provided the
counseling services. NeighborWorks officials stated that all seven
state finance agencies were subject to on-site and desk reviews. In
addition, some of their subgrantees were randomly selected for on-site
or desk reviews. Although ACORN Housing Corporation and NY Housing
Corporation were not the subgrantees that were randomly selected,
NeighborWorks officials reported that they reviewed progress reports
submitted by each of the state finance agencies, which included
information on all of their subgrantees. NeighborWorks officials
reported that, based on these progress reports, there were no negative
findings related to ACORN Housing Corporation and NY ACORN Housing
Corporation's use of the NFMC grant funds.
In addition to their routine grant oversight, all six of the agencies
included in our review that have provided funding directly to ACORN or
potentially related organizations since fiscal year 2005 have
initiated either IG or internal reviews of these organizations' use of
federal funds in response to congressional requests or at the agency's
own initiative. The DOJ IG completed its review in November 2009 and
the CPB, DHS, EAC, and HUD IG reviews, as well as the NeighborWorks
review, were ongoing as of May 24, 2010. Table 4 includes the
information we obtained from these agencies regarding their reviews.
Table 4: Completed and Ongoing Agency Reviews of Funding to ACORN or
Potentially Related Organizations, Fiscal Years 2005 through 2009:
Agency: DOJ;
Scope of Review: DOJ IG responded to a congressional request to review
whether the
agency provided grants to ACORN or ACORN affiliates. It examined
whether ACORN or ACORN affiliates applied or received federal funds
through DOJ-administered grant programs, the controls in place on the
use of grant funds awarded to ACORN or ACORN affiliates, and
whether DOJ had conducted any reviews or audits of these funds. DOJ IG
did not evaluate the sufficiency of the oversight mechanisms DOJ used
to monitor grant funds awarded to ACORN or ACORN affiliates.
Status of Review: DOJ IG found that ACORN and its affiliates received
one direct grant and four subawards from DOJ for fiscal years 2002
through 2009. The IG reported that the DOJ component that issued the
direct grant--the Office of Justice Programs--had received progress
reports and financial status reports from ACORN or potentially related
organizations but had not conducted audits, financial reviews, or on-
site reviews of funds provided to ACORN or potentially related
organizations.
Agency: CPS;
Scope of Review: CPS IG initiated an audit of two grants awarded to
one ACORN or potentially related organization based on a complaint to
the IG hotline. Subsequently it initiated a second audit of another
ACORN or potentially related organization that received three grants;
Status of Review: Ongoing.
Agency: DHS;
Scope of Review: DHS IG responded to a congressional request by
initiating a review of the appropriateness of federal assistance the
agency provided to ACORN and the agency's oversight mechanisms,
including mechanisms under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009, to determine whether funds provided to ACORN were
misappropriated.[A]
Status of Review: Ongoing.
Agency: EAC;
Scope of Review: EAC IG responded to a congressional request by
initiating an audit involving two grants awarded to two ACORN or
potentially related organizations.
Status of Review: Ongoing.
Agency: HUD;
Scope of Review: HUD IG responded to congressional and agency requests
in 2009 by initiating a review of the following: (1) funding ACORN has
received from the agency, including American Reinvestment and Recovery
Act of 2009[A] funds, and (2) grants awarded to ACORN by the Healthy
Homes and Lead Hazards Office within HUD.
Status of Review: Ongoing.
Agency: NeighborWorks;
Scope of Review: NeighborWorks responded to a congressional request
and a New York Times article on ACORN funding by initiating reviews of
an ACORN or potentially related organization.
Status of Review: Ongoing.
Source: GAO analysis of information on agencies' completed and ongoing
audits of funding to ACORN or potentially related organizations.
[A] American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-5,
123 Stat. 115.
[End of table]
DOJ and the FEC Reported Results of Matters, Investigations, and Cases
Involving Allegations of Voter Registration and Election Fraud Related
to ACORN, Several Potentially Related Organizations, or Their
Employees:
Distinct from routine grant oversight and monitoring efforts, which
are intended to assess whether grantees are meeting the purposes of
the grant program and spending funds appropriately, federal agencies
may also conduct investigations of an organization or an employee of
an organization to determine whether the organization or employee
violated federal law. In the closed matters, closed investigations,
and prosecutions since fiscal year 2005 provided by the FEC, the FBI,
and EOUSA, ACORN and four potentially related organizations (Project
Vote, Citizens Consulting, Inc., Citizen Services Inc., and SEIU Local
100) or their employees were involved to varying degrees in the
investigated allegations, as detailed in the tables below. The
allegations involved generally related to voter registration fraud and
election fraud. IGs can also conduct investigations to determine
whether an organization or individual violated federal law. However,
of the 31 IGs that we contacted, 29 stated that they had no ongoing or
closed investigations of ACORN or potentially related organizations
since fiscal year 2005.[Footnote 26] Officials from TIGTA stated that
they could not comment on whether their office had conducted any
investigations of any ACORN or potentially related organizations since
2005 because section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code prohibits the
disclosure of taxpayer information by the Internal Revenue Service,
except in specifically enumerated circumstances.[Footnote 27] The HUD
IG's Office of Investigations declined to comment on whether it had
any open or closed investigations involving ACORN or potentially
related organizations.
The FEC identified four closed matters that involved allegations that
ACORN or potentially related organizations violated the Federal
Election Campaign Act.[Footnote 28] For each of these matters, the FEC
determined that there was no evidence that such violations occurred.
These matters are summarized in table 5.
Table 5: FEC Matters Opened since Fiscal Year 2005 That Involve ACORN
or Potentially Related Organizations:
ACORN or Potentially Related Organization: ACORN; Project Vote;
Matter Number: MUR no. 5820;
Matter summary: A complaint was filed with the Federal Election
Commission alleging that ACORN and Project Vote violated the
registration requirements for political committees under the Federal
Election Campaign Act and Federal Election Commission regulations. The
complaint stated that based upon publicly available information found
on ACORN's web site, depositions and exhibits filed in the federal
case Mac Stuart v. ACORN, and press coverage Project Vote of ACORN and
affiliated organizations, there was reason to believe that Acorn and
Project Vote failed to file the independent expenditure reports
required by 2 U.S.C. § 434(c). The complaint further alleged that
ACORN and Project Vote received contributions or made expenditures for
which the aggregate value was in excess of $1,000 during a calendar
year without registering as political committees under the Act.
Outcome: The Commission found no reason to believe that ACORN or
Project Vote failed to register as a political committee and failed to
file disclosure reports, in violation of 2 U.S.C. §§ 433 and 434(a).
ACORN or Potentially Related Organization: ACORN;
Matter Number: MUR no. 5843;
Matter summary: A complaint was filed with the Federal Election
Commission alleging that ACORN violated the registration requirements
for political committees under the Federal Election Campaign Act
Federal Election Commission regulations. The complaint stated that
based upon publicly available information (including documentary video
footage of ACORN employees) and press reports, there was reason to
believe that ACORN, and its affiliated entity "Give Missourians a
Raise, Inc.," failed to file the independent expenditure reports
required by 2 U.S.C. § 434(c). The complaint further alleged that
ACORN and Give Missourians a Raise, Inc. received contributions or
made expenditures aggregating in excess of $1,000 during a calendar
year without registering as political committees under the Act.
Outcome: The Commission voted to dismiss the allegations that ACORN
failed to register as a political committee and failed to file
disclosure reports, in violation of 2 U.S.C. and §§ 433 and 434(a).
ACORN or Potentially Related Organization: ACORN;
Matter Number: MUR no. 5859;
Matter summary: A complaint was filed with the Federal Election
Commission alleging that ACORN illegally coordinated with the campaign
committee of Lois Murphy. The complaint alleged this activity was in
violation of FEC regulations regarding endorsements of organizations.
Outcome: The Commission found no reason to believe that ACORN violated
2 U.S.C § 441 (b).
ACORN or Potentially Related Organization: ACORN; Citizens Consulting
Inc.; Citizens Services Inc.; SEIU Local 100;
Matter Number: MUR no. 5970;
Matter summary: A complaint was filed with the Federal Election
Commission alleging that the Donna Edwards for Congress Committee
received substantial monetary assistance by way of unreported, in-kind
contributions from organizations who professed to have operated
independently of the Edwards campaign.
Outcome: The Commission found no reason to believe that the
respondents violated the Federal Election Campaign Act.
Source: GAO analysis of matter information provided by the FEC.
[End of table]
EOUSA and the FBI identified six closed investigations, most
concerning allegations of voter registration fraud on the part of
ACORN employees. Of the six investigations, all were closed without
federal prosecutorial action for reasons such as lack of, or
insufficiency of, evidence. These investigations are summarized in
table 6.
Table 6: EOUSA and FBI Investigations Opened since Fiscal Year 2005
That involve ACORN or Potentially Related Organizations or Their
Employees:
Date when the investigation was closed: 2006;
Allegations: The FBI investigated allegations that a person identified
as being affiliated with ACORN procured or submitted false voter
registration applications.
Outcome: The FBI referred the case to the USAO, which declined to
proceed with federal criminal prosecution due to insufficient evidence.
Date when the investigation was closed: 2007;
Allegations: The FBI investigated allegations that employees of ACORN
were registering non-U.S. citizens to vote. The voter registration
manual that ACORN employees used was developed by Project Vote.
Outcome: The FBI referred the case to the USAO, which declined to
proceed with a federal criminal prosecution due to insufficient
evidence.
Date when the investigation was closed: 2008;
Allegations: The FBI investigated allegations that subjects affiliated
with ACORN provided false information regarding a voter registration
drive.
Outcome: The FBI referred the case to the USAO which declined to
proceed with federal criminal prosecution due to pending criminal
charges in a state jurisdiction.
Date when the investigation was closed: 2008;
Allegations: FBI Investigation involving ACORN and false voter
registration documents.
Outcome: The matter was referred to the USAO which declined to
proceed, with federal criminal prosecution due to insufficient
evidence.
Date when the investigation was closed: 2009;
Allegations: The FBI investigated allegations of voter registration
fraud by employees of ACORN.
Outcome: The FBI closed the investigation without action due to lack
of evidence of a violation of state or federal election laws.
Date when the investigation was closed: 2009;
Allegations: FBI Investigation involving ACORN and allegations of
possible violation of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §
1973.
Outcome: The matter was referred to the USAO which declined to proceed
with federal criminal prosecution and referred the matter to local
district attorney.
Source: GAO analysis of investigations provided by the FBI and EOUSA
of ACORN or potentially related organizations.
Note: The information presented in this table represents the
information DOJ provided us as of May 26, 2010.
[End of table]
EOUSA identified six closed cases that involved employees of ACORN.
The charges filed did not allege wrongdoing by ACORN or any
potentially related organizations. The six cases generally involved
alleged voter registration fraud; all but one of these cases resulted
in a guilty plea by the defendant. These cases are summarized in table
7.
Table 7: Federal Cases Filed since Fiscal Year 2005 That Involve ACORN
or Potentially Related Organizations:
Case name: United States v. Franklin No. 06-0377 (W.D. Mo.);
Case summary: The defendant was charged in an indictment filed
November 1, 2006 with two counts of voter registration fraud in
violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973i(c), 1973gg-10 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The
indictment alleged that ACORN and Project Vote recruited and assigned
workers to visit low-income and minority neighborhoods in Kansas City,
Mo to obtain voter registrations and train workers on properly
obtaining and preparing voter registration applications. The
indictment further alleged that the defendant worked for ACORN as a
voter registration recruiter and that the defendant knowingly
submitted voter registration applications with false information.
Outcome: The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of voter
registration fraud and was sentenced to a term of probation for 1 year
and ordered to pay an assessment of $100.
Case name: United States v. Gardner No. 06-0378 (W.D. Mo.);
Case summary: The defendant was charged in an indictment filed
November 1, 2006 with two counts of voter registration fraud in
violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973i(c), 1973gg-10 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The
indictment alleged that ACORN and Project Vote recruit and assign
workers to visit low-income and minority neighborhoods in Kansas City,
Mo to obtain voter registrations and train workers on properly
obtaining and preparing voter registration applications. The
indictment further alleged that the defendant worked for ACORN as a
voter registration recruiter and that the defendant knowingly
submitted voter registration applications with false information.
Outcome: The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of voter
registration fraud and was sentenced to a term of probation for one
year and ordered to pay an assessment of $100.
Case name: United States v. Stenson No. 06-385 (W.D. Mo.);
Case summary: The defendant was charged in an indictment filed
November 1, 2006 with two counts of voter registration fraud in
violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973i(c), 1973gg-10 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The
indictment alleged that ACORN and Project Vote recruit and assign
workers to visit low-income and minority neighborhoods in Kansas City,
Mo to obtain voter registrations and train workers on properly
obtaining and preparing voter registration applications. The
indictment further alleged that the defendant worked for ACORN as a
voter registration recruiter and that the defendant knowingly
submitted voter registration applications with false information.
Outcome: The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of voter
registration fraud and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of four
months and two days, a term of supervised release of two years, and
ordered to pay an assessment of $100.
Case name: United States v. Davis No. 06-0374 (W.D. Mo.);
Case summary: The defendant was charged in an indictment filed
November 1, 2006 with two counts of voter registration fraud in
violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973i(c), 1973gg-10 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The
indictment alleged that ACORN and Project Vote recruit and assign
workers to visit low-income and minority neighborhoods in Kansas City,
Mo to obtain voter registrations and the organizations train workers
on properly obtaining and preparing voter registration applications.
The indictment further alleged that the defendant worked for ACORN as
a voter registration recruiter and that the defendant knowingly
submitted voter registration applications with false information.
Outcome: The government's motion to dismiss was granted because the
defendant asserted the she was not the one who committed the acts
charged but that someone had used her identity without authorization,
which the government found to be true.
Case name: United States v. Bland No. 07-0763 (E.D. Mo.);
Case summary: Eight defendants were changed in an indictment filed on
December 20, 2007 with two counts each of voter registration fraud in
violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973i(c), 1973gg-10 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The
indictment alleged that ACORN and Project Vote recruited workers to
obtain voter registrations in the City of St. Louis and St. Louis
County and trained them in how to properly obtain registration
applications. It further alleged that the defendants were employed by
ACORN to obtain voter registration and that defendants knowingly
submitted voter registration applications with false information.
Outcome: All eight defendants entered guilty pleas. Defendants
received a variety of sentences ranging from, for example, a term of
probation for one year and an assessment of $100.00; time served and a
term of supervised release of two years; and imprisonment for a term
of six months with a term of probation for two years and a term of
supervised release of twelve months.
Case name: United States v. Davis No. 07-0010 (W.D. Mo.);
Case summary: The defendant was charged in an indictment filed January
5, 2007 with four counts, including voter registration fraud,
identification fraud, and Social Security fraud, in violation of 42
U.S.C. §§ 408(a)(7)(B), 1973i(c), 1973gg-10 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 2,
1028(a)(7). The indictment alleged that the defendant falsely
represented her Social Security identification for the purposes of
obtaining employment with ACORN and Project Vote. Further, the
indictment alleged that ACORN and Project Vote recruit and assign
workers to visit low-income and minority neighborhoods in Kansas City,
Mo to obtain voter registrations and the organizations train workers
on properly obtaining and preparing voter registration applications.
The indictment further alleged that the defendant worked for ACORN as
a voter registration recruiter and that the defendant knowingly
submitted voter registration applications with false information.
Outcome: The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of voter
registration fraud and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of time
served, a term of supervised release of 2 years, and ordered to pay an
assessment of $100.
Source: GAO analysis of matter and case information provided by the
EOUSA and court documents.
Note: We identified an additional case where the original indictment
indicated that the defendant was employed by ACORN, however, the
superseding information stated that the defendant was employed by
another not-for-profit organization. Therefore, we did not include
this case in our report.
[End of table]
Agency Comments, Third Party Views and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the nine agencies that awarded
funding to ACORN and potentially related organizations (CPB, DHS, DOJ,
EAC, EPA, HUD, NEA, Treasury, and NeighborWorks) for review and
comment. In addition, we requested comments from ACORN and Affordable
Housing Centers of America (AHCA), formerly ACORN Housing Corporation,
because federal agencies reported that AHCA received the most federal
funding of potentially related ACORN organizations included in our
report. Lastly, we sent OMB an excerpt of the draft report related to
its efforts to track subaward information.
Five of the federal agencies--DOJ, HUD, NEA, Treasury and
NeighborWorks--did not provide formal written comments to be included
in this report, but instead provided technical comments, which we
incorporated as appropriate. In an email received June 8, 2010, the
EPA liaison stated that EPA had no comments on the report and on June
9, 2010, CPB and DHS's liaisons said that their agencies had no
comments on the report. In an email received June 9, 2010, EAC's
Director indicated that the draft report accurately reflected the
agency's grants to Project Vote and their management, and had no
further comments. We received comment letters from ACORN and AHCA, as
well as Project Vote, which are reproduced as enclosures III, IV, and
V. ACORN and AHCA's letters also include technical comments, which we
incorporated as appropriate. On June 14, 2010, OMB provided a
memorandum that describes its recent efforts to ensure that federal
agencies are tracking funding that is disbursed through subawards.
Project Vote raised concerns about our characterization of certain
organizations as "ACORN Organizations;" ACORN and Project Vote raised
concerns about our discussion of whether an organization versus its
employees were the subject of a federal investigation or prosecution;
and ACORN and AHCA raised concerns about our reference to the
videotapes that depicted what appeared to be inappropriate behavior by
employees of several local ACORN chapters, and AHCA clarified
information on its use of federal funding. These comments and our
responses are discussed in greater detail below.
Project Vote was concerned that our use of the term "ACORN
organizations" implied that it was affiliated with ACORN and that this
would have a negative impact on the organization, given concerns
recently raised about ACORN. As discussed in the report (1) our use of
the term "ACORN organizations" was to encompass the national ACORN
office and other organizations identified by the Congressional
Research Service as having a potential relationship with ACORN; (2) we
have not yet made a determination as to whether these organizations
are affiliates or subsidiaries of ACORN, but plan to do so in our
final report; and (3) any such determination in our final report would
not be controlling on other federal agencies, which have primary
responsibility for interpreting their own applicable appropriations
statutes. In addition, because this report constitutes our preliminary
observations, we also replaced the term "ACORN organizations" with
"ACORN or potentially related organizations" throughout our report.
In terms of ACORN's and Project Vote's concerns about discussions
regarding their organizations and employees as the subjects of federal
voter registration fraud investigations and prosecutions, ACORN
maintains that its employees, and not the organization, were subjects.
Based on information we received from DOJ, we clarified the report as
necessary to reflect that ACORN employees were the subjects of four of
the six investigations and all six prosecutions; we cannot determine
the subjects of the remaining two investigations, based on the
information DOJ provided us. Based on DOJ information, we also
clarified our report to reflect that neither Project Vote nor its
employees were alleged to have committed wrongdoing but the
organization was referenced in these investigations or prosecutions.
In terms of the prosecutions, both ACORN and Project Vote were
mentioned in the indictments as having recruited and assigned workers
to low-income and minority neighborhoods to obtain voter registrations
and as having trained workers on properly obtaining and preparing
voter registration applications. In one investigation, Project Vote
was also referenced as producing the voter registration manual that
the ACORN employees used. However, only ACORN employees were the
subjects of the prosecutions. According to ACORN and Project vote
officials, the organizations provided information to local election
officials that helped initiate prosecutions against their employees
who may have been involved in voter registration fraud. We are working
to verify this information and will include the results of our efforts
in our final report on ACORN to be issued later this year. ACORN and
Project Vote officials also stated that they have a comprehensive
quality control system in place designed to identify voter
registration fraud.
In terms of our reference to the videotapes, ACORN and AHCA raised
concerns that we excluded the results of some of the state and local
investigations that have been completed to date regarding the legality
of the employees' conduct. For example, these organizations stated
that both the California Attorney General and the Brooklyn District
Attorney determined that there was no illegal action by any employees
shown on the videotapes. While we briefly acknowledge the videotape
incident because it generated public and congressional interest in
ACORN and potentially related organizations' use and oversight of
federal funds, the incident was not the subject of our review. AHCA
also noted in its comments that ACORN Housing Corporation returned and
did not spend funding it received from several of the states that
provided grants through the CDBG program, namely California, Florida,
and Missouri. In our report, we were to account for all those ACORN
and potentially related organizations that federal agencies identified
as having been awarded direct grants and subgrants. Thus, we included
these three AHCA grants but have revised our report to note that not
all funds awarded may have been spent.
In addition, both DOJ and ACORN stated, and we subsequently confirmed,
that Metro Technical Institute, Inc. located in Michigan, whose
employee was the subject of a prosecution, is not related to ACORN.
Another organization with the name of Metro Technical Institute, Inc.
located in Louisiana that may have been affiliated with ACORN--given
that it shared common board members with ACORN--went out of business
in 1995. Therefore, we removed the reference to the case that involved
an employee of Metro Technical Institute, Inc. from our report.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees. We are also sending copies to the nine agencies within the
scope of our preliminary work that identified funding to ACORN
organizations--the Corporation for Public Broadcasting the Department
of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the Election
Assistance Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, the National Endowment
for the Arts, the Department of the Treasury, and NeighborWorks. This
report also is available at no charge on our Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have questions concerning this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-8777 or larencee@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report were
Kristy Brown, Assistant Director; Denton Herring; Brandon Jones,
Monica Kelly; Julian King; Amanda Miller; Robert Robinson; Janet
Temko; Adam Vogt; and Su Jin Yon.
Signed by:
Eileen R. Larence:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
Enclosures:
[End of section]
Enclosure I: List of Requesters:
The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye:
Chairman:
The Honorable Thad Cochran:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Finance:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski:
Chairman:
The Honorable Richard C. Shelby:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable David R. Obey:
Chairman:
The Honorable Jerry Lewis:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Lamar S. Smith:
Ranking Member:
Committee on the Judiciary:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Alan B. Mollohan:
Chairman:
The Honorable Frank R. Wolf:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Darrell E. Issa:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Lamar Alexander:
The Honorable John A. Barrasso:
The Honorable Sam Brownback:
The Honorable Saxby Chambliss:
The Honorable Thomas A. Coburn:
The Honorable Susan M. Collins:
The Honorable Michael D. Crapo:
The Honorable Richard J. Durbin:
The Honorable Lindsey O. Graham:
The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch:
The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchinson:
The Honorable James M. Inhofe:
The Honorable John H. Isakson:
The Honorable Mike O. Johanns:
The Honorable Richard G. Lugar:
The Honorable Charles P. Roberts:
The Honorable John R. Thune:
The Honorable George V. Voinovich:
The Honorable Roger F. Wicker:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Rush D. Holt:
House of Representatives:
[End of Enclosure I]
Enclosure II: Federal Agencies That Provided Information on Funding to
ACORN or Potentially Related Organizations:
We included the agencies in figure 1 below in the scope of our work
because we believed they might have provided funding to an Association
of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) or potentially
related organization from fiscal years 2005 through 2009.[Footnote 29]
All but one agency met at least one of the following criteria: the
agency/entity (1) is an executive department that was prohibited by
provisions in its fiscal year 2010 appropriations statute from
providing funding to ACORN or ACORN-related entities, (2) received a
request from members of Congress for information related to ACORN, or
(3) is included by grants.gov as a federal granting agency. One entity
(the Corporation for Public Broadcasting) was included that had
initiated ACORN work because of a third-party complaint.
Figure 1: Federal Agencies That Provided Information on Funding to
ACORN or Potentially Related Organizations:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
Federal Agency: Agriculture;
Included in ACORN funding restriction provisions: [Empty];
Congressional Review requested: [Empty];
Included in Grants.gov: [Check].
Federal Agency: Commerce;
Included in ACORN funding restriction provisions: [Check];
Congressional Review requested: [Empty];
Included in Grants.gov: [Check].
Federal Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service;
Included in ACORN funding restriction provisions: [Empty];
Congressional Review requested: [Check];
Included in Grants.gov: [Check].
Federal Agency: Corporation for Public Broadcasting;
Included in ACORN funding restriction provisions: [Empty];
Congressional Review requested: [Empty];
Included in Grants.gov: [Check].
Federal Agency: Defense;
Included in ACORN funding restriction provisions: [Check];
Congressional Review requested: [Empty];
Included in Grants.gov: [Check].
Federal Agency: Education;
Included in ACORN funding restriction provisions: [Check];
Congressional Review requested: [Empty];
Included in Grants.gov: [Check].
Federal Agency: Election Assistance Commission;
Included in ACORN funding restriction provisions: [Empty];
Congressional Review requested: [Check];
Included in Grants.gov: [Check].
Federal Agency: Energy;
Included in ACORN funding restriction provisions: [Empty];
Congressional Review requested: [Empty];
Included in Grants.gov: [Check].
Federal Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Included in ACORN funding restriction provisions: [Empty];
Congressional Review requested: [Empty];
Included in Grants.gov: [Check].
Federal Agency: Federal Election Commission;
Included in ACORN funding restriction provisions: [Empty];
Congressional Review requested: [Check];
Included in Grants.gov: [Check].
Federal Agency: Homeland Security;
Included in ACORN funding restriction provisions: [Empty];
Congressional Review requested: [Check];
Included in Grants.gov: [Check].
Federal Agency: Health and Human Services;
Included in ACORN funding restriction provisions: [Check];
Congressional Review requested: [Empty];
Included in Grants.gov: [Check].
Federal Agency: Housing and Urban Development;
Included in ACORN funding restriction provisions: [Check];
Congressional Review requested: [Check];
Included in Grants.gov: [Check].
Federal Agency: Institute of Museum and Library Service;
Included in ACORN funding restriction provisions: [Empty];
Congressional Review requested: [Empty];
Included in Grants.gov: [Check].
Federal Agency: Interior;
Included in ACORN funding restriction provisions: [Check];
Congressional Review requested: [Empty];
Included in Grants.gov: [Check].
Federal Agency: Justice;
Included in ACORN funding restriction provisions: [Check];
Congressional Review requested: [Check];
Included in Grants.gov: [Check].
Federal Agency: Labor;
Included in ACORN funding restriction provisions: [Check];
Congressional Review requested: [Check];
Included in Grants.gov: [Check].
Federal Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
Included in ACORN funding restriction provisions: [Empty];
Congressional Review requested: [Empty];
Included in Grants.gov: [Check].
Federal Agency: National Archives and Records Administration;
Included in ACORN funding restriction provisions: [Empty];
Congressional Review requested: [Empty];
Included in Grants.gov: [Check].
Federal Agency: National Endowment for the Arts;
Included in ACORN funding restriction provisions: [Empty];
Congressional Review requested: [Empty];
Included in Grants.gov: [Check].
Federal Agency: National Endowment for the Humanities;
Included in ACORN funding restriction provisions: [Empty];
Congressional Review requested: [Empty];
Included in Grants.gov: [Check].
Federal Agency: National Science Foundation;
Included in ACORN funding restriction provisions: [Empty];
Congressional Review requested: [Empty];
Included in Grants.gov: [Check].
Federal Agency: NeighborWorks;
Included in ACORN funding restriction provisions: [Empty];
Congressional Review requested: [Check];
Included in Grants.gov: [Empty].
Federal Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Included in ACORN funding restriction provisions: [Empty];
Congressional Review requested: [Empty];
Included in Grants.gov: [Check].
Federal Agency: Small Business Administration;
Included in ACORN funding restriction provisions: [Empty];
Congressional Review requested: [Check];
Included in Grants.gov: [Check].
Federal Agency: Social Security Administration;
Included in ACORN funding restriction provisions: [Empty];
Congressional Review requested: [Empty];
Included in Grants.gov: [Check].
Federal Agency: State;
Included in ACORN funding restriction provisions: [Check];
Congressional Review requested: [Empty];
Included in Grants.gov: [Check].
Federal Agency: Department of Transportation;
Included in ACORN funding restriction provisions: [Check];
Congressional Review requested: [Empty];
Included in Grants.gov: [Check].
Federal Agency: Department of Treasury;
Included in ACORN funding restriction provisions: [Check];
Congressional Review requested: [Check];
Included in Grants.gov: [Check].
Federal Agency: United States Agency for International Development;
Included in ACORN funding restriction provisions: [Empty];
Congressional Review requested: [Empty];
Included in Grants.gov: [Check].
Federal Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs;
Included in ACORN funding restriction provisions: [Check];
Congressional Review requested: [Empty];
Included in Grants.gov: [Check].
Source: GAO analysis based agency information.
[End of Enclosure II]
Enclosure III: Comments from Association of Community Organizations
for Reform Now (ACORN):
Schwartz, Lichten & Bright PC:
Attorneys at Law:
275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1700:
New York, New York 10001:
Phone: 212-228-6320:
Facsimile: 212-358-1353:
Arthur Z Schwartz*:
Stuart Lichten:
Daniel R Bright:
*Also admired in Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia:
June 09, 2010:
To: Monica Kelly (KellyM@gao.com):
cc: BrownKN@gao.gov:
LavenceE®gao.gov
TemkoJ®gao.com
From: Arthur Z. Schwartz, General Counsel, ACORN:
Re: Report on ACORN; GAO-10-648R:
Comments To Draft Report From ACORN:
1. In your second paragraph, as a useful point of reference, you might
state that in 2008 ACORN employed over 13,000 people and had an income
and expenses of over $40 million (we can supply back-up if necessary).
2. In the second paragraph you refer to the tapes. We believe that you
should add a footnote that the "two prosecutorial authorities who have
investigated the events depicted on the tapes, the Brooklyn District
Attorney and the California Attorney General (which we attach and can
be found on online at [hyperlink,
http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1888_acom_report.pdf)],
found no criminal activity on the part of ACORN's employees."
3. Metro Technical Institute: On page 27, on Table 7 (a matter
referenced on several previous pages) you discuss the prosecution of
the Director of the Metro Technical Institute. While there was, many,
many years ago, an entity called Metro Technical Institute, which had
some association with ACORN, that entity was defunct well before 2005.
I called the Metro Technical Institute on Oak Park, Michigan, which
was the entity involved in United States v. Zimmerman, and they didn't
know who or what ACORN was.
ROSS Grants:
4. In Table 1: our records show that no HUD ROSS grants went directly
to ACORN National. They went to the ACORN Institute or the NY Agency
for Community Affairs.
5. Election-Related Matters:
* On page 10 you discuss "cases related to voter registration fraud
'for six ACORN organizations'." We believe that these investigations
are more accurately described as "cases related to voter registration
fraud allegedly engaged in by former employees of six ACORN
organizations." In every case investigated by the DOJ and FBI, ACORN
and its associated groups were not targets. ACORN, in fact, usually
was the party which identified possible cases of fraud and turned the
registrations in question over to local election officials. Employees
who committed such fraud also defrauded ACORN as an employer because
they did not carry out the work that that had been hired to do.
* Similarly, after table 5, you refer to EOUSA and FBI identifying
seven closed investigations "involving an ACORN organization." We
think that it is more accurate to call these investigations "involving
former ACORN employees." It would also be appreciated if you would add
a sentence here similar to the following Table 6 to the effect that
"no case alleged wrong doing by the organization."
* In Table 6, there is an "outcome" of a 2008 FBI investigation which
states "All subjects were sentenced." That could be read as including
ACORN, the entry would be better phrased as "All individuals involved
were sentenced."
It is our hope that GAO's final draft will reflect these comments.
[End of Enclosure III]
Enclosure IV: Comments from Affordable Housing Centers for America
(formerly ACORN Housing Corporation):
Affordable Housing Centers Of America:
Every Family Deserves a Chance at the American Dream:
209 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 301:
Chicago, Illinois 60605:
312-939-1611:
June 9, 2010:
Response of Affordable Housing Centers of America to GAO's Report
entitled "Preliminary Observations on Funding, Oversight, and
Investigations and Prosecutions of Organizations Related to ACORN"
Affordable Housing Centers of America, formally known as ACORN Housing
Corporation, has comments on two aspects of the GAO's "Preliminary
Observations ... Related to ACORN."
At the outset, on page 1, the GAO report refers to "widely distributed
videotapes depicting what appeared to be inappropriate behavior by
employees of several local ACORN chapters." This passing reference to
the videotapes does not mention facts that should be included. The
videotapes and surrounding conduct were reviewed by the Brooklyn
District Attorney's Office and the California Attorney General's
office. Both the Brooklyn District Attorney and the California
Attorney General found that there was no illegal action by any
employees shown on the videotapes. For instance, referring to the
California employees, the California Attorney General reported on page
16 of his April 1, 2010 report, "Based on all the evidence now known,
none of these employees said or did anything that was, in light of all
the circumstances, illegal." The GAO's report should reflect the
finding of the California Attorney General that the videotapes
released to the public were heavily edited, so much so that the truth
remained on the cutting room floor, rather than in the highly
publicized tapes. The GAO should record that one of ACORN Housing's
employees in Philadelphia called the police rather than cooperate with
the woman and man pretending to be a prostitute and her boyfriend.
Finally, the GAO report should reflect that James O'Keefe, who was
responsible for creation of the videotapes and was a principal actor
in them, was recently arrested for an apparent attempt to wiretap the
office phones of United States Senator Mary Landrieu. Mr. O'Keefe pled
guilty and was convicted on a charge of unlawfully entering federal
property.
Pages 14 and 16 of the GAO report describes funding from NeighborWorks
and HUD that resulted in sub awards to ACORN Housing Corporation. In
fact, the money from several of the sub awards was not spent. ACORN
Housing Corporation returned all or parts of the NeighborWorks sub
awards received from California, Florida, and Missouri and did not
receive payment from some of the sub awards of CDBG funds. The fact
that an award was made does not mean that ACORN Housing Corporation
received and spent the money.
[End of Enclosure IV]
Enclosure V: Comments from Project Vote:
Project Vote:
737 1/2 8th Street SE:
Washington, DC 20003:
1-800-546-8683:
[hyperlink, http://www.projectvote.org]
June 9, 2010:
Monica Kelly:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Re: Draft ACORN Oversight and Investigation Report:
Dear Ms. Kelly:
I am Senior Counsel with Project Vote. Project Vote is one of the
organizations the above captioned report (ACORN report) has designated
as related to ACORN. Project Vote would like you to make two changes
to the draft report. Project Vote objects to the use of the overly
broad term "ACORN organizations" throughout the report. Project Vote
also disputes the allegation that Project Vote employees were
investigated and/or prosecuted for voter registration fraud.
The use of "ACORN organizations" throughout the report leaves the
impression that all the organizations mentioned in the report are part
of one organization and subservient to or controlled by ACORN, which
is not true. Project Vote is and always has been a completely separate
organization from ACORN. Project Vote is a 501(c)(3) organization
incorporated in Louisiana in 1994. Its Board is separate from and
independent of ACORN and ACORN has no right to appoint or hold any of
the Board positions. Prior to July 2008, Project Vote shared one
employee with ACORN, which is one of the reasons why they were
designated as "affiliated" with ACORN in some reports. Subsequent to
July 2008, Project Vote could not be considered "affiliated" with
ACORN under any definition of the term. Project Vote currently has no
relationship with ACORN except as legal counsel where ACORN is the
plaintiff and in conjunction with ongoing inquiries about our joint
voter registration drives in 2007-2008.
While the report does state that you intend the term "ACORN
organizations" to also include organizations that are related to ACORN
or only share a common mission, the use of "ACORN organizations"
implies much more. Currently the unfounded and malicious attacks on
ACORN have made being linked with ACORN a liability and claiming that
Project Vote is an "ACORN organization" is actually defamatory. The
term will be used by organizations that want to attack Project Vote by
claiming the GAO report has concluded that Project Vote is an "ACORN
organization." Therefore, Project Vote requests that the report use
the term "ACORN and other CRS identified organizations", which does
not overtly confuse the relationship between Project Vote and ACORN.
We particularly believe that this is warranted based on the statement
on page 3 of the report that the determination of affiliates and
subsidiaries has not been made yet (Project Vote would like to provide
any documentation you need to make this decision correctly).
Page 24 of the report states: "FBI, FEC and EOUSA reported that
employees for 6 of the organizations (ACORN, Project Vote, CCCI, CSI,
SEIU and Metro Tech last) or their employee have been the subject
matter of investigations or prosecutions since fiscal year 2005." To
the extent this implies that any Project Vote employees were subject
to federal investigations or prosecutions, Project Vote disputes that.
Project Vote did not employ any of the canvassers, or state and local
managers or supervisors in any of the drives, these positions were all
filled by ACORN employees. Table 7 also erroneously implies that the
canvassers charged in the cases on lines 2-6 were Project Vote
employees. They were not. Project Vote requests that the report not
state that Project Vote employees were under investigation and that
you remove references to Project Vote from lines 2-6 in Table 7.
In addition, Project Vote believes that the report should reflect the
fact the ACORN and Project Vote voter registration programs included a
comprehensive quality control system designed to catch and flag voter
registration fraud. The procedure was effective, turning over hundreds
of suspicious applications and identifying numerous canvassers that
collected suspicious applications. This information was given to
election officials and was instrumental in a number of the
prosecutions of canvassers cited in the report.
Finally, Project Vote was not aware of all the investigations of ACORN
listed in Table 6 and would greatly appreciate it if, outside the
context of these comments, you can provide me with more detail about
them, even if it is only the jurisdictions where the investigations
occurred.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments, please feel free
to email me or call me if you have any questions or would like
additional information.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Brian Mellor:
Senior Counsel:
202-553-4317:
bmellor@projectvote.org:
[End of Enclosure V]
Footnotes:
[1] Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-68,
Div. B, § 163, 123 Stat. 2043, 2053 (2009); Further Continuing
Appropriations Resolution, 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-88, Div. B, § 101,
123 Stat. 2904, 2972 (2009).
[2] Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-88, Div. A, § 427, 123 Stat.
2904, 2962 (2009) (prohibiting funds made available under the act from
being distributed to ACORN or its subsidiaries); Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2010, Div. A, § 418, 123 Stat. 3034, 3112 (2009)
(prohibiting funds made available under Division A--the
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2010--as well as prior acts, from being provided
to ACORN, or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied
organizations); Div. B, § 534, 123 Stat. at 3157 (prohibiting funds
made available under Division B--the Commerce, Justice, Science, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010--from being distributed to
ACORN or its subsidiaries); Div. E, § 511, 123 Stat. at 3311
(prohibiting funds made available under Division E--the Military
Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2010--as well as any other division of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, from being distributed to ACORN or any of its
subsidiaries); Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub. L.
No. 111-118, § 8123, 123 Stat. 3409, 3458 (2009) (prohibiting funds
made available under the act from being distributed to ACORN or its
subsidiaries).
[3] Pub. L. No. 111-117, Div. B, § 535, 123 Stat. 3034, 3157.
[4] CRS developed a list of ACORN organizations as part of its process
to respond to multiple requests for information on funding to ACORN
and affiliated organizations. The list generated by CRS is largely
based on information from ACORN's General Counsel regarding
organizations that ACORN reported as associated or related to ACORN
and allied organizations CRS identified that were formerly listed on
ACORN's website. The list is in the appendix of the November 4, 2009,
CRS memorandum entitled Federal Funding to the Association of
Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and Related
Organizations.
[5] GAO was directed to review funds received by ACORN or any
subsidiary or affiliate of ACORN; the terms "subsidiary" and
"affiliate" are undefined in the legislation. See § 535, 123 Stat. at
3157.
[6] See supra notes 1 and 2. The ACORN appropriations restriction
contained in Section 163 of the Continuing Resolution was
preliminarily enjoined by a federal district court and expired. ACORN
v. United States, 662 F. Supp. 285 (E.D.N.Y. 2009). Similarly, other
appropriations provisions for fiscal year 2010 that restricted certain
federal agencies from providing funding to ACORN and certain related
entities were also ruled unconstitutional and permanently enjoined by
the federal district court on March 10, 2010, along with section 163
from the Continuing Resolution. ACORN v. United States, No. 09-4888,
2010 Westlaw 809960 (E.D.N.Y. Mar 10, 2010). The Department of Justice
filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and was
granted a stay of the lower court's decision pending that appeal.
ACORN v. United States, Nos. 09-5172, 10-992, slip op. (2nd Cir. Apr.
21, 2010). Accordingly, pending appeal, the appropriations
restrictions are still in effect.
[7] See GAO, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, vol. 1, 3rd
ed., [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-261SP]
(Washington, D.C.: January 2004) 1-35 ("Every federal department or
agency has the initial and fundamental responsibility to ensure that
its application of public funds adheres to the terms of the pertinent
authorization and appropriation acts, as well as any other relevant
statutory provisions.")
[8] For the purposes of this report, we use the term federal "agency"
to encompass federal entities that include selected federal executive
departments, independent agencies, and nonprofit entities created by
law such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and NeighborWorks.
[9] In providing this list to CRS, counsel for ACORN noted that the
organizations were grouped solely in the interest of facilitating the
CRS study, and not as a legal statement about their relationship.
[10] For the purpose of this report, awards include direct grants
(grants made by the agency directly to a grant-requesting recipient)
and subawards which include subgrants or subcontracts (grants or
contracts made under an agency grant by the original award recipient
to a subrecipient).
[11] NeighborWorks is a national nonprofit organization created by law
to provide financial support, technical assistance, and training for
community-based efforts. 42 U.S.C. §§ 8101-07.
[12] The DOJ litigating divisions we queried included Civil,
Environment and Natural Resources, Antitrust, Civil Rights, Criminal,
Tax, National Security, and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys.
The default rule is that DOJ is responsible for all litigation on
behalf of the United States and its administrative agencies;
accordingly, in general, agencies must refer investigations to DOJ for
prosecution. 28 U.S.C. §§ 516, 519; 5 U.S.C. § 3106. However, there
are certain exceptions where agencies have civil litigation authority;
for example, the Federal Election Commission has the authority to
bring enforcement actions for violations of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971, as amended. 2 U.S.C. §§ 437c, 437d.
[13] A case is defined as an activity that has been assigned an
identification number that has resulted in the filing of a complaint,
an indictment, or information in court. A matter is defined as an
activity that has been assigned an identification number, but has not
resulted in the filing of a complaint, an indictment, or information
in court--for example, the investigation of a complaint or an
allegation of discrimination referred by another federal agency.
[14] Department of Justice, United States Attorneys' Manual § 9-
85.210, Violations of Campaign Financing Laws, Federal Patronage Laws,
and Corruption of the Electoral Process--Consultation Requirement.
[15] To avoid duplication of efforts, we did not assess the oversight
activities at DHS, DOJ, and HUD for this preliminary report. The IGs
for these agencies have reviewed or are in the process of reviewing
funding provided to ACORN or potentially related organizations. We
plan to include the results of their work and to conduct additional
work as needed on oversight in our report to be issued later this year.
[16] Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, Review of
Department of Justice Grants to the Association of Community
Organizations for Reform Now, Inc. (ACORN) and its Affiliated
Organizations (Washington, D.C., November 2009). DOJ IG notified us in
May 2010 that as part of its review, it searched for 192 of 217
organizations on the CRS list. We will ask DOJ to search its records
for funding using a list of ACORN or potentially related organizations
we independently developed and include the results in our report to be
issued later this year.
[17] Pub. L. No. 109-282, 120 Stat. 1186.
[18] GAO, Electronic Government: Implementation of the Federal Funding
and Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-365], (Washington, D.C.: Mar 12,
2010).
[19] To avoid duplication of efforts, we did not assess the oversight
activities at DHS, DOJ, and HUD for this preliminary report. The IGs
for these agencies have reviewed or are in the process of reviewing
funding provided to ACORN or potentially related organizations. We
plan to include the results of their work and to conduct additional
work on oversight as needed in our report to be issued later this year.
[20] Performance report reviews consist of agency officials reviewing
a grantee's reports or working plans on its progress with the grant
activities. Financial report reviews consist of reviewing a grantee's
financial information, such as expenditure information related to the
grant. Desk reviews consist of off-site reviews of documentation
related to a grant agreement, such as an insurance policy, budget, and
client file reports. On-site reviews consist of agency grant managers
and staff visiting a grantee's location to conduct in-person
interviews, observe activities that are intended to serve the purposes
of the grant, as well as review relevant grant documentation.
[21] The Single Audit Act, as amended and implemented through OMB
Circular No. A-133, requires states, local governments, and nonprofit
organizations expending more than $500,000 in federal awards in a year
to obtain an audit in accordance with the requirements set forth in
the act. A Single Audit consists of (1) an audit and opinions on the
fair presentation of the financial statements and the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards; (2) gaining an understanding of and
testing internal control over financial reporting and the entity's
compliance with laws, regulations, and contract or grant provisions
that have a direct and material effect on certain federal programs
(i.e., the program requirements); and (3) an audit and an opinion on
compliance with applicable program requirements for certain federal
programs.
[22] According to NeighborWorks officials, risk rating factors include
size of the award and years of experience, among others.
[23] 47 U.S.C. § 396(k)(3)(A)(i)(I).
[24] NeighborWorks officials indicated that documentation was one of
the more common issues with this grant program.
[25] The Arkansas Arts Council made a payment to KABF in February 2009
as part of the operating support grant to KABF that included the
$5,853 in NEA funds. Officials stated that all subsequent payments to
KABF were made with state funds.
[26] The IG for the National Endowment for the Humanities responded
for its agency and for the Institute for Museum and Library Services,
as it is responsible for both agencies.
[27] This section specifies which agencies (or other entities) may
have access to certain types of tax return information, for what
purposes such access may be granted, and under what conditions the
information will be received. While GAO has access to taxpayer
information in certain circumstances, those circumstances did not
apply to this engagement.
[28] Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, Pub. L. No. 92-225, 86
Stat. 3 (1972), as amended.
[29] For the purposes of this report, we use the term federal "agency"
to encompass federal entities that include selected federal executive
departments, independent agencies, and nonprofit entities created by
law, such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and NeighborWorks.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: