Verification of Compliance - Morgan State University

MORGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 

Verification of Compliance 

with 

Accreditation-Relevant Federal Regulations 

As a member institution of the Middle States Commission on Higher Education 

(MSCHE), Morgan State University (Morgan) fully complies with accreditation-relevant 

federal regulations (see 34 CFR §600.2, §602.16, §602.17, and §602.24; HEOA 2008) 

with regards to: 

1. Student identity verification in distance and correspondence education 

2. Transfer of credit 

3. Title IV cohort default rate 

4. Assignment of credit hours 

Student Identity Verification (Distance or Correspondence Education). Morgan is 

approved by the Maryland Higher Education Commission (MHEC) to award three online 

degrees including: a doctorate (Ed.D) in Community College Leadership; a Master 

of Science in Electrical Engineering (MSEE); and, a 2+2 Bachelor of Science (BS) 

degree in Electrical Engineering for students transferring from a community college or 

from other four-year institutions. Morgan is also approved to award an online certificate 

in Project Management. The following student identity verification practices are currently 

in place in the largest and most established of Morgan’s three on-line degree programs, 

the Community College Leadership (Ed.D.) program: 

1. Written Description of Student Identity Verification 

 

 

 

 

All students are required to submit a recent photograph upon admission to 

the program. In addition, a writing sample submitted as part of the 

application package is used as the basis of an interview that is conducted 

before an admission decision is made. The writing sample, the photograph 

and interview notes are kept on record. 

All on-line classes employ Blackboard to manage course materials. Adobe 

Connect is also used to deliver both video and audio capability. 

A student cannot enroll in a course without using his/her Morgan student 

ID number. 

All communication is done through the students’ Morgan email account 

While no one of the above provides incontrovertible proof of identity, taken together they 

provide a high level of verification. 

MSU Verification of Compliance Page 1

2. Written Procedure Regarding the Protection of Student Privacy 

Morgan State University adheres to the requirements of the Family Educational Rights 

and Privacy Act (FERPA) with regards to the implementation of the preceding methods 

of student identity verification as well as with the handling of students’ educational 

records. The FERPA policy and procedures as published in the undergraduate (pages 

XXXIX) and graduate catalog (pages 252 -253 1 . 

3. Written Procedure Regarding Projected Additional Charges 

Currently, there are no projected additional charges associated with the verification of 

identity for students enrolled in online distance education courses. All current charges 

for tuition and fees for online courses are the same as for students enrolled in face-toface 

classroom courses. A charge differential for tuition and fees is based on students’ 

classification as either in-state or out-of-state residents. Morgan’s Policy for Student 

Residency Classification for Admission, Tuition, & Charge-Differential Purposes is 

published on the Board of Regents’ website 2 and in the 2010 - 2013 online 

undergraduate and graduate catalogs. 

4. Responsibility for Application of Identity Verification Procedures 

The responsibility for the application of student identity verification procedures is shared 

by the Director of Morgan Online (http://www.morgan.edu/online.) and the faculty for the 

individual courses. As one of the administrative outcomes of the University’s ten (10) 

year strategic plan entitled, “Growing the Future, Leading the World: The Strategic 

Plan for Morgan State University, 2011 – 2021 3 ” Morgan Online is an administrative 

unit within the new Division of Academic Outreach and Engagement led by a Vice 

President. Advertisement for a fist time full-time Director of Morgan Online (job # 2013- 

025 DIRECTOR, MORGAN ONLINE) has been prepared, a search committee has been 

established, and applications are being received 4 . Ultimately, as in the case where 

students are enrolled in face-to-face classroom settings, verification of the identities of 

students enrolled in the online courses rests with the faculty. 

Transfer of Credit. As outlined by the Maryland Higher Education Commission 

(MHEC), transfer of credit from community colleges in Maryland to four-year colleges 

and universities in the State is governed largely by the terms and provisions in 

ARTSYS 5 . 

1 http://www.morgan.edu/academics/academic_catalogs.html. 

2 Policy R-7 Residency: Procedures for Student Residency Classification for Admission, Tuition, and Charge- 

Differential Purposes (reference: Residency Policy) at morgancounsel.org/policies_procedures.html. 

3 www.morgan.edu/Documents/ABOUT/StrategicPlan/StrategicPlan2011-21_Final.pdf. 

4 www.morgan.edu/office_of_human_resources/employment/administrativestaff_positions.html. 

5 mhec.maryland.gov/preparing/stuguide.asp#ARTSYS. 


1. Written Policies and Procedures for Making Decisions 

ARTSYS is a computerized data information system which informs students and 

advisors at a community college about the transferability of each community college 

course. It indicates whether the course is transferable and, if so, indicates the four-year 

institution's equivalent course number. It also indicates the general education area(s), at 

both the sending and receiving institution, applicable to the course. It is a system, 

developed and maintained by the University System of Maryland (USM) 

(http://artweb.usmd.edu) and is presently in use at all Maryland public institutions, 

including Morgan, and many independent colleges and universities. A copy of 

ARTSYS’ published policies and procedures is found at Appendix 1. Additionally, the 

Morgan State University Transfer Student Policy is published online in the 

Undergraduate Catalog 6 . 

2. Public Disclosure of the Transfer Policy 

In addition to participating in the statewide USM ARTSYS transfer of credit programs, 

the Morgan State University Transfer Center 7 assists any student with the transfer of 

credit process who has attended a two or four-year school and who applies for 

admission to Morgan. In general, once admitted to Morgan, the Office of Admissions 

forwards transcripts to the Transfer Center where an initial evaluation of the transfer 

student’s general education coursework is completed. The application of specific 

Morgan policies related to the transfer of credit is explained on the Transfer Center’s 

Transfer Students’ FAQ web page 8 . 

3. Indication of the Office(s) Responsible for Final Determination of Transfer Credit 

The procedures that indicate the office(s) responsible for the final determination of the 

acceptance or denial of transfer credit are published on the Transfer Center’s Transfer 

Students’ FAQ web page. The procedures are published as follows: 

What is the process for evaluating my earned credits? 

Once admitted to the University, Admissions will forward your transcripts to the 

Transfer Center. An initial evaluation of your general education coursework will 

be completed. At the end of this initial evaluation, the remainder of your 

coursework will appear online as free electives. Your transcripts are then 

forwarded to the Transfer Coordinator in the school in which your major is 

located. The free electives are then compared against Morgan State University 

courses. The free electives are amended to show online the awarded Morgan 

courses. 

6 http://www.morgan.edu/Documents/ACADEMICS/Academic_Catalog/undergrad/2010- 

2013/ucat_AcademicAffairs.pdf. 

7 www.morgan.edu/administration/academic_affairs/university_transfer_center.html. 

8 www.morgan.edu/administration/academic_affairs/university_transfer_center/transfer_student_faqs.html. 


4. Published List of Institutions with which Morgan has Articulation Agreements 

The Transfer Center manages articulation agreements with as many as fourteen 

community colleges throughout Maryland and the region that govern transfer of credit 

into specific degree programs. A list of institutions with which Morgan has articulation 

agreements is found on the Transfer Center’s web site 9 and is included in Appendix 2. 

Title IV Cohort Default Rate. The Cohort Default Rate is the percentage of a school’s 

borrowers who enter repayment on certain Federal Family Education Loans (FFELs) 

and/or William D. Ford Federal Direct Loans (Direct Loans) during that fiscal year and 

who default (or fail to meet the other specified condition) within the cohort default 

period. Cohort default rates are based on federal fiscal years. Federal fiscal years 

begin October 1 st of a calendar year and end on September 30 th of the following 

calendar year. 

1. Department of Education’s Notice of Morgan’s Default Rate: 2009 

Morgan’s official cohort default rate for FY 2008 was 9.2, for FY 2009 it was 11, and for 

2010 it was 14.2. 10 It is expected that the September 2013 notification from the U.S. 

Department of Education will provide the official cohort default rate for FY 2011. 

2. External Audits of Morgan’s Federal Programs 

The external audits of federal programs (A-133) are found in the State of Maryland 

Single Audit Together with Reports of Independent Public Accountants 11 including 

financial aid audit reports and responses for the last three years (i.e., 2010, 2011, 

2012). The Financial Aid information is as follows: 

For FY 2010, pages 73-78 of the report cover Morgan State University. 

For FY 2011, pages 100-105 of the report cover Morgan State University. 

For FY 2012, the entire report covers Morgan State University. 

Assignment of Credit Hours. Morgan State University complies with federal, State, 

and its own institutional policies concerning credit hour assignment covering the variety 

of courses, disciplines, programs, degree levels, formats, and modalities of instructions. 

1. Written Policies and Procedures 

9 www.morgan.edu/administration/academic_affairs/university_transfer_center/articulation_agreements.html 

10 http://www.nslds.ed.gov/nslds_SA/defaultmanagement/cohortdetail.cfm?sno=0&ope_id=002083. Appendix 3 

11 Appendix 4 contains the State’s Single Audit Reports that include Morgan State University 


The Academic Affairs Policy on the Assignment of Credit Hours (the Policy) at Morgan 

State University is consistent with 13B.02.01.12 of the Code of Maryland Regulations 

(COMAR) 12 . In accordance with COMAR, Morgan’s Semester Credit Hours Policy 

provides 

A semester credit is defined as one 50-minute lecture class per week (or its 

equivalent) for one semester. A three-hour class may meet for three 50- 

minute periods per week, for two 75-minute periods per week, or for one 50- 

minute period and one 110-minute period per week, or for a combination of 

these formats for one semester. Laboratory and studio classes normally 

require two to four hours in class per week as the equivalent of one semester 

hour. Internship and practicum courses normally require three or more 

contact hours per week as the equivalent of one semester hour (Pg. 53 

UGC). 

2. Evidence of Consistent Application of Policies and Procedures 

All academic programs offered by Morgan State University (as well as all other public 

and private colleges and universities in Maryland) must be approved by MHEC which, 

among other programmatic aspects, verifies compliance with State higher education 

regulations and procedures including credit hour requirements. A checklist of MHEC 

program review fees and requirements is included in Appendix 5. Additionally, 

pursuant to Morgan State University’s Periodic Review of Programs: Policies and 

Procedures, every academic program, graduate as well as undergraduate is subject to 

a scheduled review of courses and credit offered at the University. A copy of the 

schedule of program review is attached at Appendix 6. 

3. Description and Evidence of Processes for Institutional Review 

There are several levels of institutional review where academic credit for courses are 

assessed. Initially, every proposal for a new course and program is subject to review by 

departmental and/or school or college curriculum committee. Graduate courses are 

reviewed by a standing committee of the Graduate Council, the Curriculum Committee. 

If the courses reviewed by departmental, school, or college, including the Graduate 

Council’s Curriculum Committee, are part of a new degree or certificate program, the 

Academic Affairs Council which includes the Deans of each school/college and is 

chaired by the Vice President for Academic Affairs/Provost provides a second level of 

review of courses and academic credit. Once approved by the Academic Affairs 

Council, new degree and certificate programs must be approved by the Present and 

Morgan’s Board of Regents prior to submission to the MHEC for assessment of 

compliance with the State of Maryland’s academic regulations and procedures as 

outlined in COMAR. Among the documents outlining Morgan’s periodic application of 

its policies and procedures for academic integrity, the assessment of student learning, 

12 http://www.mhec.state.md.us/highered/COMAR/COMAR_CH_01_Web.pdf. (pg. 23) 


including credit hour assignment, are the Periodic Review of Programs: Policies and 

Procedures 13 , and the 2008 MSU Comprehensive Assessment Plan (CAP) 14 . 

4. Courses that Do Not Conform to the “Credit Hour” Definition 

Morgan’s 2010 – 2013 Undergraduate Catalog (pg 43 section D) covers Nontraditional 

Credit. The policy provides that the assignment of credit for AP, CLEP, or other 

nationally recognized standardized examination scores as well as technical courses 

from career programs, course credit awarded through articulation agreements with other 

segments or agencies, credit awarded for clinical practice or cooperative education 

experiences, and credit awarded for life and work experiences shall be consistent with 

COMAR 13B.02.02 and shall be evaluated by Morgan on a course-by-course basis. 

Morgan State University’s Carnegie classification is Doctoral Research University 

(DRU) Doc/Prof: Doctoral professional Dominant 15 . Consistent with its Carnegie 

classification the University inventory of undergraduate and graduate degree programs 

includes a number of independent study, clinical, and practicum courses. While the 

majority of the courses below have fixed credit and contact hour requirements, some 

have variable credit depending on the number of contact hours a student spends in the 

internship, clinic, field, and/or practicum. The course descriptions, contact hours, and 

assigned credit are found in the appropriate undergraduate or graduate catalog. 

Undergraduate Courses 

COMM 490 Internship I 

JOUR 491 Internship II 

BROA 491 Internship II 

BROA 492 Internship III 

JOUR 170 Freshman Spokesman Practicum I 

JOUR 171 Freshman Spokesman Practicum II 

JOUR 180 Freshman Promethean Practicum I 

SWAN 499 Independent Projects in Film and Digital Storytelling 

HIST 498 Senior Internship 

PHIL 498 Senior Internship 

POSC 498 Senior Internship 

PSYC 496 Senior Internship 

BUAD 486 Internship and Field Experience 

ENGL 498 Senior Internship 

INSS 495 Internship in Information Systems 

NURS 302 Practicum in Nursing Process and Health Assessment 

NURS 304 Practicum in Nursing Clinical Skills 

NURS 306 Clinical in Nursing Care of Adults 

13 Appendix 7 

14 Appendix 8 

15 http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/lookup_listings/institution.php. 


NURS 402 Clinical in Nursing Care of Adults with Complex Health Problems 

NURS 406 Clinical in Parent-Child Nursing (Maternity) 

NURS 451 Senior Clinical Nursing Practicum 

BIOL 498 Senior Internship 

PHEC 499 Internship Practicum 

RECR 470 Practicum: Field Work Experience 

EDUC 480 Phase I Internship 

EDUC 489 Phase II Internship 

SCED 490 Observation and Student Teaching in the Secondary School 

EEGR 498 Independent Project 

SOWK 432-433 Field Education and Lab I and Lab II 

Graduate Courses 

EEGR 790: Independent Study 

IEGR 791: Independent Study in Industrial Engineering 

TRSP 790: Independent Study in Transportation 

ENGL 898: Independent Study I 

ENGL 899: Independent Study II 

HIST 880-881: Independent Study 

MUSE 522: Internship 

CREP 714: BES Internship for Planners 

LAAR 561: Landscape Architectural Practice 

PUBH 517: MPH Internship I 

PUBH 518: MPH Internship II 

PUBH 551: Doctoral Internship I 

PUBH 651: Doctoral Internship II 

EDAD 603: Clinical Studies/Internship: Administration and Social Policy 

EDAD 605: Clinical Studies/Internship: Educational Planning 

SOWK 811: Independent Study 

SOWK 503: Foundation Field Practicum I 

SOWK 504: Foundation Field Practicum II 


APPENDICES 

1. Student Guide to Transfer Among Maryland Colleges and Universities 

2. List of Institutions with which Morgan has Articulation Agreements 

3. Table of MSU FY 2008, 2009, and 2010 Official Cohort Default Rates 

4. State of Maryland Single Audit Together with Reports of Independent Public 

Accountants: 2010, 2011, 2012 

5. Checklist of MHEC Program Review Fees and Requirements 

6. MSU Periodic Program Review Schedule 

7. Periodic Review of Programs: Policies and Procedures 

8. 2008 MSU Comprehensive Assessment Plan 


8 

Maryland liigher Education Commission 

Student Guide to Transfer#ARTSYS 

Academic Studies I Advisory Councils I Student Guide to Transfer 

Student Guide to Transfer 

STUDENT GUIDE TO TRANSFER 

AMONG MARYLAND COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES 

WHY SHOULD YOU READ THIS GUIDE? 

Students who enter higher education institutions in Maryland should have every opportunity to continue their learning 

throughout their lives. Some students will begin their college careers at a community college and transfer to a four-year 

college or university. Others will transfer between four-year institutions or from one community college to another. The 

purpose of this guide is to provide students with information to make the process of transferring from one college or 

university to another--not only from a community college to a four-year college, but from any college to any other in 

Maryland--an easier one. By following the advice in this guide, you can minimize (and hopefully avoid altogether) any 

loss of credit during transfer. 

The guide contains information on: 

Principles of Student Transfer in Marvland 

Steps to a Successful Transfer 

Elements of a College Degree 

Marv/and's General Education Program 

Transfer Programs and Career Programs 

ARTSYS: An Electronic Tool for Transfer Students 

Student Rights and Responsibilities 

What a Transfer Coordinator Can Do For You 

Contacting Your Transfer Coordinator 

Commonlv Asked Questions 

A Glossary of Terms Relating to Articulation and Transfer 

If, after reading this guide, you still have questions, you will find the phone numbers of knowledgeable transfer 

counselors in the section called Contacting Your Transfer Coordinator. Please call them. They are there to help you. 

PRINCIPLES OF STUDENT TRANSFER IN MARYLAND 

In Maryland, a student may be able to progress from one segment of the public higher education system to another 

without loss of time or duplication of courses. To help accomplish this, Maryland's public colleges and universities follow 

certain statewide policies. Several of the key policies are: 

• Maryland community college students who have completed the associate degree or students who have completed 56 

semester hours of credit with a cumulative grade point average (GPA) of 2.0 or higher on a scale of 4.0 shall not be denied 

direct transfer to a Maryland public four-year institution. 

• Courses taken at a Maryland community college as part of a recommended transfer program will ordinarily be applicable to 

related programs at a Maryland public institution granting the baccalaureate degree. 

• The General Education Program a student takes at one public college or university will transfer without further review to 

another public institution without the need for a course-to-course match. That is, courses that are designated as general 

education by a sending institution will transfer as general education even if the receiving institution does not offer that 

specific course or has not designated that course as general education. 

• Courses designated as meeting the general education requirements at any Maryland public college shall be applicable to 

the general education requirements at any other Maryland public college or university. 

• Credit earned in or transferred from an associate degree-granting institution shall be limited to approximately one-half the 

baccalaureate degree program requirement, not to exceed 70 credits, and to the first two years of the undergraduate 

educational experience. 

STEPS TO A SUCCESSFUL TRANSFER 

http:/ .gov/preparing/stuguide.asp 1/2312013

Seek advice on transfer from your academic advisor or campus transfer coordinator during your first semester or as soon 

as possible after earning 15 credits. (See "What A Transfer Coordinator Can Do For You!" ) 

2. Choose as early as possible the institution to which you wish to transfer and your intended major program. 

3. Make use of ARTSYS, a computerized method of determining the transferability of your courses to your intended transfer 

institution. Check out the transferability of your courses before registration, not after. (See "ARTSYS, An Electronic Tool for 

Transfer Students" ) 

4. Map out your course work in accord with the recommended transfer program you and your advisor find in ARTSYS or in 

other resources. 

5. Become familiar with Maryland's regulations on General Education and Transfer. These are printed in all college catalogs 

andlor student handbooks. 

6. Determine transfer application and admissions procedures and deadlines of your intended transfer institution. Each 

institution sets its own deadlines for application, admissions, housing, financial aid and scholarships. So, the sooner you 

apply, the greater your options will be. 

7. Be aware that courses and program requirements may change as colleges attempt to keep their programs current. 

Therefore, be sure to consult frequently with your advisor and transfer coordinator due to potential changes in courses and 

program requirements. 

ELEMENTS OF A COLLEGE DEGREE 

A college degree -- whether a two-year associate degree or a four-year bachelor's degree -- has three basic 

components: general education, major program requirements and electives. The distribution of courses among these 

three components varies from college to college, from major to major and from institution to institution. 

The Maryland general education program, as implemented by public colleges and universities, is designed to introduce 

undergraduates to the fundamental knowledge, skills and value'S that are essential to the study of academic disciplines, 

to encourage the pursuit of life-long learning and to foster the development of educated members of the community and 

the world. 

For students in public colleges and universities, the general education requirements are as presented in the following 

table. Independent colleges and universities each set their own general education requirements, and these can best be 

determined by consulting both the independent institution's catalog and academic advisers. 

NOTE: Students should be aware that they are responsible for the loss of credits due to changes in the individual's 

selection of the major program of study, the need for remedial course work or exceeding the limit of credits accepted in 

transfer as allowed by the Maryland Higher Education Commission. Students shall be held responsible for meeting all 

requirements of the academic program at the degree-granting institution. Please see an academic advisor for the course 

lists for each category and for specific general education information at your institution. The complete text of the 

regulations concerning general education appears in the catalog of each public college and university, 

Maryland's General Education Program 

Associate of Associate of Bachelor of 

Applied Arts/ Arts I 

Distribution Areas 

Science Science Science 

degree degree degree 

(in credits) (in credits) (in credits) 

i! I II I 

I English Composition I! 3 minimum !I 3 minimum Ii 3 minimum I 

I Mathematics at or above the level of college algebra I 3 minimum \ i 3 minimum Ii 3 minimum \ 

Arts & Humanities - one course from each of two 

disciplines, may include speech, foreign language or 

composition & literature courses 

6 minimum 

13 mioimum 1! i 6mioimum I 

I I II \I I 

http://mhec.maryland. stuguide.asp 1123/ 0-:'

Social & Behavioral Sciences one course from each of two 

disciplines 13 minimum 116 minimum 

iI 

E] 

Biological & Physical Sciences - two courses, including one 

i laboratory 

I 

I 

Interdisciplinary & Emerging Issues not required, will be 

transferred as part of General Education Program 

. 3 minimum 

Optional 

\ 6 minimum 

Optional 

(8 maximum) (8 maximum) 

Additional credits - may be assigned by each institution 

from English, Mathematics, Arts & Humanities, Social & 

Behavioral Sciences and Biological & Physical Sciences to 5-21 credits 0-12 credits 

complete the number of credits required for the General 

Education Program. 

I 

TOTAL CREDITS REQUIRED FOR GENERAL 

EDUCATION PROGRAM 

Ii 

II 

20-36 credits 

i 

30-36 credits 

116 minimum I 

116 minimum I 

I, 

Optional 

(8 maximum) 

8-22 credits 

I 

I 

40-46 credits 

\ ! \ 

!! 

REMAINING GENERAL EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS 

FOR BACHELOR'S DEGREE AFTER COMPLETION OF 

ASSOCIATE'S DEGREE 

10-26 credits 

maximum 

10-16 credits 

maximum 

Not 

Applicable 

EXCEPTION: Since st. Mary's College of Maryland offers a curriculum based on four-credit courses, the total credits 

required for general education at St. Mary's College will be 48 credits. Remaining general education requirements for 

the Bachelor's Degree after completion of the Associate of Applied Science Degree will be 10-28 credits maximum and 

after completion of the Associate of Arts/Science Degree will be 10-18 credits maximum. 

TRANSFER PROGRAMS AND CAREER PROGRAMS 

Maryland community colleges grant three associate-level degrees: the Associate of Arts (AA), the Associate of Science 

(AS) and the Associate of Applied Science (AAS). 

Transfer or Pre-baccalaureate degree programs (AA, AS) are aimed at meeting the needs of students who intend to 

earn a bachelor's degree from a four-year college or university. These programs are specifically designed so that all 

course work will transfer to a four-year institution. In fact. optional course offerings are available to students taking 

transfer programs which can be tailored to the specific major fields students plan to pursue in their junior and senior 

years (and can also be tailored to the requirements of specific four-year colleges and universities). Students should 

consult ARTSYS as well as academic advisors or transfer counselors at both the sending and receiving institutions for 

current transfer information. 

Career degree programs (AAS) are designed for students intending to seek employment upon graduation from a 

community college. Many programs designated as AAS degrees are in fields which also offer a baccalaureate degree. 

Some of these courses may transfer; students should consult ARTSYS as well as academic advisors at both the 

sending and receiving institutions for information. Other career programs include specific occupational courses not 

normally offered by four-year institutions. These courses generally are not accepted as transfer credit by four-year 

institutions. However, all general education courses designated as such on the transcript will be accepted by receiving 

public four-year colleges and universities. 

ARTSYS 

http://mhec.ma 1st .asp 11 3/201

An Electronic Tool for Transfer Students 

ARTSYS is a computerized data information system which informs students and advisors at a community college about 

the transferability of each community college course. It indicates whether the course is transferable and, if so, indicates 

the four-year institution's equivalent course number. It also indicates the general education area(s), at both the sending 

and receiving institution, applicable to the course. 

It is a system, developed and maintained by the University of System of Maryland (USM), which is available both as a 

PC-based version on campuses and on the World Wide Web at http://artweb.usmd.edu.The system is presently in use 

at all Maryland public institutions and many independent colleges and universities. 

In addition to providing information on course transferability. the program provides, in community college course 

numbers, the recommended courses for transfer to specific programs of study at the participating four-year institutions. 

The ARTSYS program permits the student to enter his or her transcript into ARTSYS to determine the transferability of 

courses he or she plans to take. ARTSYS also allows the analysis of the courses taken against a recommended transfer 

program. This may be done for a single program at a single institution or for multiple programs at several institutions. 

The ARTSYS program computes a transfer grade point average, a grade point average for a particular program, as well 

as an overall grade point average. 

For additional information, contact the transfer coordinator on your campus. 

STUDENT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 

A student is held accountable for the loss of credits that result from changes in the student's major program of study. 

were earned for remedial course work or exceed the total course credits allowable in transfer from a community college 

to a baccalaureate institution (e,g., one-half of the credits required for graduation at the receiving institution--generally 

60 credits for the bachelor's degree and in no case more than 70 credits). 

A student has the right to question any denial of transfer credit by a public college or university. The steps to appeal a 

denial of credit will be printed in the college's catalog and/or student handbook, 

There are time limits set on each step of the appeals process to protect the student by ensuring that an appeal is dealt 

with quickly. The steps in the process are summarized below. To receive a full description of the appeal process, see 

your college catalog, student handbook or the transfer coordinator on your campus, 

Steps in the Process 

1. The receiving institution notifies the student of 

denial of transfer credit. 

Time limit 

Under normal conditions, notification must be made 

no later than mid-semester of the first semester of 

enrollment 

2. Appeal to the receiving institution by the student. 20 working days (4 weeks) 

3. Response by the receiving institution. 10 working days (2 weeks) 

4. If transfer credit is still denied. the student may ask 

his/her sending institution to intervene on the student's 

behalf. 

5, The sending institution and the receiving institution 

consult. The sending institution informs the student of 

the result. 

10 working days (2 weeks) 

15 working days (3 weeks) 

WHAT A TRANSFER COORDINATOR CAN DO FOR yOU 

Each Maryland public institution of higher education has a designated Transfer Coordinator. The Transfer Coordinator 

://mhec. .gov/prepa .asp 1/23/201.3

8 

interprets transfer policies for students, faculty and administrators. 

The Transfer Coordinator: 

• clarifies information for transfer students at either the sending or the receiving campus regarding course or 

program transfer. 

• works with transfer counselors and academic advisors to assist students in selecting courses which are 

transferable. 

• assists a transfer student who wishes to appeal a decision regarding the evaluation of transfer credit. Policies 

and procedures for appeals for students enrolled in public colleges and universities are stated in the Maryland 

Higher Education Commission's regulations concerning general education and transfer. 

You may contact the Transfer Coordinator at your college or on the campus to which you wish to transfer by calling the 

appropriate telephone number listed below. 

CONTACTING YOUR TRANSFER COORDINATOR 

Allegany (301) 724-7700 

www.allegany.edu 

Community Colleges 

Anne Arundel (410) 541-2634 

www.aacc.edu 

Baltimore City (410) 333-5905 

www.bccc.edu 

Carroll (410) 386-8435 

www.carrollcc.edu 

Cecil (410) 287-1000 

www.cecil.edu 

College of Southern MD (410) 870-3008 

www.csmd.edu 

Chesapeake (410) 822-5400 

www.chesapeake.edu 

CCBC Catonsville (410) 455-4728 

www.ccbcmd.edu 

CCBC Dundalk (410) 285-9815 


CCBC Essex (410) 780-6457 


Frederick (301) 846-2475 

www.frederick,edu 

Garrett (301) 387-3011 

www.garrettcolleqe.edu 

Hagerstown (301) 790-2800 

www.haqerstowncc.edu 

Harford (410) 836-4301 

www.harford,edu 

Participating 4-Year Institutions 

Bowie (301 ) 464-6089 

www.bowiestate.edu 

Coppin (410) 383-5990 

www.coppin.edu 

Frostburg (301) 687-4201 

www.frostburg.edu 

Salisbury (410) 543--6161 

www.salisburv.edu 

Towson (410) 830--2114 

www.towson.edu 

Univ. of Baltimore (410) 837-4806 

www.ubalt.edu 

Univ. of Maryland, Baltimore (410) 706--3171 

www.umaryland.edu 

UMBC (410) 455-3799 

www.umbc.edu 

Univ. of Maryland College Park (301) 314-8758 

www.umd.edu 

Univ, of Maryland Eastern Shore (410) 651-6411 

www.umes.edu 

UMUC (301) 985-7930 

www,umuc,edu 

Morgan State University (443) 885-3585 

www.morqan.edu 

St. Mary's College (301) 862-0336 

www.smcm,edu 

*College of Notre Dame of MD (410) 532-5330 

www.ndm.edu 

http://mhec.maryland.gov/preparing/ .asp 1/23/201

Howard (410) 992-4856 

www.howardcc.edu 

Montgomery Coil. Germantown (240) 567-7734 

VIWW· montgomerycollege .edu 

Montgomery College Rockville (240) 567-5063 

www.montgomervcollege.edu 

Montgomery Coil. Takoma Park (240) 567-1614 

www.montgomervcollege.edu 

Prince George's (301) 322-0834 

www.pgcc.edu 

'Hood College (301) 696-3500 

www.hood.edu 

*Johns Hopkins University (410) 516-7186 

www.jhu.edu 

*Stevenson University (410) 486--7001 

www.stevenson.edu 

*Washington College (410) 778-7700 

www.washcoll.edu 

*McDaniel College (800) 638--5005 

www.mcdaniel.edu 

Wor-Wic (410) 334-2800 

www.worwic.edu 

* Indicates an independent (not a public) institution. 

NOTE: For information regarding higher education institutions not listed, contact the Maryland Higher Education 

Commission for a Student Guide To Higher Education in Maryland. 

COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS 

Q: How do I get a transcript sent from one college or university to another? 

A: Make a written request to the Records/Registrar's office on your campus. There may be a fee required. All USM 

institutions, most community colleges and many other Maryland institutions have the ability to send and receive 

electronic transcripts from one another. 

Q: How can I know if the courses I am considering will transfer to the four-year campus I want to attend? 

A: ARTSYS indicates the transferability of courses from each community college to each participating four-year college. 

/( ARTSYS is available at your institution, consult your transfer coordinator about its use. If ARTSYS is not available at 

your institution, consult your academic advisor, transfer counselor or the transfer counselor at the four-year institution 

regarding the transferability of courses, or access ARTSYS on the Web at http://artweb.usmd.edu. 

Q: What courses should I take to major in my chosen field? 

A: Before registering for courses, you should consult your academic advisor or transfer counselor and/or ARTSYS to 

determine the transferability of courses you wish to take. The advisor may be able to provide a recommended transfer 

program for your major. 

Q: How do I access ARTSYS? 

A: Generally. ARTSYS is available both on pes at your institution as well as on the World \!Vide Web. 

Q: May I earn the associate degree at a community college while taking courses needed for transfer for a recommended 

transfer program at a specific four-year college? 

A: Yes. with adequate pre-planning in consultation with your academic advisor. 

Q: Is it better to get the associate degree or to transfer early? 

A: In general, it is preferable to have a completed degree program on your academic record and on your resume. 

Q: How many credits will transfer? 

http://mhec. 

Istuguide.asp 

1/23/2013

A: Transfer credits from a community college normally are limited to half the baccalaureate degree program 

requirement, not to exceed 70 credits. 

Q: How many requirements for graduation at my chosen four-year college willi have met when I receive my associate's 

degree? 

A: In order to answer this question, you must consult an academic advisor or transfer coordinator at the four-year 

college? 

Q: How long will it take to complete a degree after I transfer? 

A: This will depend on your personal circumstances. For example, will you be a part-time or full-time student? If you 

change majors, it could well take longer than if you do not change. 

Q: What class standing will I have? 

A: This will be based on the credits accepted in transfer. Consult the receiving col/ege's catalog for specific definitions of 

class standing, 

Q: Will the college to which I am transferring do an evaluation of my transfer credit before I enroll at that college? 

A: Many institutions provide an unofficial evaluation of transfer credits prior to enrollment. Your advisor, using ARTSYS, 

should be able to provide a clear indication of the transfer credits you will receive. 

Q: Will I get an advisor at the college to which I am transferring? 

A: Yes, An advisor will be assigned to you after you have enrolled, 

Q: Will grades of "0" be accepted in transfer? 

A: "D" grades will be accepted in transfer if the college to which you are applying also accepts a "D" for native students. 

A "D" grade earned in a general education course that meets a general education requirement at a sending institution, 

which has deSignated that course as meeting a general education requirement, will transfer and meet a general 

education requirement at the receiving institution. 

Q: Which institutions have the major I want? 

A: Consult ARTSYS and your academic advisor or transfer counselor, or access individual campus home pages or the 

Maryland Higher Education Commission web site at http://www.mhec.state.md.us. Under the "Colleges and 

Universities" section, the "list of higher education institutions" links to each available campus home page (see the 

"Contacting Your Transfer Counselor" section for campus web site addresses). The "academic programs" link lists 

campuses and approved programs offered by institution; programs can also be found under "Publications", 

GLOSSARY 

Credit hour - One semester hour of credit is awarded for a minimum of 15 hours (50 minutes each) of actual class time; 

for 30 hours of laboratory time; or for 45 hours of instructional situations such as a practicum, internships and 

cooperative education placements. (For example, a 3-credit lecture course meets for 45 hours - usually three times per 

week for 15 weeks.) 

Native student - A student whose initial college enrollment was at a given institution of higher education and who has 

not transferred to another institution since that initial enrollment. 

Receiving institution - The institution of higher education at which a transfer student currently desires to enroll or has 

enrolled. 

Recommended transfer program - A planned program of courses, including both general education and courses in the 

major, taken at a community college which is applicable to a baccalaureate program at a receiving institution; ordinarily 

http://mhec.maryland. /stuguide.asp 1/23/2013

8 

the first two years of a baccalaureate degree. 

Sending institution The institution of higher education of most recent previous enrollment by a transfer student at 

which transferable academic credit was earned. 

Transfer student - A student entering an institution for the first time with academic credit earned at another institution 

which is applicable for credit at the institution the student is entering. 

IMPORTANT NUMBERS AND ADDRESSES 

Maryland Higher Education Commission 

6 N. Liberty Street, 10th Floor, Baltimore, MD 21201 

410-767-3301 

800-974-0203 

Visitors who are hard of hearing, deaf or speech-disabled and who use a TTY or text telephone can contact MHEC via 

Maryland Relay (Dial 7-1-1 or 800-735-2258). 

http://www.mhec.state.md.us 

http://rnhec.rnary1and.gov/preparing/stuguide.asp 1/23/2013


Current Articulation Agreements* 

Anne Arundel Community College 

Architectural and Interior Design 

Baltimore City Community College 

Actuarial Science 

Business 

Medical Technology 

Nursing (RTP - Recommended Transfer Plan) 

Psychology 

Social Work 

Sociology and Anthropology 

Carroll Community College 

Social Work 

Cecil Community College 

Electrical Engineering 

Community College of Baltimore County 

Biology 

Computer Science 

English (Creative Writing) 

Nursing (RTP - Recommended Transfer Plan) 

Social Work 

College of Southern Maryland 


Engineering 

1

Frederick Community College 

Architecture 

Harford Community College 

Business 


Harrisburg Area Community College, Pennsylvania 

Architecture 

Highline Community College, Des Moines, WA 

General Education all Majors 

Howard Community College 

Hospitality Management 

Lansing Community College, Michigan 

Statement of Cooperation 

Monroe Community College, New York 

2+2 Degree Audit Sheets 2012-2013 

BU49 B.S. Business Administration 

CI33 B.S. Computer Information Systems 

CM39 B.S. Communication Studies 

CS38 B.S. Computer Science 

EN38 B.S. Engineering Science 

FA32 B.A. Fine Arts 

HS33 B.S. Health Administration 

LH30 B.A./B.S. Liberal Arts & Sciences - Humanities and Social Sciences 

LS30 B.A./B.S. Liberal Arts & Sciences - Science 

2

Montgomery College 

Architectural Design 

Social Work 

Teacher Education Program 

Westchester Community College, New York 

English & Language Arts 

*Published at: 

www.morgan.edu/administration/academic_affairs/university_transfer_center/articulation_agreements.html. 

3

STATE OF MARYLAND 

Single Audit 

Together with 

Reports of Independent Public Accountants 

Year Ended June 30, 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Report of Independent Public Accountants 1 

Report of Independent Public Accountants on Internal Control Over Financial 

Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of the 

Financial Statements in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards 6 

Report of Independent Public Accountants on Compliance with Requirements 

that Could Have a Direct and Material Effect on Each Major Program and 

on Internal Control over Compliance in Accordance with OMB Circular A-133 10 

Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards 15 

Notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards 33 

Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs 

Section I – Summary of Independent Public Accountant’s Results 42 

Section II – Financial Statement Findings 44 

Section III – Federal Award Findings and Questioned Costs 46 

Section IV – Summary Schedule of Prior Year Audit Findings 88 

Page

The Honorable Peter Franchot 

Comptroller of Maryland 

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 

We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, the 

aggregate discretely presented component units, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund 

information of the State of Maryland (the State), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2010, which 

collectively comprise the State’s basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents. These 

financial statements, schedules and supplementary information are the responsibility of the State’s 

management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. 

We did not audit the financial statements of (1) certain Economic Development Loan Programs; (2) the 

Maryland State Lottery Agency; (3) the Maryland Transportation Authority; (4) the Economic 

Development Insurance Programs; (5) certain foundations included in the higher education component 

units; (6) the Maryland Food Center Authority; (7) the Maryland Technology Development Corporation; 

and (8) the Investment Trust Fund, which represent the percentages of the total assets, total net assets, and 

total operating revenues or additions included in the financial statements. 

Total 

Assets 

Percentage of Opinion Unit 

Total Net 

Assets 

Total 

Operating 

Revenues 

Business-Type Activities 

Major - 

Certain Economic Development Loan Programs 30.7 % 8.7 % 4.3 % 

Maryland State Lottery Agency 2.1 0.4 49.3 

Maryland Transportation Authority 46.0 48.1 15.0 

Non-Major - 

Economic Development Insurance Programs 0.9 1.7 0.1 

Total percentage of business-type activities 79.7 % 58.9 % 68.7 % 

Component Units 

Major - 

Certain foundations included in the higher education 12.8 % 15.5 % 13.5 % 

component units 

Non-Major - 

Maryland Food Center Authority 0.3 0.4 0.4 

Maryland Technology Development Corporation 0.3 0.1 1.7 

Total percentage of component units 13.4 % 16.0 % 15.6 % 

Fiduciary Funds 

Investment Trust Fund 5.8 % 6.9 % 75.4 % 

200 International Circle • Suite 5500 • Hunt Valley • Maryland 21030 • P 410-584-0060 • F 410-584-0061

Those financial statements were audited by other auditors whose reports thereon have been furnished to 

us, and our opinion, insofar as it relates to the amounts included for the above-mentioned funds and 

component units, is based on the reports of the other auditors. 

We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of 

America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, 

issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform 

the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material 

misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and 

disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used 

and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement 

presentation. We believe that our audit and the reports of the other auditors provide a reasonable basis for 

our opinion. 

In our opinion, based on our audit and the reports of the other auditors, the financial statements referred to 

above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental 

activities, the business-type activities, the aggregate discretely presented component units, each major 

fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the State, as of June 30, 2010, and the respective 

changes in financial position and cash flows, where applicable, thereof for the year then ended in 

conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. 

In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated December 10, 

2010, on our consideration of the State’s internal control over financial reporting and our tests of its 

compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other 

matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial 

reporting and compliance and the results of that testing and not to provide an opinion on the internal 

control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in 

accordance with Government Auditing Standards and should be considered in assessing the results of our 

audit. 

The accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal awards is presented for purposes of additional 

analysis as required by the United States Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133, 

Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations, and is not a required part of the basic 

financial statements. The Schedule of Expenditures of Federal awards is prepared on the basis of 

accounting described in Note 2 to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal awards and excludes the 

expenditures associated with the Federal financial assistance programs for the Maryland Water Quality 

Financing Administration, an administration of the Maryland Department of the Environment; the 

Maryland Transportation Authority, an enterprise fund of the State; the Maryland Technology 

Development Corporation, a component unit of the State, and the Maryland Health Insurance program, 

part of the general fund of the State, that had separate OMB Circular A-133 audits. The information in 

the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal awards has been subject to the auditing procedures applied in the 

audit of the basic financial statements and, in our opinion, based on our audit, is fairly stated, in all 

material respects, in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole. 

The management’s discussion and analysis; required supplemental schedules of funding progress and 

employer contributions for the Maryland Pension and Retirement System, the Maryland Transit 

Administration Pension Plan, and Other Post-employment Benefits Plan; and the respective budgetary 

2

comparison for the budgetary general, special and Federal funds as listed in the table of contents are not a 

required part of the basic financial statements but are supplementary information required by the 

accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. We and the other auditors have 

applied certain limited procedures, which consisted principally of inquiries of management regarding the 

methods of measurement and presentation of the required supplementary information. However, we did 

not audit the information and express no opinion on it. 

Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming an opinion on the financial statements that 

collectively comprise the State’s basic financial statements. The combining financial statements, 

schedules, introductory and statistical sections, and financial schedules required by law, as listed in the 

table of contents, are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic 

financial statements. The combining financial statements and schedules have been subjected to the 

auditing procedures applied by us and the other auditors in the audit of the basic financial statements and, 

in our opinion, based on our audit and the reports of the other auditors, are fairly stated in all material 

respects in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole. The introductory and statistical 

sections of this report and the financial schedules required by law have not been subjected to the auditing 

procedures applied by us or the other auditors in the audit of the basic financial statements and, 

accordingly, we express no opinion on them. 

Hunt Valley, Maryland 

December 10, 2010 

3

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS ON INTERNAL 

CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND 

OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 

IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS




IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS 



We have audited the basic financial statements of the State of Maryland (the State), as of and for the year 

ended June 30, 2010, and have issued our report thereon dated December 10, 2010. We conducted our 

audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the 

standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the 

Comptroller General of the United States. Our report on the basic financial statements included 

disclosures regarding our references to the reports of other auditors. 

Internal Control over Financial Reporting 

In planning and performing our audit, we considered the State’s internal control over financial reporting 

as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial 

statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the State’s internal 

control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the 

State’s internal control over financial reporting. 

A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow 

management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or 

detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or combination 

of deficiencies, in internal controls, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement 

of the financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. 

Our consideration of the internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in 

the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over 

financial reporting that might be deficiencies, or material weaknesses. We and the other auditors did not 

identify any deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that we consider to be material 

weaknesses, as defined above. 


Compliance and Other Matters 

As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the State’s financial statements are free of 

material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, 

contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the 

determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those 

provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The 

results of our tests and those of other auditors disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters 

that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards. 

We noted other matters involving the internal control over financial reporting, which we have reported to 

the management of the University System of Maryland, and Baltimore City Community College in 

separate letters dated November 2, 2010, and November 10, 2010, respectively. 

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the State’s management, the U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services (cognizant agency), Federal awarding agencies, and pass-through entities 

and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. 



7


REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS ON COMPLIANCE 

WITH REQUIREMENTS THAT COULD HAVE A DIRECT AND 

MATERIAL EFFECT ON EACH MAJOR PROGRAM AND ON 

INTERNAL CONTROL OVER COMPLIANCE IN ACCORDANCE 

WITH OMB CIRCULAR A-133

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS REPORT ON 

COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS THAT COULD HAVE A DIRECT 

AND MATERIAL EFFECT ON EACH MAJOR PROGRAM AND ON INTERNAL 

CONTROL OVER COMPLIANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH OMB CIRCULAR A-133 



Compliance 

We have audited the State of Maryland’s (the State) compliance with the types of compliance 

requirements described in the OMB Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement that could have a direct and 

material effect on each of its major Federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2010. The State’s major 

Federal programs are identified in the Summary of Independent Public Accountant’s Results section of 

the accompanying Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs. Compliance with the requirements of 

laws, regulations, contracts, and grants applicable to each of its major Federal programs is the 

responsibility of the State’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the State’s 

compliance based on our audit. 

The State’s basic financial statements include the operations of the Maryland Water Quality Financing 

Administration, an administration of the Maryland Department of the Environment; the Maryland 

Transportation Authority, an enterprise fund of the State; the Maryland Technology Development 

Corporation, a component unit of the State; and the Maryland Health Insurance Program, part of the 

general fund of the State, which received Federal awards that are not included in the accompanying 

Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Our audit, described below, did not include the operations 

of these entities because the State engaged other auditors to perform a separate audit in accordance with 

OMB Circular A-133. 

We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the 

United States of America; the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing 

Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and OMB Circular A-133, Audits of 

States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations. Those standards and OMB Circular A-133 

require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether noncompliance 

with the types of compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect 

on a major Federal program occurred. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about the 

State’s compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures, as we considered 

necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. 

Our audit does not provide a legal determination on the State’s compliance with those requirements. 


In our opinion, the State complied, in all material respects, with the compliance requirements referred to 

above that could have a direct and material effect on each of its major Federal programs for the year 

ended June 30, 2010. However, the results of our audit procedures disclosed other instances of 

noncompliance with those requirements, which are required to be reported in accordance with OMB 

Circular A-133 and which are described in the accompanying Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs 

as items 2010-1, 2010-2, 2010-3, 2010-4, 2010-5, 2010-6, 2010-8, 2010-9, 2010-10, 2010-11, 2010-12, 

2010-13, 2010-14, 2010-15, 2010-16, 2010-17 and 2010-18. 

Internal Control over Compliance 

Management of the State is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over 

compliance with the requirements of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants applicable to Federal 

programs. In planning and performing our audit, we considered the State’s internal control over 

compliance with the requirements that could have a direct and material effect on a major Federal program 

to determine the auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on compliance and to test 

and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with OMB Circular A-133, but not for the 

purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, 

we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the State’s internal control over compliance. 

A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over 

compliance does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned 

functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a 

Federal program on a timely basis. A material weakness in internal control over compliance is a 

deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance, such that there is a 

reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a Federal 

program will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. 

Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the first 

paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over 

compliance that might be deficiencies, significant deficiencies, or material weaknesses. We did not 

identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be material weaknesses, 

as defined above. However, we identified certain deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we 

consider to be significant deficiencies as described in the accompanying Schedule of Findings and 

Questioned Costs as items 2010-1, 2010-2, 2010-4, 2010-7, 2010-8, 2010-10, 2010-12, 2010-13, 2010-14, 

2010-15, 2010-16 and 2010-18. A significant deficiency in internal control over compliance is a 

deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance with a type of 

compliance requirement of a Federal program that is less severe than a material weakness in internal 

control over compliance, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance. 

The State’s responses to the findings identified in our audit are described in the accompanying Schedule 

of Findings and Questioned Costs. We did not audit the State’s responses and, accordingly, we express 

no opinion on the responses. 

11





March 2, 2011 

12


SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS


Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards 

Year Ended June 30, 2010 

FEDERAL DEPARTMENT/PROGRAM TITLE/PASS THRU AGENCY 

CFDA Number 

Research & 

Development 

Student Financial 

Assistance Other Cluster Total Total 

US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA) 

Contract/Other 10.Unknown $ - $ - $ 298,230 

$ 298,230 

Contract/Other 10.USDA.- - - 35,592 35,592 

AG3198P090038 

Contract/Other 10.USDA.- - - 37,839 37,839 

CO31014C09 

Agricultural Research: Basic and Applied Research 10.001 - - 1,637,890 1,637,890 

Plant & Animal Disease, Pest Control & Animal Care 10.025 - - 1,544,671 1,544,671 

Wild Life Service 10.028 - - 61,347 61,347 

Commodity Loans & Loan Deficiency Payments 10.051 - - 77,607 77,607 

Conservation Reserve Program 10.069 - - 30,476 30,476 

Market Protection & Promotion 10.163 - - 257,766 257,766 

Grants for Agricultural Research, Special Research Grants 10.200 - - 14,655 14,655 

Payments to 1890 Land-Grant Colleges and Tuskegee University 10.205 - - 1,267,956 1,267,956 

Grants for Agricultural Research: Competitive Research Grants 10.206 - - 91,795 91,795 

National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program 10.206 4,547 - - 4,547 

Pass-Through Grants - University of Vermont 10.215 - - 55,389 55,389 

Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education 10.215 - - 828,394 828,394 

1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants 10.216 - - 723,770 723,770 

Agricultural and Rural Economic Research 10.250 - - 27,699 27,699 

Integrated Programs 10.303 - - 607,155 607,155 

Pass-Through Pennsylvania State University 10.303 - - 751 751 

Pass-Through Auburn University 10.304 - - 3,944 3,944 

Pass-Through University of Vermont 10.309 - - 1,817 1,817 

Specialty Crop Research Initiative 10.309 - - 403,310 403,310 


Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantage Farmers and Ranchers 10.443 - - 38,998 38,998 

Crop Insurance 10.450 - - 527,052 527,052 

Community Outreach and Assistance Partnership Program 10.455 - - 35,994 35,994 

Egg Product Inspection 10.476 - - 127,995 127,995 

Pass-Through University of Delaware 10.500 - - 21,463 21,463 

Cooperative Extension Service 10.500 - - 6,025,700 6,025,700 

Pass-Through Kansas State University 10.500 - - 35,436 35,436 


Pass-Through Northeast Center for Risk Management Association 10.500 - - 33,379 33,379 


Pass-Through Utah State University 10.500 - - 7,221 7,221 

Dept. of Agriculture USDA 10.550 - - 18,032,000 18,032,000 

Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program Cluster (SNAP) 

Food Stamps 10.551 - - 836,291,525 836,291,525 

Admin. Funding for Food Stamp Program - ARRA 10.561 - - 2,088,695 2,088,695 

Admin. Funding for Food Stamp Program 10.561 - - 51,168,377 51,168,377 

Total SNAP Cluster $ 889,548,597 

Child Nutrition Cluster 

School Breakfast Program 10.553 - - 36,918,861 36,918,861 

Special Milk Program for Children 10.556 - - 388,041 388,041 

Summer Food Service Program for Children - (SFSPC) 10.559 - - 132,477,247 132,477,247 

Total Child Nutrition Cluster 169,784,149 

Team Nutrition Training for Healthy School Meals 10.554 - - 24,997 24,997 

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children 10.557 - - 99,385,040 99,385,040 

Child & Adult Care Food Program 10.558 - - 43,349,405 43,349,405 

Administrative Expenses for Child Nutrition 10.560 - - 2,859,374 2,859,374 

Emergency Food Assistance Program Cluster (TEFAP) 

Emergency Food Assistance Program - ARRA 10.569 - - 323,150 323,150 

Emergency Food Assistance Program (Admin. Costs) 10.568 - - 829,016 829,016 

Emergency Food Assistance Program (Food Commodities) 10.569 - - 7,345,023 7,345,023 

Total TEFAP Cluster 8,497,189 

WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (FMNP) 10.572 - - 492,788 492,788 

Team Nutrition Training 10.574 - - 19,317 19,317 

Farmers Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP) 10.576 - - 249,053 249,053 

Administrative Review & Training 10.579 - - 99,639 99,639 

Grant Dietary - ARRA 10.579 - - 1,305,394 1,305,394 

Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Program 10.582 - - 1,497,591 1,497,591 

Agricultural Mediation Program 10.645 - - 141,940 141,940 

Cooperative Forestry Assistance 10.664 - - 1,422,887 1,422,887 

Urban & Community Forestry Program 10.675 - - 24,819 24,819 

Forest Legacy Program 10.676 - - 7,824 7,824 

Forest Stewardship Program 10.678 - - 123,959 123,959 

1890 Land Grant Institution Rural Entrepreneurial Outreach Program 10.856 - - 100,000 100,000 

Environmental Quality 10.912 - - 737,559 737,559 

Agricultural Land Preservation 10.913 - - 6,126,627 6,126,627 

Agricultural Statistical Reports 10.950 - - 10,500 10,500 

Technical Agricultural Assistance 10.960 - - 3,614,640 3,614,640 

International Training: Foreign Participant 10.962 - - 11,054 11,054 

Agricultural Marketing Service 10.RD 8,387 - - 8,387 

Agricultural Research Service 10.RD 1,729,607 - - 1,729,607 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 10.RD 140,045 - - 140,045 

Economic Research Service 10.RD 147,676 - - 147,676 

Food Safety and Inspection Service 10.RD 14,511 - - 14,511 

Foreign Agricultural Service 10.RD 878,719 - - 878,719 

15 

The Accompanying Notes are an Integral Part of this Schedule.




Research & Student Financial 

FEDERAL DEPARTMENT/PROGRAM TITLE/PASS THRU AGENCY CFDA Number Development Assistance Other Cluster Total Total 

US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA) (continued) 

Forest Service 10.RD $ 226,450 $ - $ - 

$ 226,450 

National Agricultural Statistics Service 10.RD 6,970 - - 6,970 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 10.RD 657,394 - - 657,394 

Other Department of Agriculture 10.RD 16,499 - - 16,499 

Pass-Through Cornell University 10.RD 114,279 - - 114,279 

Pass-Through Delaware State University 10.RD 12,531 - - 12,531 

Pass-Through Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis 10.RD 21,549 - - 21,549 

Pass-Through Maryland Soybean Board 10.RD 1,433 - - 1,433 

Pass-Through National Fish & Wildlife Foundation 10.RD 93,506 - - 93,506 

Pass-Through North Carolina State University 10.RD 1,076 - - 1,076 

Pass-Through Ohio State University 10.RD 9,017 - - 9,017 

Pass-Through Pennsylvania State University 10.RD 79,739 - - 79,739 

Pass-Through University of Massachusetts Dartmouth 10.RD 36,147 - - 36,147 

Pass-Through University of Vermont 10.RD 21,642 - - 21,642 

Pass-Through University of Wisconsin 10.RD 55,313 - - 55,313 

Pass-Through Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 10.RD 655 - - 655 

Pass-Through, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey 10.RD 12,451 - - 12,451 

The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) 10.RD 8,776,484 - - 8,776,484 

Total US Department of Agriculture 13,066,627 - 1,262,344,083 1,275,410,710 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (DOC) 

Contract/Other 11.SB134108- - - 6,653 6,653 

SE0756 


SE0779 


SE0916 

Contract/Other 11.YA132307- - - 1,604,842 1,604,842 

CN0048 

Census Special Tabulations and Services 11.005 - - 41,478 41,478 

Economic Development: Technical Assistance 11.303 - - 137,600 137,600 

Economic Adjustment Assistance 11.307- - - 308,150 308,150 

11903134.000 

Economic Adjustment Assistance 11.307- - - 1,281,897 1,281,897 

014903271 

Economic Adjustment Assistance 11.307- - - 3,517,264 3,517,264 

014903420- 

01490342001 

Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986 11.407 - - 20,268 20,268 

Pass-Through Maryland Sea Grant College 11.417 - - 277,666 277,666 

Sea Grant Support 11.417 2,270 - - 2,270 

Coastal Zone Management Administration Awards 11.419 - - 4,979,127 4,979,127 

Pass-Through PBS&J (Atlanta, GA) 11.419 - - 22,936 22,936 

Coastal Zone Management Estuarine Research Reserves 11.420 - - 748,002 748,002 

Financial Assistance for National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science 11.426 - - 431,896 431,896 

Marine Mammal Data Program 11.439 - - 47,240 47,240 

Environmental Sciences, Applications, Data and Education 11.440 - - 5,833 5,833 

Unallied Industry Projects 11.452 - - 3,400,274 3,400,274 

Unallied Management Program 11.454 - - 35,548 35,548 

Pass-Through Sea Education Association Inc 11.455 - - 13,110 13,110 

Chesapeake Bay Studies 11.457 - - 1,142,813 1,142,813 

Pass-Through Maryland Sea Grant College 11.457 - - 14,899 14,899 

Chesapeake Bay Studies 11.457 578,669 - - 578,669 

Tsunami Mitigation 2008 11.467 - - 1,500 1,500 

Unallied Science Program 11.472 - - 8,550 8,550 

Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act 11.474 - - 235,424 235,424 

Coastal Ocean Research Program 11.478 - - 70,277 70,277 

Educational Partnership Programs 11.481 - - 2,148,518 2,148,518 

Environmental Entrepreneurship Program 11.481 - - 29,400 29,400 

Public Safety Interop Comm. Grant Prog FY 2007 11.555 - - 4,025,822 4,025,822 

Pass-Through Maryland Broadband Cooperative, Inc - ARRA 11.558 - - 329,854 329,854 

Weights and Measures Service 11.606 - - 198,679 198,679 

Measurement & Engineering Research & Standards 11.609 - - 601,753 601,753 

Measurement & Engineering Research & Standards - ARRA 11.609 231,653 - - 231,653 

Pass-Through Temple University - ARRA 11.609 19 - - 19 

Manufacturing Extension Partnership 11.611 - - 512,654 512,654 

Congressionally Identified Projects 11.617 - - 259,146 259,146 

Basic Minority Business Development Centers 11.800 - - 197,130 197,130 

National Institute for Standards and Technology 11.RD 13,710,657 - - 13,710,657 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 11.RD 10,772,327 - - 10,772,327 

Pass-Through Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey 11.RD 148,672 - - 148,672 

Pass-Through Chesapeake Research Consortium 11.RD 541,853 - - 541,853 

Pass-Through Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission 11.RD 84,016 - - 84,016 

Pass-Through GreenEyes, LLC 11.RD 55,074 - - 55,074 

Pass-Through Maryland Sea Grant College 11.RD 157,352 - - 157,352 

Pass-Through Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments 11.RD 14,826 - - 14,826 

Pass-Through North Pacific Research Board 11.RD 132,394 - - 132,394 

Pass-Through Oak Management, Inc 11.RD 44,327 - - 44,327 

Pass-Through Oyster Recovery Partnership 11.RD 231,638 - - 231,638 

16 







DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (DOC) (continued) 

Pass-Through Research Foundation of The City 11.RD $ 117,688 $ - $ - 

$ 117,688 

University of New York 

Pass-Through University of Massachusetts 11.RD 17,922 - - 17,922 

Pass-Through University of New Hampshire 11.RD 10,815 - - 10,815 

Pass-Through University of North Carolina 11.RD 14,024 - - 14,024 

Pass-Through University of Texas- Austin 11.RD 18,754 - - 18,754 

Pass-Through Virginia Marine Research Corp. 11.RD 608 - - 608 

US Census Bureau 11.RD 1,338,170 - - 1,338,170 

Total Department of Commerce 28,223,728 - 26,682,762 54,906,489 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) 

Contract/Other 12.Unknown - - 256,916 256,916 

Contract/Other - National Defense University: IPA Contract 12.070 - - 193,404 193,404 

Contract/Other 12.H9400308- - - 65,000 65,000 

P8026 

Contract/Other - NSA 12.H98230-09- - - 32,774 32,774 

C-0895 

Contract/Other - Defense Information Systems Agency 12.HC1047-05- - - 988,808 988,808 

D-4015 

Contract/Other - National Defense University - 

Pass-Through University of California 12 RD 157,490 - - 157,490 


Procurement Technical Assistance for Business Firms 12.002 - - 466,552 466,552 

Pass-Through Combustion Research & Flow Technology 12.08C0687C363 114,997 - - 114,997 

Pass-Through General Vortex Energy 12.091 91,467 - - 91,467 

Pass-Through Battelle Pacific Norwest National 12.106946 - - 131,431 131,431 

Laboratory - ARRA 

Planning Assistance to States 12.110 - - 105,714 105,714 

State Memo of Agreement Prog for Reimb of Tech Service 12.113 - - 695,522 695,522 

High Atom Number in Microsized Atom Traps 12.300 - - 83,555 83,555 

Basic and Applied Scientific Research 12.300 - - 208,818 208,818 

Pass-Through Iktara and Associates 12.300 - - 9,948 9,948 

Basic and Applied Scientific Research 12.300 503,032 - - 503,032 

Large-Number and Individual Atom Microchip Traps for Sensor 12.300 - - 27,103 27,103 

Applications and Fundamental Studies 

National Guard Military Operations & Maint. - ARRA 12.401 - - 18,872,049 18,872,049 

National Guard Civilian Youth Opportunities 12.404 - - 1,704,539 1,704,539 

Military Medical Research & Development 12.420 - - 1,602 1,602 

Basic Scientific Research 12.431 - - 88,796 88,796 

Basic Scientific Research 12.431 1,521,413 - - 1,521,413 

Pass-Through L-3 Communications 12.431 31,060 - - 31,060 

Pass-Through Bryn Mawr College 12.550 - - 19,631 19,631 

Pass-Through Institute of International Education 12.550 - - 427,691 427,691 


Community Econ. Adjustment Planning Assistance 12.607 - - 2,026,739 2,026,739 

Basic, Applied, and Advanced Research in Science 12.630 - - 203,946 203,946 

and Engineering 

Pass-Through Academy of Applied Science 12.630 - - 7,799 7,799 

Basic, Applied, Advanced Research in Science & Engineering 12.630 10,181 - - 10,181 

Motor Week Energy 12.678 - - 466,269 466,269 

Air Force Defense Research Sciences Program 12.800 - - 154,721 154,721 

Air Force Defense Research Sciences Program 12.800 24,698 - - 24,698 

Pass-Through Princeton University - ARRA 12.800 132,054 - - 132,054 

Language Grant Program 12.900 - - 109,484 109,484 

Mathematical Sciences Grants Program 12.901 - - 652,331 652,331 

Mathematical Sciences Grants Program 12.901 169,991 - - 169,991 

Information Security Grant Program 12.902 - - 214,375 214,375 

Pass-Through BBNT Solutions LLC 12.95000094 156,738 - - 156,738 

Pass-Through Johns Hopkins University 12.APL-940720 - - 9,355 9,355 

Pass-Through Energy Concepts, LLC - ARRA 12.Contract No. 19,955 - - 19,955 

09123055 

Pass-Through ManTech International Corporation 12.MSD07SNNG- 32,110 - - 32,110 

07CA18C014 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency: 12.RD 2,682,609 - - 2,682,609 

Department of Air Force, Office of Scientific Research 12.RD 2,750,818 - - 2,750,818 

Department of Army, Army Research Office 12.RD 109,340 - - 109,340 

Department of the Air Force, Material Command 12.RD 9,464,183 - - 9,464,183 

Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers 12.RD 387,554 - - 387,554 

Department of the Navy, Office of Chief of Naval Research 12.RD 20,580,100 - - 20,580,100 

National Geospatial Intelligence Agency 12.RD 90,563 - - 90,563 

National Security Agency 12.RD 34,722,637 - - 34,722,637 

Office of the Secretary of Defense 12.RD 2,059,771 - - 2,059,771 

Other Department of Defense 12.RD 919,525 - - 919,525 

Pass-Through Advance Thermal and Environmental 12.RD 16,791 - - 16,791 

Pass-Through AGEISS 12.RD 13,812 - - 13,812 

Pass-Through Argonne National Laboratory 12.RD 121,606 - - 121,606 

Pass-Through Auburn University 12.RD 5,087 - - 5,087 

Pass-Through BAE Systems Advance Information Technologies 12.RD 930,300 - - 930,300 

Pass-Through BAE Systems Information Technologies 12.RD 554,675 - - 554,675 

Pass-Through Battelle Memorial Institute 12.RD 22 - - 22 

17 







DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) (continued) 

Pass-Through Battelle Memorial Institute 12.RD $ 34,451 $ - $ - 

$ 34,451 

Pass-Through Bell Communications Research (Bellcore) 12.RD 353,588 - - 353,588 

Pass-Through Brown University 12.RD 336,637 - - 336,637 

Pass-Through California Institute of Technology 12.RD 478,693 - - 478,693 

Pass-Through Clark University 12.RD 41,265 - - 41,265 

Pass-Through Columbia University 12.RD 148,258 - - 148,258 

Pass-Through CPU Technology, Inc 12.RD 125,403 - - 125,403 

Pass-Through Energetics Technology Center 12.RD 87,523 - - 87,523 

Pass-Through Exponent, Inc 12.RD 82,546 - - 82,546 

Pass-Through Georgia Institute of Technology 12.RD 223,622 - - 223,622 

Pass-Through Henry Jackson Foundation 12.RD 36,242 - - 36,242 

Pass-Through Institute of International Educations 12.RD 1,133,673 - - 1,133,673 

Pass-Through International Business Machines, Corp. (IBM) 12.RD 323,222 - - 323,222 

Pass-Through Johns Hopkins University 12.RD 49,999 - - 49,999 


Pass-Through Lynntech 12.RD 43,292 - - 43,292 

Pass-Through Michigan State University 12.RD 8,993 - - 8,993 

Pass-Through New Mexico State University 12.RD 111,733 - - 111,733 


Pass-Through Penn State University 12.RD 62,035 - - 62,035 

Pass-Through Qualtech Research, Inc 12.RD 204,547 - - 204,547 

Pass-Through Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 12.RD 371,025 - - 371,025 

Pass-Through Rensselaer Poytechnic Institite 12.RD 9,023 - - 9,023 

Pass-Through Rice University 12.RD 67,963 - - 67,963 


Pass-Through Rutgers, State University of New Jersey 12.RD 19,640 - - 19,640 


Pass-Through Samueli Institute 12.RD 12,785 - - 12,785 

Pass-Through Science Applications International Corp 12.RD 25,161 - - 25,161 

Pass-Through Smart Information Flow Technologies 12.RD 82,896 - - 82,896 

Pass-Through SRI International 12.RD 124,562 - - 124,562 

Pass-Through Stanford University 12.RD 56 - - 56 

Pass-Through Stevens Institute of Technology 12.RD 90,153 - - 90,153 

Pass-Through Technion Research and Development Foundation 12.RD 285,674 - - 285,674 

Pass-Through Texas University 12.RD 90,602 - - 90,602 

Pass-Through The RETEC Group, Inc 12.RD 28,573 - - 28,573 

Pass-Through University of Arizona 12.RD 5,072 - - 5,072 

Pass-Through University of California, Berkeley 12.RD 33,919 - - 33,919 

Pass-Through University of California, Irvine 12.RD 81,256 - - 81,256 

Pass-Through University of Illinois 12.RD 144,907 - - 144,907 

Pass-Through University of Michigan 12.RD 50,284 - - 50,284 

Pass-Through University of Nevada, Las Vegas 12.RD 223,512 - - 223,512 

Pass-Through University of Pennsylvania 12.RD 66,939 - - 66,939 

Pass-Through University of Rochester Institute of Optics 12.RD 320,870 - - 320,870 

Pass-Through University of Washington 12.RD 23,839 - - 23,839 


Pass-Through University of Wisconsin 12.RD 786 - - 786 

Pass-Through Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute 12.RD 3,709 - - 3,709 

Total Pass-Through University of Illinois-Urbana/Champaign 12.RD 142,059 - - 142,059 

U.S. Army, Material Command 12.RD 10,901,621 - - 10,901,621 

U.S. Army, Medical Command 12.RD 5,892,797 - - 5,892,797 

University of Uniformed Services of the Health Sciences 12.RD 71,421 - - 71,421 

Pass-Through Alion Science and Technology Group 12.SUB1290705 28,571 - - 28,571 

Pass-Through Battelle Memorial Institute 12.TCN09006 40,850 - - 40,850 

Total Department of Defense 102,376,335 - 28,290,015 130,666,349 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) 

Department of Housing & Urban Development 14.000 - - 1,409,840 1,409,840 

TCAP - ARRA 14.000 - - 11,179,889 11,179,889 

Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities 14.181 - - 293,155 293,155 

Section 8 Project - Based Cluster 

Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program 14.195 - - 168,403,908 168,403,908 

Lower Income Housing Assistance Program - Section 8 14.856 - - 358,218 358,218 

Total Section 8 Cluster 168,762,126 

Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants 14.218 - - 62,900 62,900 

Pass-Through City of Cumberland 14.218 - - 3,000 3,000 

Community Development Block Grants Cluster (CDBG) 

Community Development Block Grant/State's Program 14.228 - - 23,063,730 23,063,730 

Community Development Block Grant - ARRA 14.228 - - 181,684 181,684 

Total CDBG Cluster 23,245,414 

Housing Assistance 14.231 - - 363,263 363,263 

HPRP - ARRA 14.231 - - 1,469,365 1,469,365 

Supportive Housing Program 14.235 - - 679,709 679,709 

Shelter Plus Care 14.238 - - 3,415,655 3,415,655 

HOME Investment Partnership Program 14.239 - - 9,144,533 9,144,533 

Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS 14.241 - - 713,253 713,253 

Community Dev. Block Grants/Brownsfields Economic Dev. Initiative 14.246 - - 130,417 130,417 

Fair Housing Assistance Program: State & Local 14.401 - - 433,121 433,121 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities Programs 14.520 - - 123,624 123,624 

HBCU Program 14.520 - - 226,031 226,031 

Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers 14.871 - - 16,820,492 16,820,492 

18 







DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) (continued) 

Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control Programs 14.901 $ - $ - $ 8,065 

$ 8,065 

Total Department of Housing & Urban Development - - 238,483,852 238,483,852 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (DOI) 

Reg of Surface Coal Mining & Surface Effects 15.250 - - 725,277 725,277 

of Underground Coal Mining 

Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation (AMLR) Program 15.252 - - 1,410,197 1,410,197 

Fish and Wildlife Cluster 

Sport Fish Restoration 15.605 - - 4,966,964 4,966,964 

Wildlife Restoration 15.611 - - 2,605,914 2,605,914 

Total Fish and Wildlife Cluster 7,572,878 

Fish & Wildlife Management Assistance 15.608 - - 52,266 52,266 

Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund 15.615 - - 1,047,059 1,047,059 

Clean Vessel Act 15.616 - - 271,966 271,966 

Wildlife Conservation Appreciation 15.617 - - 11,315 11,315 

North American Wetlands Conservation 15.623 - - 802,079 802,079 

Landowner Incentive 15.633 - - 261,671 261,671 

State Wildlife Grants 15.634 - - 831,202 831,202 

Pass-Through North Dakota Game and Fish Department 15.634 - - 15,053 15,053 

Challenge Cost Share 15.642 - - 6,512 6,512 

US Geological Survey: Research & Data Acquisition 

Pass-Through University of Maryland Baltimore 15.808 - - 29,493 29,493 

County Research Park Corp 

U.S. Geological Survey: Research and Data Acquisition 15.808 - - 28,641 28,641 

National Geological & Geophysical Data Preservation Program 15.814 - - 64,242 64,242 

Historic Preservation Fund Grants-In-Aid 15.904 - - 902,628 902,628 

Outdoor Recreation - Acquisition, Development & Planning 15.916 - - 23,405 23,405 

Native American Graves Protection & Repatriation Act 15.922 - - 3,357 3,357 

National Center for Preservation Technology & Training 15.923 - - 11,891 11,891 

Save America's Treasures 15.929 - - 1,767,317 1,767,317 

Chesapeake Bay Gate Grants 15.930 - - 32,548 32,548 

Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network 15.930 - - 1,647 1,647 

National Park Service 15.RD 889,487 - - 889,487 

Other Department of Interior - Research and Development 15.RD 297,642 - - 297,642 

Pass-Through America View, Inc 15.RD 38,750 - - 38,750 

Pass-Through Caroline Soil Conservation District 15.RD 76,012 - - 76,012 

Pass-Through Chesapeake Watershed Cooperative 15.RD 4,766 - - 4,766 

Ecosystem Studies Unit 

Pass-Through Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units 15.RD 40,535 - - 40,535 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 15.RD 11,001 - - 11,001 

U.S. Geological Survey 15.RD 603,549 - - 603,549 

Total Department of Interior (DOI) 1,961,742 - 15,872,644 17,834,386 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ) 

Contract/Other 16.Unknown - - 2,511,362 2,511,362 

Marijuana Eradication 16.004 - - 102,913 102,913 

Sexual Assault Services Formula 16.017 - - 10,764 10,764 

Offender Reentry Program 16.202 - - 69,608 69,608 

Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants 16.523 - - 773,374 773,374 

Reduce Violent Crimes Against Women on Campus 16.525 - - 125,589 125,589 

Safe Havens for Children 16.527 - - 4,412 4,412 

Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention: Allocation to States 16.540 - - 1,056,234 1,056,234 

Missing Children's Assistance 16.543 - - 456,482 456,482 

Title V: Delinquency Prevention Program 16.548 - - 37,635 37,635 

MD Justice Statistics Program - SACS 16.550 - - 61,045 61,045 

National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP) 16.554 - - 365,275 365,275 

National Institute of Justice Research, Evaluation, 16.560 - - 214,103 214,103 

& Development Projects Grants 

Forensic DNA Lab Improvement 16.564 - - 24,244 24,244 

Crime Victim Assistance 16.575 - - 7,845,774 7,845,774 

Crime Victim Assistance - ARRA 16.575 - - 372,454 372,454 

Crime Victim Compensation 16.576 - - 4,002,000 4,002,000 

Byrne Formula Grant Program 16.579 - - 65,205 65,205 

Byrne Memorial State & Local Law Enforcement Assistance 16.580 - - 127,590 127,590 

Discretionary Grant Prog 

Byrne Memorial State & Local Law Enforcement Assistance 16.580 - - 3,146 3,146 

Discretionary Grant Prog 

Edward Byrne Memorial 16.580 - - 27,391 27,391 

Violence Against Women Formula Grants 16.588 - - 2,134,797 2,134,797 

Violence Against Women Formula Grants - ARRA 16.588 - - 1,097,271 1,097,271 

Grant to Encourage Arrest Policies & Enforcement of Protection Orders 16.590 - - 6,630 6,630 

Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program 16.592 - - 45,629 45,629 

Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for State Prisoners 16.593 - - 370,351 370,351 

Community Capacity Development Office 16.595 - - 16,697 16,697 

Corrections Training & Staff Development 16.601 - - 17,821 17,821 

State Criminal Alien Assistance Program 16.606 - - 1,845,364 1,845,364 

Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program 16.607 - - 115,717 115,717 

Gun Violence Prosecution Program 16.609 - - 264,600 264,600 

Public Safety Partnership & Community Policing 16.710 - - 837,403 837,403 

Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Grants - ARRA 16.710 - - 3,512 3,512 

19 







DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ) (continued) 

Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws Program 16.727 $ - $ - $ 367,967 

$ 367,967 

Pass-Through Wicomico County Health Department 16.727 - - 1,341 1,341 

Drug Prevention Program 16.728 - - 4,330 4,330 

Protecting Inmates & Safeguarding Communities 16.735 - - 18,058 18,058 

Discretionary Grant Program 

Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program 16.738 - - 6,439,391 6,439,391 

S/W Auto Victim Info Notification 16.740 - - 39,400 39,400 

DNA Capacity Enhancement FY 06(46195) 16.741 - - 677,794 677,794 

Paul Coverdell Nat Forensic - Lab 16.742 - - 387,666 387,666 

Anti-Gang Initiative Program 16.744 - - 152,204 152,204 

Support for Adam Walsh Act Implementation Grant Program 16.750 - - 156,736 156,736 

Prescription Drug Monitoring 16.754 - - 6,532 6,532 

Violence Against Women Formula Grant (VARA) 16.800 - - 156,802 156,802 

FY 2009 Recovery Act 16.802 - - 570,638 570,638 

Byrne Justice Recovery Act - ARRA 16.803 - - 6,566,647 6,566,647 

Pass-Through Salisbury City Police GOCCP Project 16.803 - - 139,719 139,719 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 16.RD 105,313 - - 105,313 

National Institute of Justice 16.RD 466,298 - - 466,298 

Office of Justice Programs 16.RD 43,741 - - 43,741 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 16.RD 346,073 - - 346,073 

Pass-Through George Mason University 16.RD 53,707 - - 53,707 

Pass-Through Police Foundation 16.RD 6,191 - - 6,191 

Pass-Through University of Pennsylvania 16.RD 174 - - 174 

Pass-Through University of Central Florida 16.RD 255,542 - - 255,542 

Total Department of Justice (DOJ) 1,277,039 - 40,697,617 41,974,656 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (DOL) 

Contract/Other 17.000 - - 3,066,854 3,066,854 

Labor Force Statistics 17.002 - - 1,479,055 1,479,055 

Compensation & Working Conditions 17.005 - - 195,220 195,220 

Employment Service Cluster 

Employment Services 17.207 - - 13,335,287 13,335,287 

Employment Services - ARRA 17.207 - - 1,267,030 1,267,030 

Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) 17.801 - - 1,823,165 1,823,165 

Local Veterans' Employment Representative Program 17.804 - - 1,469,908 1,469,908 

Total Employment Service Cluster 17,895,390 

Unemployment Insurance 17.225 - - 2,112,938,073 2,112,938,073 

Unemployment Insurance - ARRA 17.225 - - 101,969 101,969 

Senior Community Service Employment Program 17.235 - - 1,860,925 1,860,925 

Department of Labor - Recovery Act 17.236 - - 26,301 26,301 

Trade Adjustment Assistance: Workers 17.245 - - 1,034,664 1,034,664 

Workforce Investment Act Cluster (WIA) 

Workforce Investment Act: Adult Program 17.258 - - 9,617,756 9,617,756 

Workforce Investment Act: Adult Program - ARRA 17.258 - - 2,411,522 2,411,522 

Workforce Investment Act: Youth Activities 17.259 - - 10,601,136 10,601,136 

Workforce Investment Act: Youth Activities - ARRA 17.259 - - 8,102,512 8,102,512 

Workforce Investment Act: Dislocated Workers 17.260 - - 12,125,922 12,125,922 

Workforce Investment Act: Dislocated Workers - ARRA 17.260 - - 3,425,735 3,425,735 

Pass-Through Tri County Council for the Lower Eastern Shore 17.260 - - 79,875 79,875 

Total WIA Cluster 46,364,458 

Employment & Training Adm. Pilots, Demonstrations - ARRA 17.261 - - 6,576 6,576 

WIA Pilots, Demonstrations and Research Projects 17.261 - - 50,482 50,482 

Work Incentives Grant 17.266 - - 279,265 279,265 

Pass-Through Community College of Baltimore County 17.268 - - 15,328 15,328 

Work Opportunity Tax Credit Program 17.271 - - 265,789 265,789 

Labor Certification for Alien Workers 17.273 - - 151,624 151,624 

State Energy Sector Partnership - ARRA 17.275 - - 493,018 493,018 

HCTC GAP Filler III - ARRA 17.276 - - 440,537 440,537 

Occupational Safety and Health: Susan Harwood Training Grants 

17.502 - - 21,328 21,328 

Occupational Safety & Health 17.503 - - 4,358,129 4,358,129 

Consultation Agreements 17.504 - - 905,577 905,577 

Occupational Illness & Injury Prevention 17.600 - - 85,252 85,252 

Bureau of Labor Statistics 17.RD 15,604 - - 15,604 

Employment and Training Administration 17.RD 30,929 - - 30,929 


Total Department of Labor 57,539 - 2,192,035,814 2,192,093,353 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE (DOS) 


Academic Exchange Programs - English Language Programs 19.421 - - 357,795 357,795 

International Education Training and Research 19.430 - - 52,355 52,355 

Pass-Through National Council for Eurasian and 19.RD 1,711 - - 1,711 

East European Research 

Total Department of State (DOS) 1,711 - 434,054 435,765 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT) 

Contract/Other 20.000 - - 662,157 662,157 

Airport Improvement Program - ARRA 20.106 - - 2,787,949 2,787,949 

Stimulus Payment - ARRA 20.106 - - 6,547,907 6,547,907 

20 







DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT) (continued) 

Highway Planning & Construction Cluster 

Highway Planning & Construction 20.205 $ - $ - $ 350,604,579 

$ 350,604,579 

Highway Planning & Construction - ARRA 20.205 - - 156,083,831 156,083,831 

Appalachian Development Highway System 23.003 - - 207,537 207,537 

Total Highway Planning & Construction Cluster 506,895,947 

Highway Training and Education 20.215 - - 55 55 

Highway Training and Education 20.215 141,881 - 141,881 

National Motor Carrier Safety 20.218 - - 2,513,716 2,513,716 

Commercial Driver License Grant Agreement 20.232 - - 686,053 686,053 

Commercial Driver License Information System 20.238 - - 97,206 97,206 

Federal Transit Cluster 

Capital Investment Grants 20.500 - - 59,028,058 59,028,058 

Capital Investment Grants - ARRA 20.500 - - 4,271,449 4,271,449 

Formula Grants 20.507 - - 153,566,917 153,566,917 

Federal Stimulus - ARRA 20.507 - - 36,228,604 36,228,604 

Total Federal Transit Cluster 253,095,028 

Federal Transit: Metropolitan Planning Grants 20.505 - - 9,296,669 9,296,669 

Formula Grants for Other Than Urbanized Areas 20.509 - - 4,311,645 4,311,645 

Formula Grants for Other Than Urbanized Areas - ARRA 20.509 - - 4,195,149 4,195,149 

Transit Services Programs Cluster 

Capital Assistance Program for Elderly Persons & 20.513 - - 1,589,683 1,589,683 

Persons with Disabilities 

Job Access: Reverse Commute 20.516 - - 412,039 412,039 

New Freedom Initiative 20.521 - - 766,065 766,065 

Total Transit Services Programs Cluster 2,767,787 

State & Community Highway Safety 20.600 - - 7,924,484 7,924,484 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 20.614 - - 61,582 61,582 

Pipeline Safety 20.700 - - 311,059 311,059 

University Transportation Centers Program 20.701 677,736 - - 677,736 

Research and Innovative Technology Administration 20.701 - - 27,388 27,388 

University Transportation Center 

Interagency Hazardous Materials Public Sector Training & Planning 20.703 - - 275,480 275,480 

RITA Hydrogen 20.704 - - 1,077,648 1,077,648 

Development & Promotion of Ports & Intermodal Transportation 

20.801 - - 10,424 10,424 

Pass-Through Mentron Aviation, Inc. 20.NEX001069 18,390 - - 18,390 

F-800TASK10 

Federal Aviation Administration 20.RD 297,287 - - 297,287 

Federal Highway Administration 20.RD 222,719 - - 222,719 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 20.RD 135,760 - - 135,760 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 20.RD 698,286 - - 698,286 

Other Research & Development 20.RD 11,392 - - 11,392 

Pass-Through American Occupational Therapy 20.RD 3,502 - - 3,502 

Pass-Through National Cooperative Highway Research Program 20.RD 34,232 - - 34,232 


Pass-Through Telvent Farradyne Inc 20.RD 239,898 - - 239,898 



Research and Innovative Technology Administration 20.RD 908,832 - - 908,832 

Total Department of Transportation (DOT) 3,829,076 - 803,545,333 807,374,408 

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY (DOTR) 

Pass-Through United Black Fund, Inc. 21.RD 20,175 - - 20,175 

Total Department of Treasury (DOTR) 20,175 - - 20,175 

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COUNCIL (ARC) 

Appalachian Regional Development 23.001 - - 64,787 64,787 

Appalachian Local Access Roads 23.008 - - 3,221 3,221 

Appalachian State Research, Technical Assistance 23.011 - - 25,000 25,000 

Pass-Through East Tennessee State University 23.011 - - 4,000 4,000 

Pass-Through Frostburg State University Foundation 23.011 - - 28,834 28,834 

Appalachian Regional Commission 23.RD 4,145 - - 4,145 

Total Appalachian Regional Council (ARC) 4,145 - 125,842 129,987 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMITTEE - (EEOC) 

Employment Discrimination: State & Local Fair Employment 30.002 - - 326,213 326,213 

Practices Agency Contracts 

Total Equal Employment Opportunity Committee (EEOC) - - 326,213 326,213 

GENERAL SERVICE ADMINISTRATION - 

(GSA) NON-CASH EXPENDITURE 

Disposal of Federal Surplus Real Property 39.002 - - 11,960 11,960 

Donation of Federal Surplus Property Program 39.003 - - 178,612 178,612 

Help America Vote Act 39.011 - - 700,199 700,199 

Public Buildings Services 39.012 - - 222,998 222,998 

Total General Service Administration (GSA) - - 1,113,769 1,113,769 

SECTION 1602 

Section 1602 (Monetization) - ARRA 40.Unknown - - 21,184,812 21,184,812 

Total Section 1602 - - 21,184,812 21,184,812 

21 







LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Contract/Other 42.LCLSC- $ - $ - $ 16,611 

$ 16,611 

10P00105 

Library of Congress 42.RD 129,561 - - 129,561 

Pass-Through University of California, San Diego 42.RD 174,051 - - 174,051 

Pass-Through University of Illinois-Urbana Champagne 42.RD 87,675 - - 87,675 

Total Library of Congress 391,287 - 16,611 407,898 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS & SPACE 

ADMINISTRATION (NASA) 

Aerospace Education Services Program 43.001 - - 644,915 644,915 

Pass-Through Infonetic 43.001 - - 63 63 

Aerospace Education Services Program 43.001 3,207,384 - - 3,207,384 

Technology Transfer 43.002 - - 12,090 12,090 

Pass-Through Northrop Grumman Corporation 43.470 57,387 - - 57,387 

Pass-Through Anne Arundel County Public Schools 43.NNH08- - - 43,554 43,554 

ZNE007N 

Contract/Other 43.NNX09- 55,164 - - 55,164 

AM90G 

NASA 43.RD 73,241,312 - - 73,241,312 

Pass-Through AdTech Photonics, Inc 43.RD 1,852 - - 1,852 

Pass-Through Battelle Memorial Institute 43.RD 9,615 - - 9,615 

Pass-Through Boston University 43.RD 102,498 - - 102,498 



and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

Pass-Through Carnegie Institute of Washington 43.RD 45,951 - - 45,951 

Pass-Through Colorado State University 43.RD 65,492 - - 65,492 


Pass-Through Drexel University 43.RD 11,971 - - 11,971 

Pass-Through Florida Institute of Technology 43.RD 40,928 - - 40,928 


Pass-Through Hampton University 43.RD 25,679 - - 25,679 

Pass-Through Institute for Global Environment and Society 43.RD 85,955 - - 85,955 


Pass-Through Johns Hopkins University/Applied Physics Lab 43.RD 154,088 - - 154,088 

Pass-Through Massachusetts Institute of Technology 43.RD 183,063 - - 183,063 

Pass-Through National Institute of Aerospace 43.RD 397,190 - - 397,190 

Pass-Through Oregon State University 43.RD 13,201 - - 13,201 

Pass-Through Planetary Science Institute 43.RD 20,738 - - 20,738 

Pass-Through Princeton University 43.RD 129,688 - - 129,688 

Pass-Through Resources for the Future 43.RD 27,418 - - 27,418 

Pass-Through Science and Engineering Service Inc 43.RD 23 - - 23 

Pass-Through Science Systems & Application, Inc 43.RD 105,128 - - 105,128 

Pass-Through Sigma Space Corporation 43.RD 109,883 - - 109,883 

Pass-Through Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory 43.RD 18,336 - - 18,336 

Pass-Through South Dakota State University 43.RD 239,354 - - 239,354 

Pass-Through Southwest Research Institute 43.RD 49,642 - - 49,642 

Pass-Through Space Telescope Science Institute 43.RD 248,603 - - 248,603 

Pass-Through Stinger Ghafferian Technologies, Inc. 43.RD 32,952 - - 32,952 

Pass-Through Universities Space Research Association 43.RD 68,164 - - 68,164 

Pass-Through University of Alabama Huntsville 43.RD 60,984 - - 60,984 

Pass-Through University of California at Berkley 43.RD 27,312 - - 27,312 


Pass-Through University of California, Los Angeles 43.RD 70,933 - - 70,933 

Pass-Through University of Central Florida 43.RD 610 - - 610 

Pass-Through University of Colorado 43.RD 128,963 - - 128,963 


Pass-Through University of North Caroline at Chapel Hill 43.RD 11,576 - - 11,576 

Pass-Through University of Utah 43.RD 27,934 - - 27,934 

Pass-Through University of Virginia 43.RD 76,982 - - 76,982 


Pass-Through University of Houston 43.RD 7,654 - - 7,654 


Total National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA) 80,368,340 - 700,622 81,068,962 

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS & HUMANITIES (NFAH) 

Promotion of the Arts: Grants to Organizations and Individuals 45.024 - - 69,033 69,033 

Pass-Through New England Foundation for the Arts 45.024 - - 3,577 3,577 

Pass-Through Smart Growth Leadership Institute 45.024 - - 52,661 52,661 

Promotion of the Arts: Partnership Agreements 45.025 - - 1,015,074 1,015,074 

Pass-Through Mid-Atlantic Arts Foundation 45.025 - - 27,879 27,879 

Pass-Through Maryland Humanities 45.129 - - 1,200 1,200 

Promotion of the Humanities: Research 45.161 - - 95,741 95,741 

Promotion of the Humanities: Research 45.161 752 - - 752 

Promotion of the Humanities: Seminars and Institutes 45.163 - - 32,162 32,162 

Promotion of the Humanities: Public Programs 45.164 - - 168,411 168,411 

Extending The Reach Grants To Presidentially 45.167 - - 3,399 3,399 

Pass-Through University of Nebraska 45.169 - - 11,430 11,430 

Museum Grants African Amer 45.309 - - 31,451 31,451 

22 







NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS & HUMANITIES (NFAH) (continued) 

State Library Program 45.310 $ - $ - $ 2,535,470 

$ 2,535,470 

MathPath 45.312 - - 7,761 7,761 

Institute of Museum and Library Services: National Leadership Grants 45.312 - - 17,392 17,392 

Laura Bush 21 Century Librarian Program 45.313 - - 157,331 157,331 

Institute of Museum and Library Services 45.RD 558,708 - - 558,708 

National Endowment for the Humanities 45.RD 218,237 - - 218,237 

Total National Foundation on the Arts & Humanities (NFAH) 777,697 - 4,229,972 5,007,669 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (NSF) 

Engineering Grants 47.041 - - 1,177,740 1,177,740 

Engineering Grants 47.041 35,491 - - 35,491 

Mathematical and Physical Sciences 47.049 - - 1,162,024 1,162,024 

Pass-Through University of Notre Dame 47.049 - - 900 900 

Mathematical and Physical Sciences 47.049 2,988 - - 2,988 

Anhydrous Fluoride Salts 47.049 - - 18,479 18,479 

National Research Experience for Undergraduates Program 47.049 - - 25,866 25,866 

Mathematical and Physical Sciences - ARRA 47.049 53,344 - - 53,344 

Pass-Through Southwest Research Institute - ARRA 47.049 15,809 - - 15,809 

Geosciences 47.050 - - 19,419 19,419 

Pass-Through Consortium of Universities for the 47.050 - - 10,371 10,371 

Advancement of Hydrologic Science 

Hyperspec Remote Sensing 47.050 57,774 - - 57,774 

Computer and Information Science and Engineering 47.070 - - 238,897 238,897 

Pass-Through Computing Research Association 47.070 - - 94,271 94,271 

Collaborative Research BPC-ARTSI 47.070 45,071 - - 45,071 

Biological Sciences 47.074 - - 1,125,427 1,125,427 

Pass-Through Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies 47.074 - - 170,112 170,112 

BHLH Protein Neur Elegan 47.074 14,758 - - 14,758 

Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences 47.075 - - 458,168 458,168 

Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences - ARRA 47.075 48,492 - - 48,492 

Education and Human Resources 47.076 - - 8,881,837 8,881,837 

Pass-Through Colorado State University 47.076 - - 210,685 210,685 

Pass-Through Community College of Baltimore County 47.076 - - 588 588 

Pass-Through Prince George's Community College 47.076 - - 20,616 20,616 

Pass-Through University System of Maryland Foundation 47.076 - - 285,846 285,846 

Education and Human Resources 47.076 1,123,648 - - 1,123,648 

Education and Human Resources 47.076 - - 414,024 414,024 

International Science & Engineering (OISE) 47.079 - - 3,606 3,606 

Trans-NSF Recovery Act Research Support - ARRA 47.082 4,319,913 - 428,462 4,748,375 

Pass-Through Georgetown University - ARRA 47.082 88,819 - - 88,819 

Pass-Through Stanford University - ARRA 47.082 19,100 - - 19,100 


Contract/Other 47.HDR- - - 113,923 113,923 

0853418 

Pass-Through Omic Biosystems Inc 47.IIP0945037 26,681 - - 26,681 

National Science Foundation (NSF) 47.RD 48,582,303 - - 48,582,303 

Pass-Through American Educational Research Association 47.RD 16,319 - - 16,319 

Pass-Through Blue Wave SemiConductors, Inc 47.RD 635 - - 635 


Pass-Through Carnegie Institution of Washington 47.RD 231,226 - - 231,226 

Pass-Through Case Western University 47.RD 46,094 - - 46,094 


Pass-Through Colorado School of Mines 47.RD 23,702 - - 23,702 


Pass-Through Computing Research Association 47.RD 102,744 - - 102,744 

Pass-Through Dartmouth College 47.RD 2,131 - - 2,131 

Pass-Through Education Development Center 47.RD 54,443 - - 54,443 

Pass-Through Gallaudet University 47.RD 34,531 - - 34,531 

Pass-Through Howard University 47.RD 64,419 - - 64,419 

Pass-Through Johns Hopkins University / Applied Physics Lab 47.RD 3,917 - - 3,917 

Pass-Through Lenterra Inc 47.RD 446 - - 446 

Pass-Through Loyola University 47.RD 4,783 - - 4,783 

Pass-Through National Academy of Engineering 47.RD 7,690 - - 7,690 

Pass-Through National Radio Astronomy Observatory 47.RD 3,722 - - 3,722 

Pass-Through New Mexico State University 47.RD 11,043 - - 11,043 


Pass-Through Oregon Health & Science University 47.RD 99,339 - - 99,339 

Pass-Through Pacific Ecoinformatics and Computational 47.RD 14,889 - - 14,889 

Ecology Lab, Inc. 

Pass-Through Prince George's Community College 47.RD 16,772 - - 16,772 

Pass-Through Purdue University 47.RD 223,865 - - 223,865 

Pass-Through Sarissa Inc(Sarissa Technologies) 47.RD 19,041 - - 19,041 

Pass-Through Siena College 47.RD 51,637 - - 51,637 


Pass-Through St. Joseph's College of Maine 47.RD 11,693 - - 11,693 

Pass-Through Texas A&M University 47.RD 45,194 - - 45,194 

Pass-Through University of California, Davis 47.RD 20,876 - - 20,876 



Pass-Through University of Connecticut 47.RD 245 - - 245 

23 







NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (NSF) (continued) 

Pass-Through University of Indiana 47.RD $ 52,062 $ - $ - 

$ 52,062 


Pass-Through University of Rhode Island 47.RD 10,827 - - 10,827 

Pass-Through University of Southern California 47.RD 97,543 - - 97,543 




Pass-Through Virginia Commonwealth University 47.RD 122,252 - - 122,252 

Pass-Through Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 47.RD 3,089 - - 3,089 

Pass-Through Woods Hole Oceanographic 47.RD 147,625 - - 147,625 

Pass-Through Yale University 47.RD 83,591 - - 83,591 

Total National Science Foundation (NSF) 57,605,294 - 14,862,458 72,467,752 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 


Contract/Other 59.SBAHG- - - 156,252 156,252 

08-I-0186 

Pass-Through Baltimore County Department of 59.006 - - 209,822 209,822 

Economic Development 

Small Business Development Center 59.037 - - 1,854,224 1,854,224 

Program for Investment in Microentrpreneurs Act 59.050 - - 25,911 25,911 

Total Small Business Administration 2,261,945 2,261,945 

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION (VA) 

Contract/Other 64.Unknown - - 679 679 

Veterans State Domiciliary Care 64.014 - - 2,910,159 2,910,159 

Veterans State Nursing Home Care 64.015 - - 2,895,403 2,895,403 

Burial Expenses Allowances 64.101 - - 668,463 668,463 

Vocational & Educational Counseling for Service Members & Veterans 64.125 - - 408,755 408,755 

State Cemetery Grants 64.203 - - 2,142,273 2,142,273 

Pass-Through PARRA Consulting Group, Inc 64.RD 617 - - 617 

Veterans Health Administration – Research and Development 64.RD 6,421,536 - - 6,421,536 

Total Veterans Administration (VA) 6,422,153 - 9,025,732 15,447,885 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) 

Contract/Other IPA Agreement 66.03-085- - - 12,693 12,693 

10-10N - - - 

Contract/Other 66.X5- - - 6,665 6,665 

973763-01-0 - - - 

Poultry Litter Project 66.000 - - 32,369 32,369 

Spec. Purpose Activities 66.034 - - 687,863 687,863 

MD State School Bus Grant Program - ARRA 66.039 - - 1,019,639 1,019,639 

Maryland Clean Diesel 66.040 - - 99,450 99,450 

MD State Clean Diesel Grant Program - ARRA 66.040 - - 99,300 99,300 

Congressionally Mandated Projects 66.202 - - 65,335 65,335 

Environmental Finance Center Grants 66.203 - - 80,643 80,643 

Pass-Through National Fish & Wildlife Foundation 66.439 - - 125,178 125,178 

Water Quality Management Planning 66.454 - - 204,075 204,075 

MDE Water Quality Mgt Planning - ARRA 66.454 - - 354,104 354,104 

Nonpoint Source Implementation Grants 66.460 - - 2,364,781 2,364,781 

Chesapeake Bay Program 66.466 - - 4,099,597 4,099,597 

Capitalization Grants for Drinking Water State Revolving Fund - ARRA 66.468 - - 188,255 188,255 

Operator Certification Expense Reimbursement 66.471 - - 289,278 289,278 

Beach Monitoring & Notification Program Implementation Grants 66.472 - - 297,694 297,694 

Water Protection Grants to the States 66.474 - - 495 495 

MD Regulatory Wetland Program Enhancement 66.479 - - 137,946 137,946 

Pass-Through Resources for the Future 66.509 - - 21,953 21,953 

Greater Research Opportunities (GRO) Fellowships for 66.513 - - 4,311 4,311 

Undergraduate/Graduate Environ Study 

P3 Award: National Student Design Competition for Sustainability 66.516 - - 1,881 1,881 

Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs) 66.605 - - 10,132,531 10,132,531 

Surveys, Studies, Investigations and Special Purpose Grants 66.606 - - 190,974 190,974 

Environmental Information Exchange Network Grant Program 66.608 - - 178,786 178,786 

Environmental Policy & Innovation Grants 66.611 - - 49,614 49,614 

Consolidated Pesticide Enforcement Cooperative Agreements 66.700 - - 436,532 436,532 

Pollution Prevention Grants Program 66.708 - - 58,709 58,709 

Superfund State Site: Specific Cooperative Agreements 66.802 - - 688,342 688,342 

State & Tribal Underground Storage Tanks Program 66.804 - - 758,278 758,278 

Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program 66.805 - - 1,180,284 1,180,284 

Leaking Underground Storage Tank - ARRA 66.805 - - 783,650 783,650 

Solid Waste Management Assistance 66.808 - - 1,018 1,018 

Superfund State & Indian Tribe Core Program: Cooperative Agreements 66.809 - - 337,505 337,505 

State & Tribal Response Program Grants 66.817 - - 235,342 235,342 

Brownfields Assessment & Cleanup Cooperative Agreements 66.818 - - 602,472 602,472 

Pass-Through American Forest Foundation 66.951 - - 3,805 3,805 

Pass-Through Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education 66.951 - - 40,165 40,165 

Environmental Education Grants 66.951 - - 42,521 42,521 

24 







ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) (continued) 

Office of Administration 66.RD $ 93,960 $ - $ - 

$ 93,960 

Office of Air and Radiation 66.RD 25,997 - - 25,997 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances 66.RD 30,445 - - 30,445 

Office of Research and Development 66.RD 1,388,649 - - 1,388,649 

Office of Water 66.RD 16,990 - - 16,990 



Total Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1,586,414 - 25,914,033 27,500,447 

NATIONAL REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC) 

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Education Grant Program 77.006 - - 385 385 

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Scholarship and Fellowship Program 77.008 - - 103,645 103,645 

Other National Regulatory Commission – Research and Development 77.RD 312,553 - - 312,553 

Total National Regulatory Commission (NRC) 312,553 - 104,030 416,583 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) 

Contract/Other 81.DE-FG02- 61,918 - - 61,918 

07ER64339 

Contract/Other 81.DE-FG02- 154,808 - - 154,808 

08CH11527 

Contract/Other 81.DE- 20,465 - - 20,465 

SC0002178 

State Energy Program 81.041 - - 476,000 476,000 

State Energy Conservation Program 81.041 - - 4,855,076 4,855,076 

Construction and Energy Technology Education Consortium 81.041 - - 75,012 75,012 

Weatherization Assistance for Low-Income Persons 81.042 - - 2,655,352 2,655,352 

Office of Science Financial Assistance Program 81.049 - - 414,176 414,176 

Office of Science Financial Assistance Program - ARRA 81.049 4,806 - - 4,806 

University Coal Research 81.057 119,233 - - 119,233 

Conservation Research & Development 81.086 - - 110,240 110,240 

Renewable Energy Research & Development 81.087 - - 27,991 27,991 

State Heating & Propane Programs 81.090 - - 10,000 10,000 

Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy 81.117 - - 10,000 10,000 

State Energy Program Special Projects 81.119 - - 549,955 549,955 

Nuclear Energy Research, Development and Demonstration 81.121 - - 6,175 6,175 

Technology Transfer Activities 81.121 - - 198,027 198,027 

Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability - ARRA 81.122 - - 57,674 57,674 

EE Appliance Rebate Program 81.127 - - 1,891,049 1,891,049 

Energy Efficiency & Conservation Block Grant Program -ARRA 81.128 - - 11,475,074 11,475,074 

Pass-Through GE Global Research 81.400 42,510 - - 42,510 

Pass-Through General Electric Company 81.700 74,710 - - 74,710 

Pass-Through AccuStrata, Inc - ARRA 81.Contract No 22,583 - - 22,583 

09122951 

Pass-Through Battelle Corporation - ARRA 81.Contract No 25,457 - - 25,457 

114480 

Pass-Through Brookhaven National Laboratory - ARRA 81.Contract No 2,619 - - 2,619 

158983 

Pass-Through General Atomics 81.N1009080803 22,064 - - 22,064 

Office of Science 81.RD 9,397,015 - - 9,397,015 

Other Department of Energy – Research and Development 81.RD 1,654,791 - - 1,654,791 

Pass-Through Argonne National Lab 81.RD 39,998 - - 39,998 

Pass-Through Battelle Corporation 81.RD 41,965 - - 41,965 

Pass-Through Brown University 81.RD 115 - - 115 

Pass-Through Iowa State University 81.RD 44,622 - - 44,622 

Pass-Through Sandia National Labs 81.RD 107,834 - - 107,834 

Pass-Through Stanford University 81.RD 41,639 - - 41,639 

Pass-Through Tulane University 81.RD 98,233 - - 98,233 

Pass-Through University of California Lawrence Livermore Lab 81.RD 23,369 - - 23,369 


Pass-Through University of Texas - Austin 81.RD 20,644 - - 20,644 


Total Department of Entergy (DOE) 12,170,408 - 22,811,801 34,982,209 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) 


College Access Challenge Grant Program 83.378 - - 791,629 791,629 

Title XIX 83.778 - - 4,919,876 4,919,876 

Total Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 5,746,407 5,746,407 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (ED) 

Contract/Other 84.ED-04- - - 1,220 1,220 

CO-0137 

Contract/Other 84.unknown - - 187,917 187,917 

Adult Education - State Grant Program 84.002 - - 9,370,538 9,370,538 

Student Financial Assistance Cluster (SFA) 

Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants 84.007 - 7,379,734 - 7,379,734 

Federal Family Educational Loans 84.032 - 184,653,032 - 184,653,032 

Federal Family Educational Loan 84.032 - 11,177,227 - 11,177,227 

25 







DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (ED) (continued) 

Student Financial Assistance Cluster (SFA) (continued) 

Federal Work-Study Program 84.033 $ - $ 8,164,840 $ - 

$ 8,164,840 

Federal Perkins Loan Program: Federal Capital Contributions 84.038 - 72,404,547 - 72,404,547 

Federal Pell Grant Program 84.063 - 132,133,338 - 132,133,338 

Federal Direct Student Loans 84.268 - 649,479,802 - 649,479,802 

Academic Competitiveness Grants 84.375 - 1,188,639 - 1,188,639 

National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (Smart) Grants 84.376 - 1,419,625 - 1,419,625 

Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education 84.379 - 328,255 - 328,255 

Grants (TEACH Grants) 

Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans/ 93.342 - 11,785,953 - 11,785,953 

Loans for Disadvantaged Students 

Nursing Student Loans 93.364 - 1,894,364 - 1,894,364 

Total SFA Cluster 1,082,009,356 

Title 1, Part A Cluster 

Title 1 Part A - Title 1 Grants to Local Education Agencies 84.010 - - 201,335,131 201,335,131 

Title 1 Part A - Grants to LEAS - ARRA 84.389 - - 53,923,501 53,923,501 

Total Title 1, Part A Cluster 255,258,632 

Migrant Education: State Grant Program 84.011 - - 571,801 571,801 

Title 1 Program for Neglected & Delinquent Children 84.013 - - 1,973,869 1,973,869 

International: Overseas: Group Projects Abroad 84.021 - - 111,719 111,719 

Idea - Part E Innovation & Development 84.023 - - 283,742 283,742 

Special Education Cluster (IDEA) 

Special Education: Grants to States 84.027 - - 199,407,314 199,407,314 

D.O.R.S. Transition Grant - ARRA 84.027 - - 54,576 54,576 

Special Education: Grants to States 84.027 - - 34,276 34,276 

Pass-Through Government of the District of Columbia - ARRA 84.027 - - 213,474 213,474 

Special Education: Preschool Grants 84.173 - - 5,882,222 5,882,222 

Special Education Grants to State - ARRA 84.391 - - 73,608,913 73,608,913 

IDEA - Part B - Preschool Grants - ARRA 84.392 - - 1,768,038 1,768,038 

Total IDEA Cluster 280,968,813 

Higher Education Institutional Aid 84.031 - - 15,280,158 15,280,158 

Higher Education Institutional Aid 84.031 - 8,153,110 - 8,153,110 

Higher Education Institutional Aid 84.031 - - 92,234 92,234 

Federal Perkins Loan Cancellations 84.037 - - 646,665 646,665 

Federal Perkins Loan Cancellations 84.037 - 15,430 - 15,430 

TRIO Cluster 

TRIO: Student Support Services 84.042 - - 2,223,975 2,223,975 

TRIO: Talent Search 84.044 - - 915,150 915,150 

TRIO: Upward Bound 84.047 - - 4,018,885 4,018,885 

TRIO: Educational Opportunity Centers 84.066 - - 283,679 283,679 

TRIO: McNair Post – Baccalaureate Achievement 84.217 - - 706,847 706,847 

Total TRIO Cluster 8,148,536 

Vocational Education: Basic Grants to States 84.048 - - 14,972,401 14,972,401 

Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership 84.069 - - 1,303,446 1,303,446 

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education 84.116 - - 696,759 696,759 

Video Cases for Novice College Mathematics Instructors 84.116B - - 3,108 3,108 

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education 84.116Z - - 76,069 76,069 

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement 84.120 - - 756 756 

Vocational Rehabilitation Cluster 

Rehabilitation Services: Vocational Rehab. Grants to States 84.126 - - 37,612,852 37,612,852 

Vocational Rehab. Grants - ARRA 84.390 - - 4,515,983 4,515,983 

Total Vocational Rehabilitation Cluster 42,128,835 

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training 84.129 - - 379,201 379,201 

National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research 84.133 - - 439,120 439,120 

Migrant Education Coordination Program 84.144 - - 205,163 205,163 

Business and International Education Projects 84.153 - - 23,256 23,256 

Rehabilitation Services: Client Assistance Program 84.161 - - 169,307 169,307 

Independent Living: State Grants 84.169 - - 441,443 441,443 

Early Intervention Services Cluster (IDEA) 

Special Education: Grants for Infants & Families with Disabilities 84.181 - - 6,656,908 6,656,908 

IDEA Part C - Infants & Families - ARRA 84.393 - - 3,186,754 3,186,754 

Total IDEA Part C Cluster 9,843,662 

Safe & Drug-Free Schools & Communities National Programs 84.184 - - 634,130 634,130 

Safe & Drug-Free Schools & Communities: State Grants 84.186 - - 3,215,501 3,215,501 

Supported Employment Services for Individuals with Severe Handicaps 84.187 - - 290,267 290,267 

Bilingual Education: Professional Development 84.195 - - 304,137 304,137 

Education of Homeless Children & Youth 84.196 - - 912,285 912,285 

Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need 84.200 - - 721,490 721,490 

Javits G/T 84.206 - - 40,160 40,160 

Even Start: State Educational Agencies 84.213 - - 917,764 917,764 

Fund for the Improvement of Education 84.215 - - 20,202 20,202 

Scholarships for Health Professions Students from 93.925 - 359,918 - 359,918 

Disadvantaged Backgrounds 


Pass-Through Anne Arundel County Public Schools 84.215 - - 89,438 89,438 

Pass-Through Baltimore City Public Schools 84.215 - - 209,216 209,216 

Pass-Through Howard Co Public Schools 84.215 - - 131,575 131,575 

Fund for the Improvement of Education (continued) 

Pass-Through Baltimore County Public Schools 84.215 12,640 - - 12,640 

Centers for International Business Education 84.220 - - 386,853 386,853 

26 








Assistive Technology 84.224 $ - $ - $ 544,280 

$ 544,280 

Rehabilitation Services Demonstrative & Training 84.235 - - 469,996 469,996 

Tech - Prep Education 84.243 - - 1,532,508 1,532,508 

Foreign Languages Assistance 84.249 - - 499 499 

Rehabilitation Training: State Vocational Rehabilitation 84.265 - - 217,409 217,409 

Unit In-Service Training 

Pass-Through United Negro College Fund 84.269 - - 113,524 113,524 

The Charter School Program 84.282 - - 3,533,311 3,533,311 

Twenty-First Century Community Learning Centers 84.287 - - 15,388,762 15,388,762 

Innovative Education Program Strategies 84.298 - - 362,425 362,425 

Education Technology States Cluster 

Technology Literacy Challenge Fund Grants 84.318 - - 3,970,869 3,970,869 

Education Technology - ARRA 84.386 - - 62,059 62,059 

Total Education Technology States Cluster 4,032,928 

SPED: State Program Improvement Grants for Children with Disabilities 84.323 - - 796,083 796,083 

SPED: Personnel Preparation to Improve Services & 84.325 - - 2,654,438 2,654,438 

Results for Children with Disabilities 

SPED: Tech Assist. & Dissemination to Improve Services & 84.326 - - 154,577 154,577 

Results for Children with Disabilities 

Advanced Placement Incentive Program 84.330 - - 1,104,563 1,104,563 

Grants to States for Incarcerated Youth Offenders 84.331 - - 198,751 198,751 

Gaining Early Awareness & Readiness for Undergraduate Programs 84.334 - - 3,341,350 3,341,350 

Child Care Access Means Parents in School 84.335 - - 53,676 53,676 

Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants 84.336 - - 416,028 416,028 

Underground Railroad Education & Cultural Program 84.345 - - 19,967 19,967 

Transition to Teaching 84.350 - - 218,294 218,294 

Reading First State Grants 84.357 - - 7,486,779 7,486,779 

English Language Acquisition Grants 84.365 - - 8,445,688 8,445,688 

Mathematics & Science Partnerships 84.366 - - 1,984,319 1,984,319 

Pass-Through State of Delaware 84.366 - - 40,525 40,525 

Improving Teacher Quality State Grants 84.367 - - 38,120,461 38,120,461 


Improving Teacher Quality State Grants 84.367 - - 120,207 120,207 

Grants for State Assessments & Related Activities 84.369 - - 8,261,370 8,261,370 

Statewide Longitudinal Data System 84.372 - - 1,885,378 1,885,378 

Gen Super Enhancement 84.373 - - 544,410 544,410 

School Improvement Grants 84.377 - - 4,295,039 4,295,039 

College Intervention Prep. Program 84.378A - - 72,485 72,485 

Strengthening Minority-Servicing Institutions 84.382 - - 8,384 8,384 

Homeless Youth & Children - ARRA 84.387 - - 211,463 211,463 

School Improvement Grants - ARRA 84.388 - - 210,001 210,001 

State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Cluster (SFSF) 

State Fiscal Stabilization Fund - Education State Grants - ARRA 84.394 - - 271,228,457 271,228,457 

State Fiscal Stabilization Fund - Government Services - ARRA 84.397 - - 79,573,888 79,573,888 

Total SFSF Cluster 350,802,345 

Independent Living -ARRA 84.398 - - 77,833 77,833 

Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who are Blind - ARRA 84.399 - - 448,147 448,147 

Pass-Through National Writing Project Corporation 84.928 - - 23,889 23,889 

Pass-Through University of California 84.928 - - 94,781 94,781 

2004 Insolicited Grants 84.955 - - 290,029 290,029 

Institute of Education Sciences 84.RD 1,060,620 - - 1,060,620 

Pass-Through Board of Education of Howard County 84.RD 35,168 35,168 


Pass-Through Bridges Public Charter School 84.RD 30,654 - - 30,654 

Pass-Through Carnegie-Mellon University 84.RD 78,752 - - 78,752 

Pass-Through Georgia Tech Research Corp 84.RD 4,636 - - 4,636 

Pass-Through National Public Radio 84.RD 29,920 - - 29,920 

Pass-Through Office of State Superintendent of 84.RD 12,726 - - 12,726 

Education (Washington, DC) 

Institute of Education Sciences (continued) 

Pass-Through University of Colorado, Denver 84.RD 21,176 - - 21,176 

Postsecondary Education 84.RD 1,098,625 - - 1,098,625 

Special Education and Rehabilitative Services 84.RD 101,256 - - 101,256 

Total Department of Education (ED) 2,493,848 1,090,537,814 1,110,404,205 2,203,435,868 

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 

Contract/Other 85.T08CC10105 33,368 - - 33,368 

Rehab ACT of 1973 - ILS for OBI 85.177 - - 202,312 202,312 

Smithsonian Institution Fellowship Program 85.601 - - 2,344 2,344 

Total Smithsonian Institution 33,368 - 204,656 238,024 

NATIONAL ARCHIVES & RECORDS ADMINISTRATION 

National Archives and Records Administration – 89.RD 285,359 - - 285,359 

Research and Development 

Total National Archives & Records Administration 285,359 - - 285,359 

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION (EAC) 

Help America Vote Act 90.401 - - 7,741,850 7,741,850 

Election Assistance Commission - Research & Development 90.RD 2,767 - - 2,767 

Total Election Assistance Commission (EAC) 2,767 - 7,741,850 7,744,617 

27 







US INSTITUTE OF PEACE 

United States Institute of Peace - Research & Development 91.RD $ 6,802 $ - $ - 

$ 6,802 

Total US Institute of Peace 6,802 - - 6,802 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (HHS) 



Cooperative Agreements to Improve the Health Status 93.004 54,275 - - 54,275 

of Minority Populations 

Minority Health State Partnership 93.006 - - 215,580 215,580 

Medical Reserve Corp Small Grant Program 93.008 - - 483 483 

Pass-Through National Association of Counties and Cities 93.008 - - 2,629 2,629 

Programs for Prevention of Elder Abuse 93.041 - - 422,178 422,178 

Long Term Care Ombudsman Services for Older Individuals 93.042 - - 129,553 129,553 

Special Programs for the Aging: Title III, Part F: Disease Prevention 93.043 - - 361,152 361,152 

& Health Promotion Services 

Aging Cluster 

Special Programs for the Aging: Title III, Part B: Grants for 93.044 - - 6,813,661 6,813,661 

Supportive Services & Senior Centers 

Special Programs for the Aging: Title III, Part C: Nutrition Services 93.045 - - 10,398,871 10,398,871 

Nutrition Services Incentive Program 93.053 - - 1,890,225 1,890,225 

Aging Home-Delivered Nutrition Services for States - ARRA 93.705 - - 595,196 595,196 

Aging Congregate Nutrition Services for States - ARRA 93.707 - - 1,036,467 1,036,467 

Total Aging Cluster 20,734,420 

Special Programs for the Aging: Title IV: Training, Research & 93.048 - - 412,730 412,730 

Discretionary Projects & Programs 

Nation Family Caregiver Support Program 93.052 - - 2,442,275 2,442,275 

Public Health Emergency Preparedness 93.069 - - 31,316,853 31,316,853 

Asthma - From a Public Health Perspective 93.070 - - 352,867 352,867 

Pass-Through Insight Policy Research 93.08112393 13,434 - - 13,434 

Healthy Marriage Promotion & Responsible Fatherhood Grants 93.086 - - 978,860 978,860 

Pass-Through Cecil County Department of Social Services 93.086 - - 12,000 12,000 

ASPAR-ESAR/VHP 93.089 - - 14,765 14,765 

Food & Drug Administration Research 93.103 - - 142,818 142,818 

Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services for SED 93.104 - - 575,099 575,099 

Pass-Through Science Applications International Corporation 93.10SX062 80,423 - - 80,423 

(SAIC) - Frederick 

Maternal & Child Health Federal Consolidated Programs 93.110 - - 215,201 215,201 

Environmental Health 93.113 4,000 - - 4,000 

Project Grants & Cooperative Agreements for 93.116 - - 1,230,229 1,230,229 

Tuberculosis Control Programs 

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) Activity 93.118 - - 100 100 

Oral Diseases and Disorders Research - ARRA 93.121 218,127 - - 218,127 

Emergency Medical Services for Children 93.127 - - 111,210 111,210 

Primary Care Services: Resource Coordination & Development: 93.130 - - 245,946 245,946 

Primary Care Offices 

Injury Prevention & Control Research & State & 93.136 - - 1,357,181 1,357,181 

Community Based Programs 

Project for Assistance in Transition From Homelessness - (PATH) 93.150 - - 1,100,387 1,100,387 

Coordinated HIV Services & Access to Research for Children, 93.153 - - 1,451,075 1,451,075 

Youth, Women & Families 

Grants for State Loan Repayments 93.165 - - 250,000 250,000 

Human Genome Research - ARRA 93.172 297,329 - - 297,329 

Research related to Deafness and Communication Disorders 93.173 - - 342,037 342,037 

Research related to Deafness and Communication Disorders - ARRA 93.173 79,178 - - 79,178 

Nursing Workforce Diversity 93.178 - - 293,304 293,304 

Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention & Surveillance of 93.197 - - 911,834 911,834 

Blood Lead Levels in Children 

Family Planning: Services 93.217 - - 4,922,942 4,922,942 

Research on Healthcare Costs, Quality and Outcomes 93.226 118,754 - - 118,754 

Consolidated Knowledge Development and Application 93.230 - - 83,676 83,676 

(KD&A) Program 

National Center on Sleep Disorders - ARRA 93.233 62,206 - - 62,206 

Mental Health Research Grants 93.242 - - 22,565 22,565 

Mental Health Research Grants 93.242 28,864 - - 28,864 

Mental Health Research Grants - ARRA 93.242 88,761 - - 88,761 

Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services 93.243 - - 3,400,767 3,400,767 

Pass-Through Morehouse University School of Medicine 93.243 - - 7,583 7,583 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Projects of 93.243 - - 62,587 62,587 

Regional and National Significance 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 93.243 1,076 - - 1,076 

Advance Nursing Education Grant Program 93.247 - - 428,835 428,835 

Universal Newborn Hearing Screening 93.251 - - 165,076 165,076 

Pass-Through Morehouse University 93.260 - - 111,372 111,372 

Nurse Faculty Loan Program (NFLP) 93.264 - - 95,852 95,852 

Nurse Faculty Loan Program (NFLP) - ARRA 93.264 - - 7,217 7,217 

Immunization Grants Cluster 

Immunization Grants 93.268 - - 4,138,067 4,138,067 

Emerging Infections Sect. 317 Immune - ARRA 93.712 - - 800,182 800,182 

Total Immunization Grants Cluster 4,938,249 

28 







DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (HHS) (continued) 

Drug Free Communities Support Program 93.276 $ - $ - $ 189,510 

$ 189,510 

Drug Free Communities Support Program Grants 93.276 - - 2,974,146 2,974,146 

Pass-Through Monroe County Sheriff's Office 93.276 - - 64,810 64,810 

Career Development Awards 93.277 - - 32,630 32,630 

Drug Abuse National Research Service Awards for Research Training 93.278 - - 89,194 89,194 

Drug Abuse Research Programs: Pass-Through Louisiana State University 93.279 - - 63,480 63,480 

Drug Abuse Research Programs 93.279 191,103 - - 191,103 

(supplemental funding from American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) 93.279 - - 5,548 5,548 

Drug Abuse Research Programs - ARRA 93.279 23,522 - - 23,522 

Pass-Through Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) 93.27SX064 275,423 - - 275,423 

Mental Health National Research Service Awards for Research Training 93.282 - - 96,927 96,927 

Center for Disease Control & Prevention: 93.283 - - 11,760,400 11,760,400 

Investigations & Tech Assistance 

Center for Disease Control & Prevention: 93.283 21,199 - - 21,199 

Investigation & Tech Assistance 

Technological Innovations to Improve Human Health 93.286 108,564 - - 108,564 

Discovery and Applied Research - ARRA 93.286 564,281 - - 564,281 

Small Rural Hospital Improvement Grants 93.301 - - 27,301 27,301 

Laboratory Animal Sciences & Primate Research - ARRA 93.306 86,717 - - 86,717 

Minority Health and Health Disparities Research 93.307 562,359 - - 562,359 

Advanced Education Nursing Tranineeships 93.358 - - 327,742 327,742 

Nurse Education Practice and Retention Grants 93.359 - - 230,511 230,511 

Nursing Research - ARRA 93.361 99,250 - - 99,250 

Minority Research Training 93.375 190,944 - - 190,944 

Research Infrastructure 93.389 - - 2,255 2,255 

National Center For Research Resources 93.389 85,339 - - 85,339 

Cancer Cause & Prevention Research - ARRA 93.393 86,939 - - 86,939 

Cancer Treatment Research - ARRA 93.395 146,035 - - 146,035 

Cancer Biology Research 93.396 - - 12,101 12,101 

Cancer Centers Support Grants - ARRA 93.397 158,719 - - 158,719 

Cancer Research Manpower - ARRA 93.398 55,832 - - 55,832 

Cancer Control - ARRA 93.399 99,553 - - 99,553 

State Loan Repayment Program - ARRA 93.402 - - 50,000 50,000 

Scholarships for Disadvantage Students - ARRA 93.407 - - 155,628 155,628 

Nurse Faculty Loan Program - ARRA 93.408 6,495 - - 6,495 

State Primary Care Offices - ARRA 93.414 - - 6,172 6,172 

Food Safety & Security Monitoring Project 93.448 - - 227,025 227,025 

Promoting Safe & Stable Families 93.556 - - 2,968,917 2,968,917 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Cluster (TANF) 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 93.558 - - 221,725,598 221,725,598 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families - ARRA 93.558 - - 34,667,668 34,667,668 


Total TANF Cluster 300,093,266 

Child Support Enforcement (CSE) 93.563 - - 38,913,917 38,913,917 

Child Support Enforcement (CSE) - ARRA 93.563 - - 52,385,828 52,385,828 

Child Support Enforcement Research 93.564 - - 206,248 206,248 

Refugee & Entrant Assistance: State Administer Paid Programs 93.566 - - 8,310,178 8,310,178 

Refugee & Entrant Assistance: State Administrated Programs 93.566 - - 505,510 505,510 

Low-Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP) 93.568 - - 81,664,618 81,664,618 

Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) 93.569 - - 7,389,715 7,389,715 

Community Services Block Grant - ARRA 93.569 - - 10,186,955 10,186,955 

Community Services Block Grant: Discretionary Awards 93.570 - - 1,110 1,110 

Refugee & Entrant Assistance: Discretionary Grants 93.576 - - 265,765 265,765 

Refugee & Entrant Assistance: Discretionary Grants 93.576 - - 50,346 50,346 

Refugee & Entrant Assistance- Targeted Assistance 93.584 - - 929,712 929,712 

State Court Improvement Program 93.586 - - 311,873 311,873 

Child Care and Development Fund Cluster (CCDF) 

Child Care and Development Block Grant 93.575 - - 25,190,093 25,190,093 

Pass-through Chesapeake Community College - MD Child Care Center 93.575 - - 11,558 11,558 

Child Care and Matching Funds of the Child Care and Development Fund 93.596 - - 48,997,526 48,997,526 

Child Care and Development Block Grant - ARRA 93.713 - - 17,523,715 17,523,715 

Pass-Through Maryland Family Network - ARRA 93.713 - - 4,519 4,519 

Total CCDF Cluster 91,722,892 

Grants to States for Access & Visitation Programs 93.597 - - 165,532 165,532 

Education & Training Vouchers 93.599 - - 1,225,230 1,225,230 

Head Start 93.600 - - 442,944 442,944 

Head Start 93.600 1,883,939 - - 1,883,939 

Family Kinship Connection 93.605 - - 201,731 201,731 

Basic Center Grant for Runaway & Homeless Youth 93.623 - - 202,409 202,409 

Development Disabilities Basic Support & Advocacy Grants 93.630 - - 894,342 894,342 

Children's Justice Grants to States 93.643 - - 1,434,637 1,434,637 

Child Welfare Services: State Grants 93.645 - - 4,395,815 4,395,815 

Social Services Research & Demonstration 93.647 - - 238,789 238,789 

Keep 93.652 - - 371,200 371,200 

Foster Care: Title IV-E 93.658 - - 71,030,410 71,030,410 

Foster Care: Title IV-E - ARRA 93.658 - - 4,554,723 4,554,723 

Adoption Assistance 93.659 - - 19,776,323 19,776,323 

Adoption Assistance - ARRA 93.659 - - 2,736,873 2,736,873 

Social Services Block Grant - (SSBG) 93.667 - - 54,231,518 54,231,518 

Child Abuse & Neglect State Grants 93.669 - - 382,303 382,303 

Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities - ARRA 93.670 2,505 - - 2,505 

29 








Family Violence Prevention & Service/Grants for Battered 93.671 $ - $ - $ 1,601,758 

$ 1,601,758 

Women's Shelters: States & Indian Tribes 

Chafee Foster Care Independent Living 93.674 - - 4,321,387 4,321,387 

Trans-NIH Recovery Act Research Support 93.701 360 - - 360 

Animal Model of Dual Diagnosis 93.701 - - 32,170 32,170 

National Center for Research Resources, Recovery Act 93.701 99,488 - - 99,488 

Construction Support - ARRA 

Recovery Act Research Support - ARRA 93.701 2,668,079 - - 2,668,079 

Pass-Through Boston University - ARRA 93.701 35,843 - - 35,843 

Pass-Through Medical University of South Carolina - ARRA 93.701 23,373 - - 23,373 

Pass-Through Michigan Technological Institute - ARRA 93.701 46,485 - - 46,485 

Pass-Through Tufts University - ARRA 93.701 4,336 - - 4,336 

Pass-Through University of Michigan - ARRA 93.701 105,330 - - 105,330 

Pass-Through University of Missouri - ARRA 93.701 29,364 - - 29,364 

Trans-NIH Recovery Act Research Support - ARRA 93.701 11,567,153 - 83,494 11,650,647 

Ambulatory Surgical CTR Healthcare - ARRA 93.717 - - 602,249 602,249 

State Health Information Exchange - ARRA 93.719 - - 606,451 606,451 

Nutrition & Physical Activity & Tobacco - ARRA 93.723 - - 50,208 50,208 

CDSMP - Recovery Act 93.725 - - 28,904 28,904 

Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) 93.767 - - 153,837,884 153,837,884 

Medicaid Infrastructure Grants To Support the Competitive 93.768 - - 618,915 618,915 

Employment of People with Disabilities 

Medicaid Cluster 

State Medicaid Fraud Control Units 93.775 - - 1,707,629 1,707,629 

State Survey & Certification of Health Care Providers & Suppliers 93.777 - - 6,364,393 6,364,393 

Medical Assistance Program (Medicaid) 93.778 - - 3,592,506,528 3,592,506,528 

Medical Assistance Program - ARRA 93.778 - - 785,704,162 785,704,162 

Total Medicaid Cluster 4,386,282,712 

Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Research, 93.779 - - 23,669,321 23,669,321 

Demonstrations & Evaluations 

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 93.779 5,230 - - 5,230 

Alternatives to Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facilities for Children 93.789 - - 815,643 815,643 

Alternate Non-Emergency Service Providers or Networks 93.790 - - 873,748 873,748 

Medicaid Transformation Grants 93.793 - - 106,812 106,812 

Cardiovascular Diseases Research 93.837 - - 90,785 90,785 

Cardiovascular Diseases Research - ARRA 93.837 10,572 - - 10,572 

Blood Diseases and Resources Research - ARRA 93.839 222,218 - - 222,218 

Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research - ARRA 93.846 80,408 - - 80,408 

Diabetes, Digestive, and Kidney Diseases Extramural Research - ARRA 93.847 324,134 - - 324,134 

Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research 93.848 - - 53,791 53,791 

Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research - ARRA 93.848 320,741 - - 320,741 

Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research - ARRA 93.849 184,054 - - 184,054 

Extramural Research Programs in the Neurosciences and 93.853 - - 23,072 23,072 

Neurological Disorders 

Extramural Research Programs in the Neurosciences and 93.853 116,469 - - 116,469 

Neurological Disorders - ARRA 

Allergy, Immunology, & Transplantation Research 93.855 - - 187,352 187,352 

Allergy, Immunology, & Transplantation Research - ARRA 93.855 1,262,491 - - 1,262,491 

Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research - ARRA 93.856 306,459 - - 306,459 

Biomedical Research and Research 93.859 - - 1,279,251 1,279,251 

Pass-Through American Psychological Association 93.859 - - 1,640 1,640 

Biomedical Research and Research 93.859 755,150 - - 755,150 

Biomedical Research and Research - ARRA 93.859 248,115 - - 248,115 

Center for Research for Mothers and Children 93.865 - - 1,748 1,748 

Child Health and Human Development Extramural Research 93.865 84,886 - - 84,886 

Center for Research for Mothers and Children - ARRA 93.865 16,986 - - 16,986 

Aging Research 93.866 - - 269,164 269,164 

Aging Research - ARRA 93.866 195,934 - - 195,934 

Vision Research 93.867 81,276 - - 81,276 

National Bioterrorism Hospital Preparedness 93.889 - - 11,180,595 11,180,595 

Family and Community Violence Prevention Program 93.910 - - 96,929 96,929 

Rural Health Outreach - Rural Network Development Program 93.912 - - 90,499 90,499 

Grants to States for Operation of Offices of Rural Health 93.913 - - 155,191 155,191 

HIV Emergency Relief Project Grants 93.914 - - 292,215 292,215 

HIV RW Part A-Med Case Management-F5720-3/1/10-2/28/11 93.915 - - 23,912 23,912 

HIV RW Part A-HIV-EFA-Med-F2800-3/1/10-2/28/11 93.916 - - 1,239 1,239 

HIV Care Formula Grants 93.917 - - 38,534,329 38,534,329 

Public Health Service ACT - AIDS 93.938 - - 281,151 281,151 

HIV Prevention Activities: Health Department Based 93.940 - - 13,685,715 13,685,715 

HIV Demonstration, Research, Public & Professional Education 93.941 - - 124,485 124,485 

HIV Demonstration, Research, Public & Professional Education 93.941 95,662 - - 95,662 

HIV/AIDS Surveillance 93.944 - - 1,289,792 1,289,792 

Pregnancy Risk Assessment 93.946 - - 157,198 157,198 

Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services 93.958 - - 7,679,992 7,679,992 

Block Grants for Prevention & Treatment of Substance Abuse 93.959 - - 29,875,454 29,875,454 

Preventive Health Services: Sexually Transmitted Diseases Control Grants 93.977 - - 1,361,599 1,361,599 

Cooperative Agreements for State-Based Diabetes Control Programs 93.988 - - 4,982 4,982 

& Evaluation of Surveillance Systems 

International Research & Research Training - ARRA 93.989 13,691 - - 13,691 

Preventative Health & Health Services Block Grant 93.991 - - 1,824,641 1,824,641 

Maternal & Child Health Services Block Grant to the States 93.994 - - 11,701,751 11,701,751 

30 






CFDA Number 

Research & 

Development 




Administration for Children and Families 93.RD $ 1,334,962 $ - $ - 

$ 1,334,962 

Agency for Health Care Policy and Research 93.RD 158,387 - - 158,387 

Agency for Health Care Research and Quality 93.RD 28,092 - - 28,092 

Center for Disease Control and Prevention 93.RD 53,963,919 - - 53,963,919 

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 93.RD 15,890 - - 15,890 

Food and Drug Administration 93.RD 2,140,315 - - 2,140,315 

Health Resources and Services Administration 93.RD 2,715,445 - - 2,715,445 

National Institutes of Health 93.RD 218,655,344 - - 218,655,344 

Office of Population Affairs 93.RD 262,267 - - 262,267 

Pass- Through Buck Institute for Age Research 93.RD 28,462 - - 28,462 


Pass-Through American Institutes for Research 93.RD 6,001 - - 6,001 



Pass-Through Brigham and Women's Hospital 93.RD 30,065 - - 30,065 

Pass-through Brigham and Women's Hospital 93.RD 60,465 - - 60,465 


Pass-Through Children's Hospital of Philadelphia 93.RD 22,640 - - 22,640 

Pass-Through Children's Research Institute 93.RD 48,681 - - 48,681 




Pass-Through Fidelity Systems 93.RD 67,955 - - 67,955 


Pass-Through Georgetown University 93.RD 109,780 - - 109,780 

Pass-Through Georgetown University Lombardi 93.RD 160 - - 160 

Comprehensive Cancer Center 

Pass-Through Hugo W Moser Research at Kennedy Krieger, Inc. 93.RD 5,237 - - 5,237 

Pass-Through Imperial College School of Medicine 93.RD 36,319 - - 36,319 

Pass-Through Indiana University 93.RD 33,148 - - 33,148 


Pass-Through Johns Hopkins University 93.RD 1,260,072 - - 1,260,072 

Pass-Through Kennedy Krieger Institute 93.RD 398,334 - - 398,334 

Pass-Through Medical University of South Carolina 93.RD 70,159 - - 70,159 

Pass-Through Mount Sinai School of Medicine 93.RD 1,640,393 - - 1,640,393 

Pass-Through New York University 93.RD 31,822 - - 31,822 


Pass-Through Pennsylvania State University 93.RD 367 - - 367 

Pass-Through Research Foundation of State University of New York 93.RD 36,931 - - 36,931 


Pass-Through Samaria, Inc 93.RD 34,186 - - 34,186 


Pass-Through Temple University 93.RD 164,774 - - 164,774 

Pass-Through The Mind Research Network 93.RD 217,358 - - 217,358 

Pass-Through University of Alabama at Birmingham 93.RD 68,858 - - 68,858 

Pass-Through University of Alabama- Birmingham 93.RD 6,571 - - 6,571 

Pass-Through University of California 93.RD 267,391 - - 267,391 

Pass-Through University of California, San Francisco 93.RD 14,273 - - 14,273 

Pass-Through University of Cincinnati 93.RD 143,875 - - 143,875 

Pass-Through University of Massachusetts 93.RD 28,503 - - 28,503 

Pass-Through University of Massachusetts Medical Center 93.RD 10,039 - - 10,039 

Pass-Through University of Minnesota 93.RD 194,519 - - 194,519 

Pass-Through University of New Mexico 93.RD 110,959 - - 110,959 

Pass-Through University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 93.RD 65,565 - - 65,565 

Pass-Through University of Oklahoma 93.RD 30,190 - - 30,190 

Pass-Through University of Texas 93.RD 21,901 - - 21,901 



Pass-Through Virginia Polytechnic and State University 93.RD 233,456 - - 233,456 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 93.RD 13,232,799 - - 13,232,799 

Total Department of Health and Human Services - (HHS) 323,704,661 - 5,549,863,373 5,873,568,034 

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL & COMMUNITY 

SERVICES (CNCS) 

CNCS 94.000 - - 3,979 3,979 

State Commissions 94.003 - - 347,158 347,158 

Learn & Serve America: School & Community Board Programs 94.004 - - 369,817 369,817 

Learn & Serve America: Higher education 94.005 21,540 - - 21,540 

AmeriCorps 94.006 - - 4,722,961 4,722,961 

AmeriCorps - ARRA 94.006 - - 613,265 613,265 

Planning & Program Development Grants 94.007 - - 229,397 229,397 


Training & Technical Assistance 94.009 - - 42,922 42,922 

Foster Grandparent Program 94.011 - - 305,678 305,678 

Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA) 94.013 - - 33,269 33,269 

Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA) - ARRA 94.013 - - 9,790 9,790 

Corporation for National and Community Service 94.RD 1,003,612 - - 1,003,612 

Total Corporation for National & Community Services 1,025,152 - 6,693,752 7,718,904 

31 







SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (SSA) 

Pass-Through Center for Retirement Research at Boston College 96.RD $ 35,271 $ - $ - 

$ 35,271 

Pass-Through Westat Incorporated 96.RD 85,330 - - 85,330 

Disability Insurance/SSI Cluster 

Social Security - Disability Insurance (DI) 96.001 - - 31,198,818 31,198,818 

Supplemental Security Income - (SSI) 96.006 - - 1,949,618 1,949,618 

Total Disability Insurance/SSI Cluster 33,148,436 

Total Social Security Administration - (SSA) 120,601 - 33,148,436 33,269,037 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

UT-Battelle ORNL DOE 97.002 43,181 - - 43,181 

NRC - Safeguards Information 97.005 - - 1,735 1,735 

Urban Areas Security Initiative 97.008 - - 14,747,059 14,747,059 

Boating Safety Financial Assistance 97.012 - - 4,066,471 4,066,471 

Community Assistance Program State Support Services 97.023 - - 132,248 132,248 

Element-(CAP-SSSE) 

Flood Mitigation Assistance - (FMA) 97.029 - - 39,977 39,977 

Public Assistance Grants 97.036 - - 8,646,497 8,646,497 

Hazard Mitigation Grant - (HMGP) 97.039 - - 77,061 77,061 

Pass-Through Vision Planning, LLC 97.039 - - 23,718 23,718 

National Dam Safety Program 97.041 - - 31,116 31,116 

Emergency Management Performance Grants 97.042 - - 3,894,110 3,894,110 

State Fire Training Systems Grant 97.043 - - 28,000 28,000 

Emergency Management - Cooperating Technical Partners 97.045 - - 637,958 637,958 

Pre-Disaster Mitigation 97.047 - - 82,235 82,235 

Citizen Corps 97.053 - - 183,933 183,933 

Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program - FY 2008 97.055 - - 94,247 94,247 

Port Security Grant Program for Critical National Seaports 97.056 - - 307,254 307,254 

Centers for Homeland Security 97.061 27,766 - - 27,766 

Homeland Security Information Technology Research, Testing, 97.066 - - 2,423,476 2,423,476 

Evaluation and Demonstration Program 

Homeland Security Grant Program 97.067 - - 10,255,559 10,255,559 

Map Modernization Mgmt. Support Program (MMMS) 97.070 - - 219,967 219,967 

Metropolitan Medical Response Program 97.071 - - 258,209 258,209 

K-9 Grant 97.072 - - 630,501 630,501 

Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program 97.074 - - 4,061,142 4,061,142 

Homeland Security - MDOT Grant 97.075 - - 2,221,273 2,221,273 

Buffer Zone Protection Program 97.078 - - 520,094 520,094 

Real ID FY 2008 97.089 - - 735,868 735,868 

Law Enforcement Officer Reimb. 97.090 - - 306,195 306,195 

Degrees at a Distance Program 97.103 - - 5,000 5,000 

Homeland Security - Related Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics (HS Stem) Career Development Program 97.104 - - 217,030 217,030 

Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Career Development 97.104 2,828 - - 2,828 

Regional Catastrophic Prep Grant Program - FY 2008 97.111 - - 608,584 608,584 

Pass-Through RTI International 97.33120211772 60,778 - - 60,778 

Department of Homeland Security 97.RD 7,548,758 - - 7,548,758 

Pass-Through John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 97.RD 1,577 - - 1,577 

The City University of New York 

Total Homeland Security 7,684,888 - 55,456,517 63,141,405 

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

Pass-Through Institute International Education 98.001 - - 2,718 2,718 

Pass-Through Institute International Education 98.001 - - 4,683 4,683 

Agency for International Development 98.RD 122,746 - - 122,746 

Total Agency for International Development 122,746 - 7,401 130,147 

OTHER 

Vietnam Educational Foundation 99.Unknown - - 4,028 4,028 

Total Other - - 4,028 4,028 

TOTAL $ 645,932,454 $ 1,090,537,814 $ 11,480,334,638 

$ 13,216,804,906 

32 



Notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards 


1. SINGLE AUDIT REPORTING ENTITY 

The State of Maryland (State) includes expenditures in its Schedule of Expenditures of 

Federal Awards for all Federal programs administered by the funds, agencies, boards and 

commissions, including component units, included in the State’s reporting entity used for its 

basic financial statements, including the component unit higher education funds - the 

University System of Maryland, the Baltimore City Community College, Morgan State 

University, and St. Mary’s College of Maryland. However, the Schedule of Expenditures of 

Federal Awards excludes the Maryland Water Quality Financing Administration of the 

Maryland Department of the Environment; the Maryland Transportation Authority, an 

enterprise fund of the State; the Maryland Technology Development Corporation, a component 

unit of the State; and the Maryland Health Insurance program, part of the general fund of the 

State. Separate single audits are conducted for these entities. 

2. BASIS OF ACCOUNTING 

The accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards has been presented on the 

accrual basis of accounting. Expenditures are recorded, accordingly, when incurred rather 

than when paid. 

The expenditures for Federal awards under the Recovery Act are separately identified on the 

accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) with the letters ARRA. 

The noncash expenditures of $18,032,000 reported under CFDA No. 10.550, Food 

Donation, represent the value of food commodity distributions calculated using the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service Commodity Price List in effect as of 

July 1, 2009. These food commodities were received by the Maryland Department of 

Education from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the year ended June 30, 2010. 

The noncash expenditures of $7,345,000 relating to the Emergency Food Assistance 

Program reported under CFDA No. 10.569, Emergency Food Assistance Program (Food 

Commodities), represent the value of food commodity distributions calculated using the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service Commodity Price List in effect 

as of July 1, 2009. The food commodities were received by the Maryland Department of 

Human Resources from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the year ended June 30, 

2010. 

33




2. BASIS OF ACCOUNTING (continued) 

Expenditures of $836,292,000 reported under CFDA No. 10.551, Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program (SNAP), represent the fair market value of food stamps distributed for 

participants’ food stamp purchases during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010. The reported 

expenditures for benefits under the SNAP (CFDA No. 10.551) are supported by both 

regularly appropriated funds and incremental funding made available under section 101 of 

the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The portion of total expenditures 

for SNAP benefits that is supported by Recovery Act funds varies according to fluctuations 

in the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan, and to changes in participating households’ income, 

deductions, and assets. This condition prevents USDA from obtaining the regular and 

Recovery Act components of SNAP benefits expenditures through normal program 

reporting processes. As an alternative, USDA has computed a weighted average percentage 

to be applied to the national aggregate SNAP benefits provided to households in order to 

allocate an appropriate portion thereof to Recovery Act funds. This methodology generates 

valid results at the national aggregate level but not at the individual State level. Therefore, 

we cannot validly disaggregate the regular and Recovery Act components of our reported 

expenditures for SNAP benefits. At the national aggregate level, however, Recovery Act 

funds account for approximately 16.38 percent of USDA’s total expenditures for SNAP 

benefits in the Federal fiscal year ended September 30, 2010. 

Noncash expenditures of $179,000 for CFDA No. 39.003, Donation of Federal Surplus 

Personal Property, represents the average fair market value percentage per the General 

Services Administration (GSA) of 25% of the Federal government original acquisition cost 

(OAC) of the Federal property transferred to recipients by the State during the fiscal year 

ended June 30, 2010. 

3. CATEGORIZATION OF EXPENDITURES 

The accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards reflects Federal 

expenditures for all individual grants that were active during the year. The categorization of 

expenditures by program included in the accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of 

Federal Awards is based on the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA). Changes 

in the categorization of expenditures occur based on revisions to the CFDA, which are 

issued in June and December of each year. In accordance with the State’s policy, the 

accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards for the fiscal year ended June 

30, 2010, reflects CFDA changes issued through June 2010. 

The expenditures for Federal awards under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

are separately identified on the Schedule of Federal Awards (SEFA) with the letters ARRA. 

34




4. STATE NONMONETARY FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE 

The State distributes Federal surplus food to the institutions (schools, hospitals, and prisons) 

and to the needy. The total inventory balance of Federal surplus food on hand as of June 30, 

2010, was $64,000 for CFDA No. 10.550, Food Donation Program and $213,000 for CFDA 

No. 10.569, Emergency Food Assistance Program (Food Commodities). The surplus food 

was valued using the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service 

Commodity Price List in effect as of July 1, 2009. 

When surplus property is transferred to recipients, it is valued at 25 percent of its OAC, 

which represents an estimated fair market value of the property transferred. The value of 

donated Federal surplus property on hand as of June 30, 2010, was $0 for CFDA No. 

39.003, Donation of Federal Surplus Personal Property Program. 

5. OTHER AUDIT FINDINGS 

Other audit reports exist that have also identified findings and questioned costs affecting the 

State’s various Federal programs during the year ended June 30, 2010. Because those issues 

have been previously reported to the affected Federal agencies, the issues identified in other 

audit reports have not been repeated in the single audit Findings and Questioned Costs for 

the year ended June 30, 2010. 

The State believes that none of the matters questioned will have a significant impact on the 

Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. 

6. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 

In accordance with the Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General instructions, the 

State recorded State Regular Unemployment Compensation (UC) benefits under CFDA No. 

17.225 on the accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. The individual 

State and Federal portions are as follows: 

State Regular UC benefits $ 1,052,672,223 

Federal UC benefits 981,934,465 

Federal UC administrative costs 78,433,354 

Total Benefits $ 2,113,040,042 

35




7. FEDERAL MORTGAGE PLANS 

The State operates several programs that purchase Federally guaranteed loans, primarily 

mortgages, from the originators. As the State has no responsibility for determining 

eligibility or compliance, these guarantees are not considered Federal financial assistance for 

purposes of the single audit. 

8. LOAN PROGRAMS 

St. Mary’s College of Maryland 

St. Mary’s College of Maryland (he College) administers the Federal Perkins Loan 

Program – Federal Capital Contributions (CFDA No. 84.038). The College received no 

Federal funds under the Program for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010. The 

outstanding loan balance of $255,213 as of June 30, 2009, and the outstanding loan 

balance of $251,899 as of June 30, 2010, are not considered current year Federal 

expenditures. The accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards includes 

$30,455 for loans issued during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010. 

During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010, the College processed the following amount 

of new loans under the Federal Family Education Loan Program, which includes the 

Stafford Loan and PLUS Loan. Since this program is administered by outside financial 

institutions, new loans made during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010, relating to this 

program are considered current-year Federal expenditures, whereas the outstanding loan 

balances are not. The new loans made during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010, are 

reported in the accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. 

Loan Expenditures 

CFDA 

Number 

for Fiscal Year 

Ended June 30, 2010 

84.032 Stafford Loan Program $ 6,098,219 

84.032 PLUS Loans 5,079,008 

$ 11,177,227 

36




8. LOAN PROGRAMS (continued) 


Baltimore City Community College (the College) administers the Federal Perkins Loan 

Program – Federal Capital Contributions (CFDA No. 84.038) and Nursing Student Loans 

(CFDA No. 93.364). The outstanding loan balances as of June 30, 2010, were $199,037 and 

$13,907, respectively. There were no new loans made in the fiscal year ended June 30, 

2010. The outstanding balances as of June 30, 2009, are considered current-year Federal 

expenditures. These amounts are reported in the accompanying Schedule of Expenditures 

of Federal Awards. 

Morgan State University 

Morgan State University (the University) administers the Federal Perkins Loan Program 

– Federal Capital Contributions (CFDA No. 84.038). The outstanding loan balance of 

$3,402,098 as of June 30, 2009, the loan expenditures of $112,250 for the fiscal year 

ended June 30, 2010, and the fiscal year 2010 administrative cost allowance of $5,612 are 

considered current-year Federal expenditures. These amounts are reported in the 

accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. 

During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010, the University processed $46,036,881 of new 

loans under the Federal Direct Loan Program (CFDA No. 84.268). Since this program is 

administered by outside financial institutions, the new loans made in the fiscal year ended 

June 30, 2010, relating to this program are considered current-year Federal expenditures, 

whereas the outstanding loan balances are not. The new loans made in the fiscal year 

ended June 30, 2010, are reported in the accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of 

Federal Awards. 

University System of Maryland 

During the year ended June 30, 2010, the University System of Maryland (the System) 

processed the following amount of new loans under the Federal Direct Student Loan 

Program and Federal Family Education Loan Program, which includes the Stafford Loan, 

Plus Loan School as Lender Program, and Graduate PLUS Loan Program. Since these 

loan programs are administered by outside financial institutions, new loans made in the 

fiscal year ended June 30, 2010, are reported in the accompanying Schedule of 

Expenditures of Federal Awards, whereas the outstanding loan balances are not. 


CFDA 

Number 


Ended June 30, 2010 

84.032 Federal Family Education Loans $ 184,653,032 

84.268 Federal Direct Student Loans 603,442,921 

Total $ 788,095,953 

37





University System of Maryland (continued) 

The System also administers loans under the Economic Adjustment Assistance Program 

(CFDA No. 11.307). Under this program, the System uses revolving loan funds to 

enhance economic activity. The revolving loan fund (RLF) assists business development 

and expansion. Below is the detail to support the calculation of Total Federal Awards 

Expended as included in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards: 

Economic Development Administration 

(EDA) Award Numbers(s) 

014903420- 

01490342001 014903271 011903134 

1. Balance of RLF loans outstanding at 

the end of the fiscal year, plus $ 2,771,436 $ 651,059 $ 519,391 

2. Cash and investment balance in the 

RLF at the end of the fiscal year, plus 1,723,722 1,058,137 16,790 

3. Administrative expenses paid out of 

RLF income during the fiscal year, 

plus 194,528 - - 

4. The unpaid principal of all loans 

written off during the fiscal year, and 

then multiply this sum (1+2+3+4) by - - - 

5. The Federal share of the RLF 75% 75% 57.4713% 

6. Total Federal Awards Expended $ 3,517,264 $ 1,281,897 $ 308,150 

38






The System administers the following Federal Student Financial Assistance Programs: 

Balance 

Outstanding 

as of 

June 30, 2009 



Ended 

June 30, 2010 

CFDA 

Number 

84.038 Perkins Loan Programs $ 62,394,915 $ 6,260,180 

93.264 Nurse Faculty Loan Program (NFLP) (ARRA) - 7,217 

93.264 Nurse Faculty Loan Program (NFLP) 65,852 30,000 

93.364 Federal Nursing Loan - Undergraduate 1,354,291 230,500 

93.364 Federal Nursing Loan - Graduate 271,666 24,000 

93.342 Health Professional Loan - Dental 5,087,143 813,800 

93.342 Health Professional Loan - Medical 73,812 - 

93.342 Health Professional Loan - Pharmacy 1,156,488 252,500 

93.342 Primary Care 4,402,210 - 

Total $ 74,806,377 $ 7,618,197 

The outstanding loan balances as of June 30, 2009, and loan expenditures for the fiscal 

year ended June 30, 2010, are considered current-year Federal expenditures. These 

amounts are reported on the accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. 

39


SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS




Section I – Summary of Independent Public Accountant’s Results 

Financial Statements 

Type of Independent Public Accountant’s report issued 

Unqualified 

Internal control over financial reporting: 

• Material weakness(es) identified? yes X no 

• Significant deficiency(ies) identified 

that are not considered to be 

material weakness (es)? yes X none reported 

Noncompliance material to financial 

statements noted? yes X none reported 

Federal Awards 

Internal control over major programs: 

• Material weakness(es) identified yes X no 

• Significant deficiency(ies) identified 

that are not considered to be material 

weakness(es)? X yes no 

Type of Independent Public Accountant’s 

report issued on compliance for major programs 

Unqualified 

Any audit findings disclosed that are 

required to be reported in accordance 

with section 510(a) of Circular A-133? X yes no 

42




Section I – Summary of Independent Public Accountant’s Results (continued) 

Identification of Major Programs 

Major Program 

CFDA No. 

Federal 

Expenditures 

Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program Cluster 10.551/10.561 $ 887,459,902 

Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program Cluster - ARRA 10.561 2,088,695 

Child and Adult Care Food Program 10.558 43,349,405 

Emergency Food Assistance Program Cluster 10.568/10.569 8,174,039 

Emergency Food Assistance Program Cluster - ARRA 10.569 323,150 

HUD - TCAP 14.000 1,409,840 

HUD - TCAP - ARRA 14.000 11,179,889 

Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers 14.871 16,820,492 

Unemployment Insurance 17.225 2,112,938,073 

Unemployment Insurance - ARRA 17.225 101,969 

Workforce Investment Act Cluster 17.258/17.259/ 17.260 32,424,689 

Workforce Investment Act Cluster - ARRA 17.258/17.259/ 17.260 13,939,769 

Highway Planning and Construction Cluster 20.205/23.003 350,812,116 

Highway Planning and Construction Cluster - ARRA 20.205 156,083,831 

Federal Transit Cluster 20.500/20.507 212,594,975 

Federal Transit Cluster - ARRA 20.500/20.507 40,500,053 

Section 1602 Monetization- ARRA 40. unknown 21,184,812 

Title I, Part A Cluster 84.010/84.389 201,335,131 

Title I, Part A Cluster - ARRA 84.389 53,923,501 

Special Education Cluster 84.027/84.173 205,323,812 

Special Education Cluster - ARRA 84.027/84.391/84.392 75,645,001 

Vocational Rehabilitation Cluster 84.126 37,612,852 

Vocational Rehabilitation Cluster - ARRA 84.390 4,515,983 

State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Cluster - ARRA 84.394/84.397 350,802,345 

Aging Cluster 93.044/93.045/93.053 19,102,757 

Aging Cluster - ARRA 93.705/93.707 1,631,663 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Cluster 93.558/93.714 221,725,598 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Cluster - ARRA 93.558/93.714 78,367,668 

Child Support Enforcement 93.563 38,913,917 

Child Support Enforcement - ARRA 93.563 52,385,828 

Child Care and Development Block Grant 93.575/93.596 74,194,658 

Child Care and Development Block Grant - ARRA 93.713 17,528,234 

Foster Care: Title IV-E 93.658 71,030,410 

Foster Care: Title IV-E - ARRA 93.658 4,554,723 

Adoption Assistance 93.659 19,776,323 

Adoption Assistance - ARRA 93.659 2,736,873 

Children's Health Insurance Program 93.767 153,837,884 

Medicaid Cluster 93.775/93.777/93.778 3,600,578,550 

Medicaid Cluster - ARRA 93.778 785,704,162 

Block Grants for Prevention & Treatment of Substance Abuse 93.959 29,875,454 

Student Financial Aid Cluster 84.007/84.032/84.033/84.038/84.063/84. 

268/84.375/84.376/84.379/93.342/93.364 1,082,009,357 

Research and Development Cluster (R&D) Various 645,932,454 

Passenger Facility Charges Unknown 38,485,093 

Total $ 11,778,915,930 

43





The Passenger Facility Charge relates to collections by the Maryland Aviation Administration in 

accordance with Section 158.67 of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 158, “Passenger Facility 

Charge” and are not technically considered to be Federal Financial Assistance as defined by 

OMB Circular A-133, but have been included in the scope of this single audit. 

Dollar threshold used to distinguish between type A and type B programs: $39,661,456 

Auditee qualified as low-risk Auditee? ____yes X no 

Section II 

Financial Statement Findings 

None 

Section III 

Federal Awards Findings and Questioned Costs 

See finding 2010-1 through 2010-18 

Section IV 

Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings 

See findings 2009-1 through 2009-14 

See findings 2008-1, 2008-3, 2008-4, 2008-8, 

2008-12 

See findings 2007-1 through 2007-3, 2007-12, 

2007-16 

44

SECTION III - FEDERAL AWARDS FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS


Schedule of Current Year Findings and Questioned Costs 


Finding No. Funding Department Title of Finding 

2010-1 U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services 

Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Over the 

Eligibility Determination Process 



Compliance Deficiency Over Allowable Costs - Recoveries, 

Refunds, Rebates and Third Party Liabilities 



Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Over Reporting 

of Program Income 



Compliance and Internal Control Control Deficiency Over 

Special Tests - Provider Health and Safety Standards 

2010-5 U.S. Department of Health and Compliance Deficiency Over Level of Effort 


2010-6 U.S. Department of Health and Compliance Deficiency Over Subrecipient Monitoring 


2010-7 U.S. Department of Health and Internal Control Deficiency Over Cash Management 


2010-8 U.S. Department of Health and Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Over Eligibility 




Compliance Deficiency Over Activities Allowed and 

Allowable Costs 

2010-10 U.S. Department of Agriculture Compliance and Significant Deficiency Over Accountability 

for Commodities 

2010-11 Federal Aviation Administration Compliance Deficiency Over Reporting 

2010-12 U.S. Department of Education Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Over Special 

Reporting 

2010-13 U.S. Department of Education Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency on Return of 

Title IV Funds 

2010-14 U.S. Department of Education Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Over Student 

Status Changes 

2010-15 U.S. Department of Education Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency on Return of 

Title IV Funds 

2010-16 U.S. Department of Education Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Over 

Verification 

2010-17 U.S. Department of Education Compliance Deficiency Over Student Status Changes 

2010-18 U.S. Department of Education Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Over Student 

Loan Repayment 

46




Finding 2010 - 1 

Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH) 

Medical Assistance Program Medicaid Cluster 

CFDA No. 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 

Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) 

CFDA No. 93.767 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Over the Eligibility Determination Process 

Criteria: 

OMB Circular A-133 states that “States are required to include in their State plans a description 

of the standards used to determine eligibility of targeted low-income children.” Under the State 

plan, only targeted low-income children who are ineligible for Medicaid or not covered under a 

group health plan or health insurance coverage (including access to a state health benefits plan) 

are furnished child health assistance under the state child health plan. 

The following are standards for eligibility determinations per OMB A-133 and Maryland’s State 

Plan: 

1. Children under age 19 

2. Countable income is at or below 200% of the federal poverty level (FPL) 

3. Pregnant women of any age whose countable income is at or below 250% FPL 

4. Current resident of the State of Maryland 

5. Applicants are required to provide a Social Security Number or apply for a Social 

Security Number 

6. A U.S. Citizen 

7. Qualified aliens, as defined at 8 USC 1641, who entered the U.S. on or after 

August 22, 1996, are not eligible for CHIP for a period of five years, beginning on 

the date the alien became a qualified alien, unless the alien is exempt from this 

five year bar under the terms of 8USC 1613. 

8. Eligibility must be redetermined at least every 12 months. 

Condition: 

The Local Health Departments (LHD) and the Local Departments of Social Services (LDSS) are 

responsible for determining eligibility under the Maryland Children’s Health Insurance Program 

(CHIP) on a uniform basis throughout the State for persons who apply for the expanded State 

Children’s Insurance Program under Title XXI of the Social Security Act. 

We selected a total of 60 CHIP claims and 60 Medicaid claims to review files for eligibility 

determination. All claims were processed during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010. Below are 

the exceptions: 

47




Finding 2010 - 1 (continued) 

CHIP 

Anne Arundel County - LHD 

During our testing, we noted the annual redetermination was made after the 12 month required 

period for one individual. 

Baltimore City - LDSS 

During our testing, we noted one individual that did not have proof of citizenship in their case 

file. 

Prince Georges County -LDSS 

During our testing, we noted one individual for which the case file could not be located in order 

to determine if it met the eligibility criteria. 

Medicaid Program 

DHMH 

During our testing, we noted for one individual, the application was received in 2008, but was 

not considered eligible until 2010. No annual redetermination was made for this individual until 

2010. DHMH processed and accepted the original application from 2008. 




Baltimore County - LDSS 



The benefits paid for the related cases above totaled $21,589 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 

2010. 

Cause: 

LHD and LDSS personnel did not obtain or maintain the necessary documentation to support the 

eligibility determination, and DHMH (PAC) and the LHD did not re-determine eligibility at least 

every 12 months. 

Effect: 

Since documentation, re-determinations and verifications were not performed in accordance with 

program requirements, DHMH does not have adequate assurance that eligibility for Medicaid 

and CHIP is being properly determined. 

Questioned Costs: 

$21,589 

48





Recommendation: 

We recommend that DHMH’s Local Health Departments, Local Departments of Social Services 

and Division of Eligibility Waiver Services/Primary Adult Program comply with established 

Federal and state regulations for determining eligibility by obtaining and maintaining the 

required documentation and performing verifications to support eligibility decisions, and redetermining 

eligibility as required. 

Auditee Response and Corrective Action Plan: 

DHMH agrees with the recommendation that Local Health Departments (LHD), Local 

Departments of Social Services (LDSS) and the Division of Eligibility Waiver Services/Primary 

Adult Program (DEWS/PAC) comply with established Federal and state regulations for 

determining eligibility by obtaining and maintaining the required documentation, performing 

verifications to support eligibility decisions, and re-determining eligibility as required. 

DHMH will work with the Department of Human Resources (DHR) and the LDH on issues with 

obtaining and maintaining documentation, performing the appropriate clearances at application 

and redetermination, transferring case records between local departments, record retention and 

re-determining eligibility appropriately. In addition to following-up with each cited local 

department, we will issue an information memorandum highlighting the issues to all eligibility 

workers by the end of the fiscal year. Additionally, we will add appropriate items to the agenda 

for the regularly scheduled meetings and training sessions beginning in April 2011. 

The eligibility and re-determination process for PAC is provided for on a separate system from 

Medicaid and CHIP. There were multiple enhancements to the PAC Eligibility system in 2009 

and 2010. Once the enhancements were made, DHMH made provisions for the backlog 

associated with the PAC Eligibility system down time to be resolved. Although the redetermination 

were not completely timely as required by Federal and State regulations, 

continued eligibility was re-established when the system enhancements were completed. 

Auditor’s Conclusion: 

Based on the above, the finding remains as stated. 

49







CFDA No. 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 


Compliance Deficiency Over Allowable Costs – Recoveries, Refunds, Rebates and Third 

Party Liabilities 

Criteria: 

Per 42 CFR sections 433.135 through 433.154: 

States must have a system to identify medical services that are the legal obligation of third 

parties, such as private health or accident insurers. Such third-party resources should be 

exhausted prior to paying claims with program funds. Where a third-party liability is established 

after the claim is paid, reimbursement from the third party should be sought. 

Per 42 CFR sections 433.300 through 433.320, and 433.40: 

The State is required to credit the Medicaid program for (1) State warrants that are canceled and 

uncashed checks beyond 180 days of issuance (escheated warrants) and (2) overpayments made 

to providers of medical services within specified time frames. In most cases, the State must 

refund provider overpayments to the Federal Government within 60 days of identification of the 

overpayment, regardless of whether the overpayment was collected from the provider. 

Section 1927 of the Social Security Act allows States to receive rebates for drug purchases the 

same as other payers receive. Drug manufacturers are required to provide a listing to Center for 

Medicaid Services (CMS) of all covered outpatient drugs and, on a quarterly basis, are required 

to provide their average manufacturer’s price and their best prices for each covered outpatient 

drug. Based on these data, CMS calculates a unit rebate amount for each drug, which it then 

provides to States. No later than 60 days after the end of the quarter, the State Medicaid agency 

must provide to manufacturers drug utilization data. Within 30 days of receipt of the utilization 

data from the State, the manufacturers are required to pay the rebate or provide the State with 

written notice of disputed items not paid because of discrepancies found. 

Condition: 

The State receives drug rebates for drug purchases. Drug manufacturers are required to provide 

a listing to CMS of all covered drugs on a quarterly basis. CMS provides this data to the State. 

No later than 60 days after the end of the quarter, the State must provide to drug manufacturers 

drug utilization data. During the audit, we noted for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, the 

data was submitted on December 1 2009, or 62 days after the quarter end. Also for the quarter 

ended June 30, 2010, the data was submitted on August 31, 2010, or 62 days after the quarter 

end. 

50





Condition (continued): 

Within 30 days of receipt of the utilization data from the State, the manufacturers are required to 

pay the rebate or provide the State with written notice of disputed items not paid because of 

discrepancies found. During our audit, we noted of a sample size of 60, there were 39 selections 

where the payment date was in excess of 30 days. Of the 39 items noted above, 26 were in 

excess of 45 days, one was over 300 days and one payment has not been received to date. 

During our audit, we noted DHMH contracts with a third party to pursue third party liabilities. We were 

unable to determine the extent to which reimbursement was sought for the claims with open 

reimbursement status. We also noted the State does not currently communicate with the service provider 

regarding the status of open claims and does not monitor the claims collection process. The only 

information DHMH obtains is the payment data on collections from the third party contractor. 

Cause: 

The above is due to timing of DHMH receiving information/data from CMS and due to lack of 

information obtained from the TPL contractor to evidence proper pursuit and follow up of third 

party liabilities. DHMH does not have a policy manual that outlines State and third party service 

provider responsibilities over the management of open TPL claims. 

Effect: 

DHMH is not in compliance with the allowable costs requirements related to recoveries, refunds 

and rebates and third party liabilities. There is a risk that reimbursement for claims will not be 

adequately sought. There is also a risk that TPL related accounts receivable will not be properly 

recorded and presented in financial reports. 


Unknown 


We recommend DHMH obtain a waiver from CMS for delays in receipt of information required 

for OMB A-133 requirements. We also recommend DHMH obtain evidence to support the 

pursuit of third party liabilities collections before and after a claim is processed, not only the 

information on collections obtained. 


The Department concurs with the recommendation. The Department sent an e-mail to the Center 

for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on February 17, 2011 asking for guidance on how to 

proceed with obtaining a waiver for delays in receipt of information required for OMB A-133 

requirements. As of March 7, 2011, CMS has not responded to the e-mail. To ensure the drug 

utilization data is provided to drug manufacturers no later than 60 days after the end of the 

quarter, the Department will send a reminder e-mail to its rebates vendor 45 days after the end of 

the quarter to remind them that utilization data is due to the drug manufacturers no later than 60 

days after the end of the quarter. 

51





Auditee Response and Corrective Action Plan (continued): 

Recommendation #2 

The Department concurs with the recommendation. The Division of Recoveries and Financial 

Services (DRAFS) met with the Third Party Liability (TPL) contractor on March 7, 2011, to 

discuss metrics that support the pursuit of third party liabilities collections. Beginning in May 

2011, DRAFS will receive and review a monthly report from the contractor that will compare the 

number of open claims in a re-bill status to the total number of claims for the same time period. 

This report will identify each collection attempt made by the contractor along with the related 

results and any funds collected. The report review cycle will consist of a rolling one-year period 

beginning with July 1, 2009, as a baseline for this metric. 


Based on the above, finding remains as stated. 

52







CFDA No. 93.775, 93.776, 93.777, 93.778 


Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Over Reporting of Program Income 

Criteria: 

Per 2 CFR section 215.22: 

2(g) To the extent available, recipients shall disburse funds available from repayments to and 

interest earned on a revolving fund, program income, rebates, refunds, contract settlements, audit 

recoveries and interest earned on such funds before requesting additional cash payments. 

Condition: 

DHMH received $141,045 in premiums for fiscal year 2010 related to the Medicaid program. 

The receipt of this program income was not reported in fiscal year 2010 during the cash 

management process as a reduction in claim expenses requested from the Federal government. 

Cause: 

DHMH did not consistently follow its procedures to report program income properly during the 

cash management process. 

Effect: 

DHMH is not in compliance with reporting of program income received during the year. 


$86,869 which represents the 61.59% match for Federal funds. 


We recommend DHMH consistently follow its process to adhere to the reporting requirements of 

program income. 

53






The Administration agrees with the finding. The actual Federal funds to be returned are $86,869. 

This is composed of the regular 50% Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (FMAP) of 

$70,522 and the additional 11.59% ARRA funding of $16,347. These funds will be returned as 

line 10B (decreasing) prior period adjustments on the upcoming Centers for Medicare and 

Medicaid Services CMS 64 report for the quarter ending March 31, 2011. 

The Administration will process future Employed Individuals With Disabilities (EID) recoveries 

through MedicalManagement InformationSystems, whereby the Federal share will be 

automatically included as a reduction to the draw of Federal funds. 



54







CFDA No. 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 


Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Over Special Tests – Provider Health and 

Safety Standards 

Criteria: 

Per OMB Circular A-133, payments are to be made only to institutions that meet prescribed 

health and safety standards. The State should ensure that hospitals, nursing facilities and 

ICF/MR that serve Medicaid patients meet the prescribed health and safety standards. 

Condition: 

The State performs reviews of Medicaid providers to ensure they meet the health and safety 

standards. During our testing of 60 nursing homes and hospital providers, there were a total of 

five files that did not have full documentation of the review. Three cases did not have a physical 

file. We obtained the signed CMS forms from the computer system indicating the review 

happened and if any corrective action was required. However, there was no documentation of the 

records reviewed, such as regulatory correspondence and interviews with provider staff. Five 

cases did not have signed CMS forms. One case file that indicated a corrective action plan was 

needed did not have the corrective action plan in the file. 

Cause: 

There was no adequate review of the case files to ensure they were complete. 

Effect: 

DHMH has inadequate internal controls over the completeness of the case files. 


None 


We recommend DHMH implement an improved system of internal controls to ensure case files 

reviewed for provider health and safety standards are complete and are adequate to ensure the 

providers meet the required standards. 

55






The Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH) has reviewed the five cases cited by the 

auditors and concurs with five exceptions noted. 

The Program Manager has developed a survey packet checklist for the survey coordinators’ use 

to ensure that all survey documentation is present, complete and in a consistent order prior to 

being filed. This list will be submitted with the survey packet kit to either the program manager 

or the deputy director for review and for the second signature on the CMS 1539. The program 

manager or deputy director will not sign the CMS 1539 unless all survey documentation is 

present, complete and in the prescribed order. Kits identified as incomplete or not in prescribed 

order will be returned to survey coordinator for correction. Packet will be corrected and resubmitted 

to program manager or deputy director for their approval/signature on the CMS 1539. 

Another checklist has been developed by the program manager for complaint and incident 

review surveys, these packets will be verified as complete and in a consistent order by signatures 

of the surveyor and the surveyor’s supervisor. 

The checklists will be filed with the survey packets. 

Use of the checklists has been initiated for all surveys completed since March 1, 2011. 



56





Department of Health and Mental Hygiene 

Block Grants For Prevention and Treatment of Substance Abuse 

CFDA No. 93.959 


Compliance Deficiency Over Level of Effort 

Criteria: 

Per OMB Circular A-133: 

Block Grants for Prevention and Treatment of Substance Abuse, Part II, Subpart G.2.1.a, states 

that “the State shall for each fiscal year maintain aggregate State expenditures for authorized 

activities by the principal agency at a level that is not less than the average level of such 

expenditures maintained by the State for the two State fiscal years preceding the fiscal year for 

which the State is applying for the grant.” 

Condition: 

The Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant program is administered by the 

Alcohol and Drug Abuse Administration (ADAA), which is a division of the Department of 

Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH). ADAA is required to submit to the Substance Abuse and 

Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), an operating division of the Department of 

Health and Human Services, its calculation of level of effort relative to the State’s expenditures 

for Substance Abuse (SSA MOE Table I). During the audit, we reviewed the calculation and 

noted that the expenditures for fiscal year 2010 were less than the average of the prior two year 

expenditures for the substance abuse program. 

Cause: 

DHMH failed to expend in fiscal year 2010 more than the average of the prior two years for 

substance abuse as required by OMB Circular A-133. The decrease in maintenance of effort is 

due to budget cuts experienced by the State. 

Effect: 

DHMH is not in compliance with the Level of Effort requirement for the substance abuse 

program. 


None 


We recommend that DHMH contact SAMHSA to obtain a waiver of this Federal requirement if 

the abuse program is unable to maintain its level of effort. 

57






The ADAA concurs with the recommendation. The ADAA has been in contact with the 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse 

Treatment, about the Level of Effort requirement. The ADAA is awaiting direction from 

SAMHSA as to next steps. 



58







CFDA No. 93.959 


Compliance Deficiency Over Subrecipient Monitoring 

Criteria: 

Per OMB Circular A-133 and 31 USC 7502(f)(2)(B): 

A pass-through entity is responsible for: 

Award Identification – At the time of the award, identifying to the subrecipient the Federal award 

information (i.e., CFDA title and number; award name and number; if the award is research and 

development; and name of Federal awarding agency) and applicable compliance requirements. 

During-the-Award Monitoring – Monitoring the subrecipient’s use of Federal awards through 

reporting, site visits, regular contact, or other means to provide reasonable assurance that the 

subrecipient administers Federal awards in compliance with laws, regulations, and the provisions 

of contracts or grant agreements and that performance goals are achieved. 

Subrecipient Audits – (1) Ensuring that subrecipients expending $500,000 or more in Federal 

awards during the subrecipient’s fiscal year for fiscal years ending after December 31, 2003 as 

provided in OMB Circular A-133 have met the audit requirements of OMB Circular A-133 (the 

circular is available on the Internet at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a133/a133.html) 

and that the required audits are completed within 9 months of the end of the subrecipient’s audit 

period; (2) issuing a management decision on audit findings within 6 months after receipt of the 

subrecipient’s audit report; and (3) ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate 

corrective action on all audit findings. In cases of continued inability or unwillingness of a 

subrecipient to have the required audits, the pass-through entity shall take appropriate action 

using sanctions. 

Condition: 



Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH). ADAA is required to monitor the services of the providers 

that administer direct services to those participating in the Substance Abuse Prevention and 

Treatment programs. 

59






During our audit, we noted ADAA failed to monitor three of its subrecipients during the year. 

Additionally, three subrecipients did not submit the required reports; therefore the required 

monitoring could not be performed. Two of the subrecipients did not issue corrective action 

plans as requested to ADAA and two subrecipients did not have the corrective action plans 

approved within 10 days of receipt of the plan. 

Effect: 

DHMH is not in compliance with the subrecipient monitoring requirements of OMB Circular A- 

133. 


Unknown 


We recommend that ADAA set up more stringent procedures that ensure that all programs are 

monitored each year and that the established monitoring and follow up procedures are performed 

by each reviewer. 


The ADAA concurs with the recommendation. 

Effective February 11, 2011, the ADAA has strengthened its procedures to ensure sub-recipients 

are adequately monitored and appropriate corrective action is taken on identified deficiencies in 

a timely manner by: 

a) implementing graduated sanctions, 

b) creating an electronic database to track monitoring compliance daily by Quality 

Assurance staff, 

c) assigning two additional staff to perform the required program audit and monitoring 

functions. 

For the sub-recipients noted above that did not submit required quarterly reports, the ADAA now 

requires the jurisdiction to perform the monitoring function of those providers with whom they 

contract. This requirement is now in the FY 2010 Condition of Grant Awards signed by the 

jurisdiction. Thereafter, the ADAA sent letters to the jurisdictions instructing them to perform 

and submit their required quarterly reports within five business days after the end of each 

quarter. 

60





Auditee Response and Corrective Action Plan (continued): 

As of March 2011, the new policy requires jurisdictions to submit a plan of correction as to why 

the sub-recipient monitoring was not done and what the jurisdiction will do in the future to 

ensure that the monitoring is done. If there are consecutive quarters where sub-recipient 

monitoring was not performed in the matter in which it was instructed, the Single State Authority 

Director shall contact the County Coordinator and take appropriate administrative action, if 

necessary. 

In January 2010, the ADAA implemented an electronic database to track the monitoring 

requirements of jurisdictions and programs. Furthermore, ADAA has now assigned two 

additional staff to perform the required program audit and monitoring functions. 



61





Department of Human Resources (DHR) 

Foster Care – Title IV-E 

CFDA No. 93.658 

Adoption Assistance – Title IV-E 

CFDA No. 93.659 


Internal Control Deficiency Over Cash Management 

Criteria: 

The A-102 Common Rule and OMB Circular A-110 (2 CFR part 215) require that non-Federal 

entities receiving Federal awards establish and maintain internal control designed to reasonably 

ensure compliance with Federal laws, regulations, and program compliance requirements. 

The characteristics of internal control are presented in the context of the components of internal 

control discussed in Internal Control-Integrated Framework (COSO Report), published by the 

Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. The COSO Report 

provides a framework for organizations to design, implement, and evaluate control that will 

facilitate compliance with the requirements of Federal laws, regulations, and program 

compliance requirements. 

Condition: 

During our testing of the foster care program, we noted five transactions out of a sample size of 

twenty four; and for the adoption program, we noted five transactions out of a sample size of 

eleven, without proper signature approval from management. 

Cause: 

DHR did not follow its established procedures of review and sign off to ensure that amounts 

drawn down were reviewed for accuracy prior to draw. 

Effect: 

No evidence of approval of the draw request evidencing proper review and approval of draw 

down prior to the draw down request. 


None 

62






We suggest that DHR follow its existing policy of review and sign off on cash draws prior to the 

draw taking place to prevent Federal draw downs that are not supported by accounting records or 

not in accordance with the State Treasurer’s agreement. 


We concur with the finding and the Department will begin immediately to document all cash 

draw reviews. To date, all cash draws are reviewed, and reviews have been documented on a test 

basis. A Single Audit finding in 2003 prompted the Department to implement the practice of 

documenting the reviews on a test basis. The 2003 corrective action described in that year’s 

Single Audit Report was not commented on by the US Department of Health and Human 

Services, and documenting reviews on a test basis has been our procedure since that time. In 

addition to initial draw reviews, management reviews funds drawn compared to actual 

expenditures quarterly, as that is when actual expenditure information is available and reports are 

due to the federal government for claiming and cash management purposes. 



63






Foster Care – Title IV - E 

CFDA No. 93.658 


Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Over Eligibility 

Criteria: 

Per OMB Circular A-133, June 2010 

Foster Care maintenance payments are allowable only if the foster child was removed from the 

home of a relative specified in section 406(a) of the Social Security Act, as in effect on July 16, 

1996, and placed in foster care by means of a judicial determination, as defined in 42 USC 

672(a)(2), or pursuant to a voluntary placement agreement, as defined in 42 USC 672(f), (42 

USC 672(a)(1) and (2) and 45 CFR section 1356.21). 

45 CFR section 1356.21(b)(2): 

(c) Reasonable efforts to finalize a permanency plan – A judicial determination regarding 

reasonable efforts to finalize the permanency plan must be made within 12 months of the date on 

which the child is considered to have entered foster care and at least once every 12 months 

thereafter while the child is in foster care. The judicial determination must be explicitly 

documented and made on a case by case basis. If a judicial determination regarding reasonable 

efforts to finalize a permanency plan is not made within this timeframe, the child is ineligible at 

the end of the 12th month from the date the child was considered to have entered foster care or at 

the end of the month in which the subsequent judicial determination of reasonable efforts was 

due, and the child remains ineligible until such a judicial determination is made. 

45 USC 672(a): 

A child must meet the eligibility requirements of the former Aid to Families with Dependent 

Children (AFDC) program. 

Condition: 

We selected a sample size of 60 transactions at several locations. During our testing of 

eligibility at the Baltimore City site, we noted three exceptions out of a sample size of 40. We 

noted one case where we were unable to determine if reasonable efforts were made to finalize a 

permanency plan and two cases where the child did not meet the eligibility requirements. 

Cause: 

DHR did not obtain or maintain the necessary documentation to support the eligibility 

determinations. 

64





Effect: 

Since documentation and verifications were not performed in accordance with program 

requirements and cases could not be located, DHR does not have adequate assurance that 

eligibility for the foster care program is being properly determined. 


None 


We recommend that DHR comply with established Federal and State regulations for determining 

eligibility to include obtaining and maintaining the required documentation and performing 

verifications to support eligibility decisions. 


Upon receipt of these findings, DHR consulted the Auditor to confirm the four names and client 

identification numbers for the placements in question (Cases J, K, D and B). The responses 

below are on a case by case basis. 

Case J 

We disagree with the audit finding that the child did not meet the former AFDC requirements. It 

is correct that the income information clearances were not completed at the time the initial 

determination was made. However, the appropriate income information clearances were 

completed within the allowable 2-year window. This makes the child Title IV-E eligible and 

therefore the case is correctly determined and documented eligible for IV-E. 

Case K 

We concur with the audit finding that the income calculation was done incorrectly at the initial 

determination. We also agree that there was not a timely Permanency Review to obtain judicial 

determination of reasonable efforts to achieve permanency. 

Case D 

We concur with the audit finding that the child did not meet the former AFDC requirements for 

IV-E eligibility. This was a complex case because it was part of a sibling group of four and the 

worker did not consider the Social Security survivor benefits received by the sibling in 

determining the initial eligibility. The case was corrected. 

Case B 

We disagree with the audit finding that there was no legal custody. Legal custody for this case is 

not required as constructive removal applies since the child lived with the father within six 

months of entering care. The IV-E decision in MD CHESSIE was therefore correct. 

65





Corrective Action: 

Starting in May 2011, the Department will implement refresher training to focus eligibility 

workers and supervisors on the basic steps involved in documenting information that correctly 

supports Title IV-E decisions. The refresher training will also focus on the appropriate methods 

to track and document judicial findings of reasonable efforts to achieve permanency. Another 

component of the training will focus on the appropriate method in completing the income 

calculation worksheet. The refresher training will be repeated every six months. 


Based on the above, the findings will remain as stated. 

66






Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 

CFDA No. 93.558, 93.714 


Compliance Deficiency Over Activities Allowed and Allowable Costs 

Criteria: 

Per TANF-ACF-PI-97-12: 

Once the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) review of the amendment is 

completed and there are no issues requiring further clarification, the ACF Regional 

Administrator will send the State agency a letter indicating that the amendment has been 

received, reviewed, and incorporated into the State’s “complete” TANF plan. 

Condition: 

During our audit, we reviewed the TANF grant award and the TANF plan. We noted there was 

no evidence that the amended State Plan for TANF, revised September 30, 2009, was approved 

and incorporated into the “completed” TANF plan by the U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services. Included in the amended TANF plan from DHR was activity for a scholarship program 

through the Maryland Higher Education Commission (MHEC). Included in the activity under 

the amended State Plan is the following for MHEC. “Maryland Higher Education Commission 

scholarship programs are eligible for TANF funding because post-secondary educational 

attainment by State residents decreases the incidence of out-of-wedlock births by raising the 

“opportunity cost” of having children outside of marriage. Studies also show that professional 

careers (often the product of higher education) delay fertility. These programs provide nonassistance.” 

Expenditures for the scholarship program for fiscal year 2010 amounted to $43.7 million. The 

expenditures for the scholarship program could not be verified as allowable under the TANF 

program, per OMB Circular A-133 as of June 30, 2010. 

Cause: 

DHR has not obtained formal approval from the Federal government authorizing the use of 

TANF funds on the MHEC scholarship program. 

Effect: 

TANF funds used for activities and costs under the MHEC scholarship program may not be 

approved by the Federal government. 

67






Unknown 


We recommend DHR obtain formal approval from the Federal government of the amended State 

Plan dated September 30, 2009, to support the allowability of the use of TANF funds on the 

MHEC scholarship program. 


On March 10, 2011, the Department sent in its response to Federal questions regarding the State 

Plan amendment on the use of TANF funds on the MHEC scholarship program. The Department 

is awaiting the Office of Family Assistance’s determination on this matter. 



68




Finding 2010 - 10 


Emergency Food Assistance Program Cluster 

CFDA No. 10.568, 10.569 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Compliance and Significant Deficiency Over Accountability for Commodities 

Criteria: 

Per 7 CFR sections 250.16(a)(6) and 250.15(c): 

Accurate and complete records shall be maintained with respect to the receipt, distribution/use, 

and inventory of donated foods, including end products processed from donated foods. Failure 

to maintain records required by 7 CFR section 250.16 shall be considered prima facie evidence 

of improper distribution or loss of donated foods, and the agency, processor, or entity is liable for 

the value of the food or replacement of the food in kind. 

Per 7 CFR section 250.14(e): 

Distributing and recipient agencies shall take a physical inventory of all storage facilities. Such 

inventory shall be reconciled annually with the storage facility’s inventory records and 

maintained on file by the agency which contracted with or maintained the storage facility. 

Corrective action shall be taken immediately on all deficiencies and inventory discrepancies and 

the results of the corrective action forwarded to the distributing agency. 

Condition: 

During our audit, we noted that DHR does not have a consistent system of taking periodic 

inventory counts. We were unable to test the accountability of commodities due to the required 

physical inventory records were not maintained by DHR. 

Cause: 

DHR did not have needed staff to perform functions related to the accountability of 

commodities. 

Effect: 

The lack of tracking and maintaining records of the physical inventory allows the potential for 

abuse, including fraud and other defalcation, to exist and not be detected. 


Unknown 

69






We recommend that physical counts of inventory should be performed at least annually. The 

results should be reviewed and reconciled to the accounting system. The perpetual inventory 

listing should be reconciled to the general ledger, with any large discrepancies investigated and 

explained. Any adjustments, along with the cost of goods sold entries, should be made and a 

procedure should be implemented to allow for these adjustments to occur on an annual basis. 


DHR concurs with the recommendation. The Office of Grants Management is developing an 

automated and improved inventory system to replace the current outdated Excel spreadsheets. 

This system will reconcile the inventory to the general ledger. Reports will be reviewed monthly 

and any large discrepancies investigated and explained. Adjustments, along with the cost of 

goods, will be made and procedures implemented to allow for these adjustments to occur on an 

annual basis. 

The Office of Grants Management will conduct physical inventories to correspond with both the 

State and the federal fiscal year. The inventories will occur on August 15 th for the prior State 

fiscal year and November 15 th for the prior federal fiscal year. Inventories will be conducted at 

all warehouses that contained Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) food at the end of 

the appropriate fiscal year. 


Based on the above, the finding will remain as stated. 

70




Finding 2010 - 11 

Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) 

Passenger Facility Charges 

CFDA No. Unknown 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Compliance Deficiency Over Reporting 

Criteria: 

Per 14 CFR Section 158.63(a): 

The public agency shall provide quarterly reports to carriers collecting Passenger Facility Charge 

(PFC) revenues for the public agency, with a copy to the appropriate Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) Airports office. The PFC quarterly report must include PFC revenue 

received from collecting carriers, interest earned, and expenditures for the quarter; cumulative 

PFC revenue received, interest earned, expenditures, and the amount committed for use on 

currently approved projects, including the quarter; the PFC level for each project; and the current 

project schedule. 

Per Section 158.63(b) 

The report shall be provided on or before the last day of the calendar month following the 

calendar quarter or other period agreed by the public agency and collecting carrier. 

Condition: 

During our testing, we noted as of June 30, 2010, $2.3 million of construction management and 

inspection services (CMI) expenditures were mistakenly coded to the PFC 05-11 Design project, 

when they should have been coded to the PFC 05-14 Construction project. As a result, the 

expenditures reported by MAA on the June 30, 2010, quarterly report for applications 06-05-C- 

02 and 07-06-U-00 were inaccurate. Expenditures for application 06-05-C-02 were overstated 

by $2.3 million and the expenditures for application 07-06-U-00 were understated by the same 

amount. 

Cause: 

The error in coding of expenditures to the general ledger resulted in inaccurate information being 

reported in the quarterly report. 

Effect: 

MDOT is not in compliance with reporting in accordance with the Passenger Facility Charges 

reporting requirements. 


None 

71






We recommend MAA review controls over expenditure coding to ensure the proper coding of 

project expenditures and perform adequate review of reports to identify any discrepancies. It is 

important that accurate reports be produced to ensure that the goals and purposes of the grant 

have been achieved and accounted for properly. 


MAA acknowledges that the expenditure data was reported to the wrong project. This error has 

been subsequently corrected by MAA. MAA has instituted proper quality control measures to 

ensure accounts are coded properly. 



72




Finding 2010 – 12 


Student Financial Aid Cluster 

CFDA No. 84.063-Federal Pell Grant Program (PELL) 

CFDA No. 84.033-Federal Work Study Program (FWS) 

CFDA No. 84.268-Federal Direct Student Loans (FDLP) 

CFDA No. 84.038- Federal Perkins Loans (FPL) 

CFDA No. 84.007-Federal Supplemental Educations Opportunity Grants (FSEOG) 

CFDA No. 84.375-Academic Competitiveness Grants (ACG) 

CFDA No. 84.376-National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (Smart) 

Grants 

CFDA No. 84.379-Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants 

(TEACH Grants) 

U.S. Department of Education 

Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Over Special Reporting 

Criteria: 

All recipients of student financial aid funds are required to submit ED Form 646-1, Fiscal 

Operations Report and Application to Participate (FISAP). The University uses the Fiscal 

Operations Report to report its expenditures in the previous award year and the Application to 

Participate to apply to participate in the succeeding year. The Department of Education requires 

recipients to retain accurate and verifiable records for program review and audit purposes. 

Condition: 

The University was unable to provide support from the general ledger to match the Federal funds 

available and spent for college work study on the submitted FISAP. 

Cause: 

The University did not have adequate controls in place to update information within a timely 

manner. 

Effect: 

The University may not receive all the funds to which they are entitled, or they may be required 

to return funds they were not entitled to receive. 


Unknown 

73




Finding 2010 – 12 (continued) 


We recommend that the University review the FISAP prior to submission, retain supporting 

records, and attach general ledger support to submitted FISAP. 


The University agrees. After discussion with the auditors, the University has identified the 

issues to be corrected and an amended FISAP will be filed by March 15, 2011. In the future, the 

Assistant Vice President for Finance and Management (AVPFM) will review the FISAP prior to 

forwarding to the U.S Department of Education. Additionally, the financial aid and human 

resources departments under the supervision of the AVPFM will strengthen the record keeping 

of payroll, thus reducing the likelihood of this situation recurring. This will be completed by 

April 30, 2011. 



74




Finding 2010 - 13 






CFDA No. 84.038-Federal Perkins Loans (FPL) 




Grants 




Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency on Return of Title IV Funds 

Criteria: 

Per 34 CFR Section 668.22: 

In part, that an institution is required to have a fair and equitable refund policy. Per 34 CFR 

Section 668.22, when a recipient of Title IV grant or loan assistance withdraws from an 

institution during a payment period or period of enrollment in which the recipient began 

attendance, the institution must determine the amount of Title IV grant or loan assistance that the 

student earned as of the student's withdrawal date or the date the school discovers that the 

student has unofficially withdrawn. The unearned portion of Title IV funds must be returned to 

the Department of Education within 30 calendar days of the date the student officially 

withdraws. Any unearned funds must be returned to the Title IV program and no additional 

disbursements may be made to the student for the payment period. If the student ceases 

attendance without providing official notification to the institution of his or her withdrawal in 

accordance with paragraph (c) (1) (i) or (c) (1) (ii) of this section, the mid-point of the payment 

period ( or period of enrollment), is applicable. 

Condition: 

During our testing of Return of Title IV funds, we reviewed the refund calculations for 14 

students. For two of the students selected, the calculation of the unearned amount of Title IV 

assistance was not in accordance with Federal regulations. In one instance, $6,828 of Federal 

funds should have been refunded to the Department of Education. In the second instance, $3,841 

of Pell and Unsubsidized Stafford loan amounts should have been refunded to the Department of 

Education. The University returned the incorrect amount for the Pell grant and did not return any 

of the unsubsidized loan funds, which was not in accordance with the Federal regulations on the 

order of return of title IV funds. 

75





Cause: 

The University did not calculate the return of funds in accordance with the Federal guidelines 

and inadequate review of the refund calculation was performed. 

Effect: 

This resulted in the incorrect amount being returned to the Department of Education. 


$10,669 


We recommend that the University strengthen its internal controls over the calculation of Title 

IV funds. These controls should consist of proper documentation, supervision, and calculation of 

the returns within the required time frames. The review should also ensure the refunds are made 

in the proper order of return of Title IV funds. 


The University agrees. The University has identified the issues that caused the delay and 

calculation of returned funds. Effective immediately, the financial Aid department will 

collaborate with the University’s Information Technology, Registrar and Bursar departments to 

develop an automated monthly report that will promptly identify the students for which a return 

of Title IV assistance is required as well as calculate the correct unearned amount of Title IV 

assistance to be returned. This report will also provide the required information to ensure that 

funds are returned timely. This will be completed by April 30, 2011. 

Auditor’s Conclusion 


76




Finding 2010 – 14 










Grants 




Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Over Student Status Changes 

Criteria: 


Schools must complete and return the Student Status Confirmation Report (SSCR) at least twice 

a year. The school must update for changes in student status, report the date the enrollment 

status was effective, enter the new anticipated completion date, and submit the changes 

electronically through the batch method to the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) 

web site. 

Condition: 

During our testing, we noted six of thirty-four students selected were incorrectly classified and 

reported in the NSLDS database. Each of the six students graduated from the University, but 

three were incorrectly reported as attending full time and three were incorrectly reported as 

withdrawn. 

Cause: 

The University did not have proper controls in place to review and update enrollment status 

changes for students receiving student financial aid. 

Effect: 

The Department of Education could continue to process information for student’s no longer in 

attendance. 

77






None 


We recommend that the University establish procedures to ensure that enrollment status changes 

are updated and reviewed in a timely manner prior to submission in the NSLDS database. 


The University agrees. The University determined that the best way to address this problem is to 

utilize the National Student Clearinghouse, which it began to do during fiscal year 2011. The 

University is confident that this system will mitigate the risk of such errors recurring in the 

future. Moreover, the University is double checking the parameters for the required data to 

ensure that data extracted from our student information system and transmitted is consistent with 

the needs of the Clearinghouse. 



78




Finding 2010 - 15 

University System of Maryland – University of Maryland Eastern Shore 









Grants 

CFDA No. 84.032-Federal Family Educational Loans (FFEL) 



CFDA No. 93.342-Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans/Loans 

for Disadvantaged Students 

CFDA 93.364-Nursing Student Loans 



Condition: 



assistance was not in accordance with Federal regulations. 

Criteria: 

Per 34 CFR Section 668.22 states, in part, that an institution is required to have a fair and 

equitable refund policy. Per 34 CFR Section 668.22, when a recipient of Title IV grant or loan 

assistance withdraws from an institution during a payment period or period of enrollment in 

which the recipient began attendance, the institution must determine the amount of Title IV grant 

or loan assistance that the student earned as of the student's withdrawal date or the date the 

school discovers that the student has unofficially withdrawn. The unearned portion of Title IV 

funds must be returned to the Department of Education within 30 calendar days of the date the 

student officially withdraws. Any unearned funds must be returned to the Title IV program and 

no additional disbursements may be made to the student for the payment period. 

Cause: 

University of Maryland Eastern Shore erroneously transposed the semester dates used to 

calculate the unearned amount of Title IV funds and that error was not detected due to 

inadequate review. 

79





Effect: 

This error resulted in the incorrect amount being returned to the Department of Education. 


Questions costs are undeterminable. 




the returns within the required time frames. 


We agree with this finding. The discrepancy in the date was a typographical error in the 

transposition of the numbers (i.e. – 5/12/10 vs. 5/21/10). UMES recalculated the return of title 

IV funds using the correct date which resulted in an additional return of $7 in Federal PELL 

grant for one student and $41 in unsubsidized federal direct loan for the other. All funds have 

been returned to the U.S. Department of Education. 



80




Finding 2010 - 16 










Grants 








Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Over Verification 

Condition: 

During our testing of Verification, we reviewed third party documentation obtained by the 

University to collaborate information submitted to the Department of Education (DE). For one 

out of 15 of the students selected for verification, the supporting documentation did not 

collaborate information that was submitted to the DE to calculate the student’s expected family 

contribution (EFC). Amount awarded to this student was $3,400 for the term in question. 

Criteria: 

Per 34 CFR section 668.55 states, in part, that the institution shall require applicants to verify 

any information used to calculate an applicant’s EFC that the institution has reason to believe is 

inaccurate. Generally, the information that must be updated is the number of family members, 

number of family members attending postsecondary educational institutions, and the applicant’s 

dependency status. 

Cause: 

University of Maryland Eastern Shore did not perform a review sufficient to identify 

discrepancies between the third party support and information submitted to DE. 

Effect: 

This error resulted in a student receiving inaccurate amount of aid. 

81








We recommend that the University strengthen its internal controls over the verification process. 

These controls should consist of proper documentation, supervision, and review of third party 

support. 


We agree with this finding. The file in question was not properly verified by the financial aid 

counselor. Upon identification by the auditor, the Director of Financial Aid processed the 

appropriate verification and reversed ineligible funds. 

Corrective Action - Supervisory personnel independent of financial aid will make the random 

selections from a list of financial aid recipients provided by Administrative Computing. Office 

of Student Financial Aid (OSFA) personnel without award update capability will conduct the 

audit of the awards, and the audit will be verified by the Vice President for Administrative 

Affairs and/or designee. These procedures will be effective for the mid-term audit to be 

conducted Fall 2011. 



82




Finding 2010 - 17 










Grants 








Compliance Deficiency Over Student Status Changes 

Condition: 

During our testing of student status changes, we reviewed the data that was submitted to the 

National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) for student status changes. For two students who 

had changes after the initial roster submission, status information was manually updated in error 

by the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC), a third party servicer. We also noted students 

whose status per the NSLDS database was not supported by the records of the institution. 

Criteria: 

Per 34 CFR Section 682.610 for FFEL and 34 CFR Section 685.309 for Direct Loans, the 

Student Status Confirmation Report (SSCR) should be transmitted electronically to NSLDS. 

Under the FFEL and Direct Loan programs, schools must complete and return within 30 days of 

receipt, the SSCR sent by Department of Education (DE) or a guaranty agency. The institution 

determines how often it receives the SSCR, but the minimum is twice a year. Once received, the 

institution must update for changes in student status, report the date the enrollment status was 

effective, enter the new anticipated completion date, and submit the changes electronically 

through the batch method or the NSLDS web site. Institutions are responsible for timely 

reporting, whether they report directly or via a third-party servicer. Unless the school expects to 

complete its next SSCR within 60 days, the school must notify the lender or the guaranty agency 

within 30 days, if it discovers that a student who received a loan either did not enroll or ceased to 

be enrolled on at least a half-time basis. 

83





Cause: 

Manual adjustments to the SCCR were not processed in a timely manner. Information submitted 

by the institution to NSC was not properly submitted to the NSLDS. 

Effect: 

This error resulted in student’s status being inaccurately reported to the NSLDS. 




We recommend the University to review the process and controls surrounding the reporting of 

student status changes to the NSLDS. 


We agree with this finding. Students whose degree records were updated manually to the 

National Student Clearinghouse (NSC), a third-party servicer, did not have their enrollment 

history updated which affected inaccurate reporting to NSLDS. The enrollment history for these 

students was not updated in a timely manner because the University of Maryland Eastern Shore 

(UMES) was unaware that NSC had changed their procedure for handling manual updates. 

Since then, the NSC’s process for manual updates prompts the user immediately after a student’s 

degree record is entered manually to update the student’s enrollment history. UMES has 

corrected the records of the students tested that were not updated and is working with the 

National Clearinghouse to ensure the enrollment history is accurate for all students who were 

manually updated during this period. 

Since being made aware of the new process required for manual degree updates via NSC, UMES 

has been updating the enrollment history of graduated students immediately after manually 

updating degree information. In addition, a printout of the degree information submitted for each 

student is printed after entering, as is the enrollment history update. After a minimum of 48 

hours, UMES will review NCS data for the accuracy of each manual degree update. 



84




Finding 2010 - 18 










Grants 








Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Over Student Loan Repayment 

Condition: 

During our testing of student loan repayment, we reviewed whether the institution performed an 

exit interview with borrowers before the individual leaves the institution. There was one instance 

out of 3 where there was no evidence that the exit interview was conducted. 

Criteria: 

Per 34 CFR Section 674.42, institutions must exercise due care and diligence in the collection of 

loans. The institution must disclose information related to the debtor, balances owed and interest 

rate in a written statement provided to the borrower either shortly before the borrower ceases at 

least half-time study at the institution or during the exit interview. 

Cause: 

The University did not retain sufficient records supporting the occurrence of the exit interview. 

Effect: 

Students may leave the University without knowledge related to the repayment terms of their 

applicable debt and loan repayments may not be timely as the repayment plan was not 

established before the borrower leaves the institution. 

85






None. 


We recommend that the University strengthen its internal control procedures over the exit 

interview process. These controls should consist of proper documentation and supervision 

within the required time frames. 


We agree with this finding. The Perkins loan exit counseling log indicates that the student 

attended an exit counseling session and completed an exit package, but the paperwork was 

missing from the file. The Financial Aid Accounting staff was unable to locate the paperwork 

after conducting an intensive search. In response to this finding, additional steps will be 

implemented to avoid this situation from happening again. A copy of the exit counseling 

package will be made and filed in the borrower’s file prior to the exit counseling session being 

held. The exit counseling package will be included on the individual student folder checklist, 

and it will be reviewed and signed off by the Financial Aid Accountant. Once the exit 

counseling session/exit package is completed by the borrower, it will be filed immediately and 

the Financial Aid Accountant will review the file for completion. 



86

SECTION IV – SUMMARY SCHEDULE OF PRIOR YEAR AUDIT FINDINGS


Schedule of Prior Year Findings and Questioned Costs 


Finding 2009-1 


Medical Assistance Program (Medicaid Cluster) 

CFDA No. 93.775, 93.776, 93.777, 93.778 

US Department of Health and Human Services 

Compliance deficiency over the allowable cost/cost principles – Third Party Liability 

(Insurance Recoveries) 

Condition: 

During the audit we noted a case file was missing for testing of insurance recoveries. The case 

file would have included a screen shot of the recipient’s eligibility status, copy of absent parent 

screen and any other supporting documentation and actions taken to verify if the participant had 

insurance coverage during the time of Medicaid service. 

Criteria: 

OMB A-133 states that “States must have a system to identify medical services that are the legal 

obligation of third parties, such as private health or accident insurers. Such third-party resources 

should be exhausted prior to paying claims with program funds. Where a third-party liability is 

established after the claim is paid, reimbursement from the third party should be sought. 

Cause: 

A case file was not prepared for the Medicaid recipient by the Insurance Recoveries department 

within DHMH. 

Effect: 

Although the participant’s name was identified on the exception report (2583 Interface 

Summary), there was no indication that the department gathered documentation or verified a 

third party liability insurer could be responsible for a portion of the medical costs received 

during a specific time period. This could potentially cause DHMH to understate or overstate 

recoveries which impact the expenditures identified on the CMS 64 (Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services). 


Unknown 


We recommend that DHMH comply with established Federal and State regulations for 

determining third party liability insurers, including obtaining and maintaining the required 

documentation and performing verifications to support any required reimbursement decisions. 

88




Finding 2009- 1 (continued) 


The Department concurs with the recommendation. The Medical Assistance (MA) recipient’s 

name appeared on the summary report; however, the actual referral could not be found. The 

normal process is to photocopy the summary page and use it as the referral. Thirty days from the 

receipt stamp date on all CARES reports, the Coordination of Benefits (COB) Coordinator 

checks 10% of the MA case numbers listed on the reports to verify that the validation process 

has begun. If the validation process has not begun within sixty days, the COB Coordinator refers 

the report to the supervisor for follow-up. 

Additionally, the sampling method, which has been used for the last year or so, where the COB 

Coordinator checks 10% of the MA case numbers listed on the reports to verify that the 

validation process has begun is insufficient. As a result, The Department is 

considering increasing the sampling percentage to reduce the possibility of missing files and 

review this process periodically to determine the effectiveness of the results. 

Auditee’s Updated Response (October 2010 Update): 

The Division of Recoveries and Financial Services is continuing enhanced sampling and 

surveillance to ensure compliance with established Federal and State regulations for determining 

third party liability insurers, including obtaining and maintaining the required documentation and 

performing verifications to support any required reimbursement decisions. 

Auditor’s Comment: 

There were no issues noted during the 2010 single audit. 

89







CFDA No. 93.775, 93.776, 93.777, 93.778 


Compliance and internal control deficiency over the eligibility determination process. 

Condition: 

On July 1, 1985 the Maryland State Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH) entered 

into an agreement with the Maryland State Department of Human Resources (DHR). DHR 

agreed to determine eligibility for Medical Assistance on a uniform basis throughout the State for 

persons who are indigent or medically indigent according to regulations, guidelines and 

procedures established by DHMH. 

We selected a total of 65 Medical Assistance claim files to review for eligibility determination. 

These 65 files were comprised of 13 files from each of the following five Maryland 

Jurisdictions: Baltimore City, Caroline County, Queen Anne’s County, Montgomery County, and 

Frederick County. The test was composed of a selection of 8 newly established recipients and 5 

existing recipients. All claims were processed during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009. We 

noted the following exceptions: 

Baltimore City 

For Baltimore City we found 8 non compliance issues, they are as follows: 

There are 2 files that were not recovered for review and testing (1 newly/1existing). We noted 

for 3 files a review of the Agency’s decision was not made in the allotted 45 days (2 newly/1 

existing). One newly eligible file did not have a signed application nor did it have citizenship 

status documented. Two of the newly eligible files did not have a noted decision made in file. 

We also noted one of the newly eligible files had no narration of the case during the time of the 

period of coverage. 

Frederick County 

Internal control deficiency in that one of the eight newly eligible files could not be located. 

90




Finding 2009-2 (continued) 

Caroline County 

For one of the files a review of the Agency’s decision was not made in the allotted 45 days and 

there was no notice of approval for spend-down category. 

Queen Anne’s County 

For one of the files a review of the Agency’s decision was not made in the allotted 45 days. 

Montgomery County 


Criteria: 

42 CFR 435.907 (a) states, “The agency must require a written application from the applicant, an 

authorized representative, or if the applicant is incompetent or incapacitated, someone acting 

responsibly for the applicant.” 

42 CFR 435.948 (a) states, “Except as provided in paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) of this section, the 

agency must request information from the sources specified in this paragraph for verifying 

Medicaid eligibility and the correct amount of medical assistance payments for each applicant 

(unless obviously ineligible on the face of his or her application) and recipient. The agency must 

request, among other things: 

(1) State wage information maintained by the State Wage Information Collection 

Agency (SWICA) during the application period and at least on a quarterly basis. 

(2) Any additional income, resource, or eligibility information relevant to 

determinations concerning eligibility or correct amount of medical assistance 

payments available from agencies in the State or other States administering the 

following programs as provided in the agency’s State plan: 

i. Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC); 

ii. 

iii. 

Medicaid; 

State-administered supplementary payment programs under Section 

1616(a) of the Act; 


We recommend that DHR and the LHD’s comply with established Federal regulations for 

determining eligibility to include obtaining the required documentation and performing 


91






DHMH agrees with the recommendation that Local Health Departments (LHD) and Local 

Departments of Social Services (LDSS) comply with requirements of federal law relating to 

determinations of eligibility, including obtaining required documentation and performing 


DHMH will work with DHR on issues with maintaining documentation and transferring case 

records between local departments, including follow-up with each cited local department, 

sending out system broadcast messages and an information memorandum highlighting the issues 

to all eligibility workers, and adding appropriate items to the agenda for regularly scheduled 

Regional Training sessions. 


DHMH followed up with each cited local department about their respective findings in 

November 2009. We have also worked with the Maryland Department of Human Resources 

(DHR) and the local departments to ensure that managers and supervisors of Case Managers 

have access to DataWatch. In November 2009 and March 2010, we held regional “refresher” 

training sessions highlighting the documentation, verification and other requirements that 

appeared in Findings 2009-2 and 2009-3. In September 2010, DHMH and DHR jointly issued to 

all eligibility workers an information memorandum (IM11-05) which provided “tips” on 

avoiding errors from prior audit findings (and similar/related errors). We have continued to 

highlight the avoidance of the errors in this finding in regional refresher training, including 

sessions in September and October, 2010. 


See finding 2010-1 

92






State Children’s Insurance Program (SCHIP) 

CFDA No. 93.767 


Compliance deficiency over the eligibility determination process 

Condition: 

The Local Health Departments (LHD) are responsible for determining eligibility under the 

Maryland Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) on a uniform basis throughout the State 

for persons who are apply for the expanded State Children’s Insurance Program under Title XXI 

of the Social Security Act. 

We selected a total of 65 SCHIP claims to review files for eligibility determination. We tested 

13 files from each of the following five Maryland Jurisdictions: Baltimore City, Frederick 

County, Caroline County, Queen Anne’s County and Montgomery County. The test was 

composed of 8 newly established recipients and five existing recipients. All claims were 

processed during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009. We noted the following exceptions: 


There were two files that were not available for review (newly and existing). They did not 

comply with the requirement to verify and maintain proof of citizenship and social security 

number in one of the eight new files tested. There was no redetermination letter sent out for one 

of the existing files and proof of citizenship was not acquired. 


There was no redetermination letter sent out for one of the existing files tested. 


There was no redetermination letter sent out for one of the new files tested. 

Condition: 


They did not comply with the requirement to verify and maintain proof of citizenship and social 

security number in one of the eight new files tested. There was no redetermination letter sent out 

for one of the existing files tested. 

93





Criteria: 

OMB A-133 states that “States are required to include in their State plans a description of the 

standards used to determine eligibility of targeted low-income children.” Under the State plan, 

only targeted low-income children who are ineligible for Medicaid or not covered under a group 

health plan or health insurance coverage (including access to a state health benefits plan) are 

furnished child health assistance under the state child health plan. 


Plan: 








14. Qualified aliens, as defined at 8 USC 1641, who entered the US on or after 

August 22, 1996, are not eligible for SCHIP for a period of five years, beginning 

on the date the alien became a qualified alien, unless the alien is exempt from this 

five year bar under the terms of 8USC 1613. 



DHMH agrees with the recommendation that Local Health Departments (LHD) comply with 

requirements of federal and state law for determining eligibility, including obtaining and 

maintaining required documents and performing verifications to support eligibility decisions. 

DHMH will follow up with each cited LHD, address the issues at quarterly meetings with MCHP 

Supervisors from LHDs, transmit system broadcast messages to all eligibility workers, and add 

appropriate items to the agendas for regular Regional Training and onsite training targeted to 

LHDs. 

94






DHMH followed up with each cited LHD in November 2009. We addressed the errors cited at 

DHMH’s Maryland Children’s Health Program (MCHP) Quarterly meetings, attended by 

supervisors of the eligibility staff. We added the errors to our agendas for Regional Training 

(targeted to all eligibility workers, Local Department of Social Services and LHD) in November 

2009 and March 2010. We also performed onsite training sessions to work more closely with 

LHD Case Managers. Additionally, we have improved and formalized our process for following 

up on troubling compliance reports, including requesting LHD supervisors to submit corrective 

action plans, and monitoring the effects of these corrective actions. In September 2010, the LHD 

workers received an information memorandum highlighting the types of errors reported, issued 

jointly with Maryland Department of Human Resources as IM 11-05. We have continued 

emphasizing these issues in Regional Training in September and October 2010. 



95







CFDA No. 93.775, 93.776, 93.777, 93.778 


Internal Control deficiency over Surveillance and Utilization Review Subsystems (SURS) 

Condition: 

According to the SURS Case Completion Guidelines, cases should be reviewed, resolved, and 

closed within a 90-day time period. There are only three circumstances that would allow for an 

exception. And these circumstances must be documented on the SURS case log. They are: 

1. Awaiting documentation 

2. Records sent to another Agency for review 

3. Awaiting full recoveries of monies 

Also, the case files should be updated to reflect the current status of the case. Upon completion 

of the case review, the SURS case log should be signed by the Program Director and the SURS 

Manager. The SURS unit failed to update 15 out of 25 case records if cases were not closed 

within the 90-day time frame allowed and 17 out of 25 were not signed by the Program Manager 

and/or SURS Manager. 

Criteria: 

OMB Circular A-133, Part 4- Department of Health and Human Services-Compliance 

Supplement, Section N. (1) indicates, “The State plan must provide methods and procedures to 

safeguard against unnecessary utilization of care and services, including long term care 

institutions. According to 42CFR parts 455, 456, 1002, “The state must have (1) methods or 

criteria for identifying suspected fraud cases; (2) methods for investigating these cases; and (3) 

procedures developed in cooperation with legal authorities, for referring suspected fraud cases to 

law enforcement officials. 

In order to evaluate the appropriateness and quality of Medicaid services, the agency must: 

• Establish and use written criteria for evaluating the appropriateness and quality of 

Medicaid services 

• Have procedures for the ongoing post-payment review, on a sample basis, of the need 

for and the quality and timeliness of Medicaid Services 

As an internal control process implemented in the SURS unit, a supervisor reviews all of the 

above as prepared by the case worker. The review is signed off by the supervisors. 

96





Cause: 

The SURS Unit could not show evidence of case updates, reviews, or supervisory signatures 

within the 90-day timeframe. This time frame was established in the guidelines developed by 

the SURS unit per the state plan requirements. 

Effect: 

DHMH cannot provide CMS assurance that the SURS program is effective in reducing 

erroneous expenditures. 


Unknown 


We recommend that DHMH follow the criteria outlined in 42CFR parts 455, 456, and 1002 by 

updating the selected active case files with proper comments and providing the supervisory 

review to make sure the determinations were appropriate. 


The Department concurs that there were cases out of compliance according to the Guidelines for 

SURS Case Completion. However, the Guidelines for SURS Case Completion Procedures have 

been in place since the inception of SURS and are currently under revision by the OIG. The 

guidelines are not currently being used because they were established under the Health 

Care Financing Administration’s (HCFA) System Performance Review (SPR). SPR required the 

unit open and resolve large numbers of cases on a quarterly basis. Therefore, the original case 

guidelines were developed with that goal in mind. Congress repealed the SPR requirements in 

1997 with Section 4753 of the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997. This was done to allow 

States greater flexibility to concentrate on developing and working more substantive cases. 

Upon its relocation to the OIG, the Program Integrity Unit began drafting a comprehensive 

policy and procedure manual. The procedure manual has not yet been formally approved. The 

staff person tasked with completing the manual left the Department and was not replaced. More 

importantly, with the passage of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 and the creation of the 

Medicaid Integrity Group at the federal level, program integrity has been fluid and dynamic. 

Certain program integrity concepts were developing and changing at the federal level as the 

OIG’s manual was being drafted. The OIG is currently awaiting the results of a review 

conducted by CMS’ Medicaid Integrity Group of our PIU. Pending those results, OIG 

management will take corrective action to ensure that the manual is completed and approved by 

the close of the fiscal year. And that particular cases cited are brought into compliance with the 

revised SURS case guidelines. 

97






The Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) 

has received draft results of the review conducted by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid 

Services’ (CMS’) Medicaid Integrity Group. Understanding the repeal of System Performance 

Review (SPR), that group did not cite the Program Integrity Unit’s (PIU’s) failure to meet the 

90-day rule as a finding. The OIG-PIU is still working on a procedure manual, however, the unit 

has completed an algorithm tracking database that has moved from a design phase to a testing 

phase after some unexpected software delay issues. The OIG now has the ability to record and 

store new and existing algorithms in a way that allows for identification of those staff persons 

directly responsible for producing the corresponding SURS data run. This is the first step in 

developing a comprehensive policy/procedure manual. Current testing is now occurring to ensure 

future production responsibility can be projected and assigned as appropriate. We anticipate 

having the manual completed by March 2011. 


We agree correction action plan is still in process. 

98






Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant 

CFDA No. 93.959 


Compliance and Internal Control deficiency over SubRecipient Monitoring 

Condition: 



Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH). The division director for ADAA indicated that 

compliance reviews of the sub-recipients are conducted bi-annually. Upon completion of these 

reviews, if necessary, a corrective action plan must be sent from the Local Health department 

(LHD) or private vendor (“sub-recipient”). The corrective action plan should be approved or 

disapproved by ADAA and sent back to them. We reviewed twenty-five (25) files that contain 

documents related to the award of Federal funds to sub-recipients to obtain reasonable assurance 

that site visits to evaluate the program were conducted in accordance with the General 

Requirements of OMB A-133 and the conditions of the grant award imposed by ADAA. We 

noted that of the twenty-five files reviewed there were two (2) files that required corrective 

action plans but ADAA failed to obtain a corrective action plan from any of the sub-recipients. 

Although there were no corrective action plans, we did note that there were follow-ups 

identified. 

Criteria: 

OMB Circular A-133, General Requirements, Part 3, subpart M, states in pertinent part that 

during the award a pass-through entity is responsible for “monitoring the sub-recipient’s use of 

Federal awards through…site visits, regular contact…or other means to provide reasonable 

assurance that the sub-recipient administers Federal awards in compliance with laws, regulations, 

and the provisions of contracts or grant agreements and that performance goals are achieved.” In 

addition, when there are findings as a result of the compliance review, ADAA’s letter requires 

the sub-recipient to “make the necessary corrections in your program’s procedures and submit a 

copy of your plan of correction…within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter.” 

Cause: 

DHMH failed to perform site visits in accordance with OMB A-133 and the internal control 

procedures in place, and failed to document other means of evaluating the program services 

performed by sub-recipients. 

99





Effect: 

Awards were made to sub-recipients without proper follow-up through site visits to ensure that the 

sub-recipients were complying with applicable laws, regulations and grant requirements. 


Unknown 


We recommend that DHMH adhere to the provisions of OMB Circular A-133, with site visits 

and follow-up on its findings as called for in OMB Circular A-133 and in its agreement with 

LHD and private vendors. 

Auditee Updated Response and Corrective Action Plan: 

With the two sub-recipient site visits in question, the ADAA conducted its site visits as 

scheduled and noted that corrections by the sub-recipients were necessary. However, neither of 

the deficiencies by the sub-recipients rose to the level of requiring a corrective action plan. 

When deficiencies are noted but a corrective action plan is not required, the ADAA reviews the 

deficiency at the next site visit for correction. Neither a corrective action plan nor any other 

written response by the sub-recipient was requested by the ADAA because the level of noncompliance 

was low, it had not been noted as a past deficiency, and posed no threat to health or 

safety. 


The Department’s previous response and corrective action plan remains unchanged. With the 

two sub-recipient site visits in question, the ADAA conducted its site visits as scheduled and 

noted that corrections by the sub-recipients were necessary. However, neither of the deficiencies 

by the sub-recipients rose to the level of requiring a corrective action plan. When deficiencies 

are noted but a corrective action plan is not required, the ADAA reviews the deficiency at the 

next site visit for correction. Neither a corrective action plan nor any other written response by 

the sub-recipient was requested by the ADAA because the level of non-compliance was low, it 

had not been noted as a past deficiency, and posed no threat to health or safety. 



100






Substance Abuse Treatment and Prevention Block Grant 

CFDA No. 93.959 


Compliance related to Independent Peer Review. 

Condition: 

The Alcohol and Drug Abuse Administration (ADAA), which is a division of the Department of 

Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH), hires private contractors to perform its peer review 

functions. The selection of a particular contractor is made from an established list of approved 

vendors. However, once a selection of a contractor is made, there is no documentation of the 

independence of that contractor with respect to the sub-recipient that he or she is asked to 

review. 

Criteria: 

OMB Circular A-133 Part IV, paragraph III, subparagraph N of the specific requirements for the 

Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant program provides in pertinent part “the 

State must provide independent peer reviews which assess the quality, appropriateness, and 

efficacy of treatment services provided to individuals.” The requirements further provide “the 

State shall ensure that the peer reviewers are independent by ensuring that the peer review does 

not involve reviewers reviewing their own programs and the peer review is not conducted as part 

of the licensing or certification process.” 

Cause: 

DHMH failed to document the independence of its peer reviewers in accordance with the 

compliance requirement specified in OMB Circular A-133 Part IV. 

Effect: 

Awards are made to sub-recipients whose programs are reviewed by contractors that may not be 

independent of those sub-recipients. This could lead to noncompliance with laws and regulations. 


Unknown 


We recommend that DHMH develop a mechanism, such as an affidavit or independence letter 

requirement, for contractors to establish their independence with respect to the sub-recipient they 

are asked to review in order to adhere to the provisions of OMB Circular A-133. 

101






The ADAA developed an affidavit as required by the audit performed for Fiscal Year ending 

June 30, 2008. This affidavit was reviewed by the Maryland State Attorney General’s office and 

approved for use by the ADAA. The ADAA changed its policy whereby all independent peer 

reviewers would sign the affidavit prior to performing a peer review. A copy of the affidavit was 

given to the auditor. 

No peer reviews have been conducted by the ADAA since that audit recommendation was made. 

For FY 2010, peer reviews are scheduled to occur in the fourth quarter of this fiscal year, and all 

peer reviewers will sign the approved affidavit prior to conducting the review. 



June 30, 2008. This affidavit was used for Fiscal Year 2011, independent peer reviewers. The 

first affidavit was signed June 24, 2010, for the July 8, 2010, peer review. 


There was no repeat finding in fiscal year 2010. 

102






Student Financial Assistance Cluster 

CFDA No. 84.007 Federal Supplemental Education Opportunity Grant 

CFDA No. 84.063 Federal Pell Grant Program 

CFDA No. 84.033 Federal Work Study Program 

CFDA No. 84.038 Federal Perkins Loan Program 

CFDA No. 84.375 Academic Competitiveness Grant 

U.S Department of Education (USDE) 

Internal Control and Non-Compliance with Federal requirements over the return of Title 

IV funds. 

Condition: 

During testing of return of Title IV funds, we noted 2 occurrences where the College did not 

return Title IV funds within the timeframe established by guidelines in the OMB Circular A-133, 

some being returned up to a year later than required. 

Criteria: 

When a recipient of Title IV Grant or loan assistance withdraws from an institution during a 

payment period or period of enrollment in which the recipient began attendance, the institution 

must determine the amount of Title IV aid earned by the student as of the student’s withdrawal 

date. If the total amount of the Title IV assistance earned by the student is less than the amount 

that was disbursed to the student on his or her behalf as of the date of the institution’s 

determination that the student withdrew, the difference must be returned to the Title IV programs 

as outlined in this section and no additional disbursements may be made to the student for the 

payment period or period of enrollment. If the amount the student earned is greater than the 

amount disbursed, the difference between the amounts must be treated as a post-withdrawal 

disbursement (34CFR Sections 668.22(a) (1)-(3)). Post-Withdrawal disbursements must be made 

from available grant funds before available loan funds. If the institution wishes to credit the 

student’s account with a post-withdrawal disbursement of loan funds or wishes to pay a postwithdrawal 

disbursement of either loan or grant funds directly to the student, or parent in the 

case of a parent PLUS loan, the institution must, within 30 days of the date the institution 

determines that the student withdrew, send a written notification to the student. 

Cause: 

The College lacked effective monitoring over compliance to ensure that the return of Title IV 

funds are being disbursed properly and on a timely basis. 

103





Effect: 

Without proper monitoring of controls over the return of Title IV funds, the College failed to 

return Federal funds in the required timeframe. The possibility then exists that interest would be 

accrued by the Federal Government. 


Unknown 


We recommend that the College comply with the return of the Title IV funds process. Additional 

supervisory and/or management level review and approval may help to ensure that funds are 

returned in a timely manner. 


The College agrees to comply with the return of Title IV funds process. The Financial Aid Office 

and the Business Office receive daily electronic notifications from the Office of Academic 

Services when students withdraw. Refund calculations are performed using Return of Title IV 

Funds on the Web. This software calculates and manages the return of Title IV Funds in 

compliance with the Department of Education’s Student Assistance General Provisions. On a 

monthly basis the Director of Financial Aid accesses a report from the Office of the Registrar to 

review all students who have withdrawn, determines if these students were recipients of Title IV 

Financial Assistance, determines if a Title IV Refund calculation was necessary and verifies the 

refunds were performed in a timely manner. 



104





Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) 

CFDA 84.027 Special Education - Grants to States (IDEA, Part B) 

CFDA 84.173 Special Education - Preschool Grants (IDEA, Preschool) 

CFDA 84.391 Special Education - Grants to States (IDEA, Part B), Recovery Act 

CFDA 84.392 Special Education - Preschool Grants (IDEA, Part B), Recovery Act 

U.S. Department of Education (USDE) 

MSDE is not in compliance with the formula distribution for grants to Local Education 

Agencies (LEA). 

84.027 Condition: 

MSDE is required to use a formula to distribute grants to LEAs. USDE provides MSDE with an 

allocation table which lists the required and maximum set-asides to be deducted from the total 

grant award. One of the required set-asides is the LEA base allocation which represents the 

amount the LEA would have received from the federal fiscal year 1999 appropriation if the State 

had distributed 75% of its grant for that year to the LEAs. 

The Hickey School was a State run facility which closed during State fiscal year 2006. The base 

amount allotted to the children receiving special education funds from the Hickey School should 

have been reallocated to the other LEAs or administrative responsibility areas which began to 

serve the children once the Hickey School closed; however, the base amount allocated to the 

Hickey School was improperly deducted from the LEA base allocation. 

84.173 Condition: 

Each year, the USDE also provides the IDEA, Preschool program with an updated allocation table 

which lists the total grant award and the maximum set-asides which can be deducted from the total 

grant award. MSDE did not use the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2008, (State Fiscal Year (SFY) 

2009) allocation table to calculate grants to LEAs, but instead used the calculation from the FFY 

2006 (SFY 2007) allocation tables. 

MSDE did not reperform the calculation for SFY 2009 and has been issuing grants to the LEAs 

based on the FFY 2006 total grant award. Since MSDE did not reperform the calculation for SFY 

2009, MSDE did not obtain updated special education child counts, the population counts or 

poverty counts which would be required for the SFY 2009 formula grant calculation. 

105





84.027 Criteria: 

Chapter 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 300.705 (2) (iii) states: 

“If, for two or more LEAs, geographic boundaries or administrative responsibility for providing 

services to children with disabilities ages 3 through 21 change, the base allocations of affected 

LEAs must be redistributed among affected LEAs based on the relative numbers of children with 

disabilities ages 3 through 21, or ages 6 through 21 if a State has had its payment reduced under 

Sec. 300.703(b), currently provided special education by each affected LEA” 

84.173 Criteria: 

Chapter 34 of the Code of Federal Regulation Section 300.816(c) states: 

“After making allocations under paragraph (a) of this section, the State must-- 

(1) Allocate 85 percent of any remaining funds to those LEAs on the basis of the relative 

numbers of children enrolled in public and private elementary schools and secondary schools 

within the LEA's jurisdiction; and 

(2) Allocate 15 percent of those remaining funds to those LEAs in accordance with their 

relative numbers of children living in poverty, as determined by the State Educational Agency.” 

Further, 

“For the purpose of making grants under this section, States must apply on a uniform basis 

across all LEAs the best data that are available to them on the numbers of children enrolled in 

public and private elementary and secondary schools and the numbers of children living in 

poverty.” 

Cause: 

MSDE did not properly allocate Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B or 

IDEA, Preschool funds to LEAs. 

84.027 Effect: 

Because the LEA base allocation was improperly changed, the remaining excess funds were 

improperly allocated to the LEAs. 

84.173 Effect: 

Because the Federal Fiscal Year 2006 allocation table granted MSDE a larger award than the 

Federal Fiscal Year 2008 allocation table, it appears that MSDE used an incorrect Allocation sheet 

in determining the pass-through to the LEAs. 

106






Unknown 


We recommend that MSDE only use the documentation provided annually by the USDE to 

calculate required set-asides including LEA base allocations, maximum administration allocations 

and maximum discretionary fund allocations. 

Auditee Updated Response and Corrective Action Plan (November 8, 2010, Update): 

During State Fiscal Year 2010 (Federal Fiscal Year 2009) the MSDE used the appropriate Fiscal 

Year Allocation Tables provided by U.S. Department of Education (USDE) and will continue to do 

so for future years. 



107




Finding 2009 –9 

University System of Maryland – University of Maryland, University College 






CFDA No. 84.007- Federal Supplemental Educations Opportunity Grants (FSEOG) 


Return of Title IV Funds 

Condition: 


students. For one of the students selected, the calculation of the unearned amount of Title IV 

assistance was not in accordance with federal regulations. In addition, one of the title IV returns 

was not returned within 30 calendar days. 

Criteria: 


equitable refund policy. Per 34 CFR Section 668.22, when a recipient of title IV grant or loan 


which the recipient began attendance, the institution must determine the amount of title IV grant 

or loan assistance that the student earned as of the student's withdrawal date withdrawals or the 

date the school discovers that the student has unofficially withdrawn. The unearned portion of 

Title IV funds must be returned to ED within 30 calendar days of the date the student officially 

withdrawals. Any unearned funds must be returned to the title IV program and no additional 

disbursements may be made to the student for the payment period. 

Cause: 

University of Maryland University College omitted unearned direct loan disbursements from its 

calculation of return of title IV funds. 

Effect: 

Without proper controls in place, there is no assurance that the correct amount of Title IV funds 

are being returned to Department of Education. 

108




Finding 2009 –9 (continued) 







Auditee Updated Response and Corrective Action Plan (November, 2010 Update): 

The University of Maryland University College Financial Aid Office has been conducting 

reviews on a monthly basis of a sample population of Return of Title IV Funds since this finding. 

In the samples reviewed, there were no errors found. 



109




Finding 2009 – 10 

University System of Maryland – University of Maryland, University College 






CFDA No. 84.007- Federal Supplemental Educations Opportunity Grants (FSEOG) 


Borrower Data Transmission and Reconciliation (Direct Loans) 

Condition: 

During our review of the borrower reconciliations for fiscal year 2009, we noted that the required 

monthly borrower reconciliations had not been completed for 2009. We understand that 

Management is currently performing monthly reconciliation between the Office of financial aid 

and the business office, and reconciles all disbursements at the end of the award year. 

Criteria: 

Per 34 CFR Section 685.102, 301, and 3939 an Institutions must report all loan disbursements 

and submit required records to the Direct Loan Servicing System (DLSS) via the Common 

Origination and Disbursement (COD) within 30 days of disbursement. Each month, the COD 

provides institutions with a School Account Statement (SAS) data file which consists of a Cash 

Summary, Cash Detail, and (optional at the request of the school) Loan Detail records. The 

school is required to reconcile these files to the institution’s financial records. 

Cause: 

University of Maryland University College has not developed a system to efficiently reconcile 

the institutions records with the Direct Loan Servicing System on a monthly basis as required. 

Effect: 

Without proper controls in place, there is no assurance that loan disbursements are properly 

identified and tracked by the University. 

110






Questioned costs are undeterminable. 


We recommend that the University put procedures in place to have these reconciliations 

performed and reviewed on a monthly basis in accordance with the Federal regulations. 

Auditee Updated Response and Corrective Action Plan (November, 2010 Update): 

The University of Maryland University College has made several changes to its reconciliation 

process for the Direct Loan program. PeopleSoft delivered reports are being utilized in order to 

systematically review all loans and to more easily identify any discrepancies between PeopleSoft 

and COD. This allows quicker and easier accurate corrections to be sent to COD. Additionally, 

all monthly reconciliation reports are being maintained along with detailed work notes for each 

student. Given that UMUC disburses Direct Loans daily, these reports are as clean as possible. 



111




Finding 2009 -11 

CFDA 20.500, 20.507 – Federal Transit Cluster –American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act (ARRA) Funds 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Noncompliance Allowable Costs 

Condition: 

During our allowable cost testing, we tested 40 transactions, representing $3,150,980 in 

expenditures. Of the 40 tested, we found that 3 invoices, representing $128,483, included 

Maryland State tax totaling $2,210. 

Criteria: 

Taxes that a governmental unit is legally required to pay are allowable, except for self assessed 

taxes that disproportionately affect Federal programs or changes in tax policies that 

disproportionately affect Federal programs. This provision becomes effective for taxes paid 

during the governmental unit's first fiscal year that begins on or after January 1, 1998, and 

applies thereafter. (Office of Management and Budget(OMB) Circular No. A-87 Attachment A, 

Paragraph 40) 

Cause: 

The primary contractors included tax that was invoiced by sub-contractors. 

Effect: 

Maryland Transit Administration submits costs for reimbursement that are not allowable. 


Unknown 


We recommend that the Maryland Transit Administration informs project managers and 

contractors to ensure that Maryland state tax is not to be included on invoices. 

112






The MTA does not concur with the original finding. Subsequent to the initial response to this 

Audit finding, research indicated that the costs paid by the MTA for Federally funded projects 

during the audit period were allowable costs. The Maryland State taxes that were at issue in the 

audit finding, in the amount of $2,210, were credited to the Federal Transit Administration in 

June, 2010. 



113





CFDA 20.205, 20.003 – Highway Planning and Construction Cluster 

Noncompliance Suspension and Debarment 


Condition: 

For each of the 25 contracts that received American Recovery and Reimbursement Act (ARRA) 

funds, we found no evidence that the State Highway Administration (SHA) verified the 

contractor’s suspension/debarment status with the State of Maryland’s Board of Public Works. 

For 8 of the 25 contracts that received non-ARRA funds, we found no evidence that SHA 

verified the contractor’s suspension/debarment status with the Federal government. Also, for 

each of the 25 contracts that received non-ARRA funds, there was no evidence that SHA 

Verified the contractors’ suspension/debarment status with the State of Maryland’s Board of 

Public Works. 


SHA should ensure they verify that all contractors of winning bids are not suspended or debarred 

from doing business with the Federal government or the State of Maryland by checking the 

federal website EPLS and the State of Maryland’s Board of Public Works website. They should 

also ensure this verification is properly documented in the contract file. 


We agree with the recommendations and new guidelines were issued on March 8, 2010 detailing 

the process for checking for debarment and the appropriate retention of documentation. By 

March 31, 2010 we will check the contracts noted by the auditors and ensure that the 

documentation is placed in the contract file. 

Updated Auditee Response and Corrective Action Plan (March, 2010 Update): 

The 25 contracts referenced in the finding have been verified on the Maryland Board of Public 

Works website and documented in the contract file, and the 8 contracts referenced have been 

verified on the Federal government’s website and documented also. In addition, new guidelines 

outlining the verification and documentation process for low bidders were issued in March, 2010 

and have been subsequently become part of the Office of Construction procedural manual. The 

process has been reviewed by our internal audits section and has been found to be working as 

described. 



114






CFDA No. 93.563 – Child Support Enforcement 


Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency over child support Inter- and Intra-State cases 

Condition: 

When the Child Support Administration division receives an interstate case and Maryland is 

responding state, within ten (10) calendar days Maryland’s central registry must: acknowledge 

receipt of the case; ensure that all documentation received from the initiating state is complete; 

request any missing information necessary to process the case; forward the case to the correct 

local agency for location services or processing; and inform the initiating state where the case 

was sent for processing. In one (1) of the twelve (12) responding cases reviewed or 8.33% of 

cases, one or more of the actions required in the ten (10) day timeframe was not completed. 

When Maryland’s central registry receives an inquiry from a responding state pertaining to the 

case’s status or for a review, the central registry has five (5) days to respond to the initiating 

state’s request. In one (1) of the twelve (12) responding cases, or 8.33% of cases, Maryland’s 

response to an initiating state’s request for a case’s status or for a review was not noted in the 

case file within five (5) days of receipt of the initiating state’s inquiry. 

After receiving the case from the central registry; within 75 days of receipt of an interstate child 

support enforcement transmittal form, the local agency must provide location services if the 

request is for location services. If the information provided is not adequate to locate the non 

custodial parent, the local agency must notify the initiating state if more information is needed to 

process the case or process the case to the extent possible pending necessary action by the 

initiating state. In one (1) of the twelve (12) responding cases, or 8.33% of cases, no location 

services was noted in the case file within seventy-five (75) days of receipt of the case. 

This is a repeat finding from Fiscal Year 2006, Single Audit Report finding number 2006-5; 

Fiscal Year 2007, Single Audit Report finding number 2007-12 and Fiscal Year 2008, Single 

Audit Report finding number 2008-12. 

115





Criteria: 

45 CFR 303.7 (a) (2) states that “Within 10 working days of receipt of an interstate IV-D case 

from an initiating State, the central registry must: 

(i) Ensure that the documentation submitted with the case has been reviewed to determine 

(ii) 

completeness; 

Forward the case for necessary action either to the State PLS for location services or to 

the appropriate agency for processing; 

(iii) Acknowledge receipt of the case and ensure that any missing documentation has been 

requested from the initiating State; and 

(iv) Inform the IV-D agency in the initiating State where the case was sent for action.” 

45 CFR 303.7 (a) (4) states that “The central registry must respond to inquiries from other States 

within 5 working days of receipt of the request for a case status review. 

45 CFR 303.7 (c) (4) within 75 calendar days of receipt of an Interstate Child Support 

Enforcement Transmittal Form, and documentation from its interstate central registry, the IV-D 

agency must: 

(i) Provide location services in accordance with Sec. 303.3 of this part if the request is for 

location services or the form or documentation does not include adequate location information 

on the noncustodial parent; 

(ii) If unable to proceed with the case because of inadequate documentation, notify the IV-D 

agency in the initiating State of the necessary additions or corrections to the form or 

documentation. 

(iii) If the documentation received with a case is inadequate and cannot be remedied by the 

responding IV-D agency without the assistance of the initiating State, the IV-D agency must 

process the interstate IV-D case to the extent possible pending necessary action by the initiating 

State. 

Cause: 

The inadequate internal controls over the various child support cases caused DHR to be out of 

compliance with several of the Federal guidelines. 

Effect: 

DHR is unable to meet and follow Federal guidelines in child support cases and is non-compliant 

with certain areas of the Federal guidelines. 


Unknown 

116






We recommend that DHR put a process in place in which DHR ensures all staff members are 

aware of the Federal guidelines and timelines and put tracking mechanisms in place to ensure 

that the guidelines and timelines are being met such as system prompts when all Federal 

timelines are coming due. We recommend DHR adheres to documented internal controls so that 

supervisors are also aware of impending Federal timelines for Child Support interstate and 

intrastate cases to ensure compliance with Federal guidelines. 


DHR/did not meet the required timeframe for response to the initiating state. 

DHR agrees with the finding. DHR agrees that the Interstate Central Registry Unit (ICR) did not 

meet the ten (10) days timeframe for one (1) of twelve (12) or 8.33% of responding cases. 

DHR has implemented the following corrective action plans for the Interstate Central Registry 

Unit. These corrective action plans ensure that staff members become aware of the federal 

guidelines and meet the federal timelines. 

1. Development of Refresher Training Course: 

The corrective actions taken include the development of a three (3) phase refresher 

training course that consisted of (1) a review of the federal guidelines related to interstate 

case regulations, (2) a review of the ICR standard operation procedures, and (3) a review 

of the electronic interstate tracking system (CITS). The CITS is an interstate tracking 

system that assists in the management of responding case request/s processed by the ICR. 

CITS provides the following information and services: (1) The date that Maryland Child 

Support Enforcement Administration CSEA received the case request, (2) scans 

documents associated with the case, and (3) provides system prompts, via e-mail to staff 

and supervisors, as to when federal timelines associated with the ICR are due. 

2. Revision of Current Policy and Procedures: 

In May 2010, DHR/CSEA (ICR) unit revised the current policy and procedures in an 

effort to ensure compliance with the federal guidelines. In order to be in compliance with 

the 10 days timeframe, the ICR unit reduced the time for internal review of a case from 

eight (8) days to six (6) days. Also, the ICR Unit has implemented supervisory control 

procedures to ensure compliance with federal guidelines and regulations. 

117





Auditee Updated Response and Corrective Action Plan (May, 2010 Update) (continued): 

3. Staff Development & Training: 

In June 2010, the Department conducted an 8-hour training session that focused on 

federal guidelines and regulations related to the timely processing of interstate cases. 

This training provided staff with the familiarity and in-depth knowledge of the 

Department’s ICR standard operation procedures as well as becoming proficient in the 

electronic interstate tracking system (CITS). 

4. Additional Training on federal guidelines and timeframes: 

In December 2010, the Department will conduct an additional training session to further 

strengthen the knowledge of staff members on the federal guidelines and regulations 

related to the timely processing of interstate cases. 

5. CITS User Training: 

The University of Maryland, College Park will provide training on CITS for all users 

within the ICR Unit. Completion date of the CITS training is December 2010. 

DHR disagrees with the finding that one (1) of twelve (12) or 8.33% of responding cases had no 

location services noted in the case file within seventy-five (75) days of receipts of the case. 

DHR received incorrect pertinent data (name and social security number) on the Virginia case. A 

correct name and number are required to conduct a location search. On October 17, 2008, DHR 

requested the correct information via e-mail to the Virginia Department of Social Services 

requesting that the data be changed. On August 11, 2009, the information was updated and 

location search began on August 13, 2009. 

DHR/CSEA’s previous comment and corrective action remains unchanged. DHR/CSEA did not 

have authorization to change pertinent data, (name and social security number) on a Virginia 

case. The case cited was known to the system, as a Virginia Department of Social Services Case 

(DSS). Therefore, DHR/CSEA contends that corrective action plan is not required. 



118




Finding 2009 -14 

Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) 

CFDA 84.027 Special Education - Grants to States (IDEA, Part B) 

CFDA 84.173 Special Education - Preschool Grants (IDEA, Preschool) 

CFDA 84.391 Special Education - Grants to States (IDEA, Part B), ARRA 

CFDA 84.392 Special Education - Preschool Grants (IDEA, Part B), ARRA 

U.S. Department of Education (USDE) 

Non - compliance and internal controls over maximum administration earmarking 

requirements 

Condition: 

MSDE is required to spend no more than the maximum amount of $331,973 on administration for 

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Preschool Grant for State Fiscal Year 

(SFY) 2009. The maximum amount is set by the Fiscal Year 2008 Allocation Estimates Table 

provided by the USDE to MSDE on an annual basis. Per the Administrative Expense Detail, MSDE 

spent $393,185 for state level activities for SFY 2009. 

Criteria: 

Chapter 20 of the United States Code, Section 1419 (d) states: 

“(1) In general 

Each State may reserve not more than the amount described in paragraph (2) for administration 

and other State-level activities in accordance with subsections (e) and (f). 

(2) For each fiscal year, the Secretary shall determine and report to the State educational agency 

an amount that is 25 percent of the amount the State received under this section for fiscal year 

1997, cumulatively adjusted by the Secretary for each succeeding fiscal year…” 

And 

“(e) (1) In general 

For the purpose of administering this section (including the coordination of activities under this 

subchapter with, and providing technical assistance to, other programs that provide services to 

children with disabilities) a State may use not more than 20 percent of the maximum amount the 

State may reserve under subsection (d) for any fiscal year.” 

119





Cause: 

MSDE did not adhere to the maximum administration limits set forth in the Fiscal Year 2008 

Allocations Estimates table provided by the USDE. 

Effect: 

MSDE exceeded the maximum limit on administration expenditures for the IDEA, Preschool 

Grants for SFY 2009 by $61,212. 


$61,212 


We recommend that MSDE monitor the administrative allocations and observe the documentation 

provided annually by the USDE to expend the maximum administration allocations and adhere to 

funding limits established. 


MSDE adjusted the FY09 over-expenditures to another fund source. In State Fiscal Year 

2010 (Federal Fiscal Year 2009), MSDE used the appropriate Federal Fiscal Year Allocation Tables 

provided by USDE. In addition, MSDE has established separate fund accounting codes to record 

the funds consistent with the Federal Fiscal Year Allocation Tables. The codes became effective 

July 1, 2010, and enable MSDE to track and record IDEA Preschool administrative expenditures 

separately. This action strengthens MSDE’s monitoring controls to ensure that IDEA Preschool 

administrative costs are within allowable limits. 



120







CFDA No. 93.767 

US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 


Condition: 


Maryland Children’s Health Insurance Program on a uniform basis throughout the State for 

persons who are apply for the expanded State Children’s Insurance Program under Title XXI of 

the Social Security Act. 



County, Howard County, Kent County and Alleghany County. The test was composed of 8 

newly established recipients and five existing recipients. All claims were processed during the 

fiscal year ended June 30, 2008. We noted the following exceptions: 


Did not comply with the requirement to verify and maintain proof of citizenship in one of the 

eight new files tested. 


Existing participant was denied medical assistance due to over scale income and was sent a letter 

regarding the premium program in 2002. Since that time, the participant has been using the 

premium program without any redeterminations of the eligibility status by neither the premium 

department, DHR or DHMH. There was no file available for review and within the CARES 

system, there had only been information through January 16, 2002. 

121






DHMH agrees with the finding and recommendation for Baltimore City and has once again 

reinforced the citizenship and identity requirements to the Baltimore City Health Department 

(Baltimore Health Care Access). Baltimore Health Care Access senior management staff has 

assured us that they retrained staff regarding these requirements and are conducting internal 

audits as a follow-up measure. 

The Department concurs with the finding for the Frederick County case as referenced above. 

Upon research, it was discovered the case was not sent on the daily auxiliary file from CARES as 

eligible for redetermination of current eligibility status. However, as of December 17, 2008, the 

client was denied medical assistance due to over scale income and was referred to the MCHP 

Premium Program. To date, the client has been deemed eligible for MCHP Premium. 

Additional analysis is being completed to determine the cause for the transmission error with the 

auxiliary file. In addition, MCHP Premium staff is reviewing the redetermination process for 

overall efficiency and process improvement. In the interim, reports are being generated and 

worked monthly by the MCHP Premium Unit to ensure timely results of application processing 

and redetermination status. 

Auditee’s Updated Response and Corrective Action Plan: 

(October 2010 Update) 

DHMH continues to monitor and enhance our systems and protocols to eliminate future adverse 

findings. 

In addition to ongoing monitoring and education, we continue to improve citizenship verification 

by having Case Managers use the federal system to check individuals against records of the 

Social Security Administration. This process takes about two days, and for individuals known to 

the federal system it eliminates the time, effort and expense of obtaining a birth certificate or 

other citizenship proof. We believe that this new utility, and other new citizenship verification 

rules, will enable the department and the Department of Human Resources to reduce citizenship 

errors. 



122







CFDA No. 93.959 


Compliance and Internal Control Weakness over Sub recipient Monitoring. 

Condition: 




compliance reviews of the sub-recipients are conducted bi-annually. AFNW reviewed twentyfive 

(25) files that contain documents related to the award of Federal funds to local health 

departments (LHDs) and private vendors (“sub recipients”) to obtain reasonable assurance that 

site visits to evaluate the program were conducted in accordance with the General Requirements 

of OMB Circular A-133 and the conditions of grant award imposed by ADAA. We noted that of 

the twenty five files reviewed there were three (3) sites that were not visited within the last two 

years; one (1) site that was not visited; and there were three (3) files that could not be found. In 

addition, there were compliance findings noted in five (5) of the files that require corrective 

actions but ADAA failed to obtain a corrective action plan from any of the recipients. 


The ADAA concurs with the findings and recommendation. ADAA acknowledges that one of 

the twenty-five site visits (.04%) was not reviewed and one file did not include a corrective 

action plan to ensure 100% compliance with the federal requirements. However, we do not 

concur with the Cause and Effect comments as noted above. In the future, ADAA will ensure 

that 100% of the required site visits are performed. Furthermore, ADAA will obtain corrective 

action plans, when appropriate, based on the seriousness of the compliance review infraction. 

123





Auditee Updated Response and Corrective Action Plan (continued): 


With the two sub-recipient site visits in question, the ADAA conducted its site visits as 

scheduled and noted that corrections by the sub-recipients were necessary. However, neither of 

the deficiencies by the sub-recipients rose to the level of requiring a corrective action plan. 

When deficiencies are noted but a corrective action plan is not required, the ADAA reviews the 

deficiency at the next site visit for correction. Neither a corrective action plan nor any other 

written response by the sub-recipient was requested by the ADAA because the level of noncompliance 

was low, it had not been noted as a past deficiency, and posed no threat to health or 

safety. 



124







CFDA No. 93.959 


Compliance and Internal Control Weakness over Special Test & Provisions (Independent 

Peer Review) 

Condition: 

The Alcohol and Drug Abuse Administration (ADAA), which is a division of the Department of 

Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH), hires private contractors to perform its peer review 

functions. The selection of a particular contractor is made from an established list of approved 

vendors. However, once a selection of a contractor is made, there is no documentation of the 

independence of that contractor with respect to the sub-recipient that he or she is asked to 

review. As part of the peer review process, the sub-recipient is asked to complete a Peer Review 

Follow-Up Questionnaire. We noted that in one instance when asked what parts of the peer 

review could be improved; the sub-recipient responded “I would also think it would be better for 

the reviewer to be from out of the area.” 


The ADAA agrees that it would be beneficial to develop an affidavit for contractors to establish 

their independence with respect to the sub-recipient they are asked to review in order to adhere to 

the provisions of OMB Circular A-133. 

The ADAA notes that Independent Peer Reviewers never review their own programs and the 

reviews are not conducted as part of the licensing or certification process. The program that 

responded, “I would think it would be better for the reviewer to be from out of the area.” was 

from the same multi-county geographical region as the reviewer but not from the same 

jurisdiction. The referenced peer reviewer held no relationship or interest in the reviewed 

program. 

Reviewers are screened and asked verbally if they are independent of the program that they 

would be assigned to review, but documentation to that effect had not been placed in the record. 

The Administration will require peer reviewers to sign an affidavit regarding each peer review 

they conduct. The affidavit will clearly attest to their independence from the program to be 

reviewed. This affidavit will be used for all future peer reviews. 

125










June 30, 2008. This affidavit was reviewed by the Maryland State Attorney General’s office and 

approved for use by the ADAA. The ADAA changed its policy whereby all independent peer 

reviewers would sign the affidavit prior to performing a peer review. A copy of the affidavit was 

given to the auditor. 

The affidavit was used for Fiscal Year 2011, independent peer reviewers. The first affidavit was 

signed June 24, 2010, for the July 8, 2010, peer review. 



126





Maryland Department of Veterans’ Affairs (MDVA) 

CFDA No. 64.014 Veteran State Domiciliary Care 

CFDA No. 64.015 Veteran State Nursing Care 

U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs (USVA) 

The State of Maryland’s Veterans Home Program has Internal control weakness over 

reconciliation of the Schedule G. 

Condition: 

We noted that one receipt of $ 596,073 with an effective date in R*Stars of June 1, 2008, was 

not reported in Schedule G as a cash receipt for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2008 or as a 

receivable for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2007. 


(February, 2010 Update) 

The Department is in agreement with the auditors’ findings and will take appropriate actions to 

enhance the reconciliation process. In the future, Schedule G will be prepared from R*Stars 

reports and the record of any necessary adjustments or reconciliations will be maintained with 

appropriate supporting documentation. Additionally, MDVA will establish procedures to 

conduct a monthly reconciliation of federal fund revenues. We believe the procedures in place 

will prevent the reoccurrence of this reporting error. 

We are still researching the sum of $596,073 with the assistance of the State Treasurer Banking 

Service Office and US VA Medical Center, Washington D.C. to locate the difference. 

Update: 

State Treasurer Office (STO) Banking Services research was able to determine that the above 

receipt was a partial Per Diem payment. As a result of this determination MDVA working with 

STO and US VA Medical Center corrected the ACH delivery/revenue stream. Using proper 

coding for ACH Per Diem ACH the revenue stream is now directed to Veterans Home account 

instead of being delivered to State of Maryland banking holding account for further distribution. 

127





February 2011 Final Update: 

The above described revenue recognition is in place and performing smoothly. On a monthly 

basis reconciliation is accomplished and any discrepancies are brought to the attention of the 

U.S. VA Medical Center for their attention and action. 

Auditors’ Comment: 


128







U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 

Inadequate internal controls over child support Inter- and Intra-State cases 

Condition: 

When the Child Support Administration division receives an interstate case, Maryland as the 

initiating state, has 20 days to refer the case to the responding state’s central registry after 

determining that the non-custodial parent is located in another state, and if necessary, receipt of 

any necessary information to process the case. During our review, we noted that in 6 out of 13 

initiating cases, or 45.15% of the cases reviewed, that the case was not referred to the responding 

state’s central registry within 20 days after determining that the non-custodial parent was located 

in another state and after receipt of all information necessary to process the case. 

When the Child Support Administration division receives a request for more information from a 

responding state, Maryland as the initiating state has 30 calendar days to either provide the 

responding state with the requested information or notify the responding state when the 

information will be provided. In 3 out of 13 initiating cases reviewed, or 23.08% of the cases, the 

requested information was not provided to the responding state nor was the date that the 

requested information would be provided documented in the case file. 


responding state, within 10 calendar days Maryland’s central registry must: acknowledge receipt 

of the case; ensure that all documentation received from the initiating state is complete; request 

any missing information necessary to process the case; forward the case to the correct local 

agency for location services or processing; and inform the initiating state where the case was sent 

for processing. In 3 of the 12 responding cases reviewed or 25% of cases, 1 or more of the 

actions required in the 10-day timeframe was not completed. 


case’s status or for a review, the central registry has five days to respond to the initiating state’s 

request. In 1 of the 12 responding cases, or 8.33% of cases, Maryland’s response to an initiating 

state’s request for a case’s status or for a review was not noted in the case file within five days of 

receipt of the initiating state’s inquiry. 

After a Child Support order has been established, within 30 days of identifying a delinquency, 

Maryland as the responding/enforcing state must take and document some enforcement action 

was taken and documented unless a service of process is necessary. In 8 of 12 responding cases 

reviewed, or 66.67% of responding cases, no enforcement action was taken and documented 

within 30 days of identifying a delinquency. 

129






The Federal guidelines require that the agency responsible for Child Support Enforcement 

attempts to establish paternity and a support obligation for children born out of wedlock. During 

our testing, we noted that 1 of 13 initiating cases reviewed, or 7.69% of initiating cases, no 

paternity and support obligation was established. 

The Federal guidelines require that the Child Support attempts to secure medical support 

information, and establish and enforce medical support obligations for all individuals eligible for 

DCSE services. During our testing, we noted that in 1 of 13 initiating cases reviewed, or 7.69% 

of initiating cases, no medical support obligation was established and enforced. 

This is a repeat finding from the Fiscal Year 2005, Single Audit Report finding number 2005-16; 

Fiscal Year 2006, Single Audit Report finding number 2006-5; and Fiscal Year 2007 Single 



(February 18, 2011 Update) 

Actions Taken: The Department of Human Resources Child Support Enforcement 

Administration (DHR/CSEA) has tracking mechanisms and processes in place to facilitate 

internal control over the Administration’s Interstate and Intrastate cases. The following tracking 

tools are used to track Interstate cases: (1) The Federal Self Assessment Review, (2) The 

Maryland Central Registry Interstate Tracking System (CITS), (3) CSEA Quality Control Report 

and (4) CSEA Staff Training Academy. 

(1) Federal Self Assessment Review Tool 

The Federal Self Assessment Review is an evaluating tool required by the Federal Office 

of Child Support (OCSE), to determine whether the state of Maryland is meeting 

the Federal case processing criteria. Also, it is used to conduct the Program Audit on 

interstate case processing (45 CFR 303.7). DHR/CSEA successfully passed the Self 

Assessment Review for the Federal Fiscal Year 2010. 

(2) Maryland Responding Case Tracking System (CITS) 

Since June 26, 2009, DHR/CSEA has used the Maryland Responding Case Tracking 

System (CITS). CITS is an interstate tracking system which assists in the management of 

responding case requests processed by the Interstate Central Registry team. 

130






(3) Quality Control Review 

DHR/CSEA continues to utilize the Quality Control Review Tool (QCR) to provide 

oversight for the 24 local jurisdictions. It ensures that (1) cases are processed according 

to the federal and state requirements, (2) that the information in the automated Child 

Support Enforcement System (CSES) is accurate, and (3) that the hardcopy files contain 

the necessary documents to support the data in CSES. 

(4) Training Academy 

DHR/CSEA has a Maryland’s Child Support Enforcement Program Training Academy 

(Academy). The functions of the academy in part are as follows: To provide training on 

the core functions of child support; (1) ensure that the Agency stays abreast of federal 

regulations and guidelines; (2) provide refresher courses to the Agency’s supervisors, and 

(3) provide training to new and experienced staff. 

The Department submitted to the auditors performing the Single Audit copies of 

supporting documents showing that cited errors were corrected. Also, information and 

supporting documentation related to the 2007 Single Audit were sent to the US 

Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families 

(ACF) in Washington, DC and Region III in Philadelphia, PA. The DHR also responded 

to the Health and Human Services Resolution Authority on December 22, 2009, 

regarding these findings. 

Auditors’ Comments: 


131






Medical Assistance Program-Medicaid Cluster 

CFDA No. 93.778 


CFDA No. 93.767 


Internal control deficiency over the eligibility determination process 

Condition: 

We reviewed Supervisory Review (SRS) cases from the Local Health Department (LHD) for all 

twenty-four Maryland jurisdictions to determine whether SRS review (MCHIP Quality Review) 

forms were timely submitted to the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH) and onsite 

reviews were conducted to ensure the LHD’s are meeting quotas according to SRS 

standards, case file accuracy, and case processing time limits. We noted that Howard County 

LHD did not submit MCHIP Quality Review forms from June 2006 through May 2007. We also 

noted DHMH failed to follow its procedures outlined in its January 25, 2006, Memorandum 

which provides that failure to submit the required SRS review forms in a timely manner would 

be reported to the Office of Eligibility Services. 


(November 2009 Update) 

All on-site reviews were performed to ensure the Local Health Departments were meeting quotas 

according to Supervisory Review (SRS) standards, case files accuracy, and case processing time 

limits. Twenty-three of the twenty-four Maryland jurisdictions timely submitted SRS review 

forms to the Department. One Local Health Department failed to meet the quotas according to 

SRS standards and was reported to the Office of the Eligibility Services, as required. 

Auditor’s Comment 

There were no repeat findings in fiscal year 2010. 

132







CFDA No. 93.778 


Compliance and Internal control deficiency over the eligibility determination process. 

Condition: 

On July 1, 1985, the Maryland State Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH) 

entered into an agreement with the Maryland State Department of Human Resources (DHR). 

DHR agreed to determine eligibility for Medical Assistance on a uniform basis throughout the 

State for persons who are indigent or medically indigent according to regulations, guidelines and 

procedures established by DHMH. In addition, DHMH’s Local Health Departments are 

responsible for determining eligibility for the Maryland Children’s Health Insurance Program 

(MCHIP) covered under Title XIV of the Social Security Act. 



Jurisdictions: Baltimore City, Charles County, Howard County, Cecil County, and Frederick 

County. The test was composed of a selection of 8 newly established recipients and 5 existing 

recipients. All claims were processed during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008. We noted the 

following exceptions: 


DHR’s Department of Social Services failed to maintain the original signed application. We 

noted the application date was changed from 10/27/07 to 10/27/06 for one of the eight newly 

eligible files. The change on the application appeared to have been made in order to support the 

initial eligibility decision date of 11/09/06. However, the information contained in the 

application was inconsistent with the date of 10/27/06. 

Howard County 

Internal control deficiency in that one of the eight newly eligible files was not located. 


Internal control deficiency in that one of the five existing eligible files could not be located. 

Cecil County 

No signed application, in that the signature page of the application for one of the eight newly 

eligible files was missing. 

133





Condition: (continued) 

This is, in part, a repeat finding from Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2004, 2005, and 2006 Single 

Audit Report finding number 2004-24, 2005-5, and 2006-14 respectively. 


(March 2011 Update) 

DHMH will work with the Department of Human Resources (DHR) and the LHD on issues with 







The eligibility and re-determination process for Primary Adult Program (PAC) is provided for on 

a separate system from Medicaid and CHIP. There were multiple enhancements to the PAC 

Eligibility system in 2009 and 2010. Once the enhancements were made, DHMH made 

provisions for the backlog associated with the PAC Eligibility system down time to be resolved. 

Although the re-determinations were not completely timely as required by Federal and State 

regulations, continued eligibility was re-established when the system enhancements were 

completed. 



134







CFDA No. 93.767 


Compliance and Internal control deficiency over the eligibility determination process 

Condition: 







County, Howard County, Cecil County and Charles County. The test was composed of 8 newly 

established recipients and five existing recipients. All claims were processed during the fiscal 

year ended June 30, 2007. We noted the following exceptions: 



five existing files tested. 


Internal control deficiency in that one of the five existing files could not be located 

Howard County 

Internal control deficiency in that two of the eight newly eligible files could not be located. 

This is, in part, a repeat finding from fiscal year 2006, Finding 2006-18. 

135






(November, 2009 Update) 








The eligibility and re-determination process for Primary Adult Program (PAC) is provided for on 

a separate system from Medicaid and CHIP. There were multiple enhancements to the PAC 

Eligibility system in 2009 and 2010. Once the enhancements were made, DHMH made 

provisions for the backlog associated with the PAC Eligibility system down time to be resolved. 

Although the re-determinations were not completely timely as required by Federal and State 

regulations, continued eligibility was re-established when the system enhancements were 

completed. 



136








Inadequate internal controls over child support Inter- and Intra-State cases 

Condition: 

When the Department of Human Resources local offices receive an application for Child Support 

Services, the local agency must open the case within no more than 20 days of the receipt of the 

referral or of the filing of an application for services. During our review, we noted that in 6 of 13 

initiating cases, or 46.15% of the cases reviewed, that the case was not opened in 20 days of 

receipt of the referral or application. 

When the Child Support Administration division is receives an interstate case, Maryland as the 

initiating state, has 20 days to refer the case to the responding state’s central registry after 

determining that the non-custodial parent is located in another state, and if necessary, receipt of 

any necessary information to process the case. During our review, we noted that 7 out of 13 

initiating cases, or 53.85% of the cases reviewed, that the case was not referred to the responding 

state’s central registry within 20 days after determining that the non-custodial parent was located 

in another state and after receipt of all information necessary to process the case. 

When the Child Support Administration division receives a request for more information from a 

responding state, Maryland as the initiating state has 30 calendar days to either provide the 

responding state with the requested information or notify the responding state when the 

information will be provided. In 3 out of 13 initiating cases reviewed, or 23.08% of the cases, the 

requested information was not provided to the responding state nor was the date that the 

requested information would be provided documented in the case file. 


responding state, within 10 calendar days Maryland’s central registry must: acknowledge receipt 

of the case; ensure that all documentation received from the initiating state is complete; request 

any missing information necessary to process the case; forward the case to the correct local 

agency for location services or processing; and inform the initiating state where the case was sent 

for processing. In 4 of the 12 responding cases reviewed (33.33% of cases reviewed), one or 

more of the actions required in the 10-day timeframe was not completed. 


case’s status or for a review, the central registry has five days to respond to the initiating state’s 

request. In 3 of the 12 responding cases, (25.00% of cases reviewed), Maryland’s response to an 

initiating state’s request for a case’s status or for a review was not noted in the case file within 

5days of receipt of the initiating state’s inquiry. 

137






When Maryland, as the responding state, receives an interstate Child Support Transmittal form, 

within 75 days, Maryland must; provide location services if the initiating states request is for 

location services or if the initiating state did not provide sufficient information to locate the noncustodial 

parent; notify the initiating state if more information or corrected information is 

necessary to process the case; and process the case to the extent possible pending necessary 

action by the initiating state. In 6 of the 12 responding cases reviewed, one or more of the actions 

required in the 75-day time frame was not completed. 

After a Child Support order has been established, within 30 days of identifying a delinquency, 

Maryland as the responding/enforcing state must take and document some enforcement action 

was taken and documented unless a service of process is necessary. In 1 of 12 responding cases, 

or 8.33% of responding cases reviewed, no enforcement action was taken and documented 

within 30 days of identifying a delinquency. 

This is a repeat finding from the Fiscal Year 2004, Single Audit Report finding number 2004-44; 

Fiscal Year 2005, Single Audit Report finding number 2005-16; and Fiscal Year 2006, Single 




Actions Taken: The Department of Human Resources Child Support Enforcement 

Administration (CSEA) has tracking mechanisms and processes in place to facilitate internal 

control over the Administration’s Interstate and Intrastate cases. The following tracking tools are 

used to track Interstate cases: (1) The Federal Self Assessment Review, (2) The Maryland 

Central Registry Interstate Tracking System (CITS), (3) CSEA Quality Control Report and (4) 

CSEA Staff Training Academy. 

(1) Federal Self Assessment Review Tool 

The Federal Self Assessment Review is an evaluating and measuring tool, required by the 

Federal Office of Child Support (OCSE), to determine whether the state of Maryland is 

meeting the Federal case processing criteria. It is also used to conduct the Program Audit 

on Interstate case processing (45 CFR 303.7). Maryland’s CSEA passed the Self 

Assessment Review in 2007 and 2008. 

138






(2) Maryland Responding Case Tracking System (CITS) 

The Maryland Responding Case Tracking System (CITS) is an interstate tracking system, 

which assists in the management of responding case request/s processed by the Interstate 

Central Registry. CITS was available to the Child Support Offices starting June 26, 

2008, and provides the following information and services: (1) The date the case request 

was received by Maryland CSEA, (2) scans the documents associated with the case, and 

(3) provides acknowledgement to the other state and date stamps the time that the request 

was sent to the local child support office. 

(3) Quality Control Review 

Maryland CSEA has a Quality Control Review Tool (QCR) expanded procedures 

February 3, 2009, which is used to provide oversight for the 24 local jurisdictions to 

ensure that (1) cases are processed according to the federal and state requirements, (2) 

that the information in the automated Child support Enforcement System (CSES) is 

accurate and completed in a timely manner, and (3) that the paper/hardcopy files contain 

the necessary documents to support the data in CSES. 

(4) Training Academy 

Maryland CSEA has a Maryland’s Child Support Enforcement Program Training 

Academy that provides ongoing training for all child support staff. The Academy has a 

New Staff Academy that has an Introduction to Child Support Enforcement course. This 

course provides training on the basic elements of Child Support Enforcement for new 

staff as well as supervisors. It also educates staff on the Federal timelines, and provides 

re-training on the Federal guidelines. 

The Department submitted to the auditors performing the Single Audit copies of 

supporting documents showing that cited errors were corrected. Also, information and 

supporting documentation related to the 2007 Single Audit were sent to the US 

Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families 

(ACF) in Washington, DC and Region III in Philadelphia, PA. The DHR also responded 

to the Health and Human Services’ Resolution Authority on December 22, 2009, 

regarding these findings. 


The DHR received a letter from the federal Department of Health and Human Services, Office of 

Child Support Enforcement, dated December 10, 2008, stating corrective action implemented by 

the organization were sufficient to resolve the auditors recommendation. 



139





Maryland Department of Transportation – State Highway Administration (SHA) 

CFDA No. 20.205 

U. S. Department of Transportation 

SHA was noncompliant over Suspension and Debarment records maintenance 

Condition: 

The State Highway Administration did not have documentation supporting the efforts to check 

the Excluded Parties List System for debarred and suspended contractors and subcontractors for 

the 15 contracts reviewed. 



The procedure that was established during the March 21, 2008, conference call is in place. A 

field is being populated with the last date that our SHA employees check the federal website on 

suspended or debarred contractors. This is being done on each and every bid date for all 

contractors that are submitting bids to us. These procedures were verified in November 2009, 

with the Office of Construction. 



140


SB & Company, LLC 

Baltimore Office: 

200 International Circle, Suite 5500 

Hunt Valley, Maryland 21030 

410.584.0060 (P) 

410.584.0061 (F)


Single Audit Together with 

Reports of Independent Public Accountants 

Year Ended June 30, 2011


Report of Independent Public Accountants 1 

Report of Independent Public Accountants on Internal Control Over Financial 

Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of the 

Financial Statements in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards 7 

Report of Independent Public Accountants on Compliance with Requirements 

that Could Have a Direct and Material Effect on Each Major Program and 

on Internal Control over Compliance in Accordance with OMB Circular A-133 11 

Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards 16 

Notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards 35 


Section I – Summary of Independent Public Accountant’s Results 44 

Section II – Financial Statement Findings 46 

Section III – Federal Award Findings and Questioned Costs 48 

Section IV – Summary Schedule of Prior Year Findings 72 

Page

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 



We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type 

activities, the aggregate discretely presented component units, each major fund, and the aggregate 

remaining fund information of the State of Maryland (the State), as of June 30, 2011, and for the year 

ended, which collectively comprise the State’s basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents. 

These financial statements are the responsibility of the State’s management. Our responsibility is to 

express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. 

We did not audit the financial statements of (1) certain Economic Development Loan Programs; (2) the 

Maryland State Lottery Agency; (3) the Maryland Transportation Authority; (4) the Economic 

Development Insurance Programs; (5) certain foundations included in the higher education component 

units; (6) the Maryland Food Center Authority; (7) the Maryland Technology Development Corporation; 

and (8) the Investment Trust Fund, which represent the percentages of the total assets, total net assets, and 

total operating revenues or additions included in the accompanying financial statements. 

Total Assets 

Percentage of Opinion Unit 

Total Net 

Assets 

Total 

Operating 

Revenues 

Business-Type Activities 

Major - 

Certain Economic Development Loan Programs 28.0 % 8.0 % 3.9 % 

Maryland State Lottery Agency 2.2 0.1 49.3 

Maryland Transportation Authority 49.2 48.0 14.8 

Non-Major - 

Economic Development Insurance Programs 0.8 1.4 0.1 

Total percentage of business-type activities 80.2 % 57.5 % 68.1 % 

Component Units 

Major - 

Certain foundations included in the higher education 13.3 % 15.7 % 11.8 % 

component units 

Non-Major - 

Maryland Food Center Authority 0.3 0.4 0.3 

Maryland Technology Development Corporation 0.2 0.1 1.5 

Total percentage of component units 13.8 % 16.2 % 13.6 % 

Fiduciary Funds 

Investment Trust Fund 5.0 % 5.9 % 72.3 % 

200 International Circle Suite 5500 Hunt Valley Maryland 21030 P 410.584.0060 F 410.584.0061

Those financial statements were audited by other auditors whose reports thereon have been furnished to 

us, and our opinion, insofar as it relates to the amounts included for the above-mentioned funds and 

component units, is based on the reports of the other auditors. 

We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of 

America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued 

by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit 

includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial 

statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by 

management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit and 

the reports of the other auditors provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. 

In our opinion, based on our audit and the reports of the other auditors, the financial statements referred to 

above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental 

activities, the business-type activities, the aggregate discretely presented component units, each major 

fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the State, as of June 30, 2011, and the respective 

changes in financial position and where applicable, cash flows thereof for the year then ended in 

conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. 

In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated December 15, 

2011, on our consideration of the State’s internal control over financial reporting and our tests of its 

compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other 

matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial 

reporting and compliance and the results of that testing and not to provide an opinion on the internal 

control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in 

accordance with Government Auditing Standards and should be considered in assessing the results of our 

audit. 

Our audit was performed for the purpose of forming an opinion on the basic financial statements taken as 

a whole. The accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards is presented for purposes of 

additional analysis as required by the United States Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular 

A-133, Audit of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations, and is not a required part of 

the basic financial statements. Such information is the responsibility of management and was derived 

from and relates directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the financial 

statements. The information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the 

basic financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such 

information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial 

statements or to the financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with 

auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. The Schedule of Expenditures of 

Federal Awards is prepared on the accrual basis of accounting and excludes the expenditures associated 

with the Federal financial assistance programs for the Maryland Water Quality Financing Administration, 

an administration of the Maryland Department of the Environment; the Maryland Transportation 

Authority, an enterprise fund of the State; the Maryland Technology Development Corporation, a 

component unit of the State, and the Maryland Health Insurance program, part of the general fund of the 

State, that had separate OMB Circular A-133 audits. In our opinion, the information is fairly stated in all 

material respects in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole. 

2

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the management’s 

discussion and analysis; required supplemental schedules of funding progress and employer contributions 

for the Maryland Pension and Retirement System, the Maryland Transit Administration Pension Plan, and 

Other Post-employment Benefits Plan; and the respective budgetary comparison for the budgetary 

general, special and Federal funds as listed in the table of contents be presented to supplement the basic 

financial statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required 

by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, who considers it to be an essential part of financial 

reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical 

context. We and the other auditors have applied certain limited procedures to the required supplementary 

information in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, 

which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the information and 

comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic 

financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. 

We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures 

do not provide us with evidence sufficient to express an opinion or provide any assurance. 

Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming an opinion on the basic financial statements that 

collectively comprise the State’s basic financial statements. The combining financial statements, 

schedules, introductory and statistical sections, and financial schedules required by law, as listed in the 

table of contents, are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic 

financial statements. Such information is the responsibility of management and was derived from and 

relates directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial 

statements. The combining financial statements and schedules have been subjected to the auditing 

procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and certain additional procedures, including 

comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used 

to prepare the basic financial statements or to the financial statements themselves, and other additional 

procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In 

our opinion, based on our audit and the reports of the other auditors, the combining financial statements 

and schedules are fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the basic financial statements as a 

whole. The introductory and statistical sections of this report and the financial schedules required by law 

have not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied by us or the other auditors in the audit of the 

basic financial statements and, accordingly, we express no opinion or provide any assurance on them. 



3





IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS





IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS 



We have audited the basic financial statements of the State of Maryland (the State), as of and for the year 

ended June 30, 2011, and have issued our report thereon dated December 15, 2011. We conducted our 

audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the 

standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the 

Comptroller General of the United States. Our report on the basic financial statements included 

disclosures regarding our references to the reports of other auditors. 

Internal Control over Financial Reporting 


financial reporting. In planning and performing our audit, we considered the State’s internal control over 

financial reporting as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our 

opinion on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness 

of the State’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the 

effectiveness of the State’s internal control over financial reporting. 

A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow 

management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or 

detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or combination 

of deficiencies, in internal controls, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement 

of the financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. 

Our consideration of the internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in 

the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over 

financial reporting that might be deficiencies, significant deficiencies, or material weaknesses. We and 

the other auditors did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that we 

consider to be material weaknesses, as defined above. 

Compliance and Other Matters 

As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the State’s financial statements are free of 

material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, 

contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the 

determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those 

provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The 

results of our tests and those of other auditors disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters 

that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards. 

200 International Circle Suite 5500 Hunt Valley Maryland 21030 P 410-584-0060 F 410-584-0061

We noted other matters involving the internal control over financial reporting, which we have reported to 

the management of the Baltimore City Community College in a separate report dated November 30, 2011, 

to management of the University System of Maryland in a separate report dated October 28, 2011, and to 

management of Morgan State University in a separate report dated December 2, 2011. 






8

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS ON COMPLIANCE 

WITH REQUIREMENTS THAT COULD HAVE A DIRECT AND 

MATERIAL EFFECT ON EACH MAJOR PROGRAM AND ON 

INTERNAL CONTROL OVER COMPLIANCE IN ACCORDANCE 

WITH OMB CIRCULAR A-133


REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS ON 

COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS THAT COULD HAVE A DIRECT 

AND MATERIAL EFFECT ON EACH MAJOR PROGRAM AND ON INTERNAL 

CONTROL OVER COMPLIANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH OMB CIRCULAR A-133 



Compliance 

We have audited the State of Maryland’s (the State) compliance with the types of compliance 

requirements described in the OMB Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement that could have a direct and 

material effect on each of the State’s major Federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2011. The 

State’s major Federal programs are identified in the Summary of Independent Public Accountant’s 

Results section of the accompanying Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs. Compliance with the 

requirements of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants applicable to each of its major Federal programs 

is the responsibility of the State’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the State’s 

compliance based on our audit. 

The State’s basic financial statements include the operations of the Maryland Water Quality Financing 

Administration, an administration of the Maryland Department of the Environment; the Maryland 

Transportation Authority, an enterprise fund of the State; the Maryland Technology Development 

Corporation, a component unit of the State; and the Maryland Health Insurance Program, part of the 

general fund of the State, which received Federal awards that are not included in the accompanying 

Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Our audit, described below, did not include the operations 

of these entities because the State engaged other auditors to perform a separate audit in accordance with 

OMB Circular A-133. 

We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the 

United States of America; the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing 

Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and OMB Circular A-133, Audits of 

States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations. Those standards and OMB Circular A-133 

require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether noncompliance 

with the types of compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect 

on a major Federal program occurred. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about the 

State’s compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered 

necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. 

Our audit does not provide a legal determination on the State’s compliance with those requirements. 

200 International Circle Suite 5500 Hunt Valley Maryland 21030 P 410-584-0060 F 410-584-0061

In our opinion, the State complied, in all material respects, with the compliance requirements referred to 

above that could have a direct and material effect on each of its major Federal programs for the year 

ended June 30, 2011. However, the results of our auditing procedures disclosed instances of 

noncompliance with those requirements, which are required to be reported in accordance with OMB 

Circular A-133 and which are described in the accompanying Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs 

as items 2011-1, 2011-2, 2011-3, 2011-4, 2011-5, 2011-6, 2011-7, 2011-8, 2011-9 and 2011-11. 

Internal Control over Compliance 


compliance with the requirements of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants applicable to Federal 

programs. In planning and performing our audit, we considered the State’s internal control over 

compliance with the requirements that could have a direct and material effect on a major Federal program 

to determine the auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on compliance and to test 

and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with OMB Circular A-133, but not for the 

purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, 

we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the State’s internal control over compliance. 

A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over 

compliance does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned 

functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a 

Federal program on a timely basis. A material weakness in internal control over compliance is a 

deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance, such that there is a 

reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a Federal 

program will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. 

Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the first 

paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over 

compliance that might be deficiencies, significant deficiencies, or material weaknesses. We did not 

identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be material weaknesses, 

as defined above. However, we identified certain deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we 

consider to be significant deficiencies as described in the accompanying Schedule of Findings and 

Questioned Costs as items 2011-1, 2011-3, 2011-4, 2011-5, 2011-6, 2011-7, 2011-8 and 2011-10. A 

significant deficiency in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of 

deficiencies, in internal control over compliance with a type of compliance requirement of a Federal 

program that is less severe than a material weakness in internal control over compliance, yet important 

enough to merit attention by those charged with governance. 

The State’s responses to the findings identified in our audit are described in the accompanying Schedule 

of Findings and Questioned Costs. We did not audit the State’s responses and, accordingly, we express 

no opinion on the responses. 

12





March 12, 2012 

13


SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS





CFDA Number 

Research & 

Development 



US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA) 


$ 

47,500 

Agricultural Research: Basic and Applied Research 10.001 - - 1,769,000 1,769,000 

Plant & Animal Disease, Pest Control & Animal Care 10.025 - - 1,658,283 1,658,283 

Wild Life Service 10.028 - - 68,918 68,918 

Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program 10.156 - - 49,832 49,832 

Inspection Grading and Standardization 10.162 - - 4,044 4,044 

Market Protection & Promotion 10.163 - - 198,789 198,789 

Specialty Crop Block Grant Program - Farm Bill 10.170 - - 452,387 452,387 

Pass-Through University of Massachusetts- Dartmouth 10.200 - - 10,292 10,292 

Payments to 1890 Land-Grant Colleges and Tuskegee University 10.205 - - 1,346,437 1,346,437 

Grants for Agricultural Research: Competitive Research Grants 10.206 33,117 - - 33,117 

Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education 10.215 - - 749,265 749,265 

Pass-Through Grants - University of Vermont 10.215 - - 68,689 68,689 

1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants 10.216 - - 849,144 849,144 

Secondary and Two-Year Postsecondary Agriculture Education Challenge Gran 10.226 - - 19,881 19,881 

Integrated Programs 10.303 - - 403,465 403,465 

Pass-Through Pennsylvania State University 10.303 - - 8,848 8,848 


Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative 10.307 - - 38,785 38,785 

Specialty Crop Research Initiative 10.309 - - 751,260 751,260 

Agricultural and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) 10.310 - - 6,812 6,812 

Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantage Farmers and Ranchers 10.443 - - 116,011 116,011 

Community Outreach and Assistance Partnership Program 10.455 - - 39,114 39,114 

Crop Insurance Education in Targeted States 10.458 - - 338,259 338,259 

Egg Product Inspection 10.476 - - 139,648 139,648 

Food Safety Cooperative Agreements 10.479 - - 137,269 137,269 

Cooperative Extension Service 10.500 - - 5,381,185 5,381,185 

Pass-Through University of Delaware 10.500 - - 26,024 26,024 

Pass-Through Kansas State University 10.500 - - 53,203 53,203 


Pass-Through Northeast Center for Risk Management Association 10.500 - - 18,898 18,898 


Pass-Through Utah State University 10.500 - - 2,925 2,925 

Pass - Through University of Massachusetts- Amherst 10.500 - - 57,496 57,496 

Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program Cluster (SNAP) 

Food Stamps 10.551 - - 993,348,710 993,348,710 

Admin. Funding for Food Stamp Program 10.561 - - 52,263,478 52,263,478 

Total SNAP Cluster $ 1,045,612,188 

Child Nutrition Cluster 

School Breakfast Program 10.553 - - 36,722,179 36,722,179 

National School Lunch Program (NSLP) 10.555 - 142,444,730 142,444,730 

Special Milk Program for Children 10.556 - - 384,869 384,869 

Summer Food Service Program for Children - (SFSPC) 10.559 - - 6,359,165 6,359,165 

Total Child Nutrition Cluster 185,910,943 

Team Nutrition Training for Healthy School Meals 10.554 - - 208,296 208,296 

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children 10.557 - - 105,253,727 105,253,727 

Child & Adult Care Food Program 10.558 - - 43,961,807 43,961,807 

Administrative Expenses for Child Nutrition 10.560 - - 2,427,984 2,427,984 


Emergency Food Assistance Program (Admin. Costs) 10.568 - - 794,507 794,507 

Emergency Food Assistance Program - ARRA 10.569 - - 608,319 608,319 

Emergency Food Assistance Program (Food Commodities) 10.569 - - 3,048,707 3,048,707 

Total TEFAP Cluster 4,451,533 

WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (FMNP) 10.572 - - 388,021 388,021 

Team Nutrition Training 10.574 - - 5,982 5,982 

Farmers Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP) 10.576 - - 244,062 244,062 

Administrative Review & Training 10.579 - - 154,470 154,470 

Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Program 10.582 - - 2,013,111 2,013,111 

Agricultural Mediation Program 10.645 - - 156,906 156,906 

Cooperative Forestry Assistance 10.664 - - 1,380,838 1,380,838 

Forest Legacy Program 10.676 - - 14,662 14,662 

Forest Stewardship Program 10.678 - - 142,754 142,754 

Forest Health Protection 10.680 - - 15,000 15,000 

1890 Land Grant Institution Rural Entrepreneurial Outreach Program 10.856 - - 100,000 100,000 

Environmental Quality 10.912 - - 425,756 425,756 

Agricultural Land Preservation 10.913 - - 1,872,162 1,872,162 

Agricultural Statistical Reports 10.950 - - 8,517 8,517 

Technical Agricultural Assistance 10.960 - - 3,197,507 3,197,507 

International Training: Foreign Participant 10.962 - - 225,524 225,524 

Agricultural Research Service 10.RD 1,819,365 - - 1,819,365 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 10.RD 255,617 - - 255,617 

Economic Research Service 10.RD 474,807 - - 474,807 

Food Safety and Inspection Service 10.RD 36,717 - - 36,717 

Foreign Agricultural Service 10.RD 711,468 - - 711,468 

Forest Service 10.RD 267,018 - - 267,018 

National Agricultural Statistics Service 10.RD 66,052 - - 66,052 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 10.RD 237,710 - - 237,710 


Pass-Through Delaware State University 10.RD 247 - - 247 

Pass-Through Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis 10.RD 50,956 - - 50,956 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of this schedule. 

16




FEDERAL DEPARTMENT/PROGRAM TITLE/PASS THRU AGENCY CFDA Number 

Research & 

Development 



US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA) (continued) 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (continued) 

Pass-Through National Fish & Wildlife Foundation 10.RD $ 9,651 $ - $ - 

$ 

9,651 

Pass-Through North Carolina State University 10.RD 26 - - 26 



Pass-Through University of Massachusetts Dartmouth 10.RD 97,805 - - 97,805 

Pass-Through University of Vermont 10.RD 21,766 - - 21,766 



Pass-Through, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey 10.RD 39,810 - - 39,810 

Pass-Through University of California 10.RD 62,270 - - 62,270 


Pass-Through University of Hawaii 10.RD 3,484 - - 3,484 


Pass-Through American Statistical Association 10.RD 35,839 - - 35,839 

The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) 10.RD 8,447,257 - - 8,447,257 

Total US Department of Agriculture 12,996,672 - 1,413,013,366 1,426,010,038 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (DOC) 

Contract/Other 

11.SB134109- 

SE0916 - - 15 15 


11.YA132307- 

CN0048 - - 1,969,226 1,969,226 

Contract/Other - Census Bureau 

11.IPA No. 

6308IPA01 - - 36,966 36,966 

Contract/Other - NIST 

11.IPA No. 

IP0915 - - 105,579 105,579 

Census Special Tabulations and Services 11.005 

Economic Development: Technical Assistance 11.303 - - 170,604 170,604 

Economic Adjustment Assistance 11.307 - - 5,774,599 5,774,599 

Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986 11.407 - - 66,332 66,332 

Sea Grant Support 11.417 7,794 - - 7,794 

Coastal Zone Management Administration Awards 11.419 - - 4,085,367 4,085,367 

Coastal Zone Management Estuarine Research Reserves 11.420 - - 629,502 629,502 

Financial Assistance for National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science 11.426 - - 390,584 390,584 

Fisheries Development and Utilization Research and Development Grants 

and Cooperative Agreements Program 11.427 - - 119,587 119,587 

Marine Mammal Data Program 11.439 - - 49,600 49,600 

Unallied Industry Projects 11.452 - - 4,350,065 4,350,065 

Unallied Management Program 11.454 - - 19,279 19,279 

Chesapeake Bay Studies 11.457 3,233,533 - - 3,233,533 

Special Oceanic Atmospheric Administration 11.460 - - 21,427 21,427 

Unallied Science Program 11.472 - - 18,679 18,679 

Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act 11.474 - - 214,374 214,374 

Coastal Ocean Research Program 11.478 - - 148,629 148,629 

Educational Partnership Program 11.481 - - 2,625,045 2,625,045 

Public Safety Interop Comm. Grant Prog FY 2007 11.555 - - 8,400,850 8,400,850 

One Maryland Broadband Network - ARRA 11.557 - - 7,868,939 7,868,939 

Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) 11.557 - - 485,407 485,407 

Pass-Through Maryland Broadband Cooperative, Inc - ARRA 11.558 - - 707,058 707,058 

Measurement & Engineering Research & Standards 11.609 443,406 - - 443,406 

Measurement & Engineering Research & Standards - ARRA 11.609 3,175,609 - - 3,175,609 

Pass-Through Temple University - ARRA 11.609 249,526 - - 249,526 

Manufacturing Extension Partnership 11.611 - - 484,805 484,805 

Ntl Institute of Standards & Technology Construction Grant Program - ARRA 11.618 - - 1,328,327 1,328,327 

Basic Minority Business Development Centers 11.800 - - 12,731 12,731 

National Institute for Standards and Technology 11.RD 18,865,252 - - 18,865,252 

Pass-Through Utah State University 11.RD 15,265 - - 15,265 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 11.RD 18,722,910 - - 18,722,910 



Pass-Through Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission 11.RD 108,030 - - 108,030 

Pass-Through Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments 11.RD 19,143 - - 19,143 

Pass-Through Oak Management, Inc 11.RD 45,960 - - 45,960 

Pass-Through Oyster Recovery Partnership 11.RD 296,440 - - 296,440 

US Census Bureau 11.RD 136,966 - - 136,966 

Pass-Through University of New York 11.RD 104,184 - - 104,184 

Pass-Through City University of New York 11.RD 50,214 - - 50,214 

Pass-Through University Corporation for Atmospheric Research 11.RD 41,676 - - 41,676 

Pass-Through University of Delaware 11.RD 33,567 - - 33,567 

Pass-Through University of Florida 11.RD 1,504 - - 1,504 

Pass-Through Villanova University 11.RD 40,898 - - 40,898 

Pass-Through University of New Hampshire 11.RD 45,688 - - 45,688 


Pass-Through Virginia Marine Research Corp. 11.RD 52,462 - - 52,462 

Pass-Through Prometheus Computing 11.RD 35,926 - - 35,926 

Total Department of Commerce 46,317,384 - 40,083,576 86,400,960 


17





Research & 

Development 



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) 


$ 

211,133 

Contract/Other - National Defense University: IPA Contract 12.0701027003 - - 139,499 139,499 

Contract/Other 12.C-0895 - - 65,190 65,190 

Contract/Other 12.D-4015 - - 671,971 671,971 

Contract/Other - United States Navy IPA 12.09092132 - - 200,628 200,628 



Pass-Through Neocera, Inc 12.100614 101,571 - - 101,571 

Pass-Through Charles River Analytics 12.1007202 305,379 - - 305,379 

Contract/Other - Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 12.10092424 - - 228,925 228,925 

Contract/Other - United States Army IPA 12.10123227 - - 12,501 12,501 

Pass-Through Battelle Memorial Institute 12.10194 13,101 - - 13,101 

Pass-Through Syntonics, Inc. 12.102679 91,109 - - 91,109 

Contract/Other - United States Air Force 

12.FA805211 

P0010 16,394 - - 16,394 

Contract/Other - United States Air Force 

12.FA865011 

c7103 196,580 - - 196,580 

Contract/Other - United States Air Force IPA 

12.FIATA08182 

PD01 - - 150,076 150,076 

Contract /Other 

12.H98230-09-C- 

0265 169,974 - - 169,974 

Contract / Other - Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

12.HDTRA1-10- 

C-0067 560,951 - - 560,951 

Contract/Other - United States Navy 

12.N00174-09- 

M0067 3,936 - - 3,936 

Contract/Other - United States Navy 12.N0018909 

P1885 - 99,820 99,820 

Contract / Other National Naval Medical Center 12.N10AC18077 49,875 - - 49,875 

Contract/Other - United States Army 

12.W911-NF-05- 

2-0023 29,665 - - 29,665 


12.W911-NF-10- 

2-0042 125,168 - - 125,168 


12.W911-QX-09- 

P-0302 12,696 - - 12,696 

Contract/Other - Army Research Lab Contract 

12.W911QX10 

P0412 - 130,000 130,000 


Pass-Through University of Southern California 12 .135874 73,775 - - 73,775 

Pass-Through Battelle Memorial Institute 12.0000255042 58,633 - - 58,633 

Pass-Through Institute for Mathematics and its Applications 12.0008892090 - - 30,000 30,000 

Procurement Technical Assistance for Business Firms 12.002 - - 413,814 413,814 

Pass-Through Combustion Research & Flow Technology 12.08C0687C363 64,359 - - 64,359 

Planning Assistance to States 12.110 - - 74,264 74,264 

Pass-Through Scola, Inc. 12.11071649 - - 156,311 156,311 

State Memo of Agreement Prog for Reimb of Tech Service 12.113 - - 730,168 730,168 

Pass-Through University Research Foundation 12.11539 250,000 - - 250,000 

Pass-Through Lynntech 12.2009- 

NAV4670001 290,890 - - 290,890 

Pass-Through SRI International 12.27001376 311,746 - - 311,746 

High Atom Number in Microsized Atom Traps 12.300 - - 75,970 75,970 

Basic and Applied Scientific Research 12.300 - - 189,690 189,690 

Pass-Through Iktara and Associates 12.300 - - 9,171 9,171 

Basic and Applied Scientific Research 12.300 490,591 - - 490,591 

Pass-Through BAE Systems Advance Information Technologies 12.316079 849,564 - - 849,564 

Pass-Through GE Global Research 12.400036855 176,934 - - 176,934 

National Guard Military Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Projects 12.401 - - 17,847,532 17,847,532 

National Guard Civilian Youth Opportunities 12.404 - - 1,725,051 1,725,051 

Basic Scientific Research 12.431 334,744 - - 334,744 

Pass-Through International Business Machines, Corp. (IBM) 12.50025204 173,380 - - 173,380 


Pass-Through Exponent, Inc. 12.600 - - 21,681 21,681 

Pass-Through CPU Technology, Inc 12.RD 57,075 - - 57,075 

Community Econ. Adjustment Planning Assistance 12.607 - - 1,134,703 1,134,703 

Pass-Through Michigan State University 12.613551A 63,516 - - 63,516 

Basic, Applied, and Advanced Research in Science 12.630 

and Engineering - 494,119 494,119 

Basic, Applied, Advanced Research in Science & Engineering 12.630 74,322 - - 74,322 

Pass-Through Academy of Applied Science 12.630 - - 7,403 7,403 

Motor Week Energy 12.678 - - 549,127 549,127 




Air Force Defense Research Sciences Program 12.800 79,001 - - 79,001 

Pass-Through Princeton University - ARRA 12.800 237,319 - - 237,319 

Mathematical Sciences Grants Program 12.901 - - 57,337 57,337 

Mathematical Sciences Grants Program 12.901 108,920 - - 108,920 


18





Research & 

Development 




Information Security Grant Program 12.902 $ - $ - $ 150,035 

$ 

150,035 



Pass-Through Raytheon Corporation 12.9500010745 49,138 - - 49,138 

Pass-Through Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory 12.9518070000 12,849 - - 12,849 

Pass-Through Argonne National Laboratory 12.9F31741 176,975 - - 176,975 

Pass-Through Aurora Flight Sciences Corporation 12.AFS100888 3,510 - - 3,510 

Pass-Through Applied Physical Sciences Corp. 12.APS1014 21,000 - - 21,000 

Pass-Through BBN Technologies Corporation 

12.FA8650-06- 

C-7606 3,758 - - 3,758 

Pass-Through Dragonfly Pictures, Inc 

12.GWP11 

MAY09 4,080 4,080 

Pass-Through Johns Hopkins University 12.APL-940720 - 4,246 4,246 

09123055 9,055 9,055 

Pass-Through Kitware, Inc. 

12.HR001108 

C0135S5 7,472 7,472 

Pass-Through Kitware, Inc. 12.K000135S11 252,361 - - 252,361 

Pass-Through Kitware, Inc 12.K000567S01 8,655 - - 8,655 

Pass-Through Intelligent Automation 

12.N68335-10- 

C-0443 21,034 - - 21,034 

Pass-Through Smart Information Flow Technologies 

12.OBTWUM 

DO1 77,321 - - 77,321 

Pass-Through Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) 12.P010068745 75,499 - - 75,499 

Pass-Through QMagiQ, LLC 

12.PO#2010- 

UMBC1 30,158 30,158 

Pass-Through Qualtech, Inc 12.QSIDSC08015 20,453 - - 20,453 

Pass-Through Wyle Laboratories 12.RC00035524009 174,360 - - 174,360 

Advanced Research Projects Agency: 12.RD 3,809,098 - - 3,809,098 

Department of the Air Force, Material Command 12.RD 9,400,073 - - 9,400,073 

Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers 12.RD 322,077 - - 322,077 

Department of the Navy, Office of Chief of Naval Research 12.RD 21,424,439 - - 21,424,439 

National Geospatial Intelligence Agency 12.RD 126,408 - - 126,408 

National Security Agency 12.RD 38,373,488 - - 38,373,488 

Office of the Secretary of Defense 12.RD 3,732,811 - - 3,732,811 

Other Department of Defense 12.RD 192,737 - - 192,737 

Pass-Through AGEISS 12.RD 3,605 - - 3,605 

Pass-Through Auburn University 12.RD 25,376 - - 25,376 

U.S. Army, Material Command 12.RD 14,674,013 - - 14,674,013 

U.S. Army, Medical Command 12.RD 6,111,115 - - 6,111,115 



Pass-Through Carnegie Mellon University 12.RD 233,335 - - 233,335 

Pass-Through Duke University 12.RD 586,962 - - 586,962 


Pass-Through Energetics Technology Center 12.RD 187,440 - - 187,440 

Pass-Through Exponent, Inc 12.RD 344 - - 344 


Pass-Through Harvard University 12.RD 154,445 - - 154,445 

Pass-Through Henry Jackson Foundation 12.RD 33,782 - - 33,782 

Pass-Through Institute of Global Environment and Society 12.RD 1,622 - - 1,622 

Pass-Through Institute of International Educations 12.RD 1,334,385 - - 1,334,385 


Pass-Through Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab 12.RD 272,159 - - 272,159 

Pass-Through Maryland Proof of Concept Alliance 12.RD 139,117 - - 139,117 





Pass-Through RABA Technologies, LLC 12.RD 8,100 - - 8,100 





Pass-Through Rutgers, State University of New Jersey 12.RD 25,915 - - 25,915 

Pass-Through Samueli Institute 12.RD 104,918 - - 104,918 



Pass-Through Technion - Israel Institute of Technology 12.RD 26,982 - - 26,982 

Pass-Through Texas University 12.RD 21,164 - - 21,164 






Pass-Through University of Nevada, Las Vegas 12.RD 1,158 - - 1,158 


Pass-Through University of Rochester Institute of Optics 12.RD 47,074 - - 47,074 


University of Uniformed Services of the Health Sciences 12.RD 4,528 - - 4,528 

Pass-Through Envisioneering 12.S1020 28,180 - - 28,180 


19





Research & 

Development 




University of Uniformed Services of the Health Sciences (continued) 

Pass-Through Exponent Environment Group, Inc 12.S751182 $ 5,893 $ - $ - 

$ 

5,893 

Pass-Through Physical Sciences, Inc 

12.SC524131 

71646.000 14,844 - - 14,844 

Pass-Through Ziva Corporation 12.UMDRFTRA 2,618 - - 2,618 

Total Department of Defense 112,517,560 - 26,100,468 138,618,028 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) 

Department of Housing & Urban Development 14.000 - - 3,269,195 3,269,195 

TCAP - ARRA 14.000 - - 18,578,979 18,578,979 

Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities 14.181 - - 317,030 317,030 

Section 8 Project-Based Cluster 

Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program 14.195 - - 179,019,211 179,019,211 

Lower Income Housing Assistance Program - Section 8 14.856 - - 354,922 354,922 

Total Section 8 Project-Based Cluster $ 179,374,133 

Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants 14.218 - - 51,065 51,065 

Community Development Block Grant/State's Program 14.228 - - 14,535,191 14,535,191 

Community Development Block Grant - ARRA 14.228 - - 1,813,698 1,813,698 

Housing Assistance 14.231 - - 647,399 647,399 

HPRP - ARRA 14.231 - - 2,885,731 2,885,731 

Supportive Housing Program 14.235 - - 718,822 718,822 

Shelter Plus Care 14.238 - - 3,844,847 3,844,847 

HOME Investment Partnership Program 14.239 - - 7,564,455 7,564,455 

Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS 14.241 - - 1,065,284 1,065,284 

Community Dev. Block Grants/Brownsfields Economic Dev. Initiative 14.246 - - 28,966 28,966 

Fair Housing Assistance Program: State & Local 14.401 - - 319,557 319,557 

Doctoral Dissertation Research Grants 14.516 - - 23,703 23,703 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities Programs 14.520 - - 248,108 248,108 

Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers 14.871 - - 18,018,140 18,018,140 

Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control Programs 14.901 - - 7,204 7,204 

Total Department of Housing & Urban Development - - 253,311,507 253,311,507 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (DOI) 

Contract / Other National Park Service 15.P3700090025 - - 1,500 1,500 

Reg of Surface Coal Mining & Surface Effects 

of Underground Coal Mining 15.250 - - 652,353 652,353 

Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation (AMLR) Program 15.252 - - 1,395,053 1,395,053 

Fish and Wildlife Cluster 

Sport Fish Restoration 15.605 - - 4,612,414 4,612,414 

Wildlife Restoration 15.611 - - 3,362,228 3,362,228 

Total Fish and Wildlife Cluster 7,974,642 

Fish & Wildlife Management Assistance 15.608 - - 95,730 95,730 

Endangered Species Conservation 15.612 - - 8,243 8,243 

Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act 15.614 - - 191,963 191,963 

Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund 15.615 - - 434,318 434,318 

Clean Vessel Act 15.616 - - 273,935 273,935 

Landowner Incentive 15.633 - - 276,151 276,151 

State Wildlife Grants 15.634 - - 775,659 775,659 

Pass-Through North Dakota Game and Fish Department 15.634 - - 23,726 23,726 

Service, Training and Technical Assistance (Generic Training) 15.649 - - 500 500 

Endangered Species Conservation - Recovery Implementation Funds 15.657 - - 10,760 10,760 

U.S. Geological Survey: Research and Data Acquisition 15.808 - - 45,927 45,927 

National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program 15.810 - - 139,701 139,701 

National Geological & Geophysical Data Preservation Program 15.814 - - 7,752 7,752 

Historic Preservation Fund Grants-In-Aid 15.904 - - 754,006 754,006 

Outdoor Recreation - Acquisition, Development & Planning 15.916 - - 862,500 862,500 

Native American Graves Protection & Repatriation Act 15.922 - - 5,823 5,823 

National Center for Preservation Technology & Training 15.923 - - 11,891 11,891 

Save America's Treasures 15.929 - - 101,774 101,774 

Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network 15.930 - - 143,947 143,947 

National Park Service 15.RD 1,388,150 - - 1,388,150 

Other Department of Interior - Research and Development 15.RD 460,867 - - 460,867 

Pass-Through America View, Inc 15.RD 24,004 - - 24,004 

Pass-Through Caroline Soil Conservation District 15.RD 25,977 - - 25,977 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 15.RD 52,697 - - 52,697 

U.S. Geological Survey 15.RD 388,546 - - 388,546 

Total Department of the Interior (DOI) 2,340,241 - 14,187,854 16,528,095 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ) 

Contract/Other 16.09051068 - - 500 500 

Equitable Sharing Program Contract/Other 16.000 - - 3,393,650 3,393,650 

Marijuana Eradication 16.004 - - 78,834 78,834 

Violence Against Women Act Court Training and Improvement Grants 16.013 - - 20,909 20,909 

Sexual Assault Services Formula 16.017 - - 121,987 121,987 

Offender Reentry Program 16.202 - - 138,025 138,025 

Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants 16.523 - - 589,724 589,724 

Reduce Violent Crimes Against Women on Campus 16.525 - - 209,938 209,938 

Safe Havens for Children 16.527 - - 28,999 28,999 

Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention: Allocation to States 16.540 - - 1,032,200 1,032,200 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 16.541 - - 176,408 176,408 

Missing Children's Assistance 16.543 - - 225,667 225,667 


20





Research & 

Development 



DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ) (continued) 

Title V: Delinquency Prevention Program 16.548 $ - $ - $ 46,094 

$ 

46,094 

MD Justice Statistics Program - SACS 16.550 - - 23,616 23,616 

National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP) 16.554 - - 451,556 451,556 

National Institute of Justice Research, Evaluation, 

& Development Projects Grants 16.560 - - 288,269 288,269 

Crime Victim Assistance 16.575 - - 6,716,382 6,716,382 

Crime Victim Assistance - ARRA 16.575 - - 500,546 500,546 

Crime Victim Compensation 16.576 - - 2,719,000 2,719,000 

Edward Byrne Memorial State & Local Law Enforcement Assistance 

Discretionary Grant Prog 16.580 - - 639,623 639,623 

Violence Against Women Formula Grants 16.588 - - 2,204,572 2,204,572 

Violence Against Women Formula Grants - ARRA 16.588 - - 1,444,415 1,444,415 

Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for State Prisoners 16.593 - - 76,249 76,249 

Community Capacity Development Office 16.595 - - 51,213 51,213 

State Criminal Alien Assistance Program 16.606 - - 1,762,225 1,762,225 

Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program 16.607 - - 105,654 105,654 

Gun Violence Prosecution Program 16.609 - - 300,425 300,425 

Public Safety Partnership & Community Policing 16.710 - - 1,833,506 1,833,506 

Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Grants - ARRA 16.710 - - 27,139 27,139 

Juvenile Mentoring Program 16.726 - - 26,063 26,063 

Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws Program 16.727 - - 458,179 458,179 

Gang Resistance Education and Training 16.737 - - 51,461 51,461 

Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program 16.738 - - 3,908,154 3,908,154 

S/W Auto Victim Info Notification 16.740 - - 13,750 13,750 

DNA Capacity Enhancement FY 06(46195) 16.741 - - 533,986 533,986 

Paul Coverdell Nat Forensic - Lab 16.742 - - 377,351 377,351 

Anti-Gang Initiative Program 16.744 - - 5,866 5,866 

Edward Byrne Memorial Competitive Grant Program 16.751 - - 24,846 24,846 

Prescription Drug Monitoring 16.754 - - 43,290 43,290 

Violence Against Women Formula Grant (VARA) 16.800 - - 341,070 341,070 

Byrne Justice Recovery Act - ARRA 16.803 - - 14,240,657 14,240,657 

Pass-Through Salisbury City Police GOCCP Project - ARRA 16.803 - - 45,281 45,281 

John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act 16.816 - 168,190 168,190 

Bureau of Justice Assistance 16.RD 70,581 - - 70,581 

National Institute of Justice 16.RD 263,787 - - 263,787 

Office of Justice Programs 16.RD 134,328 - - 134,328 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 16.RD 724,551 - - 724,551 

Pass-Through University of Central Florida 16.RD 87,410 - - 87,410 

Total Department of Justice (DOJ) 1,280,657 - 45,445,469 46,726,126 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (DOL) 


Labor Force Statistics 17.002 - - 1,298,404 1,298,404 

Compensation & Working Conditions 17.005 - - 173,619 173,619 

Registered Apprenticeship and Other Training 17.201 - - 71,120 71,120 

Employment Service Cluster 

Employment Services 17.207 - - 12,426,562 12,426,562 

Employment Services - ARRA 17.207 - - 4,410,549 4,410,549 

Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) 17.801 - - 1,458,755 1,458,755 

Local Veterans' Employment Representative Program 17.804 - - 1,301,325 1,301,325 

Total Employment Service Cluster $ 19,597,191 

Unemployment Insurance 17.225 - - 1,882,626,166 1,882,626,166 

Unemployment Insurance - ARRA 17.225 - - 278 278 

Senior Community Service Employment Program 17.235 - - 1,256,837 1,256,837 

Trade Adjustment Assistance: Workers 17.245 - - 876,584 876,584 

Workforce Investment Act Cluster (WIA) 

Workforce Investment Act: Adult Program 17.258 - - 10,726,692 10,726,692 

Workforce Investment Act: Adult Program - ARRA 17.258 - - 1,459,706 1,459,706 

Workforce Investment Act: Youth Activities 17.259 - - 11,966,969 11,966,969 

Workforce Investment Act: Youth Activities - ARRA 17.259 - - 3,947,016 3,947,016 

Workforce Investment Act: Dislocated Workers 17.260 - - 10,411,749 10,411,749 

Workforce Investment Act: Dislocated Workers - ARRA 17.260 - - 3,719,229 3,719,229 

Total WIA Cluster 42,231,361 

WIA Pilots, Demonstrations and Research Projects 17.261 - - 1,361,206 1,361,206 

Work Incentives Grant 17.266 - - 86,821 86,821 

Pass-Through Community College of Baltimore County 17.268 - - 60,446 60,446 

Work Opportunity Tax Credit Program 17.271 - - 411,831 411,831 

Labor Certification for Alien Workers 17.273 - - 107,317 107,317 

State Energy Sector Partnership - ARRA 17.275 - - 4,783,194 4,783,194 

Pass-Through Baltimore County Office of Workforce Development 17.275 - - 21,389 21,389 

HCTC GAP Filler III - ARRA 17.276 - - 828,452 828,452 

WIA Dislocated Worker Formula Grants 17.278 - - 641,496 641,496 

Occupational Safety & Health 17.503 - - 4,201,977 4,201,977 

Consultation Agreements 17.504 - - 702,189 702,189 

Occupational Illness & Injury Prevention 17.600 - - 29,540 29,540 

Employment and Training Administration 17.RD 244,505 - 244,505 

Pass-Through ICF International 17.RD 58,419 - 58,419 

Total Department of Labor 302,924 - 1,964,519,834 1,964,822,758 


21





Research & 

Development 



US DEPARTMENT OF STATE (DOS) 

Pass-Through Institute of International Education 19.010 $ - $ - $ 236,208 

$ 

236,208 

Thomas R. Pickering Foreign Affairs Fellowship Program 19.013 - - 25,000 25,000 

Pass-Through Academy for Educational Development 19.022 - - 270,866 270,866 


Pass-Through Academy for Educational Development 19.408 - - 421 421 

Academic Exchange Programs - English Language Programs 19.421 - - 770,469 770,469 

International Education Training and Research 19.430 - - 138,991 138,991 

Pass-Through National Council for Eurasian and - - - 

East European Research 19.RD 32,393 - - 32,393 

Bureau of Diplomatic Security 19.RD 140,831 - - 140,831 

Pass-Through U.S. Civilian Research and Development Foundation 19.RD 147,533 - - 147,533 

Total US Department of State (DOS) 320,757 - 1,454,363 1,775,120 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT) 


Airport Improvement Program - ARRA 20.106 - - 11,945,428 11,945,428 

Highway Research and Development Program 20.200 - - 85,239 85,239 

Highway Planning & Construction Cluster 

Highway Planning & Construction 20.205 - - 348,333,188 348,333,188 

Highway Planning & Construction - ARRA 20.205 - - 165,913,624 165,913,624 

Appalachian Development Highway System 23.003 - - 97,914 97,914 

Total Highway Planning & Construction Cluster $ 514,344,726 

Highway Training and Education 20.215 - - 85,633 85,633 

National Motor Carrier Safety 20.218 - - 2,372,031 2,372,031 

Pass-Through University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 20.218 - - 96,394 96,394 

Commercial Driver License Grant Agreement 20.232 - - 581,999 581,999 

Commercial Driver License Information System 20.238 - - 193,183 193,183 

High-Speed Rail Corridors and Intercity Passenger Rail Service – 

Capital Assistance Grants - ARRA 20.319 - - 4,648,059 4,648,059 

Federal Transit Cluster 

Capital Investment Grants 20.500 - - 74,245,320 74,245,320 

Capital Investment Grants - ARRA 20.500 - - 8,346,219 8,346,219 

Formula Grants 20.507 - - 110,137,555 110,137,555 

Federal Stimulus - ARRA 20.507 - - 38,169,368 38,169,368 

Total Federal Transit Cluster 230,898,462 

Federal Transit: Metropolitan Planning Grants 20.505 - - 8,074,295 8,074,295 

Formula Grants for Other Than Urbanized Areas 20.509 - - 5,135,052 5,135,052 

Formula Grants for Other Than Urbanized Areas - ARRA 20.509 - - 7,489,055 7,489,055 

Transit Services Programs Cluster 

Capital Assistance Program for Elderly Persons & 

Persons with Disabilities 20.513 - - 2,007,591 2,007,591 

Job Access: Reverse Commute 20.516 - - 869,139 869,139 

New Freedom Initiative 20.521 - - 187,346 187,346 

Total Transit Services Programs Cluster 3,064,076 

Alternative Analysis 20.522 - - 202,209 202,209 

Capital Assistance Program for Reducing Energy Consumption and - - - 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions - ARRA 20.523 - - 524,237 524,237 

State & Community Highway Safety 20.600 - - 6,204,718 6,204,718 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 20.614 - - 11,953 11,953 

E-911 Grant Program 20.615 - - 955,681 955,681 

Pipeline Safety 20.700 - - 342,240 342,240 

University Transportation Centers Program 20.701 964,572 - - 964,572 

Research and Innovative Technology Administration 

University Transportation Center 20.701 - - 19,383 19,383 

Interagency Hazardous Materials Public Sector Training & Planning 20.703 - - 274,302 274,302 

RITA Hydrogen 20.704 - - 86,526 86,526 

Federal Aviation Administration 20.RD 275,735 - - 275,735 

Federal Highway Administration 20.RD 591,624 - - 591,624 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 20.RD 79,760 - - 79,760 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 20.RD 697,281 - - 697,281 

Other Research & Development 20.RD 694,879 - - 694,879 



Pass-Through The National Academies- Transportation Research Board 20.RD 166,700 - - 166,700 


Pass-Through Westat Corporation 20.RD 224 - - 224 


Research and Innovative Technology Administration 20.RD 883,798 - - 883,798 

Total Department of Transportation (DOT) 4,933,967 - 798,978,312 803,912,279 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY (DOTR) 

Contract / Other Office of Economic Policy IPA Program 

21. IPA 

No. 10123328 - - 179,396 179,396 

Low Income Taxpayer Clinics 21.008 - - 30,271 30,271 

Pass-Through University of Baltimore Foundation 21.RD 19,610 - - 19,610 

Total Department of the Treasury (DOTR) 19,610 - 209,667 229,277 


22





Research & 

Development 



APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION (ARC) 

Appalachian Regional Development 23.001 $ - $ - $ 57,557 

$ 

57,557 

Appalachian Local Access Roads 23.008 - - 438,300 438,300 

Pass-Through East Tennessee State University 23.011 - - 2,558 2,558 

Pass-Through Frostburg State University Foundation 23.011 - - 38,323 38,323 

Total Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) - - 536,738 536,738 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMITTEE - (EEOC) 

Employment Discrimination: State & Local Fair Employment - - - 

Practices Agency Contracts 30.002 - - 346,351 346,351 

Total Equal Employment Opportunity Committee (EEOC) - - 346,351 346,351 

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION - 

(GSA) NON-CASH EXPENDITURE 

Disposal of Federal Surplus Real Property 39.002 - - 4,344 4,344 

Donation of Federal Surplus Property Program 39.003 - - 146,216 146,216 


Public Buildings Services 39.012 - - 179,862 179,862 

Pass-Through District of Columbia Office of Planning 39.RD 25,760 - - 25,760 

Total General Services Administration (GSA) 25,760 - 4,234,447 4,260,207 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

Section 1602 (Monetization) - ARRA 40.Unknown - - 49,906,435 49,906,435 

Total Government Printing Office 49,906,435 49,906,435 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 


42.LCLSC- 

10P00105 - - 19,139 19,139 

Library of Congress 42.RD 119,193 - - 119,193 


Total Library of Congress 275,525 - 19,139 294,664 


ADMINISTRATION (NASA) 

Aerospace Education Services Program 43.001 4,696,086 - - 4,696,086 


Technology Transfer 43.002 611,971 - - 611,971 

Pass-Through California State University - Monterey Bay - ARRA 43.006 78,932 - - 78,932 

NASA 43.RD 69,815,366 - - 69,815,366 

Pass-Through AdTech Photonics, Inc 43.RD 4,934 - - 4,934 

Pass-Through Axis Engineering Technologies 43.RD 12,459 - - 12,459 



Pass-Through California Institute of Technology 43.RD 183 - - 183 

Pass-Through California Institute of Technology 

and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory 43.RD 485,905 - - 485,905 

Pass-Through California Institute of Technology 

and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory 43.RD 174,208 - - 174,208 

Pass-Through Carnegie Institution 43.RD 12,000 - - 12,000 

Pass-Through Carnegie Institute of Washington 43.RD 85,950 - - 85,950 

Pass-Through Clark University 43.RD 8,450 - - 8,450 


Pass-Through CoolCAD Electronics 43.RD 82,155 - - 82,155 


Pass-Through Drexel University 43.RD 13,977 - - 13,977 

Pass-Through Florida Institute of Technology 43.RD 9,168 - - 9,168 



Pass-Through Hampton University 43.RD 98,322 - - 98,322 

Pass-Through Innovative Health Applications 43.RD 17,865 - - 17,865 

Pass-Through Institute for Global Environment and Society 43.RD 27,880 - - 27,880 

Pass-Through Johns Hopkins University/Applied Physics Lab 43.RD 125,804 - - 125,804 

Pass-Through Mantech International Corporation 43.RD 38,256 - - 38,256 

Pass-Through Maxion Technologies 43.RD 37,545 - - 37,545 

Pass-Through Michigan Technological University 43.RD 52,348 - - 52,348 

Pass-Through National Institute of Aerospace 43.RD 389,243 - - 389,243 

Pass-Through National Space Grant Foundation 43.RD 40,815 - - 40,815 


Pass-Through Oregon State University 43.RD 99,519 - - 99,519 

Pass-Through Planetary Science Institute 43.RD 15,504 - - 15,504 


Pass-Through Resources for the Future 43.RD 54,074 - - 54,074 

Pass-Through Science Systems & Application, Inc 43.RD 22,813 - - 22,813 

Pass-Through Sigma Space Corporation 43.RD 6,829 - - 6,829 

Pass-Through Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory 43.RD 13,593 - - 13,593 

Pass-Through South Dakota State University 43.RD 103,879 - - 103,879 

Pass-Through Southwest Research Institute 43.RD 15,612 - - 15,612 

Pass-Through Space Science Institute 43.RD 11,754 - - 11,754 

Pass-Through Space Telescope Science Institute 43.RD 170,822 - - 170,822 

Pass-Through Universities Space Research Association 43.RD 94,393 - - 94,393 

Pass-Through University of California at Berkley 43.RD 26,720 - - 26,720 



23





Research & 

Development 




ADMINISTRATION (NASA) (continued) 

NASA (continued) 

Pass-Through University of Central Florida 43.RD $ 13,675 $ - $ - 

$ 

13,675 


Pass-Through University of Florida 43.RD 129,663 - - 129,663 

Pass-Through University of Houston 43.RD 5,576 - - 5,576 


Pass-Through University of North Caroline at Chapel Hill 43.RD 29,996 - - 29,996 






Total National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA) 79,134,965 - 140,627 79,275,592 

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES (NEH) 

Promotion of the Arts: Grants to Organizations and Individuals 45.024 - - 78,832 78,832 

Pass-Through New England Foundation for the Arts 45.024 - - 1,426 1,426 

Promotion of the Arts: Partnership Agreements 45.025 - - 847,543 847,543 

Pass-Through Mid-Atlantic Arts Foundation 45.025 - - 29,260 29,260 

Pass-Through Maryland Humanities 45.129 - - 6,000 6,000 

Promotion of the Humanities: Research 45.161 15,918 - - 15,918 

Promotion of the Humanities: Seminars and Institutes 45.163 - - 91,062 91,062 

Promotion of the Humanities: Public Programs 45.164 - - 177,987 177,987 

Promotion of the Humanities: Office of Digital Humanities 45.169 - - 41,455 41,455 

Pass-Through University of Nebraska 45.169 - - 3,004 3,004 

Conservation Project Support 45.303 - - 73,251 73,251 

Museum Grants for African American History and Culture 45.309 - - 84,627 84,627 

State Library Program 45.310 - - 2,256,750 2,256,750 

Institute of Museum and Library Services: National Leadership Grants 45.312 - - 12,817 12,817 

Laura Bush 21 Century Librarian Program 45.313 - - 589,388 589,388 

Institute of Museum and Library Services 45.RD 646,336 - - 646,336 

National Endowment for the Arts 45.RD 10,000 - - 10,000 

National Endowment for the Humanities 45.RD 360,804 - - 360,804 


Total National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) 1,040,052 - 4,293,402 5,333,454 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (NSF) 

Engineering Grants 47.041 - - 536,923 536,923 

Engineering Grants 47.041 77,577 - - 77,577 

Mathematical and Physical Sciences 47.049 - - 623,730 623,730 

Pass-Through University of Notre Dame 47.049 - - 4,459 4,459 

Mathematical and Physical Sciences - ARRA 47.049 132,766 - - 132,766 

Geosciences 47.050 - - 17,460 17,460 

Hyperspec Remote Sensing 47.050 74,597 - - 74,597 

Computer and Information Science and Engineering 47.070 - - 204,965 204,965 

Pass-Through Computing Research Association 47.070 - - 136,918 136,918 

Collaborative Research BPC-ARTSI 47.070 8,117 - - 8,117 

Biological Sciences 47.074 - - 190,689 190,689 

Pass-Through Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies 47.074 - - 91,961 91,961 

Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences 47.075 - - 172,343 172,343 

Pass-Through University of Southern California - ARRA 47.075 113,358 - - 113,358 

Pass-Through California Poly Corporation 47.076 - - 7,546 7,546 

Education and Human Resources 47.076 - - 8,594,966 8,594,966 

Pass-Through Colorado State University 47.076 - - 192,076 192,076 

Pass-Through University System of Maryland Foundation 47.076 - - 424,150 424,150 

International Science & Engineering (OISE) 47.079 15,776 - - 15,776 

Trans-NSF Recovery Act Research Support 47.082 - - 100,141 100,141 

Trans-NSF Recovery Act Research Support 47.082 197,777 - - 197,777 

Trans-NSF Recovery Act Research Support - ARRA 47.082 10,743,063 - 610,743 11,353,806 

Pass-Through Georgetown University - ARRA 47.082 99,909 - - 99,909 

Pass-Through Stanford University - ARRA 47.082 58,067 - - 58,067 

Pass-Through Sienna College 47.082 856 - - 856 


47.HDR- 

0853418 - - 108,130 108,130 



Contract/Other IPA Agreement 

47. IPA No. 

CHE1020439 - - 40,334 40,334 


47. IPA No. 

CMMI1059137 - - 244,062 244,062 


47. IPA No. 

CNS1007091 - - 266,191 266,191 


47. IPA No. 

DEB1062346 - - 142,260 142,260 


47. IPA No. 

DMS0963731 - - 196,689 196,689 


47. IPA No. 

DMS1057962 - - 185,621 185,621 


47. IPA No. 

PHY1060895 - - 141,101 141,101 


24





NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (NSF) (continued) 


CFDA Number 

Research & 

Development 



47. IPA.No. 

IOS1125824 $ - $ - $ 52,517 

$ 

52,517 

National Science Foundation (NSF) 47.RD 56,487,927 - 2,839,479 59,327,406 

Pass-Through Academy for Educational Development 47.RD 4,091 - - 4,091 

Pass-Through American Educational Research Association 47.RD 26,730 - - 26,730 

Pass-Through Association for Institutional Research 47.RD 16,477 - - 16,477 

Pass-Through BBNT Solutions, LLC 47.RD 203,708 - - 203,708 

Pass-Through Binational Agricultural Research and Development Fund (BA 47.RD 50,923 - - 50,923 

Pass-Through Blue Wave SemiConductors, Inc 47.RD 17,840 - - 17,840 



Pass-Through Carnegie Institution of Washington 47.RD 56,781 - - 56,781 



Pass-Through Colorado School of Mines 47.RD 234 - - 234 



Pass-Through Computing Research Association 47.RD 245,472 - - 245,472 

Pass-Through Dartmouth College 47.RD 16,201 - - 16,201 

Pass-Through Education Development Center 47.RD 56,675 - - 56,675 


Pass-Through Howard University 47.RD 15,465 - - 15,465 

Pass-Through Indiana University 47.RD 7,061 - - 7,061 


Pass-Through Johns Hopkins University / Applied Physics Lab 47.RD 106,274 - - 106,274 

Pass-Through Lenterra Inc 47.RD 33,908 - - 33,908 

Pass-Through Loyola University 47.RD 35,579 - - 35,579 

Pass-Through National Radio Astronomy Observatory 47.RD 13,567 - - 13,567 



Pass-Through OMIC Biosytems 47.RD 55,818 - - 55,818 

Pass-Through Oregon Health & Science University 47.RD 92,836 - - 92,836 

Pass-Through Pacific Ecoinformatics & Computational Ecology Lab 47.RD 43,340 - - 43,340 

Pass-Through Purdue University 47.RD 92,648 - - 92,648 

Pass-Through Research Foundation of City University of New York 47.RD 4,919 - - 4,919 

Pass-Through Sarissa Inc (Sarissa Technologies) 47.RD 22,072 - - 22,072 

Pass-Through Siena College 47.RD 7,784 - - 7,784 

Pass-Through Southwest Research Institute - ARRA 47.082 43,487 - - 43,487 


Pass-Through State University of New York at Stony Brook - ARRA 47.082 37,438 - - 37,438 


Pass-Through Texas A&M University 47.RD 20,853 - - 20,853 




Pass-Through University of Delaware 47.RD 15,128 - - 15,128 


Pass-Through University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 47.RD 18,826 - - 18,826 


Pass-Through University of Mississippi 47.RD 2,930 - - 2,930 





Pass-Through Vanderbilt University 47.RD 28,009 - - 28,009 

Pass-Through Virginia Commonwealth University 47.RD 40,186 - - 40,186 


Pass-Through Woods Hole Oceanographic 47.RD 69,566 - - 69,566 

Pass-Through Wright State University 47.RD 1,248 - - 1,248 


Total National Science Foundation (NSF) 71,973,962 - 16,150,587 88,124,549 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 


59.SBAHG- 

08-I-0186 - - 8,559 8,559 

Pass-Through Baltimore County Dept of Economic Development 59.006 - - 86 86 

Small Business Development Center 59.037 - - 2,101,617 2,101,617 

Program for Investment in Microentrpreneurs Act 59.050 - - 61,234 61,234 

Total Small Business Administration - - 2,171,496 2,171,496 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS (VA) 

64.IPA 

No. 09051171 - - 7,669 7,669 

Veterans State Domiciliary Care 64.014 - - 1,946,853 1,946,853 

Veterans State Nursing Home Care 64.015 - - 8,062,111 8,062,111 

Burial Expenses Allowances 64.101 - - 633,550 633,550 

Vocational & Educational Counseling for Service Members & Veterans 64.125 - - 239,676 239,676 


25





Research & 

Development 



DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS (VA) (continued) 

State Cemetery Grants 64.203 $ - $ - $ 5,905,999 

$ 

5,905,999 

Pass-Through PARRA Consulting Group, Inc 64.RD 593 - - 593 

Pass-Through University of Maryland Medical System 64.RD 42,161 - - 42,161 

Veterans Benefits Administration – Research and Development 64.RD 924 - - 924 

Veterans Health Administration – Research and Development 64.RD 6,566,628 - - 6,566,628 

Total Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) 6,610,306 - 16,795,858 23,406,164 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) 

Contract/Other 66.G11C00073 - - 3,311 3,311 


Poultry Litter Project 66.000 - - 860,966 860,966 

Spec. Purpose Activities 66.034 - - 539,184 539,184 

MD State School Bus Grant Program - ARRA 66.039 - - 508,785 508,785 

National Clean Diesel Emissions Reduction Program 66.039 - - 2,315,304 2,315,304 

Pass-Through National Fish & Wildlife Foundation 66.039 - - 39,027 39,027 

Maryland Clean Diesel 66.040 - - 294,040 294,040 

MD State Clean Diesel Grant Program - ARRA 66.040 - - 1,327,885 1,327,885 

Congressionally Mandated Projects 66.202 - - 97,381 97,381 

Environmental Finance Center Grants 66.203 - - 285,407 285,407 

Water Quality Management Planning 66.454 - - 316,782 316,782 

MDE Water Quality Mgt Planning - ARRA 66.454 - - 603,295 603,295 

Nonpoint Source Implementation Grants 66.460 - - 2,867,216 2,867,216 

Regional Wetland Program Development Grants 66.461 - - 2,363 2,363 

Chesapeake Bay Program 66.466 - - 5,631,488 5,631,488 

Capitalization Grants for Drinking Water State Revolving Fund - ARRA 66.468 - - 1,401,586 1,401,586 

Operator Certification Expense Reimbursement 66.471 - - 220,456 220,456 

Beach Monitoring & Notification Program Implementation Grants 66.472 - - 326,282 326,282 


Water Protection Grants to the States 66.474 - - 4,877 4,877 

MD Regulatory Wetland Program Enhancement 66.479 - - 108,061 108,061 

Pass-Through Resources for the Future 66.509 - - 547 547 

Greater Research Opportunities (GRO) Fellowships for 

Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs) 66.605 - - 11,106,879 11,106,879 

Environmental Information Exchange Network Grant Program 66.608 - - 199,367 199,367 

Environmental Policy & Innovation Grants 66.611 - - 25,814 25,814 

Pollution Prevention Grants Program 66.708 - - 86,625 86,625 

Multi-Media Capacity Building Grants for States and Tribes 66.709 - - 1,222 1,222 

Superfund State Site: Specific Cooperative Agreements 66.802 - - 522,355 522,355 

State & Tribal Underground Storage Tanks Program 66.804 - - 631,178 631,178 

Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program 66.805 - - 1,602,500 1,602,500 

Leaking Underground Storage Tank - ARRA 66.805 - - 1,341,167 1,341,167 

Solid Waste Management Assistance 66.808 - - 5,052 5,052 

Superfund State & Indian Tribe Core Program: Cooperative Agreements 66.809 - - 378,263 378,263 

State & Tribal Response Program Grants 66.817 - - 362,167 362,167 

Brownfields Assessment & Cleanup Cooperative Agreements 66.818 - - 202,179 202,179 

Pass-Through Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education 66.951 - - 46,872 46,872 

Environmental Protection Agency 66.RD 148,178 - - 148,178 

Office of Research and Development 66.RD 1,096,689 - - 1,096,689 



Pass-Through Prince George's County Government 66.RD 11,258 - - 11,258 


Total Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1,278,669 - 34,325,781 35,604,450 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC) 

Contract/Other IPA 

77.IPA No. 

NRCDR4211002 - - 48,121 48,121 

Contract/Other IPA 

77.IPA No. 

RESC10812 - - 13,743 13,743 

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Education Grant Program 77.006 - - 99,409 99,409 

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Scholarship and Fellowship Program 77.008 - - 126,233 126,233 

Other National Regulatory Commission – Research and Development 77.RD 510,947 - - 510,947 

Pass-Through Sandia National Laboratories 77.RD 100,048 - - 100,048 

Total Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 610,995 - 287,506 898,501 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) 



81.IPA No. 

09071661 - - 8,309 8,309 

81.IPA No. 

09092163 - - 239,319 239,319 

State Energy Program 81.041 - - 24,499,757 24,499,757 

Weatherization Assistance for Low-Income Persons 81.042 - - 501,851 501,851 

Weatherization Assistance for Low-Income Persons - ARRA 81.042 - - 22,679,630 22,679,630 

Office of Science Financial Assistance Program 81.049 - - 76,767 76,767 

Office of Science Financial Assistance Program - ARRA 81.049 775,380 - - 775,380 

University Coal Research 81.057 252,251 - - 252,251 

Conservation Research & Development 81.086 - - 2,943,893 2,943,893 

Conservation Research & Development 81.086 28,409 - - 28,409 


26





Research & 

Development 



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) (continued) 

Renewable Energy Research & Development 81.087 $ - $ - $ 53,103 

$ 

53,103 

State Heating & Propane Programs 81.090 - - 8,465 8,465 

State Energy Program Special Projects 81.119 - - 20,023 20,023 

Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability - ARRA 81.122 - - 320,607 320,607 

EE Appliance Rebate Program 81.127 - - 3,519,267 3,519,267 

Energy Efficiency & Conservation Block Grant Program (EECBG) 81.128 - - 15,062,459 15,062,459 

Energy Efficiency & Conservation Block Grant Program (EECBG) - ARRA 81.128 - - 7,888,769 7,888,769 

Advanced Research and Projects Agency - Energy Financial Assistance - 

Program - ARRA 81.135 111,109 - - 111,109 

Technology Transfer Activities 81.511 - - 146,383 146,383 

Pass-Through Battelle Memorial Institute - ARRA 81.106946 - - 21,828 21,828 



Pass-Through Battelle Corporation - ARRA 81.114407 496,765 - - 496,765 



Pass-Through Brookhaven National Laboratory - ARRA 81.158983 77,843 - - 77,843 

Pass-Through Fermilab 81.582682 - 1,422 1,422 

Pass-Through Lawrence Livermoore National Laboratory 81.6952393 47,772 - - 47,772 

Office of Science 81.RD 13,390,032 - - 13,390,032 

Other Department of Energy – Research and Development 81.RD 858,885 - - 858,885 

Pass-Through Ames Laboratory 81.RD 460,266 - - 460,266 

Pass-Through Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) 81.RD 129,371 - - 129,371 

Pass-Through Battelle Corporation 81.RD 518,392 - - 518,392 

Pass-Through Brookhaven National Laboratory 81.RD 857 - - 857 

Pass-Through GE Global Research 81.RD 46,033 - - 46,033 

Pass-Through General Atomics 81.RD 29,868 - - 29,868 

Pass-Through General Electric Company 81.RD 24,318 - - 24,318 

Pass-Through HyperV Technologies, Inc 81.RD 41,971 - - 41,971 

Pass-Through Iowa State University 81.RD 35,986 - - 35,986 

Pass-Through Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 81.RD 12,317 - - 12,317 

Pass-Through Oak Ridge National Laboratory 81.RD 2,530 - - 2,530 

Pass-Through Sandia National Labs 81.RD 398,569 - - 398,569 


Pass-Through Teledyne Scientific 81.RD 43,791 - - 43,791 

Pass-Through Tulane University 81.RD 50,508 - - 50,508 





Pass-Through UT Battelle LLC 81.RD 26,325 - - 26,325 


Total Department of Entergy (DOE) 18,316,588 - 78,068,828 96,385,416 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (ED) 

Contract/Other 84.unknown - - 39,791 39,791 

Adult Education - State Grant Program 84.002 - - 9,317,392 9,317,392 

Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants 84.007 - 4,916,658 - 4,916,658 

Federal Family Educational Loans 84.032 - 11,344,563 - 11,344,563 

Federal Work-Study Program 84.033 - 8,382,782 - 8,382,782 

Federal Work-Study Program - ARRA 84.033 - 16,340 - 16,340 

Federal Perkins Loan Program: Federal Capital Contributions 84.038 - 73,202,480 - 73,202,480 

Federal Pell Grant Program 84.063 - 163,265,997 - 163,265,997 

Federal Direct Student Loans 84.268 - 930,146,690 - 930,146,690 

Academic Competitiveness Grants 84.375 - 2,506,266 - 2,506,266 

National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (Smart) Grants 84.376 - 3,510,988 - 3,510,988 

Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education 

Grants (TEACH Grants) 84.379 - 431,280 - 431,280 

Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans/ 

Loans for Disadvantaged Students 93.342 - 11,960,416 - 11,960,416 

Nursing Student Loan 93.364 - 1,853,422 - 1,853,422 

Title 1, Part A Cluster 

Title 1 Part A - Title 1 Grants to Local Education Agencies 84.010 - - 183,236,625 183,236,625 

Title 1 Part A - Grants to LEAs - ARRA 84.389 - - 66,816,896 66,816,896 

Total Title 1, Part A Cluster $ 250,053,521 

Migrant Education: State Grant Program 84.011 - - 459,272 459,272 

Title 1 Program for Neglected & Delinquent Children 84.013 - - 2,239,551 2,239,551 

Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language Programs 84.016 - - 70,674 70,674 

International Research and Studies 84.017 - - 43,304 43,304 

International: Overseas: Group Projects Abroad 84.021 - - 114,605 114,605 

Special Education Cluster (IDEA) 

Special Education: Grants to States 84.027 - - 201,275,157 201,275,157 

Pass-Through Government of the District of Columbia 84.027 - - 165,000 165,000 

Special Education: Preschool Grants 84.173 - - 6,273,594 6,273,594 

Special Education Grants to State - ARRA 84.391 - - 92,315,222 92,315,222 

IDEA - Part B - Preschool Grants - ARRA 84.392 - - 3,003,545 3,003,545 

Total IDEA Part B Cluster 303,032,518 


27





Research & 

Development 




Higher Education Institutional Aid 84.031 $ - $ - $ 25,630,147 

$ 25,630,147 

Federal Perkins Loan Cancellations 84.037 - 593,992 593,992 

TRIO Cluster 

TRIO: Student Support Services 84.042 - - 2,096,036 2,096,036 

TRIO: Talent Search 84.044 - - 959,376 959,376 

TRIO: Upward Bound 84.047 - - 4,255,692 4,255,692 

TRIO: Educational Opportunity Centers 84.066 - - 263,206 263,206 

TRIO: McNair Post – Baccalaureate Achievement 84.217 - - 966,106 966,106 

Total TRIO Cluster $ 8,540,416 

Vocational Education: Basic Grants to States 84.048 - - 17,572,475 17,572,475 

Career and Technical Education - National Programs 84.051 - - 91,473 91,473 

Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership 84.069 - - 1,211,922 1,211,922 

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education 84.116 - - 757,743 757,743 

Video Cases for Novice College Mathematics Instructors 84.116B - - 10,242 10,242 

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education 84.116Z - - 480,103 480,103 

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement 84.120 - - 11,428 11,428 

Vocational Rehabilitation Cluster 

Rehabilitation Services: Vocational Rehab. Grants to States 84.126 - - 39,865,917 39,865,917 

D.O.R.S. Transition Grant - ARRA 84.390 - - 65,366 65,366 

Vocational Rehab. Grants - ARRA 84.390 - - 1,886,912 1,886,912 

Total Vocational Rehabilitation Cluster 41,818,195 

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training 84.129 - - 472,306 472,306 

National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research 84.133 - - 207,520 207,520 

Business and International Education Projects 84.153 - - 128,093 128,093 

Rehabilitation Services: Client Assistance Program 84.161 - - 138,816 138,816 

Independent Living: State Grants 84.169 - - 335,498 335,498 

Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who are Blind Cluster 

Rehabilitation Service: Independent Living Services for Older Individuals 

Who are Blind 84.177 - - 678,657 678,657 

Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who are Blind - ARRA 84.399 - - 153,608 153,608 

Total Independent Living Services for Older Individuals 

Who are Blind Cluster 832,265 

Early Intervention Services Cluster (IDEA) 

Special Education: Grants for Infants & Families with Disabilities 84.181 - - 7,304,964 7,304,964 

IDEA Part C - Infants & Families - ARRA 84.393 - - 10,652,146 10,652,146 

Total IDEA Part C Cluster 17,957,110 

Safe & Drug-Free Schools & Communities National Programs 84.184 - - 419,432 419,432 

Byrd Honors Scholarships 84.185 - - 1,129,379 1,129,379 

Safe & Drug-Free Schools & Communities: State Grants 84.186 - - 1,001,266 1,001,266 

Supported Employment Services for Individuals with Severe Handicaps 84.187 - - 390,107 390,107 

Bilingual Education: Professional Development 84.195 - - 296,968 296,968 

Education of Homeless Children and Youth Cluster 

Education of Homeless Children and Youth 84.196 - - 1,107,796 1,107,796 

Homeless Youth and Children - ARRA 84.387 - - 479,151 479,151 

Total Education of Homeless Children and Youth Cluster 1,586,947 

Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need 84.200 - - 998,835 998,835 

Even Start: State Educational Agencies 84.213 - - 951,179 951,179 

Scholarships for Health Professions Students from 




Pass-Through Howard Co Public Schools 84.215 - - 49,338 49,338 

Pass-Through Baltimore County Public Schools 84.215 - - 70,458 70,458 

Centers for International Business Education 84.220 - - 206,755 206,755 

Assistive Technology 84.224 - - 494,307 494,307 

Rehabilitation Services Demonstrative & Training 84.235 - - 570,147 570,147 

Tech - Prep Education 84.243 - - 1,434,283 1,434,283 

Rehabilitation Training: State Vocational Rehabilitation 

Unit In-Service Training 84.265 - - 127,021 127,021 

The Charter School Program 84.282 - - 5,663,982 5,663,982 

Twenty-First Century Community Learning Centers 84.287 - - 16,172,818 16,172,818 

Pass-Through Worcester County Board of Education 84.287 - - 676 676 

Pass-Through Tennessee Tech University 84.305 - - 10,286 10,286 

Pass-Through University of Illinois 84.305 - - 60,289 60,289 

Education Technology States Cluster 

Technology Literacy Challenge Fund Grants 84.318 - - 2,624,116 2,624,116 

Education Technology - ARRA 84.386 - - 3,910,964 3,910,964 

Total Education Technology States Cluster 6,535,080 

SPED: State Program Improvement Grants for Children with Disabilities 84.323 - - 1,286,851 1,286,851 

SPED: Personnel Preparation to Improve Services & 

Results for Children with Disabilities 84.325 - - 2,332,485 2,332,485 

SPED: Tech Assist. & Dissemination to Improve Services & 

Results for Children with Disabilities 84.326 - - 161,548 161,548 

Advanced Placement Incentive Program 84.330 - - 1,271,554 1,271,554 

Grants to States for Incarcerated Youth Offenders 84.331 - - 115,703 115,703 

Gaining Early Awareness & Readiness for Undergraduate Programs 84.334 - - 2,185,219 2,185,219 


Child Care Access Means Parents in School 84.335 - - 34,040 34,040 


28





Research & 

Development 




Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants 84.336 $ - $ - $ 184,471 

$ 

184,471 


Underground Railroad Education & Cultural Program 84.345 - - 110,734 110,734 

Transition to Teaching 84.350 - - 381,890 381,890 

Reading First State Grants 84.357 - - 1,001,825 1,001,825 

English Language Acquisition Grants 84.365 - - 9,636,427 9,636,427 

Mathematics & Science Partnerships 84.366 - - 2,018,416 2,018,416 

Improving Teacher Quality State Grants 84.367 - - 43,340,031 43,340,031 


Grants for State Assessments & Related Activities 84.369 - - 7,355,755 7,355,755 

Statewide Longitudinal Data System 84.372 - - 1,824,735 1,824,735 

School Improvement Grants Cluster 

School Improvement Grants 84.377 - - 2,320,192 2,320,192 

School Improvement Grants - ARRA 84.388 - - 8,799,362 8,799,362 

Total School Improvement Grants Cluster $ 11,119,554 

College Access Challenge Grant Program 84.378 - - 915,860 915,860 

Strengthening Minority-Servicing Institutions 84.382 - - 302,924 302,924 

State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Cluster (SFSF) 

State Fiscal Stabilization Fund - Education State Grants - ARRA 84.394 - - 412,092,087 412,092,087 

State Fiscal Stabilization Fund - Government Services - ARRA 84.397 - - 79,049,842 79,049,842 

Total SFSF Cluster 491,141,929 

SFSF-Race to the Top Incentive - ARRA 84.395 - - 9,643,096 9,643,096 

Pass-Through Baltimore City Public Schools 84.395 - - 186 186 

Independent Living -ARRA 84.398 - - 93,322 93,322 

Education Jobs Fund - ARRA 84.410 - - 104,392,740 104,392,740 

Pass-Through National Writing Project Corporation, 84.928 - - 179,264 179,264 

University of California, Berkley 

Institute of Education Sciences 84.RD 1,040,298 - - 1,040,298 

Pass-Through Anne Arundel County Public Schools 84.RD 28,902 - - 28,902 

Pass-Through Baltimore County Public Schools 84.RD 60,598 - - 60,598 


Pass-Through Carnegie-Mellon University 84.RD 57,355 - - 57,355 


Pass-Through Georgia Tech Research Corp 84.RD 2,806 - - 2,806 

Pass-Through Office of State Superintendent of Ed (Washington, DC) 84.RD 7,346 - - 7,346 


Pass-Through TransCen, Inc. 84.RD 171,506 - - 171,506 

Pass-Through University of Colorado, Denver 84.RD 20,136 - - 20,136 


Pass-Through University of Kansas 84.RD 61,223 - - 61,223 

Postsecondary Education 84.RD 846,549 - - 846,549 

Special Education and Rehabilitative Services 84.RD 218,596 - - 218,596 

Total Department of Education (ED) 2,691,328 1,212,131,874 1,411,353,880 2,626,177,082 

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 

Smithsonian Institution Fellowship Program 85.601 - - 141,083 141,083 

Total Smithsonian Institution - - 141,083 141,083 

NATIONAL ARCHIVES & RECORDS ADMINISTRATION 

National Historical Publications and Records Grants 89.003 - - 62,652 62,652 

National Archives and Records Administration – R&D 89.RD 230,936 230,936 

Total National Archives & Records Administration 230,936 - 62,652 293,588 

US ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION (EAC) 


Election Assistance Commission - Research & Development 90.RD 6,165 6,165 

Total US Election Assistance Commission (EAC) 6,165 - 4,936,936 4,943,101 

US INSTITUTE OF PEACE 

United States Institute of Peace - Research & Development 91.RD 438 - - 438 

Total US Institute of Peace 438 - - 438 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (HHS) 


Contract/Other National Institute of Health 93.HHSN - - - 

26320100090 - - 19,702 19,702 

Cooperative Agreements to Improve the Health Status 

of Minority Populations 93.004 - - 128,890 128,890 

Minority Health State Partnership 93.006 - - 1,000 1,000 

Medical Reserve Corps Small Grant Program 93.008 - - 10,000 10,000 

Pass-Through National Association of Counties and Cities 93.008 - - 3,453 3,453 

Programs for Prevention of Elder Abuse 93.041 - - 111,800 111,800 

Long Term Care Ombudsman Services for Older Individuals 93.042 - - 368,758 368,758 

Special Programs for the Aging: Title III, Part F: Disease Prevention 

& Health Promotion Services 93.043 - - 360,459 360,459 

Aging Cluster 

Special Programs for the Aging: Title III, Part B: Grants for 

Supportive Services & Senior Centers 93.044 - - 6,800,522 6,800,522 

Special Programs for the Aging: Title III, Part C: Nutrition Services 93.045 - - 10,385,160 10,385,160 

Nutrition Services Incentive Program 93.053 - - 1,898,765 1,898,765 

Total Aging Cluster 19,084,447 


29





Research & 

Development 




Special Programs for the Aging: Title IV: Training, Research & 

Discretionary Projects & Programs 93.048 $ - $ - $ 319,389 

$ 

319,389 

Nation Family Caregiver Support Program 93.052 - - 2,376,891 2,376,891 

Laboratory Leadership, Workforce Training and Management 

Development, Improving Public Health Laboratory Infrastructure 93.065 - - 30,000 30,000 

Public Health Emergency Preparedness 93.069 - - 21,601,423 21,601,423 

Asthma - From a Public Health Perspective 93.070 - - 414,013 414,013 

Healthy Marriage Promotion & Responsible Fatherhood Grants 93.086 - - 1,080,211 1,080,211 

Pass-Through Cecil County Department of Social Services 93.086 - - 18,000 18,000 

ASPAR-ESAR/VHP 93.089 - - 45,234 45,234 

Food & Drug Administration Research 93.103 - - 203,057 203,057 

Pass-Through Oak Ridge Institute for Science & Education 93.103 - - 23,566 23,566 

Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services for SED 93.104 - - 1,320,778 1,320,778 

Maternal & Child Health Federal Consolidated Programs 93.110 - - 190,506 190,506 

Environmental Health 93.113 5,611 - - 5,611 

Environmental Health 93.113 - - 13,673 13,673 

Project Grants & Coop Agreements for Tuberculosis Control Programs 93.116 - - 1,270,486 1,270,486 

Oral Diseases and Disorders Research - ARRA 93.121 258,377 - - 258,377 

Emergency Medical Services for Children 93.127 - - 100,304 100,304 

Primary Care Services: Resource Coordination & Development: 

Primary Care Offices 93.130 - - 217,706 217,706 

Injury Prevention & Control Research & State & 

Community Based Programs 93.136 - - 1,022,046 1,022,046 

Project for Assistance in Transition From Homelessness - (PATH) 93.150 - - 1,166,765 1,166,765 

Coordinated HIV Services & Access to Research for Children, 

Youth, Women & Families 93.153 - - 1,349,289 1,349,289 

Grants for State Loan Repayments 93.165 - - 221,908 221,908 

Human Genome Research - ARRA 93.172 808,201 808,201 

Research related to Deafness and Communication Disorders 93.173 - - 329,044 329,044 

Research related to Deafness and Communication Disorders - ARRA 93.173 48,052 48,052 

Nursing Workforce Diversity 93.178 - - 468,884 468,884 

Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention & Surveillance of 

Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services for 93.198 - - 855,288 855,288 

Family Planning: Services 93.217 - - 4,731,058 4,731,058 

Research on Healthcare Costs, Quality and Outcomes 93.226 - - 22,071 22,071 

National Center on Sleep Disorders - ARRA 93.233 52,563 - 52,563 

Affordable Care Act (ACA) Abstinence Education Program 93.235 - - 87,025 87,025 

Mental Health Research Grants 93.242 - - 28,231 28,231 

Mental Health Research Grants - ARRA 93.242 199,751 - - 199,751 

Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Projects of 

Regional & National Significance 93.243 - - 3,820,446 3,820,446 

Advance Nursing Education Grant Program 93.247 - - 112,208 112,208 

Universal Newborn Hearing Screening 93.251 - - 117,544 117,544 

Occupational Safety and Health Program 93.262 - - 104,884 104,884 

Nurse Faculty Loan Program (NFLP) 93.264 - 93,238 - 93,238 

Nurse Faculty Loan Program (NFLP) - ARRA 93.264 - 7,217 - 7,217 

Adult Viral Hepatitis Prevention Coord 93.270 - - 68,614 68,614 

Immunization Grants Cluster 

Immunization Grants 93.268 - - 4,005,514 4,005,514 

Emerging Infections Sect. 317 Immune - ARRA 93.712 - 815,948 815,948 

Total Immunization Grants Cluster $ 4,821,462 

Pass-Through Pacific Institute for Research Programs 93.273 - - 28,337 28,337 

Maryland Access Recovery 93.275 - - 456,447 456,447 

Drug Free Communities Support Program Grants 93.276 - - 322,916 322,916 

Pass-Through Wicomico County Health Department 93.276 - - 409 409 

Career Development Awards 93.277 - - 263,067 263,067 

Drug Abuse National Research Service Awards for Research Training 93.278 - - 64,705 64,705 

Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs 93.279 183,782 - - 183,782 

Pass-Through Louisiana State University 93.279 - 75,484 75,484 

Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs - ARRA 93.279 31,454 - - 31,454 

Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs - ARRA 93.279 - - 5,548 5,548 

Mental Health National Research Service Awards for Research Training 93.282 - - 228,652 228,652 

Center for Disease Control & Prevention: 

Investigations & Tech Assistance 93.283 - - 14,358,088 14,358,088 

Technological Innovations to Improve Human Health 93.286 155,741 - - 155,741 

Discovery and Applied Research - ARRA 93.286 652,458 - - 652,458 

State Partnership Grant Program to Improve Minority Health 93.296 - - 108,333 108,333 

Small Rural Hospital Improvement Grants 93.301 - - 17,510 17,510 

Laboratory Animal Sciences & Primate Research - ARRA 93.306 17,043 - - 17,043 

Minority Health and Health Disparities Research 93.307 621,507 - 621,507 

Pass-Through Henry Jackson Foundation 93.307 - - 7,424 7,424 

Pass-Through Shaw University 93.307 - - 3,774 3,774 

Advanced Education Nursing Tranineeships 93.358 - - 13,674 13,674 

Nurse Education Practice and Retention Grants 93.359 - - 178,888 178,888 

Nursing Research - ARRA 93.361 99,046 - - 99,046 

Minority Research Training 93.375 70,625 - - 70,625 

Research Infrastructure 93.389 - - 21,205 21,205 

Cancer Cause & Prevention Research - ARRA 93.393 201,170 - - 201,170 

Cancer Treatment Research - ARRA 93.395 309,299 - - 309,299 

Cancer Biology Research - ARRA 93.396 45,331 - - 45,331 


30





Research & 

Development 




Cancer Centers Support Grants - ARRA 93.397 $ 1,517,657 $ - $ - 

$ 

1,517,657 

Cancer Research Manpower - ARRA 93.398 57,434 - - 57,434 

Cancer Control - ARRA 93.399 22,267 - - 22,267 

State Loan Repayment Program - ARRA 93.402 - - 50,000 50,000 

Scholarships for Disadvantage Students - ARRA 93.407 - 147,992 - 147,992 

Equipment to Enhance Training for Health Professionals - ARRA 93.411 357,594 - - 357,594 

State Primary Care Offices - ARRA 93.414 - - 43,194 43,194 

Food Safety & Security Monitoring Project 93.448 - - 226,870 226,870 

Affordable Care Act (ACA) Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home 

Visiting Program 93.505 - - 256,231 256,231 

Strengthening Public Health Infrastructure for Improved Health Outcomes 93.507 - - 70,452 70,452 

Affordable Care Act (ACA) Grants to States for Health Insurance 

Premium Review 93.511 - - 382,708 382,708 

Affordable Care Act – Aging and Disability Resource Center 93.517 - - 250,000 250,000 

Affordable Care Act (ACA) – Consumer Assistance Program Grants 93.519 - - 115,803 115,803 

The Affordable Care Act: Building Epidemiology, Laboratory, and 

Health Information Systems Capacity in the Epidemiology and Laboratory 

Capacity for Infectious Disease (ELC) and Emerging Infections Program (EIP) 

Cooperative Agreements 93.521 - - 40,154 40,154 

The Affordable Care Act: Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) 

Prevention and Public Health Fund Activities 93.523 - - 418,774 418,774 

State Planning and Establishment Grants for the Affordable Care Act 

(ACA)’s Exchanges 93.525 - - 559,400 559,400 

Promoting Safe and Stable Families 93.556 - - 7,270,849 7,270,849 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Cluster (TANF) 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 93.558 - - 278,336,144 278,336,144 


Total TANF Cluster $ 295,359,998 

Child Support Enforcement (CSE) 93.563 - - 81,612,511 81,612,511 

Child Support Enforcement (CSE) - ARRA 93.563 - - 1,979,597 1,979,597 

Child Support Enforcement Research 93.564 - - 127,435 127,435 

Refugee and Entrant Assistance: State Administrated Programs 93.566 - - 10,181,047 10,181,047 

Refugee and Entrant Assistance: Voluntary Agency Programs 93.567 - - 180,657 180,657 

Low-Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP) 93.568 - - 82,362,757 82,362,757 

Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) 93.569 - - 9,134,645 9,134,645 

Community Services Block Grant - ARRA 93.569 - - 3,532,862 3,532,862 

Refugee and Entrant Assistance: Discretionary Grants 93.576 - - 161,009 161,009 

Refugee and Entrant Assistance: Targeted Assistance Grants 93.584 - - 946,175 946,175 

State Court Improvement Program 93.586 - - 428,299 428,299 

Child Care and Development Fund Cluster (CCDF) 

Child Care and Development Block Grant 93.575 - - 25,525,632 25,525,632 

Pass-through Maryland Family Network 93.575 - - 74,977 74,977 

Child Care and Matching Funds of the Child Care and Development Fund 93.596 - - 55,509,759 55,509,759 

Child Care and Development Block Grant - ARRA 93.713 - - 2,516,690 2,516,690 

Pass-Through Maryland Family Network - ARRA 93.713 - - 38,916 38,916 

Total CCDF Cluster 83,665,974 

Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants For Battered Women's 

Shelters: Grants to State Domestic Violence Coalitions 93.591 99,195 - - 99,195 

Grants to States for Access & Visitation Programs 93.597 - - 196,875 196,875 

Education & Training Vouchers 93.599 - - 1,155,383 1,155,383 

Head Start Cluster 

Head Start 93.600 - - 2,227,643 2,227,643 

Head Start - ARRA 93.708 - - 68,935 68,935 

Total Head Start Cluster 2,296,578 

Adoption Incentive Payments 93.603 - - 50,605 50,605 

Family Kinship Connection 93.605 - - 510,065 510,065 

Basic Center Grant for Runaway & Homeless Youth 93.623 - - 229,490 229,490 

Development Disabilities Basic Support & Advocacy Grants 93.630 - - 1,039,023 1,039,023 

Children's Justice Grants to States 93.643 - - 272,028 272,028 

Child Welfare Services: State Grants 93.645 - - 4,375,296 4,375,296 

Social Services Research & Demonstration 93.647 - - 316,752 316,752 

Child Welfare Research Training or Demonstration 93.648 5,000 - - 5,000 

Adoption Opportunities 93.652 - - 23,028 23,028 

Foster Care: Title IV-E 93.658 - - 83,628,069 83,628,069 

Foster Care: Title IV-E - ARRA 93.658 - - 2,957,739 2,957,739 

Adoption Assistance 93.659 - - 23,517,226 23,517,226 

Adoption Assistance - ARRA 93.659 - - 1,927,985 1,927,985 

Social Services Block Grant - (SSBG) 93.667 - - 57,754,351 57,754,351 

Child Abuse & Neglect State Grants 93.669 - - 591,261 591,261 

Family Violence Prevention & Service/Grants for Battered 

Women's Shelters: States & Indian Tribes 93.671 - - 2,495,145 2,495,145 

Chafee Foster Care Independent Living 93.674 - - 2,284,184 2,284,184 

Trans-NIH Recovery Act Research Support 93.701 8,815 - - 8,815 

Animal Model of Dual Diagnosis 93.701 - - 26,291 26,291 

National Center for Research Resources, Recovery Act 

Recovery Act Research Support - ARRA 93.701 2,331,362 - - 2,331,362 

Pass-Through Boston University - ARRA 93.701 271,107 - - 271,107 

Pass-Through Johns Hopkins University - ARRA 93.701 3,790 - - 3,790 

Pass-Through Medical University of South Carolina - ARRA 93.701 116,729 - - 116,729 

Pass-Through Michigan Technological Institute - ARRA 93.701 82,927 - - 82,927 


31





Research & 

Development 




Recovery Act Research Support - ARRA (conitnued) 

Pass-Through The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital 93.701 $ 36,520 $ - $ - 

$ 

36,520 

Pass-Through Tufts University - ARRA 93.701 86,495 - - 86,495 

Pass-Through University of Michigan - ARRA 93.701 98,340 - - 98,340 

Pass-Through University of Missouri - ARRA 93.701 17,935 - - 17,935 

Pass-Through University of Washington 93.701 197,335 - - 197,335 

Trans-NIH Recovery Act Research Support - ARRA 93.701 28,523,643 - 266,831 28,790,474 

Natl Center for Research Resources, Construction Support - ARRA 93.702 284,998 - - 284,998 

Ambulatory Surgical CTR Healthcare - ARRA 93.717 - - 1,063,170 1,063,170 

State Health Information Exchange - ARRA 93.719 - - 2,643,543 2,643,543 

Nutrition & Physical Activity & Tobacco - ARRA 93.723 - - 774,888 774,888 

CDSMP - Recovery Act 93.725 - - 400,000 400,000 

Pass-Through University of Texas-Houston - ARRA 93.728 194,839 - - 194,839 

Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) 93.767 - - 147,988,293 147,988,293 

Medicaid Infrastructure Grants To Support the Competitive 

Employment of People with Disabilities 93.768 - - 832,729 832,729 

Medicaid Cluster 

State Medicaid Fraud Control Units 93.775 - - 1,872,781 1,872,781 

State Survey & Certification of Health Care Providers & Suppliers 93.777 - - 5,535,361 5,535,361 

Medical Assistance Program (Medicaid) 93.778 - - 3,679,278,609 3,679,278,609 

Medical Assistance Program - ARRA 93.778 - - 685,015,915 685,015,915 

Total Medicaid Cluster $ 4,371,702,666 

Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Research, 

Demonstrations & Evaluations 93.779 - - 1,302,706 1,302,706 

Grants to States for Operation of Qualified High-Risk Pools 93.780 - - 2,856,550 2,856,550 

Alternatives to Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facilities for Children 93.789 - - 2,334,109 2,334,109 

Alternate Non-Emergency Service Providers or Networks 93.790 - - 479,851 479,851 

Money Follows the Person Rebalancing Demonstration 93.791 - - 11,852,900 11,852,900 

Cardiovascular Diseases Research 93.837 97,666 - - 97,666 

Blood Diseases and Resources Research - ARRA 93.839 399,900 - - 399,900 

Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research - ARRA 93.846 82,378 - - 82,378 

Diabetes, Digestive, and Kidney Diseases Extramural Research - ARRA 93.847 31,533 - - 31,533 

Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research - ARRA 93.848 44,280 - - 44,280 

Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research - ARRA 93.849 81,783 - - 81,783 

Extramural Research Programs in the Neurosciences and 

Neurological Disorders 93.853 29,347 - 29,347 

Extramural Research Programs in the Neurosciences and 

Neurological Disorders - ARRA 93.853 169,748 - - 169,748 

Allergy, Immunology, & Transplantation Research 93.855 227,287 - - 227,287 

Allergy, Immunology, & Transplantation Research - ARRA 93.855 1,225,036 - - 1,225,036 

Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research - ARRA 93.856 286,587 - - 286,587 

Biomedical Research and Research 93.859 1,109,442 - - 1,109,442 

Biomedical Research and Research Training 93.859 1,032,080 - - 1,032,080 

Biomedical Research and Research - ARRA 93.859 400,136 - - 400,136 

Center for Research for Mothers and Children 93.865 25,853 - - 25,853 

Child Health and Human Development Extramural Research 93.865 160,229 - - 160,229 

Center for Research for Mothers and Children - ARRA 93.865 81,358 - - 81,358 

Aging Research 93.866 234,057 - - 234,057 

Aging Research - ARRA 93.866 205,278 - - 205,278 

Vision Research 93.867 39,420 - - 39,420 

Medical Library Assistance 93.879 - - 1,000 1,000 

Specially Selected Health Projects 93.888 - - 51,757 51,757 

National Bioterrorism Hospital Preparedness 93.889 - - 7,209,044 7,209,044 

Family and Community Violence Prevention Program 93.910 - - 296,376 296,376 

Rural Health Outreach - Rural Network Development Program 93.912 - - 133,850 133,850 

Grants to States for Operation of Offices of Rural Health 93.913 - - 155,283 155,283 

HIV Emergency Relief Project Grants 93.914 - - 314,417 314,417 

HIV RW Part A-Med Case Management-F5720-3/1/10-2/28/11 93.915 - - 56,818 56,818 

HIV RW Part A-HIV-EFA-Med-F2800-3/1/10-2/28/11 93.916 - - 4,312 4,312 

HIV Care Formula Grants 93.917 - - 36,602,149 36,602,149 

Public Health Service ACT - AIDS 93.938 - - 266,458 266,458 

HIV Prevention Activities: Health Department Based 93.940 - - 13,098,623 13,098,623 

HIV Demonstration, Research, Public & Professional Education 93.941 - - 90,541 90,541 

HIV Demonstration, Research, Public & Professional Education 93.941 84,093 - - 84,093 

Epidemiologic Research Studies of Acquired Immunodeficiency 

Syndrome (AIDS) and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) 

Infection in Selected Population Groups 93.943 - - 1,641,968 1,641,968 

HIV/AIDS Surveillance 93.944 - - 1,049,943 1,049,943 

Pregnancy Risk Assessment 93.946 - - 123,010 123,010 

Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services 93.958 - - 6,519,264 6,519,264 

Block Grants for Prevention & Treatment of Substance Abuse 93.959 - - 27,760,173 27,760,173 

Preventive Health Services: Sexually Transmitted Diseases Control Grants 93.977 - - 1,364,060 1,364,060 

International Research & Research Training - ARRA 93.989 16,286 - - 16,286 

Preventative Health & Health Services Block Grant 93.991 - - 1,777,647 1,777,647 

Maternal & Child Health Services Block Grant to the States 93.994 - - 11,701,272 11,701,272 

Administration for Children and Families 93.RD 1,743,581 - - 1,743,581 

Administration on Aging 93.RD 9,920 - - 9,920 

Agency for Health Care Policy and Research 93.RD 135,394 - - 135,394 

Agency for Health Care Research and Quality 93.RD 2,957 - - 2,957 

Center for Disease Control and Prevention 93.RD 66,084,854 - - 66,084,854 

Food and Drug Administration 93.RD 2,329,784 - - 2,329,784 


32





Research & 

Development 




Health Resources and Services Administration 93.RD $ 2,119,543 $ - $ - 

$ 

2,119,543 

National Institutes of Health 93.RD 223,293,056 - - 223,293,056 

Office of Population Affairs 93.RD 693,354 - - 693,354 

Pass- Through Buck Institute for Age Research 93.RD 12,886 - - 12,886 


Pass-Through Baltimore City, Maryland Department of Social Services 93.RD 159,013 - - 159,013 


Pass-Through Brigham and Women's Hospital 93.RD 29,665 - - 29,665 



Pass-Through Children's Hospital of Philadelphia 93.RD 38 - - 38 





Pass-Through Hugo W Moser Research at Kennedy Krieger, Inc. 93.RD 30,857 - - 30,857 

Pass-Through IMPAQ International, Inc 93.RD 109,374 - - 109,374 

Pass-Through Johns Hopkins University 93.RD 1,059,730 - - 1,059,730 

Pass-Through Kennedy Krieger Institute 93.RD 365,983 - - 365,983 

Pass-Through Medical University of South Carolina 93.RD 108,459 - - 108,459 

Pass-Through Mount Sinai School of Medicine 93.RD 1,762,321 - - 1,762,321 

Pass-Through New York University 93.RD 56,886 - - 56,886 



Pass-Through Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital 93.RD 151,052 - - 151,052 

Pass-Through Sanaria, Inc 93.RD 3,370 - - 3,370 

Pass-Through Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) 93.RD 56,035 - - 56,035 


Pass-Through Temple University 93.RD 57,905 - - 57,905 

Pass-Through Thompson Reuters, Inc. 93.RD 118,936 - - 118,936 

Pass-Through The Mind Research Network 93.RD 290,993 - - 290,993 

Pass-Through University of Alabama at Birmingham 93.RD 75,028 - - 75,028 

Pass-Through University of Alabama- Birmingham 93.RD 26,366 - - 26,366 


Pass-Through University of Cincinnati 93.RD 132,319 - - 132,319 

Pass-Through University of Massachusetts Medical Center 93.RD 15,301 - - 15,301 


Pass-Through University of Oklahoma 93.RD 32,054 - - 32,054 


Pass-Through University of Pittsburg 93.RD 76,578 - - 76,578 



Pass-Through Vanderbilt University 93.RD 289,159 - - 289,159 


Pass-Through Virginia Polytechnic and State University 93.RD 208,401 - - 208,401 

Pass-Through Weinberg Medical Physics, LLC 93.RD 11,861 - - 11,861 

Pass-Through Women and Infants Hospital of Rhode Island 93.RD 36,277 - - 36,277 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 93.RD 1,055,283 - - 1,055,283 

Total Department of Health and Human Services - (HHS) 348,235,168 248,447 5,506,768,859 5,855,252,474 

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL & COMMUNITY 

SERVICE (CNCS) 

State Commissions 94.003 - - 237,834 237,834 

Learn & Serve America: School & Community Board Programs 94.004 - - 282,473 282,473 

AmeriCorps 94.006 - - 5,335,337 5,335,337 

AmeriCorps - ARRA 94.006 - - 130,883 130,883 


Training & Technical Assistance 94.009 - - 129,513 129,513 

Foster Grandparent Program 94.011 - - 305,203 305,203 

Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA) 94.013 - - 38,849 38,849 

Volunteer Generation Fund 94.021 - - 161,452 161,452 

Corporation for National and Community Service 94.RD 1,226,005 - - 1,226,005 

Pass-Through Tufts University 94.RD 20,394 - - 20,394 

Total Corporation for National & Community Service 1,246,399 - 6,723,979 7,970,378 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

High Intensity Drug Trafficing Areas Program (HIDTA) 95.001 - - 11,294,811 11,294,811 

Pass-Through Monroe County Sheriff's Office 95.001 - - 82,190 82,190 

Total Executive Office of the President - - 11,377,001 11,377,001 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (SSA) 

Unallocated Federal Funds 96.Unknown - - 540,506 540,506 

Pass-Through Center for Retirement Research at Boston College 96.RD 1,339 - - 1,339 

Pass-Through Westat Incorporated 96.RD 158,735 - - 158,735 

Disability Insurance/SSI Cluster 

Social Security - Disability Insurance (DI) 96.001 - - 35,096,415 35,096,415 

Supplemental Security Income - (SSI) 96.006 - - 2,324,566 2,324,566 

Total Disability Insurance/SSI Cluster $ 37,420,981 

Social Security: Benefits Planning, Assistance, and Outreach Program 96.008 - - 428 428 

Total Social Security Administration - (SSA) 160,074 - 37,961,915 38,121,989 


33





Research & 

Development 



DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Statewide Catalog Number - Miscellaneous 97.Unknown $ - $ - $ 194,181 

$ 

194,181 

NRC - Safeguards Information 97.005 - - 4,379 4,379 

Urban Areas Security Initiative 97.008 - - 13,238,304 13,238,304 

Citizenship Education and Training 97.010 - - 50,258 50,258 

Boating Safety Financial Assistance 97.012 - - 3,024,848 3,024,848 

Community Assist Program State Support Services Element (CAP-SSSE) 97.023 - - 131,257 131,257 

Public Assistance Grants 97.036 - - 76,329,918 76,329,918 

Hazard Mitigation Grant - (HMGP) 97.039 - - 277,154 277,154 

Pass-Through Vision Planning, LLC 97.039 - - 8,173 8,173 

National Dam Safety Program 97.041 - - 74,210 74,210 

Emergency Management Performance Grants 97.042 - - 4,254,924 4,254,924 

State Fire Training Systems Grant 97.043 - - 28,000 28,000 

Emergency Management - Cooperating Technical Partners 97.045 - - 784,333 784,333 

Pre-Disaster Mitigation 97.047 - - 1,156,533 1,156,533 

Presidential Declared Disaster Assist to Individuals & Households - Other Need 97.050 - - 19,910 19,910 

Homeland Security Cluster 

Citizen Corps 97.053 - - 292,594 292,594 

Homeland Security Grant Program 97.067 - - 14,026,190 14,026,190 

Metropolitan Medical Response Program 97.071 - - 379,171 379,171 

Total Homeland Security Cluster $ 14,697,955 

Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program - FY 2008 97.055 - - 993,453 993,453 

Port Security Grant Program for Critical National Seaports 97.056 - - 5,400,947 5,400,947 

Centers for Homeland Security 97.061 41,813 41,813 

Homeland Security Information Technology Research, Testing, 

Evaluation and Demonstration Program 97.066 - - 1,687,417 1,687,417 

Map Modernization Mgmt. Support Program (MMMS) 97.070 - - 12,150 12,150 

K-9 Grant 97.072 - - 410,880 410,880 

Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program 97.074 - - 1,638,789 1,638,789 

Homeland Security - MDOT Grant 97.075 - - 2,815,517 2,815,517 

Buffer Zone Protection Program 97.078 - - 723,822 723,822 

Real ID FY 2008 97.089 - - 284,621 284,621 

Law Enforcement Officer Reimb. 97.090 - - 306,191 306,191 

Degrees at a Distance Program 97.103 - - 17,493 17,493 

Homeland Security - Related Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics (HS Stem) Career Development Program 97.104 - - 495,917 495,917 

Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Career Development 97.104 51,489 - 51,489 

Regional Catastrophic Prep Grant Program - FY 2008 97.111 - - 852,379 852,379 

Port Security Grant Program 97.116 - - 246,116 246,116 

Department of Homeland Security 97.RD 7,041,159 - - 7,041,159 

Pass-Through Battelle Columbus Operations 97.RD 34,021 - - 34,021 

Pass-Through District of Columbia Office of the Deputy Mayor 

for Public Safety and Justice 97.RD 703,313 - - 703,313 

Pass-Through John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 

The City University of New York 97.RD 3,948 - - 3,948 

Pass-Through Robust Analytics 97.RD 15,319 - - 15,319 


Total Department of Homeland Security 7,892,535 - 130,160,029 138,052,564 

US AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (USAID) 

Pass-Through Salesian Missions, Inc 98.001 - - 31,880 31,880 

Agency for International Development 98.RD 555,075 - - 555,075 

Pass-Through African Wildlife Foundation 98.RD 95,994 - - 95,994 

Pass-Through University Research Corporation International 98.RD 152,587 - - 152,587 

Total US Agency for International Development (USAID) 803,656 - 31,880 835,536 

OTHER 

Vietnam Educational Foundation 99.Unknown - - 990 990 

Total Other - - 990 990 

TOTAL $ 721,563,293 $ 1,212,380,321 $ 11,874,100,815 

$ 13,808,044,429 


34




1. SINGLE AUDIT REPORTING ENTITY 

The State of Maryland (State) includes expenditures in its Schedule of Expenditures of 

Federal Awards (SEFA) for all Federal programs administered by the funds, agencies, boards 

and commissions, including component units, included in the State’s reporting entity used for 

its basic financial statements, including the component unit higher education funds - the 

University System of Maryland, the Baltimore City Community College, Morgan State 

University, and St. Mary’s College of Maryland. However, the Schedule of Expenditures of 

Federal Awards excludes the Maryland Water Quality Financing Administration of the 

Maryland Department of the Environment; the Maryland Transportation Authority, an 

enterprise fund of the State; the Maryland Technology Development Corporation, a 

component unit of the State; and the Maryland Health Insurance program, part of the general 

fund of the State. Separate single audits have been conducted for these entities. 

2. BASIS OF ACCOUNTING 

The accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards has been presented on the 

accrual basis of accounting. Expenditures are recorded, accordingly, when incurred rather 

than when paid. 

The expenditures for Federal awards under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009 (the Recovery Act) are separately identified on the accompanying Schedule of 

Expenditures of Federal Awards with the letters ARRA. 

The noncash expenditures of approximately $19,264,000, reported under CFDA No. 10.555, 

Food Donation, represent the value of food commodity distributions calculated using the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service Commodity Price List in effect 

as of July 1, 2010. These food commodities were received by the Maryland Department of 

Education from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the year ended June 30, 2011. 

The noncash expenditures of approximately $3,049,000, relating to the Emergency Food 

Assistance Program reported under CFDA No. 10.569, Emergency Food Assistance Program 

(Food Commodities), represent the value of food commodity distributions calculated using 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service Commodity Price List in 

effect as of July 1, 2010. The food commodities were received by the Maryland Department 

of Human Resources from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the year ended June 30, 

2011. 

35




2. BASIS OF ACCOUNTING (continued) 

Expenditures of approximately $993,349,000, reported under CFDA No. 10.551, 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), represent the fair market value of food 

stamps distributed for participants’ food stamp purchases during the fiscal year ended June 

30, 2011. The reported expenditures for benefits under SNAP (CFDA No. 10.551) are 

supported by both regularly appropriated funds and incremental funding made available 

under section 101 of the Recovery Act. The portion of total expenditures for SNAP benefits 

that is supported by Recovery Act funds varies according to fluctuations in the cost of the 

Thrifty Food Plan, and to changes in participating households’ income, deductions, and 

assets. This condition prevents USDA from obtaining the regular and Recovery Act 

components of SNAP benefits expenditures through normal program reporting processes. As 

an alternative, USDA has computed a weighted average percentage to be applied to the 

national aggregate SNAP benefits provided to households in order to allocate an appropriate 

portion thereof to Recovery Act funds. This methodology generates valid results at the 

national aggregate level but not at the individual State level. Therefore, the State cannot 

validly disaggregate the regular and Recovery Act components of State reported expenditures 

for SNAP benefits. At the national aggregate level, however, Recovery Act funds account for 

approximately 16.55 percent of USDA’s total expenditures for SNAP benefits in the Federal 

fiscal year ended September 30, 2011. 

Noncash expenditures of approximately $146,000, for CFDA No. 39.003, Donation of 

Federal Surplus Property Program, represents the average fair market value percentage per 

the General Services Administration (GSA) of 25 percent of the Federal government original 

acquisition cost (OAC) of the Federal property transferred to recipients by the State during the 

fiscal year ended June 30, 2011. 

3. CATEGORIZATION OF EXPENDITURES 

The accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards reflects Federal expenditures 

for all individual grants that were active during the year. The categorization of expenditures 

by program included in the accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards is 

based on the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA). Changes in the categorization 

of expenditures occur based on revisions to the CFDA, which are issued in June and 

December of each year. In accordance with the State’s policy, the accompanying Schedule of 

Expenditures of Federal Awards for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011, reflects CFDA 

changes issued through June 2011. 

36




4. STATE NONMONETARY FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE 

The State distributes Federal surplus food to the institutions (schools, hospitals, and prisons) 

and to the needy. The total inventory balance of Federal surplus food on hand as of June 30, 

2011, was approximately $1,000 for CFDA No. 10.555, Food Donation Program and 

approximately $1,887,000, for CFDA No. 10.569, Emergency Food Assistance Program 

(Food Commodities), and they are not considered current year Federal expenditures. The 

surplus food was valued using the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 

Service Commodity Price List in effect as of July 1, 2010. 

When surplus property is transferred to recipients, it is valued at 25 percent of its OAC, 

which represents an estimated fair market value of the property transferred. There was no 

donated Federal surplus property on hand as of June 30, 2011, for CFDA No. 39.003, 

Donation of Federal Surplus Property Program. 

5. OTHER AUDIT FINDINGS 

Other audit reports exist that have also identified findings and questioned costs affecting the 

State’s various Federal programs during the year ended June 30, 2011. Because those issues 

have been previously reported to the affected Federal agencies, the issues identified in other 

audit reports have not been repeated in the accompanying Schedule of Findings and 

Questioned Costs for the year ended June 30, 2011. 

The State believes that none of the matters questioned will have a significant impact on the 


6. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 

In accordance with the Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General instructions, the 

State recorded State Regular Unemployment Compensation (UC) benefits under CFDA No. 

17.225, on the accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. The individual 

State and Federal portions are as follows: 

State regular UC benefits $ 1,012,175,001 

Federal UC benefits 788,456,538 

Federal UC administrative costs 81,994,905 

Total Benefits $ 1,882,626,444 

37




7. FEDERAL MORTGAGE PLANS 

The State operates several programs that purchase Federally guaranteed loans, primarily 

mortgages, from the originators. As the State has no responsibility for determining eligibility or 

compliance, these guarantees are not considered Federal financial assistance for purposes of the 

single audit. 

8. LOAN PROGRAMS 


St. Mary’s College of Maryland (the College) administers the Federal Perkins Loan Program: 

Federal Capital Contributions (CFDA No. 84.038) (the Program). The College received no 

Federal funds under the Program for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011. The outstanding 

loan balance of $251,899, as of June 30, 2010, and the outstanding loan balance of $251,001, 

for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011, is not considered current year Federal expenditures. 

The Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards includes $35,848, for loans issued during 

the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011. 

During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011, the College processed the following amount of 

new loans under the Federal Family Education Loans Program (CFDA No. 84.032), which 

includes the Stafford Loan and PLUS Loan. Since this program is administered by outside 

financial institutions, new loans made during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011, relating to 

this program are considered current-year Federal expenditures, whereas the outstanding loan 

balances are not. The new loans made during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011, are 

reported in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. 

CFDA 

Number 

84.032 Stafford Loan Program 

84.032 PLUS Loans 


for Fiscal Year Ended 

June 30, 2011 

$ 5,685,870 

5,658,693 

$ 11,344,563 


Baltimore City Community College (the College) administers the Federal Perkins Loan 

Program: Federal Capital Contributions (CFDA No. 84.038) and Nursing Student Loans 

(CFDA No. 93.364). The outstanding loan balances as of June 30, 2011 were $199,263 and 

$13,907, respectively. There were no new loans made in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011. 

The outstanding balances are considered current-year Federal expenditures. These amounts 

are reported in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. 

38






Morgan State University (the University) administers the Federal Perkins Loan Program: 

Federal Capital Contributions (CFDA No. 84.038). The outstanding loan balance of 

$3,330,823, as of June 30, 2011, the loan expenditures of $48,250, for the fiscal year ended 

June 30, 2011, and the fiscal year 2011 administrative cost allowance of $2,413, are 

considered current-year Federal expenditures. These amounts are reported in summary in the 


During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011, the University processed $59,734,285, of new 

loans under the Federal Direct Student Loans Program (CFDA No. 84.268). Since this 

program is administered by outside financial institutions, the new loans made in the fiscal 

year ended June 30, 2011, relating to this program are considered current-year Federal 

expenditures, whereas the outstanding loan balances are not. The new loans made in the 

fiscal year ended June 30, 2011, are reported in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal 

Awards. 

University System of Maryland 

During the year ended June 30, 2011, University System of Maryland (the System) processed 

the following amount of new loans under the Direct Loan Program, which includes the Federal 

Stafford and Plus Loan programs. Since these loan programs are administered by the Federal 

government, new loans made in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011, are reported in the 

Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards, whereas the outstanding loan balances are not. 

CFDA Number 

84.268 


for Fiscal Year Ended 

June 30, 2011 

Federal Direct Student Loans $870,412,405 

39






The System also administers loans under the Economic Adjustment Assistance Program 

(CFDA No. 11.307). Under this program, the System uses revolving loan funds to enhance 

economic activity. The Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) assists business development and 

expansion. Below is the detail to support the calculation of total Federal awards expended as 

included in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards: 

Economic Development Administration (EDA) 

Award Number(s) 

1. Balance of RLF loans outstanding at the end 

of the fiscal year, plus 

014903420- 

01490342001 14903271 11903134 

$ 2,609,294 $ 906,833 $ 1,075,004 

2. Cash and investment balance in the RLF at 

the end of the fiscal year, plus 2,089,234 820,840 30,273 

3. Administrative expenses paid out of RLF 

income during the fiscal year, plus 182,704 - - 

4. The unpaid principal of all loans written off 

during the fiscal year, and then multiply this 

sum (1+2+3+4) by - - - 

5. The Federal share of the RLF 0.75 0.75 0.574713 

6. Total Federal Awards Expended $ 3,660,924 $1,295,755 $ 635,217 

40






The System administers the following Federal Student Financial Assistance Programs: 

CFDA Number 

Outstanding 

Balance as of 

June 30, 2010 

Loan 

Expenditures For 

Fiscal Year Ended 

June 30, 2011 

84.038 Perkins Loan Programs $ 61,867,737 $ 7,718,146 

93.264 Nurse Faculty Loan Program - ARRA 7,217 - 

93.264 Nurse Faculty Loan Program 93,238 - 

93.364 Federal Nursing Loan - Undergraduate 1,350,946 201,928 

93.364 Federal Nursing Loan - Graduate 249,441 37,200 

93.342 Health Professions Student Loans - Medical 60,442 - 

93.342 Health Professions Student Loans - Dental 5,338,827 300,000 

93.342 Health Professions Student Loans - Pharmacy 1,203,225 100,000 

93.342 Health Professions Student Loans - Primary Care 4,002,625 955,297 

Total $ 74,173,698 $ 9,312,571 

The outstanding loan balances as of June 30, 2010, and loan expenditures for the fiscal year 

ended June 30, 2011, are considered current-year Federal expenditures. These amounts are 

reported on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. 

41


SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS




Section I – Summary of Independent Public Accountant’s Results 

Financial Statements 

Type of Independent Public Accountant’s report 

issued 

Internal control over financial reporting: 

Unqualified 

Material weakness(es) identified? No 

 

Significant deficiency(ies) identified that 

are not considered to be material 

weakness(es)? 

Noncompliance material to financial statements 

noted? 

Federal Awards 

None reported 

No 

Type of Independent Public Accountant’s report 

issued on compliance for major programs 

Internal control over major programs: 

Unqualified 

Material weakness(es) identified? No 

 

Significant deficiency(ies) identified that 

are not considered to be material 

weakness(es)? 

Noncompliance material to financial statements 

noted? 

Any audit findings disclosed that are required to be 

reported in accordance with section 510(a) of 

Circular A-133? 

Yes 

None reported 

Yes 

44





Identification of Major Programs 

Major Program 

CFDA No. 

Federal 

Expenditures 

Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program Cluster 10.551/10.561 $ 1,045,612,188 

Child Nutrition Cluster 10.553/10.555/10.556/10.559 185,910,943 

Special Supplemental Nutrition Prog for Women, Infants, & Children 10.557 105,253,727 

Emergency Food Assistance Program 10.568/10.569 3,843,214 

Emergency Food Assistance Program - ARRA 10.569 608,319 

Section 8 Cluster 14.195/14.856 179,374,133 

Unemployment Insurance 17.225 1,882,626,166 

Unemployment Insurance - ARRA 17.225 278 

Workforce Investment Act Cluster 17.258/17.259/ 17.260 33,105,410 

Workforce Investment Act Cluster - ARRA 17.258/17.259/ 17.260 9,125,951 

Highway Planning and Construction Cluster 20.205/23.003 348,431,102 

Highway Planning and Construction Cluster - ARRA 20.205 165,913,624 

Federal Transit Cluster 20.500/20.507 184,382,875 

Federal Transit Cluster - ARRA 20.500/20.507 46,515,587 

Section 1602 Monetization- ARRA 40. unknown 49,906,435 

Title I, Part A Cluster 84.010 183,236,625 

Title I, Part A Cluster - ARRA 84.389 66,816,896 

Special Education Cluster 84.027/84.173 207,713,751 

Special Education Cluster - ARRA 84.391/84.392 95,318,767 

Vocational Rehabilitation Cluster 84.126 39,865,917 

Vocational Rehabilitation Cluster - ARRA 84.390 1,952,278 

Improving Teacher Quality 84.367 43,370,155 

State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Cluster - ARRA 84.394/84.397 491,141,929 

Education Jobs Bill - ARRA 84.410 104,392,740 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Cluster 93.558 278,336,144 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Cluster - ARRA 93.558 17,023,854 

Child Support Enforcement 93.563 81,612,511 

Child Support Enforcement - ARRA 93.563 1,979,597 

LIHEAP 93.568 82,362,757 

Child Care and Development Block Grant 93.575/93.596 81,110,368 

Child Care and Development Block Grant - ARRA 93.713 2,555,606 

Foster Care: Title IV-E 93.658 83,628,069 

Foster Care: Title IV-E - ARRA 93.658 2,957,739 

Adoption Assistance 93.659 23,517,226 

Adoption Assistance - ARRA 93.659 1,927,985 

Social Services Block Grant 93.667 57,754,351 

Children's Health Insurance Program 93.767 147,988,293 

Medicaid Cluster 93.775/93.777/93.778 3,686,686,751 

Medicaid Cluster - ARRA 93.778 685,015,915 

HIV Care Formula Grant 93.917 36,602,149 

Public Assistance Grants 97.036 76,329,918 

Student Financial Aid Cluster 84.007/84.032/84.033/84.037/84.038/ 

84.063/84.268/84.375/84.376/84.379/ 

93.264/93.342/93.364/93.407 1,212,380,321 

Research and Development Cluster (R&D) Various 721,563,293 

Passenger Facility Charges Unknown 13,773,416 

Total $ 12,769,525,273 

45





The Passenger Facility Charge relates to collections by the Maryland Aviation Administration in 

accordance with Section 158.67 of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 158, “Passenger Facility 

Charge” and is not technically considered to be Federal Financial Assistance as defined by OMB 

Circular A-133, but have been included in the scope of this single audit. 

Dollar threshold used to distinguish between type A and type B programs: $30,000,000 

Auditee qualified as low-risk Auditee? 

No 

Section II 

Financial Statement Findings 

None 

Section III 

Federal Awards Findings and Questioned Costs 


Section IV 

Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings 


See findings 2009-2, 2009-3, 2009-4 and 2009-5 

See findings 2008-1 and 2008-3 

See findings 2007-2 and 2007-3 

46

SECTION III - FEDERAL AWARDS FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS




Finding No. Funding Department Title of Finding 

2011-1 U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services 

Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency over the 

Eligibility Determination Process 


Services 

Compliance Deficiency over Allowable Costs - Recoveries, 

Refunds, Rebates and Third Party Liabilities 


Services 

Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency over 

Eligibility 


Services 


Eligibility 


Services 


Eligibility 


Services 


Subrecipient Monitoring 


Services 

Compliance and Internal Control over Special Test: 

Provision of Child Support Service for Interstate Cases 

2011-8 U.S. Department of Agriculture Compliance and Significant Deficiency over 

Accountability for Commodities 

2011-9 U.S. Department of Transportation Compliance Deficiency over Activities Allowed or 

Unallowed 

2011-10 U.S. Department of Transportation Internal Control Deficiency over Subrecipient Monitoring 

2011-11 U.S. Department of Education Compliance Deficiency over Special Reporting 

48







CFDA No. 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 


CFDA No. 93.767 


Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency over the Eligibility Determination Process 

Condition: 


responsible for determining eligibility under the Medicaid Cluster and the Maryland Children’s 

Health Insurance Program (CHIP) on a uniform basis throughout the State for persons who are 

indigent or medically indigent according to regulations, guidelines and procedures established by 

DHMH and who apply for the expanded State Children’s Insurance Program under Title XXI of 





CHIP 



to determine if the individual met the eligibility criteria. 

Prince Georges County - LDSS 

During our testing, we noted two individuals for which the case files could not be located in 

order to determine if they met the eligibility criteria. 



During our testing, we noted two individuals for which the case files could not be located in 

order to determine if they met the eligibility criteria 

49







to determine if the individual met the eligibility criteria. 


2011. 

Criteria: 





are furnished child health assistance under the State Child Health Insurance Plan. 


Plan: 

1. Children under age 19; 

2. Countable income is at or below 200% of the Federal poverty level (FPL); 

3. Pregnant women of any age whose countable income is at or below 250% FPL; 

4. Current resident of the State of Maryland; 


Security Number; 

6. A U.S. Citizen; 

7. Qualified aliens, as defined at 8 USC 1641, who entered the U.S. on or after August 

22, 1996, are not eligible for CHIP for a period of five years, beginning on the date 

the alien became a qualified alien, unless the alien is exempt from this five year bar 

under the terms of 8 USC 1613; and 


Cause: 

LDSS personnel did not obtain or maintain the necessary documentation to support the eligibility 

determination. 

50





Effect: 


requirements, DHMH does not have adequate assurance that eligibility for Medicaid and CHIP is 

being properly determined. 


$32,732 


We recommend the Local Departments of Social Services comply with established Federal and 

State regulations for determining eligibility by obtaining and maintaining the required 

documentation. 


DHMH agrees with the recommendation that the Local Departments of Social Services (LDSS) 

comply with established Federal and State regulations for determining eligibility by obtaining 

and maintaining the required documentation. 

DHMH will work with the Department of Human Resources (DHR) and the LDSS on issues 

with record retention, obtaining and maintaining documentation, performing the appropriate 

clearances at application and redetermination, transferring case records between local 

departments and re-determining eligibility appropriately. 

With regard to each of the missing case files, we have investigated the specific recipients of 

those missing files and have determined that based solely upon a review of the electronic case 

materials, each would in fact be Medicaid eligible. Furthermore, we have determined that three 

of the missing case files were a result of two offices merging and two of the missing case files 

were as a result of a flood encountered by another office. 

We are working with the three cited local departments to address how they plan to track, monitor 

and secure case records. In addition to following-up with each cited local department, we will 

issue an updated information memorandum highlighting the issues to all eligibility workers by 

the end of fiscal year 2012. Review of error-prone activities is a standard agenda item in DHMH 

training sessions for eligibility workers. 

A Pre-Review system developed jointly with DHR has been in place since October 2011, as a 

review mechanism to apply to eligibility determinations before they are finalized. We are 

currently in the process of “fine-tuning” the system to maximize program benefits. It is expected 

that identification of error-prone elements prior to finalization will significantly reduce our 

vulnerability to audit findings. 

51





Auditee Response and Corrective Action Plan: (continued) 

Additionally, we will continue to add appropriate items to the agenda for the regularly scheduled 

meetings with DHR and Local Department staff. 



52







CFDA No. 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 


Compliance Deficiency over Allowable Costs – Recoveries, Refunds, Rebates and Third 


Condition: 



discrepancies found. During our audit of a sample of 60 items, we noted there were 23 selections 


excess of 45 days. We noted that for the 23 selections that were not paid within 37 days, dunning 

notices were sent after 45 days to the vendors in pursuit of collection. 

Criteria: 

Per OMB Circular A133: 


same as other payers receive. Drug manufacturers are required to provide a listing to Center for 

Medicaid Services (CMS) of all covered outpatient drugs and, on a quarterly basis, are required 

to provide their average manufacturer’s price and their best prices for each covered outpatient 

drug. Based on this data, CMS calculates a unit rebate amount for each drug, which it then 

provides to States. No later than 60 days after the end of the quarter, the State Medicaid agency 

must provide to manufacturers drug utilization data. Within 37 days of receipt of the utilization 

data from the State, the manufacturers are required to pay the rebate or provide the State with 

written notice of disputed items not paid because of discrepancies found. 

Cause: 

The above is due to the drug manufacturers not paying the required rebates within 37 days of 

receipt of the utilization data and invoice from the State Medicaid Agency or providing the State 

with written notice of any disputed items not paid due to discrepancies with the utilization data 

received. 

Effect: 


and rebates. There is a risk that payments from drug manufacturers for rebates will not be 

obtained within the timeframe expected by CMS. 

53






Unknown 


We recommend DHMH obtain a waiver from CMS for delays in receipt of vendor payments 

required under OMB A-133 requirements. We also recommend DHMH continue to send 

dunning notices to the vendors in pursuit of collection of the required rebates for payments not 

received within 37 days. 


The Department does not concur with the finding that State Agencies be held responsible for the 

late payment of rebates by drug manufacturers as it is not within the State Agency’s control 

when manufacturers remit payment for rebate invoices. The auditors concur with the Department 

and have attempted to contact HHS to obtain clarification, but to date, no response has been 

received. The Department, however, does follow its policy of reminding drug manufacturers to 

pay rebate invoices timely, by sending out dunning notices to any manufacturer that has not 

made payment 45 days from the invoice postmarked date and a second dunning notice to any 

manufacturer that has not made payment 75 days from the invoice postmarked date. 

Manufacturers that have not made payment 210 days from the invoice postmarked date are 

referred to the State’s Central Collection Unit. Dunning notices were sent out to all of those drug 

manufacturers that made payment after the 37-day federal requirement, as appropriate. It is the 

intention of the Department to continue this policy. 



54







CFDA No. 93.658 


Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency over Eligibility 

Condition: 

We selected a sample size of 60 transactions for eligibility testing. During our testing of 



permanency plan and two cases where the child did not meet the eligibility requirements of the 

AFDC program. 

Criteria: 










Per OMB Circular A-133, March 2011: 






45 CFR section 1356.21(b)(2): 







55





Criteria: (continued) 




45 USC 672(a): A child must meet the eligibility requirements of the former Aid to Families 

with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. 

Cause: 


determinations and did not maintain support for the final permanency plan. 

Effect: 

Since documentation was not maintained in accordance with program requirements, DHR does 

not have adequate assurance that eligibility for the foster care program is properly determined. 


Unknown. 






The cases in question will be reviewed and corrected as appropriate, including any necessary 

payment adjustment for already claimed reimbursement and assurances that said claims will not 

be included in future claims. 

DHR will collaborate with Foster Care Court Improvement to provide a joint training for judges 

and local department professionals (attorneys, child welfare administrators and supervisors) 

which will include an emphasis on the importance of the Reasonable Efforts to Achieve 

Permanency finding and timeliness. Included will be details on the opportunity to establish the 

finding when hearings have been postponed. 

DHR is providing statewide training for Title IV-E Specialist Fall 2012. Improvement area 

noted in this audit will be included and specifically addressed in the “Audit Opportunities for 

Improvement” training section. 



56






Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) 

CFDA No. 93.568 



Condition: 

We selected a sample of 60 transactions for eligibility testing. During our testing, we noted four 

files were not properly maintained, which prevented audit verification of supervisory approval. 

There were a total of five files without supervisory signature approval for eligibility; four files at 

Baltimore City and one file at Baltimore County. In addition, we noted the eligibility 

requirement for one applicant could not be properly determined, as income supporting 

documentation was missing. 

Criteria: 










Per 42 USC 8624(b)(2): 

The State agrees to make payments under this subchapter only with respect to-- 

(A) households in which 1 or more individuals are receiving-- 

(i) assistance under the State program funded under part A of title IV of the Social 

Security Act [42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.]; 

(ii) supplemental security income payments under title XVI of the Social Security Act 

[42 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.]; 

(iii) food stamps under the Food Stamp Act of 1977 [7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.]; or 

(iv) payments under section 1315, 1521, 1541, or 1542 of title 38, or under section 306 

of the Veterans' and Survivors' Pension Improvement Act of 1978; or 

57






(B) households with incomes which do not exceed the greater of-- 

(i) an amount equal to 150 percent of the poverty level for such State; or 

(ii) an amount equal to 60 percent of the State median income. 

Cause: 

DHR did not follow its established procedures of review and sign off to ensure that applicant 

eligibility determinations were reviewed for accuracy. DHR also did not maintain files and other 

documentation to support their eligibility determination. 

Effect: 

Since documentation and verification were not properly maintained in accordance with program 


eligibility for LIHEAP is being properly determined. 


$1,035 




verifications to support eligibility decisions. We also recommend that all records are properly 

safeguarded and maintained. 


DHR reviewed the auditors’ sample and concurred with the finding regarding documentation. 

We reached similar conclusions from our reviews and have cited local agencies in the past. The 

Office of Home Energy Programs (OHEP) will present and discuss these findings at the OHEP’s 

annual meeting of the local agencies administering LIHEAP in April. The goal is to reinforce the 

significance of maintaining the required documentation and signatures, as well as to ensure that 

the policies are clearly understood. The next DHR monitoring cycle will validate whether 

policies are being followed. 

DHR was aware of the destruction of some files as the result of flooding in a file room caused by 

burst pipes. Therefore, the finding that “files were not properly maintained” does not apply to 

that office. 



58






Adoption Assistance – Title IV - E 

CFDA No. 93.659 



Condition: 

We selected a sample of 60 transactions for eligibility testing. During our testing, we noted three 

children did not meet categorical eligibility requirements. In addition, there were two files where 

state adoption assistance subsidies were incorrectly charged to the Federal grant. 

Criteria: 






Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. The COSO Report provides 

a framework for organizations to design, implement, and evaluate control that will facilitate 

compliance with the requirements of Federal laws, regulations, and program compliance 

requirements. 

Per 42 USC 673: 

(1)(A) Each State having a plan approved under this part shall enter into adoption assistance 

agreements (as defined in section 675(3) of this title) with the adoptive parents of children with 

special needs. 

(B) Under any adoption assistance agreement entered into by a State with parents who adopt a 

child with special needs, the State-- (i) shall make payments of nonrecurring adoption expenses 

incurred by or on behalf of such parents in connection with the adoption of such child, directly 

through the State agency or through another public or nonprofit private agency, in amounts 

determined under paragraph (3), and (ii) in any case where the child meets the requirements of 

paragraph (2), may make adoption assistance payments to such parents, directly through the State 

agency or through another public or nonprofit private agency, in amounts so determined. (2)(A) 

For purposes of paragraph (1)(B)(ii), a child meets the requirements of this paragraph if the child-- 

(i)(I)(aa) was removed from the home of a relative specified in section 606(a) of this title (as in 

effect on July 16, 1996) and placed in foster care in accordance with a voluntary placement 

agreement with respect to which Federal payments are provided under section 674 of this title (or 

section 603 of this title, as such section was in effect on July 16, 1996), or in accordance with a 

judicial determination to the effect that continuation in the home would be contrary to the welfare 

59






of the child; and (bb) met the requirements of section 672(a)(3) of this title with respect to the 

home referred to in item (aa) of this subclause; (II) meets all of the requirements of subchapter XVI 

with respect to eligibility for supplemental security income benefits; or (III) is a child whose costs 

in a foster family home or child-care institution are covered by the foster care maintenance 

payments being made with respect to the minor parent of the child as provided in section 675(4)(B) 

of this title. 

Cause: 

DHR did not follow its established procedures of review charged to ensure that applicant 

eligibility determinations were accurate and supported. 

Effect: 

DHR does not have adequate documentation that eligibility for the Adoption Assistance program 

is being properly determined and non-allowable expenditures are being charged to the Federal 

grant. 


Three children related to categorical eligibility - $12,764. 

Two files incorrectly charged to the Federal grant - $20,482. 






The cases will be reviewed to confirm that DHR procedures were not followed. The cases in 

question will be reviewed and corrected as appropriate, including any necessary payment 

adjustment for already claimed reimbursement and assurances that said claims will not be 

included in future claims. If reimbursement claims have not yet been requested, the cases in 

question will be re-categorized to State only and no Federal reimbursement claims will be made. 

DHR is providing statewide training for Title IV-E Specialist Fall 2012. Improvement area noted 

in this audit will be included and specifically addressed in the “Audit Opportunities for 

Improvement” training section. 



60






Child Support Enforcement 

CFDA No. 93.563 


Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency over Subrecipient Monitoring 

Condition: 

During the testing of subrecipient monitoring, we selected a sample size of nine transactions. We 

noted three subrecipient monitoring reports did not have supervisory approval. The A-133 audit 

reports were not obtained and reviewed for three subrecipients. In addition, four subrecipient 

corrective action plans were not received related to monitoring reports identifying deficiencies. 

Criteria: 



















Subrecipient Audits – (1) Ensuring that subrecipients expending $500,000 or more in Federal 

awards during the subrecipient’s fiscal year for fiscal years ending after December 31, 2003 as 

provided in OMB Circular A-133 have met the audit requirements of OMB Circular A-133 (the 

circular is available on the Internet at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a133/a133.html) 

61






and that the required audits are completed within 9 months of the end of the subrecipient’s audit 

period; (2) issuing a management decision on audit findings within 6 months after receipt of the 

subrecipient’s audit report; and (3) ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate 

corrective action on all audit findings. In cases of continued inability or unwillingness of a 

subrecipient to have the required audits, the pass-through entity shall take appropriate action 

using sanctions. 

Cause: 

The child support program staff did not have controls in place to sufficiently maintain proper 

documentation to verify subrecipient monitoring was completed in accordance with their policy. 

Effect: 

DHR is not in compliance with the subrecipient monitoring requirements of OMB Circular A- 

133. 


Unknown. 


We recommend that the child support program implement procedures that ensure that all 

programs are properly monitored each year and the documentation noting the monitoring was 

performed and maintained. We also recommend the established monitoring and follow up 

procedures that are in place are adequately documented and maintained on file. 


It is DHR/CSEA management’s contention that a supervisory review and approval is required for 

all monitoring reports and corrective action plans. The reviewed subrecipient monitoring reports 

in relation to this audit established the compliance with deliverables within the contracts 

parameters by all but one subrecipient. The lone subrecipient that appeared to be out of 

compliance within the established parameters of the contract was inappropriately subjected those 

parameters. 

DHR/CSEA management secured audited financial statements from subrecipients who received 

$500,000 or more from DHR/CSEA. Moreover, the deficiencies noted as a part of the audited 

financial statements appeared to indirectly relate to the Sheriffs and Masters whom are the 

subrecipients of DHR/CSEA. However, DHR/CSEA will institute new policy requiring audited 

financial statements from all subrecipients. 


Based on the above, the finding will remain as stated. 

62






Child Support Enforcement 

CFDA No. 93.563 


Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency over Special Test: Provision of Child Support 

Service for Interstate Cases 

Condition: 

During our testing, we noted three of 60 cases where the initiating state did not refer the case to 

the responding state within 20 days of determining the noncustodial parent is in another State. 

For two of those three cases, DHR had insufficient documentation to support not referring the 

case to the responding state within 20 days. We also noted one case that the department did 

notify the responding state for receipt of new information until 26 days, which is required to be 

notified within 10 days of receipt of new information. 

Criteria: 











(1) The State IV-D agency must establish an interstate central registry responsible for 

receiving, distributing and responding to inquiries on all incoming interstate IV-D cases. 

(2) Within 10 working days of receipt of an interstate IV-D case from an initiating State, the 

central registry must: (i) Ensure that the documentation submitted with the case has been 

reviewed to determine completeness; (ii) Forward the case for necessary action either to 

the State PLS for location services or to the appropriate agency for processing; (iii) 

Acknowledge receipt of the case and ensure that any missing documentation has been 

requested from the initiating State; and (iv) Inform the IV-D agency in the initiating State 

where the case was sent for action. 

(b) Initiating State IV-D agency responsibilities. The IV-D agency must: 

63






(1) Use its long arm statute to establish paternity, when appropriate. 

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, within 20 calendar days of 

determining that the noncustodial parent is in another State, and, if appropriate, receipt of 

any necessary information needed to process the case, refer any interstate IV-D case to 

the responding State's interstate central registry for action, including requests for location, 

document verification, administrative reviews in Federal income tax refund offset cases, 

income withholding, and State income tax refund offset in IV-D cases. 

Cause: 

The child support program did not have proper monitoring controls and documentation in place 

to ensure adherence with the timing requirements set forth by the Federal agency for initiating 

and responding state cases. 

Effect: 

DHR is not in compliance with the provisions of child support service for interstate cases 

requirements of OMB Circular A-133. 


None. 


We recommend DHR strengthen its existing controls over monitoring cases to ensure Federal 

timing requirements are met. We also recommend DHR improve their documentation of issues 

or other activities completed related to the cases. 


DHR/CSEA management recognizes the need to adopt new or enhance existing policy requiring 

descriptive documentation of activities, especially those activities that are time sensitive within 

case action logs and overall case management. Moreover, local jurisdictions will provide training 

for new staff and refresher training for existing staff on the CFR timeframes for interstate 

processing. 


Based on the above, finding remains as stated. 

64







CFDA No. 10.568, 10.569 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

Compliance and Significant Deficiency over Accountability for Commodities 

Condition: 


inventory counts. We were unable to test the accountability of commodities as the required 


Criteria: 













Cause: 

DHR did not have adequate procedures in place related to the accountability of commodities. 

Effect: 




Unknown. 

65












DHR agrees that at one time, its oversight of commodity food inventories needed improvement. 

The USDA reviewed this program in FY 2010, and found some shortcomings regarding the 

inventory process. Subsequent to June 2011, new processes were implemented by the DHR 

TEFAP staff. 

The unit responsible for commodities and related contracts were previously located in the DHR 

Office of Grants Management (OGM). A reorganization of some modals within DHR took place 

effective February 28, 2012, and the OGM personnel responsible for TEFAP administration were 

transferred to the Family Investment Administration (FIA) Bureau of Policy, Reporting and 

Training. FIA management is currently reviewing all prior policies and procedures and will work 

with the TEFAP staff to ensure that the process approved by the USDA remains in place. 



66




Finding 2011 – 9 


State Highway Planning 

CFDA No. 20.205, 23.003 


Compliance Deficiency over Activities Allowed or Unallowed 

Condition: 

A voluntary separation bonus of $23,800 paid to a State Highway Administration (SHA) 

employee who retired in February 2011 was erroneously charged to Federal funding for highway 

construction project AA253K-5A. A fringe benefit cost allocation of $17,671.50 calculated for 

this bonus was also incorrectly charged to Federal funding. This resulted in a total of $41,471.50 

erroneously paid with Federal funds. 

All other voluntary separation bonuses paid to SHA employees during FY 2011 were charged to 

State funding. 

Criteria: 

Attachment A to OMB Circular A-87 defines direct costs to include employee compensation "for 

the time devoted and identified specifically to the performance of those awards". 

Attachment B allows severance payments "associated with normal turnover" as an indirect cost, 

but requires specific approval by a Federal agency for "abnormal or mass severance pay." 

Cause: 

SHA employees mistakenly charged the bonus to the same project as the allowable direct costs. 

The voluntary separation bonus was part of an unusual, one-time severance payment program. It 

is not allowable as a direct cost of project AA253K-5A and would require Federal approval for 

allocation as an indirect cost. The use of Federal funding for this bonus and the related fringe 

benefit allocation does not comply with the general cost principles of OMB Circular A-87. 

Effect: 

The cost of project AA253K-5A was overstated by $41,471.50. 


$41,471.50 

67






We recommend that only allowable costs are charged to the Federal program. The department 

should ensure all costs are allowed or obtain the necessary approval before charging them to the 

program. 


SHA agrees that Federal funds were erroneously charged for both the voluntary separation bonus 

of $23,800, as well as the fringe benefit cost allocation of $17,671.50 for a total of $41,471.50. It 

should be noted that the correction of the fringe benefit charge was made in March 2011. A 

correcting journal entry was made in March 2012 to reimburse the Federal Highway 

Administration for the bonus of $23,800. We believe that the erroneous charge represents an 

isolated incident and no additional steps need to be taken. 



68




Finding 2011 - 10 


State Highway Planning 

CFDA No. 20.205, 23.003 


Internal Control Deficiency over Subrecipient Monitoring 

Condition: 

During our testing of sub-recipient monitoring, we noted that the department did not receive the 

OMB A-133 Single Audit report from two of its subrecipients. 

Criteria: 

Per OMB A-133, the department is responsible for ensuring that subrecipients expending 

$500,000 or more in Federal awards during the sub recipient’s fiscal year for fiscal years ending 

after December 31, 2003, have met the audit requirements of OMB Circular A-133 and that the 

required audits are completed within 9 months of the end of the subrecipient's audit period. In 

case of continued inability or unwillingness of a subrecipient to have the required audits, the 

pass-through entity shall take appropriate action using sanctions. 

Cause: 

The State Highway Administration (SHA) did not follow its policy to obtain A-133 report from 

its subrecipients. 

Effect: 

SHA may not be able to provide reasonable assurance that the subrecipient administers Federal 

awards in compliance with Federal requirements. 


Unknown 


We recommend SHA to follow its policy and Federal requirement to obtain the audit report 

within 9 months of the end of the subrecipient's audit period. 


SHA agrees with the auditor's recommendation. It should be noted that when the auditors first 

reviewed the subrecipients required to supply a copy of their single audit reports, two audit reports 

were not received within the required timeframe. Both reports have since been received and 

procedures are in place to obtain the reports more timely. 



69




Finding 2011 - 11 

Bowie State University 


CFDA No. 84.063, 84.033, 84.268, 84.038, 84.007, 84.032 


Compliance Deficiency over Special Reporting 

Condition: 

The University was unable to provide support from Campus Partners, loan service provider, to agree 

with the cumulative amount of funds advanced to students and the cumulative amount of the loan 

principal collected related to the Federal Perkins Loan program, as reported on the FISAP. 

Criteria: 






Cause: 

The University was not able to correctly report certain lines within the FISAP report due to 

system limitations which caused submission errors when the correct information was reported. 

Effect: 

The information reported on certain lines in the FISAP was not accurate. 


None. 


We recommend the University work with Campus Partners to update the system feeding information 

to the FISAP report so that all line items are accurately stated when submitted to the Department of 

Education. 


We agree with the finding. In the past, the University has been unable to correct certain lines on 

the FISAP report without getting system validation errors. We are currently working with 

Campus Partners, our loan service provider, to determine an acceptable method for correcting the 

data on the FISAP report and anticipate having a resolution by the next FISAP reporting cycle. 



70

SECTION IV – SUMMARY SCHEDULE OF PRIOR YEAR FINDINGS 

71







CFDA No. 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 


CFDA No. 93.767 



Condition: 


responsible for determining eligibility under the Maryland Children’s Health Insurance Program 

(CHIP) on a uniform basis throughout the State for persons who apply for the expanded State 

Children’s Insurance Program under Title XXI of the Social Security Act. 




CHIP 

Anne Arundel County - LHD 

During our testing, we noted the annual redetermination was made after the 12 month required 

period for one individual. 


During our testing, we noted one individual that did not have proof of citizenship in their case 

file. 

Prince Georges County - LDSS 




DHMH 

During our testing, we noted for one individual, the application was received in 2008, but was 

not considered eligible until 2010. No annual redetermination was made for this individual until 

2010. DHMH processed and accepted the original application from 2008. 

72













2010. 

Criteria: 





are furnished child health assistance under the state child health plan. 


Plan: 









22, 1996, are not eligible for CHIP for a period of five years, beginning on the date 


under the terms of 8 USC 1613. 


Cause: 

LHD and LDSS personnel did not obtain or maintain the necessary documentation to support the 

eligibility determination, and DHMH (PAC) and the LHD did not re-determine eligibility at least 

every 12 months. 

73





Effect: 

Since documentation, re-determinations and verifications were not performed in accordance with 

program requirements, DHMH does not have adequate assurance that eligibility for Medicaid 

and CHIP is being properly determined. 


$21,589 


We recommend that DHMH’s Local Health Departments, Local Departments of Social Services 

and Division of Eligibility Waiver Services/Primary Adult Program comply with established 

Federal and state regulations for determining eligibility by obtaining and maintaining the 

required documentation and performing verifications to support eligibility decisions, and redetermining 

eligibility as required. 


DHMH agrees with the recommendation that Local Health Departments (LHD), Local 

Departments of Social Services (LDSS) and the Division of Eligibility Waiver Services/Primary 

Adult Program (DEWS/PAC) comply with established Federal and state regulations for 

determining eligibility by obtaining and maintaining the required documentation, performing 

verifications to support eligibility decisions, and re-determining eligibility as required. 








The eligibility and re-determination process for PAC is provided for on a separate system from 

Medicaid and CHIP. There were multiple enhancements to the PAC Eligibility system in 2009 

and 2010. Once the enhancements were made, DHMH made provisions for the backlog 

associated with the PAC Eligibility system down time to be resolved. Although the redeterminations 

were not completely timely as required by Federal and State regulations, 

continued eligibility was re-established when the system enhancements were completed. 

74







Each of the cases cited by the auditors has been researched and it appears that only one case may 

result in the recipient’s ineligibility. We are further reviewing this case and in the process of 

determining the amount of “Questioned Costs” related to this case. 

An Information Memorandum highlighting the types of errors reported in 2010-1 was issued 

jointly with DHR on August 30, 2011, as #12-05 Compliance Issues from Medicaid Audit 

Findings. Additionally, an Action Transmittal specifically highlighting MCHP Premium 

Redetermination Processing was issued jointly with DHR on August 15, 2011, as #12-08 MCHP 

Premium Eligibility Processing for Redeterminations. 

We contacted each local department cited in August individually to remind them to use the 

newly issued Information Memorandum and Action Transmittal in conjunction with their 

reported corrective measures. Additionally, we reviewed these errors again with MCHP 

eligibility workers in the latest Supervisors’ Meeting and Quarterly Meeting. Error issues 

continue to be reviewed at weekly meetings with DHR Management, bi-monthly meetings with 

OES Management and quarterly meetings of the Corrective Action Panel. 

DHMH has held 11 additional training sessions with eligibility staff since July 2011 that 

included a discussion of error prone processing areas. Compliance issues will continue to be 

addressed in our ongoing training sessions. As of August 2011, Audit Findings are now featured 

and listed as a distinct agenda topic in our training sessions. 

An Action Transmittal highlighting the Pre-Review system was issued jointly with DHR on 

October 4, 2011, as #12-10 Procedures for PIRAMID Pre-Review. For LDSS staff, it replaces 

monthly reviews of the small retroactive samples with a review mechanism applied to all 

eligibility determinations before they are finalized. We are currently in the process of “finetuning” 

the system to maximize program benefits. It is expected that identification of errorprone 

elements prior to finalization will significantly reduce our vulnerability to audit findings. 


See current year finding at 2011-1. 

75







CFDA No. 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 


Compliance Deficiency over Allowable Costs – Recoveries, Refunds, Rebates and Third 


Condition: 

The State receives drug rebates for drug purchases. Drug manufacturers are required to provide a 

listing to the Center for Medicaid Services (CMS) of all covered drugs on a quarterly basis. CMS 

provides this data to the State. No later than 60 days after the end of the quarter, the State must 

provide to drug manufacturers drug utilization data. During the audit, we noted for the quarter 

ended September 30, 2009, the data was submitted on December 1 2009, or 62 days after the 

quarter end. Also for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, the data was submitted on August 31, 2010, 

or 62 days after the quarter end. 



discrepancies found. During our audit, we noted of a sample size of 60, there were 39 selections 


excess of 45 days, one was over 300 days and one payment has not been received to date. 

During our audit, we noted DHMH contracts with a third party to pursue third party liabilities. 

We were unable to determine the extent to which reimbursement was sought for the claims with 

open reimbursement status. We also noted the State does not currently communicate with the 

service provider regarding the status of open claims and does not monitor the claims collection 

process. The only information DHMH obtains is the payment data on collections from the third 

party contractor. 

Criteria: 

Per 42 CFR sections 433.135 through 433.154: 

States must have a system to identify medical services that are the legal obligation of third 

parties, such as private health or accident insurers. Such third-party resources should be 

exhausted prior to paying claims with program funds. Where a third-party liability is established 

after the claim is paid, reimbursement from the third party should be sought. 

76






Per 42 CFR sections 433.300 through 433.320, and 433.40: 

The State is required to credit the Medicaid program for (1) State warrants that are canceled and 

uncashed checks beyond 180 days of issuance (escheated warrants) and (2) overpayments made 

to providers of medical services within specified time frames. In most cases, the State must 

refund provider overpayments to the Federal Government within 60 days of identification of the 

overpayment, regardless of whether the overpayment was collected from the provider. 


same as other payers receive. Drug manufacturers are required to provide a listing to CMS of all 

covered outpatient drugs and, on a quarterly basis, are required to provide their average 

manufacturer’s price and their best prices for each covered outpatient drug. Based on these data, 

CMS calculates a unit rebate amount for each drug, which it then provides to States. No later 

than 60 days after the end of the quarter, the State Medicaid agency must provide to 

manufacturers drug utilization data. Within 30 days of receipt of the utilization data from the 

State, the manufacturers are required to pay the rebate or provide the State with written notice of 

disputed items not paid because of discrepancies found. 

Cause: 

The above is due to timing of DHMH receiving information/data from CMS and due to lack of 

information obtained from the TPL contractor to evidence proper pursuit and follow up of third 

party liabilities. DHMH does not have a policy manual that outlines State and third party service 

provider responsibilities over the management of open TPL claims. 

Effect: 


and rebates and third party liabilities. There is a risk that reimbursement for claims will not be 

adequately sought. There is also a risk that TPL related accounts receivable will not be properly 

recorded and presented in financial reports. 


Unknown 


We recommend DHMH obtain a waiver from CMS for delays in receipt of information required 

for OMB A-133 requirements. We also recommend DHMH obtain evidence to support the 

pursuit of third party liabilities collections before and after a claim is processed, not only the 

information on collections obtained. 

77






The Department concurs with the recommendation. The Department sent an e-mail to CMS on 

February 17, 2011 asking for guidance on how to proceed with obtaining a waiver for delays in 

receipt of information required for OMB A-133 requirements. As of March 7, 2011, CMS has 

not responded to the e-mail. To ensure the drug utilization data is provided to drug manufacturers 

no later than 60 days after the end of the quarter, the Department will send a reminder e-mail to 

its rebates vendor 45 days after the end of the quarter to remind them that utilization data is due 

to the drug manufacturers no later than 60 days after the end of the quarter. 

The Division of Recoveries and Financial Services (DRAFS) met with the Third Party Liability 

(TPL) contractor on March 7, 2011, to discuss metrics that support the pursuit of third party 

liabilities collections. Beginning in May 2011, DRAFS will receive and review a monthly report 

from the contractor that will compare the number of open claims in a re-bill status to the total 

number of claims for the same time period. This report will identify each collection attempt 

made by the contractor along with the related results and any funds collected. The report review 

cycle will consist of a rolling one-year period beginning with July 1, 2009, as a baseline for this 

metric. 



The Department continues to send a reminder to the rebate vendor 45 days after the end of the 

quarter to remind them that utilization data is due no later than 60 days after the end of the 

quarter. The reminder for the second quarter 2011 was sent on August 12, 2011. However, at the 

end of the second quarter for 2011, the rebate vendor did not provide the Department with the 

utilization data timely. Accordingly, the Department continues to withhold 33% of the rebate 

vendor’s anticipated payments until such time as the rebate vendor can demonstrate to the 

Department it will provide the quarterly utilization data timely. 

The monthly report is now being received from the contractor. This report enables the 

Department to compare the number of open claims in a re-bill status to the total number of 

claims for the same time period. These metrics enable the Program to observe trends in terms of 

volume and dollars that will indicate the change in efficacy, over time, of contractor post-payment 

recovery efforts. By periodically examining and comparing the levels of activity (volume) and return 

(dollars), the Program is able to detect changes and make determinations as to the effectiveness of 

contractor post-payment recovery efforts. This process will commence once sufficient data for 

review are received by the Department. 


The TPL portion of the finding was resolved during 2011. See current year finding 2011-2 for 

the late rebate payments. 

78







CFDA No. 93.775, 93.776, 93.777, 93.778 


Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency over Reporting of Program Income 

Condition: 

DHMH received $141,045 in premiums for fiscal year 2010 related to the Medicaid program. 

The receipt of this program income was not reported in fiscal year 2010 during the cash 

management process as a reduction in claim expenses requested from the Federal government. 

Criteria: 


2(g) To the extent available, recipients shall disburse funds available from repayments to and 

interest earned on a revolving fund, program income, rebates, refunds, contract settlements, audit 

recoveries and interest earned on such funds before requesting additional cash payments. 

Cause: 

DHMH did not consistently follow its procedures to report program income properly during the 

cash management process. 

Effect: 

DHMH is not in compliance with reporting of program income received during the year. 


$86,869 which represents the 61.59% match for Federal funds. 


We recommend DHMH consistently follow its process to adhere to the reporting requirements of 

program income. 

79






The Administration agrees with the finding. The actual Federal funds to be returned are $86,869. 

This is composed of the regular 50% Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (FMAP) of 

$70,522 and the additional 11.59% ARRA funding of $16,347. These funds will be returned as 

line 10B (decreasing) prior period adjustments on the upcoming Centers for Medicare and 

Medicaid Services CMS 64 report for the quarter ending March 31, 2011. 

The Administration will process future Employed Individuals With Disabilities (EID) recoveries 

through Medical Management Information Systems, whereby the Federal share will be 

automatically included as a reduction to the draw of Federal funds. 



Since April 2011, the Administration has processed EID recoveries through the MMIS financial 

reports. Processing the recoveries through the financial reports, thus reducing Federallyclaimable 

expenditures, is the mechanism by which the Federal share is returned. 

For those periods prior to April 1, 2011, the Administration has returned the Federal share by 

making Line 10B (decreasing) prior period adjustments on the CMS 64 submitted for the quarter 

ended June 30, 2011. 



80







CFDA No. 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 


Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency over Special Tests – Provider Health and 

Safety Standards 

Condition: 

The State performs reviews of Medicaid providers to ensure they meet the health and safety 

standards. During our testing of 60 nursing homes and hospital providers, there were a total of 

five files that did not have full documentation of the review. Three cases did not have a physical 

file. We obtained the signed CMS forms from the computer system indicating the review 

happened and if any corrective action was required. However, there was no documentation of the 

records reviewed, such as regulatory correspondence and interviews with provider staff. Five 

cases did not have signed CMS forms. One case file that indicated a corrective action plan was 

needed did not have the corrective action plan in the file. 

Criteria: 

Per OMB Circular A-133, payments are to be made only to institutions that meet prescribed 

health and safety standards. The State should ensure that hospitals, nursing facilities and ICF/MR 

that serve Medicaid patients meet the prescribed health and safety standards. 

Cause: 

There was no adequate review of the case files to ensure they were complete. 

Effect: 

DHMH has inadequate internal controls over the completeness of the case files. 


None 


We recommend DHMH implement an improved system of internal controls to ensure case files 

reviewed for provider health and safety standards are complete and are adequate to ensure the 

providers meet the required standards. 

81






The Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH) has reviewed the five cases cited by the 

auditors and concurs with the five exceptions noted. 

The program manager has developed a survey packet checklist for the survey coordinators’ use 

to ensure that all survey documentation is present, complete and in a consistent order prior to 

being filed. This list will be submitted with the survey packet kit to either the program manager 

or the deputy director for review and for the second signature on the CMS 1539. The program 

manager or deputy director will not sign the CMS 1539 unless all survey documentation is 

present, complete and in the prescribed order. Kits identified as incomplete or not in prescribed 

order will be returned to the survey coordinator for correction. The packet will be corrected and 

re-submitted to the program manager or deputy director for their approval/signature on the CMS 

1539. Another checklist has been developed by the program manager for complaint and incident 

review surveys. These packets will be verified as complete and in a consistent order by 

signatures of the surveyor and the surveyor’s supervisor. 

The checklists will be filed with the survey packets. 

Use of the checklists has been initiated for all surveys completed since March 1, 2011. 



No change from our previous response. 

DHMH has implemented an improved system of internal controls to ensure case files reviewed 

for provider health and safety standards are complete and adequate to ensure the providers meet 

the required standards. 

Checklists continue to be utilized to ensure all documents are present in survey packets. 



82






Block Grants for Prevention and Treatment of Substance Abuse 

CFDA No. 93.959 


Compliance Deficiency over Level of Effort 

Condition: 



Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH). ADAA is required to submit to the Substance Abuse and 

Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), an operating division of the Department of 

Health and Human Services, its calculation of level of effort relative to the State’s expenditures 

for Substance Abuse (SSA MOE Table I). During the audit, we reviewed the calculation and 

noted that the expenditures for fiscal year 2010, were less than the average of the prior two year 

expenditures for the substance abuse program. 

Criteria: 


Block Grants for Prevention and Treatment of Substance Abuse, Part II, Subpart G.2.1.a, states 

that “the State shall for each fiscal year maintain aggregate State expenditures for authorized 

activities by the principal agency at a level that is not less than the average level of such 

expenditures maintained by the State for the two State fiscal years preceding the fiscal year for 

which the State is applying for the grant.” 

Cause: 

DHMH failed to expend in fiscal year 2010 more than the average of the prior two years for 

substance abuse as required by OMB Circular A-133. The decrease in maintenance of effort is 

due to budget cuts experienced by the State. 

Effect: 

DHMH is not in compliance with the Level of Effort requirement for the substance abuse 

program. 


None 


We recommend that DHMH contact SAMHSA to obtain a waiver of this Federal requirement if 

the substance abuse program is unable to maintain its level of effort. 

83






The ADAA concurs with the recommendation. The ADAA has been in contact with the 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse 

Treatment, about the Level of Effort requirement. The ADAA is awaiting direction from 

SAMHSA as to next steps. 



The ADAA concurs with the recommendations. SAMSHA is aware of ADAA’s Level of Effort and is not 

requiring any action be taken. 


Based on testing performed during the 2011 audit, this is a repeat finding. 

84







CFDA No. 93.959 


Compliance Deficiency over Subrecipient Monitoring 

Condition: 



Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH). ADAA is required to monitor the services of the providers 

that administer direct services to those participating in the Substance Abuse Prevention and 

Treatment programs. 

During our audit, we noted ADAA failed to monitor three of its subrecipients during the year. 

Additionally, three subrecipients did not submit the required reports; therefore the required 

monitoring could not be performed. Two of the subrecipients did not issue corrective action plans as 

requested to ADAA and two subrecipients did not have the corrective action plans approved within 

10 days of receipt of the plan. 

Criteria: 










Subrecipient Audits – (1) Ensuring that subrecipients expending $500,000 or more in Federal awards 

during the subrecipient’s fiscal year for fiscal years ending after December 31, 2003, as provided in 

OMB Circular A-133 have met the audit requirements of OMB Circular A-133 (the circular is 

available on the Internet at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a133/a133.html) and that the 

required audits are completed within 9 months of the end of the subrecipient’s audit period; (2) 

issuing a management decision on audit findings within 6 months after receipt of the subrecipient’s 

audit report; and (3) ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate corrective action on 

all audit findings. In cases of continued inability or unwillingness of a subrecipient to have the 

required audits, the pass-through entity shall take appropriate action using sanctions. 

85





Effect: 

DHMH is not in compliance with the subrecipient monitoring requirements of OMB Circular A- 

133. 


Unknown 


We recommend that ADAA set up more stringent procedures that ensure that all programs are 

monitored each year and that the established monitoring and follow up procedures are performed 

by each reviewer. 


The ADAA concurs with the recommendation. 

Effective February 11, 2011, the ADAA has strengthened its procedures to ensure sub-recipients 

are adequately monitored and appropriate corrective action is taken on identified deficiencies in 

a timely manner by: 

a) implementing graduated sanctions, 

b) creating an electronic database to track monitoring compliance daily by Quality 

Assurance staff, 

c) assigning two additional staff to perform the required program audit and monitoring 

functions. 

For the sub-recipients noted above that did not submit required quarterly reports, the ADAA now 

requires the jurisdiction to perform the monitoring function of those providers with whom they 

contract. This requirement is now in the FY 2010 Condition of Grant Awards signed by the 

jurisdiction. Thereafter, the ADAA sent letters to the jurisdictions instructing them to perform 

and submit their required quarterly reports within five business days after the end of each 

quarter. 

As of March 2011, the new policy requires jurisdictions to submit a plan of correction as to why 

the sub-recipient monitoring was not done and what the jurisdiction will do in the future to 

ensure that the monitoring is done. If there are consecutive quarters where sub-recipient 

monitoring was not performed in the matter in which it was instructed, the Single State Authority 

Director shall contact the County Coordinator and take appropriate administrative action, if 

necessary. 

86






In January 2010, the ADAA implemented an electronic database to track the monitoring 

requirements of jurisdictions and programs. Furthermore, ADAA has now assigned two 

additional staff to perform the required program audit and monitoring functions. 



ADAA has strengthened its procedures to ensure sub-recipients are adequately monitored and 

appropriate corrective action is taken on identified deficiencies in a timely manner. 



87






Foster Care – Title IV-E 

CFDA No. 93.658 

Adoption Assistance – Title IV-E 

CFDA No. 93.659 


Internal Control Deficiency over Cash Management 

Condition: 

During our testing of the foster care program, we noted five transactions out of a sample size of 

24; and for the adoption program, we noted five transactions out of a sample size of 11, without 

proper signature approval from management. 

Criteria: 










Cause: 

DHR did not follow its established procedures of review and sign off to ensure that amounts 

drawn down were reviewed for accuracy prior to draw. 

Effect: 

No evidence of approval of the draw request evidencing proper review and approval of draw 

down prior to the draw down request. 


None 

88






We suggest that DHR follow its existing policy of review and sign off on cash draws prior to the 

draw taking place to prevent Federal draw downs that are not supported by accounting records or 

not in accordance with the State Treasurer’s agreement. 


We concur with the finding and the Department will begin immediately to document all cash 

draw reviews. To date, all cash draws are reviewed, and reviews have been documented on a test 

basis. A Single Audit finding in 2003 prompted the Department to implement the practice of 

documenting the reviews on a test basis. The 2003 corrective action described in that year’s 

Single Audit Report was not commented on by the U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, and documenting reviews on a test basis has been our procedure since that time. In 

addition to initial draw reviews, management reviews funds drawn compared to actual 

expenditures quarterly, as that is when actual expenditure information is available and reports are 

due to the federal government for claiming and cash management purposes. 



The above corrective action plan, document all cash draw reviews, is in force. No changes to report. 


Based on the 2011 audit, we note the corrective action plan was put in place starting in March 

2011. 

89







CFDA No. 93.658 



Condition: 

We selected a sample size of 60 transactions at several locations. During our testing of 



permanency plan and two cases where the child did not meet the eligibility requirements. 

Criteria: 

Per OMB Circular A-133, June 2010 






45 CFR section 1356.21(b)(2): 










45 USC 672(a): 

A child must meet the eligibility requirements of the former Aid to Families with Dependent 

Children (AFDC) program. 

Cause: 


determinations. 

90





Effect: 



eligibility for the foster care program is being properly determined. 


None 






Upon receipt of these findings, DHR consulted the Auditor to confirm the four names and client 

identification numbers for the placements in question (Cases J, K, D and B). The responses 

below are on a case by case basis. 

Case J 

We disagree with the audit finding that the child did not meet the former AFDC requirements. It 

is correct that the income information clearances were not completed at the time the initial 

determination was made. However, the appropriate income information clearances were 

completed within the allowable 2-year window. This makes the child Title IV-E eligible and 

therefore the case is correctly determined and documented eligible for IV-E. 

Case K 

We concur with the audit finding that the income calculation was done incorrectly at the initial 

determination. We also agree that there was not a timely Permanency Review to obtain judicial 

determination of reasonable efforts to achieve permanency. 

Case D 

We concur with the audit finding that the child did not meet the former AFDC requirements for 

IV-E eligibility. This was a complex case because it was part of a sibling group of four and the 

worker did not consider the Social Security survivor benefits received by the sibling in 

determining the initial eligibility. The case was corrected. 

Case B 

We disagree with the audit finding that there was no legal custody. Legal custody for this case is 

not required as constructive removal applies since the child lived with the father within six 

months of entering care. The IV-E decision in MD CHESSIE was therefore correct. 

91






Starting in May 2011, the Department will implement refresher training to focus eligibility 

workers and supervisors on the basic steps involved in documenting information that correctly 

supports Title IV-E decisions. The refresher training will also focus on the appropriate methods 

to track and document judicial findings of reasonable efforts to achieve permanency. Another 

component of the training will focus on the appropriate method in completing the income 

calculation worksheet. The refresher training will be repeated every six months. 



Central IV-E staff conducted training with Eligibility workers and Supervisors from the Local 

Departments of Social Services in February 2011. Another IV-E all-staff training will take place 

in November 2011. 


See current year finding of 2011-3. 

92






Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 

CFDA No. 93.558, 93.714 


Compliance Deficiency over Activities Allowed and Allowable Costs 

Condition: 

During our audit, we reviewed the TANF grant award and the TANF plan. We noted there was 

no evidence that the amended State Plan for TANF, revised September 30, 2009, was approved 

and incorporated into the “completed” TANF plan by the U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services. Included in the amended TANF plan from DHR was activity for a scholarship program 

through the Maryland Higher Education Commission (MHEC). Included in the activity under 

the amended State Plan is the following for MHEC. “Maryland Higher Education Commission 

scholarship programs are eligible for TANF funding because post-secondary educational 

attainment by State residents decreases the incidence of out-of-wedlock births by raising the 

“opportunity cost” of having children outside of marriage. Studies also show that professional 

careers (often the product of higher education) delay fertility. These programs provide nonassistance.” 

Expenditures for the scholarship program for fiscal year 2010, amounted to $43.7 million. The 

expenditures for the scholarship program could not be verified as allowable under the TANF 

program, per OMB Circular A-133 as of June 30, 2010. 

Criteria: 

Per TANF-ACF-PI-97-12: 

Once the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) review of the amendment is 

completed and there are no issues requiring further clarification, the ACF Regional 

Administrator will send the State agency a letter indicating that the amendment has been 

received, reviewed, and incorporated into the State’s “complete” TANF plan. 

Cause: 

DHR has not obtained formal approval from the Federal government authorizing the use of 

TANF funds on the MHEC scholarship program. 

Effect: 

TANF funds used for activities and costs under the MHEC scholarship program may not be 

approved by the Federal government. 

93






Unknown 


We recommend DHR obtain formal approval from the Federal government of the amended State 

Plan dated September 30, 2009, to support the allowability of the use of TANF funds on the 

MHEC scholarship program. 


On March 10, 2011, the Department sent in its response to Federal questions regarding the State 

Plan amendment on the use of TANF funds on the MHEC scholarship program. The Department 

received a reply that the plan amendment has been accepted and incorporated into Maryland’s 

completed TANF plan. 


Based on our review of the reply letter referred to above, finding remains as stated as DHR still 

must justify how the MHEC scholarship expenditures meet TANF purposes. 

94




Finding 2010 - 10 


Emergency Food Assistance Program Cluster 

CFDA No. 10.568, 10.569 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Compliance and Significant Deficiency over Accountability for Commodities 

Condition: 


inventory counts. We were unable to test the accountability of commodities due to the required 


Criteria: 













Cause: 

DHR did not have needed staff to perform functions related to the accountability of 

commodities. 

Effect: 




Unknown 

95












DHR concurs with the recommendation. The Office of Grants Management (OGM) is 

developing an automated and improved inventory system to replace the current outdated Excel 

spreadsheets. This system will reconcile the inventory to the general ledger. Reports will be 

reviewed monthly and any large discrepancies investigated and explained. Adjustments, along 

with the cost of goods, will be made and procedures implemented to allow for these adjustments 

to occur on an annual basis. 

The Office of Grants Management will conduct physical inventories to correspond with both the 

State and the federal fiscal year. The inventories will occur on August 15 th for the prior State 

fiscal year and November 15 th for the prior federal fiscal year. Inventories will be conducted at 

all warehouses that contained Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) food at the end of 

the appropriate fiscal year. 



OGM’s Excel spreadsheets capture the receipt, distribution, use and inventory of all USDA 

donated food. OGM, nor any of our warehouses, has the capability to process any end products 

from the USDA donated food. 

DHR is in compliance with 7 CFR section 250.16 in that records are maintained through Excel 

spreadsheets to document distribution or loss of donated food. The spreadsheet includes the 

agency and the entity code that is liable for the value or replacement of the food in-kind. These 

spreadsheets are used to compare and reconcile the inventories at the warehouses. 

For this single audit report performed for the period of 2010/2009, OGM had recommended a 

new automated inventory system to help in assisting staff to better obtain the goals of the criteria. 

However, through application, OGM found the Excel Workbook to be more than adequate for 

capturing this data and complying with all audit requirements. As financial constraints are 

lessened, OGM will explore the creation of a new automated database. 

DHR performed corrective measures for the criteria in 7 CFR section 250.14. 

OGM added language to the current Warehouse Monitoring Form requesting physical inventory 

counts; monitoring reviews are conducted yearly. 

96





Auditee Updated Response and Corrective Action Plan: (continued) 

As of September 30, 2011, OGM has conducted site visits to all contracted warehouses. During 

these monitoring visits each vendor produced a hard copy of the warehouse final inventory report 

so that it could be compared against the physical inventory on hand. The results are then 

compared to the TEFAP Administrator’s perpetual inventory for the purpose of reconciliation. 

Thus, DHR is compliant with Federal regulations requiring yearly site visits to all TEFAP 

warehouses and the reconciliation of said inventory. 

Additionally, OGM has now requested, and are receiving monthly inventory reports from 

vendors housing TEFAP commodities. These reports are reconciled against the TEFAP 

Administrator’s perpetual report to ensure accuracy. Unannounced site visits can be performed 

in order to test the accountability of said commodities. 

DHR has remedied this condition. Since this audit, OGM has a full time staff person in place to 

perform all TEFAP duties. There is a trained and knowledgeable TEFAP backup staff person. 


See current year finding of 2011-8. 

97




Finding 2010 - 11 


Passenger Facility Charges 

CFDA No. Unknown 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Compliance Deficiency over Reporting 

Condition: 

During our testing, we noted as of June 30, 2010, $2.3 million of construction management and 

inspection services (CMI) expenditures were mistakenly coded to the PFC 05-11 Design project, 

when they should have been coded to the PFC 05-14 Construction project. As a result, the 

expenditures reported by Maryland Aviation Administration (MAA) on the June 30, 2010, 

quarterly report for applications 06-05-C-02 and 07-06-U-00 were inaccurate. Expenditures for 

application 06-05-C-02 were overstated by $2.3 million and the expenditures for application 07- 

06-U-00 were understated by the same amount. 

Criteria: 

Per 14 CFR Section 158.63(a): 

The public agency shall provide quarterly reports to carriers collecting Passenger Facility Charge 

(PFC) revenues for the public agency, with a copy to the appropriate Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) Airports office. The PFC quarterly report must include PFC revenue 

received from collecting carriers, interest earned, and expenditures for the quarter; cumulative 

PFC revenue received, interest earned, expenditures, and the amount committed for use on 

currently approved projects, including the quarter; the PFC level for each project; and the current 

project schedule. 

Per Section 158.63(b): 

The report shall be provided on or before the last day of the calendar month following the 

calendar quarter or other period agreed by the public agency and collecting carrier. 

Cause: 

The error in coding of expenditures to the general ledger resulted in inaccurate information being 

reported in the quarterly report. 

Effect: 

MDOT is not in compliance with reporting in accordance with the Passenger Facility Charges 

reporting requirements. 


None 

98






We recommend MAA review controls over expenditure coding to ensure the proper coding of 

project expenditures and perform adequate review of reports to identify any discrepancies. It is 

important that accurate reports be produced to ensure that the goals and purposes of the grant 

have been achieved and accounted for properly. 


MAA acknowledges that the expenditure data was reported to the wrong project. This error has 

been subsequently corrected by MAA. MAA has instituted proper quality control measures to 

ensure accounts are coded properly. 



MAA corrected the error of coding the expenditure to the wrong project in January 2011. MAA 

has also instituted proper quality control measures to ensure that accounts are coded properly. 

This issue has been resolved by MAA and should be closed. 



99




Finding 2010 – 12 



CFDA No. 84.063, 84.033, 84.268, 

84.038, 84.007, 84.375, 84.376, 84.379 


Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency over Special Reporting 

Condition: 

The University was unable to provide support from the general ledger to match the Federal funds 

available and spent for college work study on the submitted FISAP. 

Criteria: 






Cause: 

The University did not have adequate controls in place to update information within a timely 

manner. 

Effect: 

The University may not receive all the funds to which they are entitled, or they may be required 

to return funds they were not entitled to receive. 


Unknown 


We recommend that the University review the FISAP prior to submission, retain supporting 

records, and attach general ledger support to the submitted FISAP. 

100






The University agrees. After discussion with the auditors, the University has identified the issues 

to be corrected and an amended FISAP will be filed by March 15, 2011. In the future, the 

Assistant Vice President for Finance and Management (AVPFM) will review the FISAP prior to 

forwarding to the U.S Department of Education. Additionally, the financial aid and human 

resources departments under the supervision of the AVPFM will strengthen the record keeping 

of payroll, thus reducing the likelihood of this situation recurring. This will be completed by 

April 30, 2011. 



This issue is not fully resolved; however, the University is very close to resolution. As indicated 

in last year’s report, the University strengthened the record keeping function of the Financial Aid 

and Human Resources departments to reduce the likelihood of this situation recurring. As of 

now, a small difference ($8,609) exists between the general ledger and the work study record due 

to student classification and this variance will be resolved prior to finalizing the FISAP report. 


Based on the 2011 testing, the finding is a repeat finding. 

101




Finding 2010 - 13 



CFDA No. 84.063, 84.033, 84.268, 84.038, 

84.007, 84.375, 84.376, 84.379 



Condition: 



assistance was not in accordance with Federal regulations. In one instance, $6,828 of Federal 

funds should have been refunded to the Department of Education. In the second instance, $3,841 

of Pell and Unsubsidized Stafford loan amounts should have been refunded to the Department of 

Education. The University returned the incorrect amount for the Pell grant and did not return any 

of the unsubsidized loan funds, which was not in accordance with the Federal regulations on the 

order of return of title IV funds. 

Criteria: 

Per 34 CFR Section 668.22: 

In part, that an institution is required to have a fair and equitable refund policy. Per 34 CFR 

Section 668.22, when a recipient of Title IV grant or loan assistance withdraws from an 

institution during a payment period or period of enrollment in which the recipient began 

attendance, the institution must determine the amount of Title IV grant or loan assistance that the 

student earned as of the student's withdrawal date or the date the school discovers that the 

student has unofficially withdrawn. The unearned portion of Title IV funds must be returned to 

the Department of Education within 30 calendar days of the date the student officially 

withdraws. Any unearned funds must be returned to the Title IV program and no additional 

disbursements may be made to the student for the payment period. If the student ceases 

attendance without providing official notification to the institution of his or her withdrawal in 

accordance with paragraph (c) (1) (i) or (c) (1) (ii) of this section, the mid-point of the payment 

period (or period of enrollment), is applicable. 

Cause: 

The University did not calculate the return of funds in accordance with the Federal guidelines 

and inadequate review of the refund calculation was performed. 

Effect: 

This resulted in the incorrect amount being returned to the Department of Education. 


$10,669 

102








the returns within the required time frames. The review should also ensure the refunds are made 

in the proper order of return of Title IV funds. 


The University agrees. The University has identified the issues that caused the delay and 

calculation of returned funds. Effective immediately, the financial Aid department will 

collaborate with the University’s Information Technology, Registrar and Bursar departments to 

develop an automated monthly report that will promptly identify the students for which a return 

of Title IV assistance is required as well as calculate the correct unearned amount of Title IV 

assistance to be returned. This report will also provide the required information to ensure that 

funds are returned timely. This will be completed by April 30, 2011. 



This issue has been fully resolved. The financial aid department and the registrar’s office have 

implemented the required communication to ensure that any changes to the student status is 

recognized and acknowledged by all interested parties and offices for appropriate processing. 



103




Finding 2010 – 14 



CFDA No. 84.063, 84.033, 84.268, 84.038, 

84.007, 84.375, 84.376, 84.379 


Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency over Student Status Changes 

Condition: 

During our testing, we noted six of thirty-four students selected were incorrectly classified and 

reported in the NSLDS database. Each of the six students graduated from the University, but 

three were incorrectly reported as attending full time and three were incorrectly reported as 

withdrawn. 

Criteria: 


Schools must complete and return the Student Status Confirmation Report (SSCR) at least twice 

a year. The school must update for changes in student status, report the date the enrollment 

status was effective, enter the new anticipated completion date, and submit the changes 

electronically through the batch method to the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) 

web site. 

Cause: 

The University did not have proper controls in place to review and update enrollment status 

changes for students receiving student financial aid. 

Effect: 

The Department of Education could continue to process information for student’s no longer in 

attendance. 


None 


We recommend that the University establish procedures to ensure that enrollment status changes 

are updated and reviewed in a timely manner prior to submission in the NSLDS database. 

104






The University agrees. The University determined that the best way to address this problem is to 

utilize the National Student Clearinghouse, which it began to do during fiscal year 2011. The 

University is confident that this system will mitigate the risk of such errors recurring in the 

future. Moreover, the University is double checking the parameters for the required data to 

ensure that data extracted from our student information system and transmitted is consistent with 

the needs of the Clearinghouse. 



This issue has been resolved. In 2011, the University implemented and began utilization of the 

National Student Clearinghouse service to address this issue. As a result, this condition no longer 

exists and students are being properly classified on the NSLDS. 



105




Finding 2010 - 15 



CFDA No. 84.063, 84.033, 84.268, 84.038, 84.007, 

84.375, 84.376, 84.032, 84.379, 93.342, 93.364 



Condition: 



assistance was not in accordance with Federal regulations. 

Criteria: 


equitable refund policy. Per 34 CFR Section 668.22, when a recipient of Title IV grant or loan 


which the recipient began attendance, the institution must determine the amount of Title IV grant 

or loan assistance that the student earned as of the student's withdrawal date or the date the 

school discovers that the student has unofficially withdrawn. The unearned portion of Title IV 

funds must be returned to the Department of Education within 30 calendar days of the date the 

student officially withdraws. Any unearned funds must be returned to the Title IV program and 

no additional disbursements may be made to the student for the payment period. 

Cause: 

University of Maryland Eastern Shore erroneously transposed the semester dates used to 

calculate the unearned amount of Title IV funds and that error was not detected due to 

inadequate review. 

Effect: 

This error resulted in the incorrect amount being returned to the Department of Education. 







106






We agree with this finding. The discrepancy in the date was a typographical error in the 

transposition of the numbers (i.e. – 5/12/10 vs. 5/21/10). UMES recalculated the return of title 

IV funds using the correct date which resulted in an additional return of $7 in Federal PELL 

grant for one student and $41 in unsubsidized federal direct loan for the other. All funds have 

been returned to the U.S. Department of Education. 



The Director of Financial Aid has verified the start and end dates with the Registrar. Upon 

entering the information on the U.S. Department of Education’s Return of Title IV funds 

website, a financial aid counselor verified the dates were correct. Imaged copies of withdrawal 

forms are routed to the Director of Financial Aid to perform the R2T4 calculations. 



107




Finding 2010 - 16 



CFDA No. 84.063, 84.033, 84.268, 84.038, 

84.007, 84.375, 84.376, 84.032, 84.379, 

93.342, 93.364 


Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency over Verification 

Condition: 

During our testing of Verification, we reviewed third party documentation obtained by the 

University to collaborate information submitted to the Department of Education (DE). For one 

out of fifteen of the students selected for verification, the supporting documentation did not 

collaborate information that was submitted to the DE to calculate the student’s expected family 

contribution (EFC). Amount awarded to this student was $3,400 for the term in question. 

Criteria: 

Per 34 CFR section 668.55 states, in part, that the institution shall require applicants to verify 

any information used to calculate an applicant’s EFC that the institution has reason to believe is 

inaccurate. Generally, the information that must be updated is the number of family members, 

number of family members attending postsecondary educational institutions, and the applicant’s 

dependency status. 

Cause: 

University of Maryland Eastern Shore did not perform a review sufficient to identify 

discrepancies between the third party support and information submitted to DE. 

Effect: 

This error resulted in a student receiving inaccurate amount of aid. 




We recommend that the University strengthen its internal controls over the verification process. 

These controls should consist of proper documentation, supervision, and review of third party 

support. 

108






We agree with this finding. The file in question was not properly verified by the financial aid 

counselor. Upon identification by the auditor, the Director of Financial Aid processed the 

appropriate verification and reversed ineligible funds. 

Corrective Action - Supervisory personnel independent of financial aid will make the random 

selections from a list of financial aid recipients provided by Administrative Computing. Office 

of Student Financial Aid (OSFA) personnel without award update capability will conduct the 

audit of the awards, and the audit will be verified by the Vice President for Administrative 

Affairs and/or designee. These procedures will be effective for the mid-term audit to be 

conducted Fall 2011. 



The University has developed an updated award audit form to be used for independent 

verification. Selection queries are being developed by Administrative Computing and the list will 

be provided to the Vice President of Administrative Affairs who will make the random 

selection(s). Financial Aid personnel without award update capability will perform the 

independent verification. Discrepancies will be resolved by the Vice President in cooperation 

with the Office of Student Financial Aid. Documentation will be retained in the Vice President’s 

Office as well as the Office of Student Financial Aid. 



109




Finding 2010 - 17 



CFDA No. 84.063, 84.033, 84.268, 84.038, 

84.007, 84.375, 84.376, 84.032, 84.379, 

93.342, 93.364 


Compliance Deficiency over Student Status Changes 

Condition: 

During our testing of student status changes, we reviewed the data that was submitted to the 

National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) for student status changes. For two students who 

had changes after the initial roster submission, status information was manually updated in error 

by the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC), a third party servicer. We also noted students 

whose status per the NSLDS database was not supported by the records of the institution. 

Criteria: 

Per 34 CFR Section 682.610 for FFEL and 34 CFR Section 685.309 for Direct Loans, the 

Student Status Confirmation Report (SSCR) should be transmitted electronically to NSLDS. 

Under the FFEL and Direct Loan programs, schools must complete and return within 30 days of 

receipt, the SSCR sent by Department of Education (DE) or a guaranty agency. The institution 

determines how often it receives the SSCR, but the minimum is twice a year. Once received, the 

institution must update for changes in student status, report the date the enrollment status was 

effective, enter the new anticipated completion date, and submit the changes electronically 

through the batch method or the NSLDS web site. Institutions are responsible for timely 

reporting, whether they report directly or via a third-party servicer. Unless the school expects to 

complete its next SSCR within 60 days, the school must notify the lender or the guaranty agency 

within 30 days, if it discovers that a student who received a loan either did not enroll or ceased to 

be enrolled on at least a half-time basis. 

Cause: 

Manual adjustments to the SCCR were not processed in a timely manner. Information submitted 

by the institution to NSC was not properly submitted to the NSLDS. 

Effect: 

This error resulted in student’s status being inaccurately reported to the NSLDS. 



110






We recommend the University to review the process and controls surrounding the reporting of 

student status changes to the NSLDS. 


We agree with this finding. Students whose degree records were updated manually to the 

National Student Clearinghouse (NSC), a third-party servicer, did not have their enrollment 

history updated which affected inaccurate reporting to NSLDS. The enrollment history for these 

students was not updated in a timely manner because the University of Maryland Eastern Shore 

(UMES) was unaware that NSC had changed their procedure for handling manual updates. 

Since then, the NSC’s process for manual updates prompts the user immediately after a student’s 

degree record is entered manually to update the student’s enrollment history. UMES has 

corrected the records of the students tested that were not updated and is working with the 

National Clearinghouse to ensure the enrollment history is accurate for all students who were 

manually updated during this period. 

Since being made aware of the new process required for manual degree updates via NSC, UMES 

has been updating the enrollment history of graduated students immediately after manually 

updating degree information. In addition, a printout of the degree information submitted for each 

student is printed after entering, as is the enrollment history update. After a minimum of 48 

hours, UMES will review NCS data for the accuracy of each manual degree update. 



UMES has corrected the issues raised in the prior audit report and developed procedures to 

ensure this type of error does not occur again. Since the audit, NSC sends an email to the updater 

confirming the enrollment update has been made. The email usually comes within minutes of 

the update or within the next business day. The email also includes a link that will allow us to 

check the student’s record for the update. 

During this year’s testing, the auditors noted that the status of students who had ‘withdrawn’ 

from the University was not changed on the Clearing House Reports, although the status was 

correct per internal records. Upon further review, it was determined that once a student has 

withdrawn from the University, their records need to be ‘closed’ within the PeopleSoft System in 

order to update the Clearing House records correctly. We have updated our procedures and are 

in the process of training staff to ensure status changes are updated timely and correctly. 


Based on the 2011 testing, the finding is a repeat finding. 

111




Finding 2010 - 18 



CFDA No. 84.063, 84.033, 84.268, 84.038, 84.007, 

84.375, 84.376, 84.032, 84.379, 93.342, 93.364 


Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency over Student Loan Repayment 

Condition: 

During our testing of student loan repayment, we reviewed whether the institution performed an 

exit interview with borrowers before the individual leaves the institution. There was one instance 

out of three where there was no evidence that the exit interview was conducted. 

Criteria: 

Per 34 CFR Section 674.42, institutions must exercise due care and diligence in the collection of 

loans. The institution must disclose information related to the debtor, balances owed and interest 

rate in a written statement provided to the borrower either shortly before the borrower ceases at 

least half-time study at the institution or during the exit interview. 

Cause: 

The University did not retain sufficient records supporting the occurrence of the exit interview. 

Effect: 

Students may leave the University without knowledge related to the repayment terms of their 

applicable debt and loan repayments may not be timely as the repayment plan was not 

established before the borrower leaves the institution. 


Questioned costs are undeterminable. 


We recommend that the University strengthen its internal control procedures over the exit 

interview process. These controls should consist of proper documentation and supervision 

within the required time frames. 

112






We agree with this finding. The Perkins loan exit counseling log indicates that the student 

attended an exit counseling session and completed an exit package, but the paperwork was 

missing from the file. The Financial Aid Accounting staff was unable to locate the paperwork 

after conducting an intensive search. In response to this finding, additional steps will be 

implemented to avoid this situation from happening again. A copy of the exit counseling package 

will be made and filed in the borrower’s file prior to the exit counseling session being held. The 

exit counseling package will be included on the individual student folder checklist, and it will be 

reviewed and signed off by the Financial Aid Accountant. Once the exit counseling session/exit 

package is completed by the borrower, it will be filed immediately and the Financial Aid 

Accountant will review the file for completion. 



Additional steps have been implemented to avoid this situation from happening again. A copy of 

the exit counseling package is made and filed in the borrower’s file prior to the exit counseling 

session being held. The student folder checklist has been updated to include the exit counseling 

package and it is reviewed and signed off by the Financial Aid Accountant. Once the exit 

counseling session/exit package is completed by the borrower, it is filed immediately and the 

Financial Aid accountant reviews the file for completion. 



113







CFDA No. 93.775, 93.776, 93.777, 93.778 



Condition: 

On July 1, 1985 the Maryland State Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH) entered 

into an agreement with the Maryland State Department of Human Resources (DHR). DHR 

agreed to determine eligibility for Medical Assistance on a uniform basis throughout the State for 

persons who are indigent or medically indigent according to regulations, guidelines and 

procedures established by DHMH. 



Jurisdictions: Baltimore City, Caroline County, Queen Anne’s County, Montgomery County, and 

Frederick County. The test was composed of a selection of 8 newly established recipients and 5 

existing recipients. All claims were processed during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009. We 

noted the following exceptions: 


For Baltimore City we found eight non compliance issues, they are as follows: 

There are two files that were not recovered for review and testing (1 newly/1 existing). We noted 

for three files, a review of the Agency’s decision was not made in the allotted 45 days (2 newly/1 

existing). One newly eligible file did not have a signed application nor did it have citizenship 

status documented. Two of the newly eligible files did not have a noted decision made in file. 

We also noted one of the newly eligible files had no narration of the case during the time of the 

period of coverage. 


Internal control deficiency in that one of the eight newly eligible files could not be located. 


For one of the files a review of the Agency’s decision was not made in the allotted 45 days and 

there was no notice of approval for spend-down category. 

114










Criteria: 

42 CFR 435.907 (a) states, “The agency must require a written application from the applicant, an 

authorized representative, or if the applicant is incompetent or incapacitated, someone acting 

responsibly for the applicant.” 

42 CFR 435.948 (a) states, “Except as provided in paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) of this section, the 

agency must request information from the sources specified in this paragraph for verifying 

Medicaid eligibility and the correct amount of medical assistance payments for each applicant 

(unless obviously ineligible on the face of his or her application) and recipient. The agency must 

request, among other things: 

(1) State wage information maintained by the State Wage Information Collection 

Agency (SWICA) during the application period and at least on a quarterly basis. 

(2) Any additional income, resource, or eligibility information relevant to 

determinations concerning eligibility or correct amount of medical assistance 

payments available from agencies in the State or other States administering the 

following programs as provided in the agency’s State plan: 

i. Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC); 

ii. Medicaid; 

iii. State-administered supplementary payment programs under Section 1616(a) 

of the Act; 


We recommend that DHR and the LHD’s comply with established Federal regulations for 

determining eligibility to include obtaining the required documentation and performing 


115






DHMH agrees with the recommendation that Local Health Departments (LHD) and Local 

Departments of Social Services (LDSS) comply with requirements of federal law relating to 

determinations of eligibility, including obtaining required documentation and performing 


DHMH will work with DHR on issues with maintaining documentation and transferring case 

records between local departments, including follow-up with each cited local department, 

sending out system broadcast messages and an information memorandum highlighting the issues 

to all eligibility workers, and adding appropriate items to the agenda for regularly scheduled 

Regional Training sessions. 

Auditee’s Updated Response: 


DHMH followed up with each cited local department about their respective findings in 

November 2009. We have also worked with the Maryland Department of Human Resources 

(DHR) and the local departments to ensure that managers and supervisors of Case Managers 

have access to DataWatch. In November 2009 and March 2010, we held regional “refresher” 

training sessions highlighting the documentation, verification and other requirements that 

appeared in Findings 2009-2 and 2009-3. In September 2010, DHMH and DHR jointly issued to 

all eligibility workers an information memorandum (IM11-05) which provided “tips” on 

avoiding errors from prior audit findings (and similar/related errors). We have continued to 

highlight the avoidance of the errors in this finding in regional refresher training, including 

sessions in September and October, 2010. 






Redetermination Processing was issued jointly with DHR on August 15, 2011 as #12-08 MCHP 


At quarterly meetings of the Corrective Action Panel, we continue to monitor Statewide 

compliance rates from DataWatch for LDSS performance in determining eligibility timely. 



addressed in our ongoing training sessions. As of August 2011, Audit Findings are now featured 

and listed as a distinct agenda topic in our training sessions. Effective October 2011, a 

specialized two day Spend-down training is now offered as one of our regular ongoing training 

sessions. 

116





Auditee Updated Response and Corrective Action Plan: (continued) 









See current year finding 2011-1 

117







CFDA No. 93.767 


Compliance Deficiency over the Eligibility Determination Process 

Condition: 


Maryland Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) on a uniform basis throughout the State 

for persons who apply for the expanded State Children’s Insurance Program under Title XXI of 


We selected a total of 65 SCHIP claims to review files for eligibility determination. We tested 13 

files from each of the following five Maryland Jurisdictions: Baltimore City, Frederick County, 

Caroline County, Queen Anne’s County and Montgomery County. The test was composed of 

eight newly established recipients and five existing recipients. All claims were processed during 

the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009. We noted the following exceptions: 


There were two files that were not available for review (newly and existing). They did not 

comply with the requirement to verify and maintain proof of citizenship and social security 

number in one of the eight new files tested. There was no redetermination letter sent out for one 

of the existing files and proof of citizenship was not acquired. 


There was no redetermination letter sent out for one of the existing files tested. 


There was no redetermination letter sent out for one of the new files tested. 


They did not comply with the requirement to verify and maintain proof of citizenship and social 

security number in one of the eight new files tested. There was no redetermination letter sent out 

for one of the existing files tested. 

118





Criteria: 

OMB A-133 states that “States are required to include in their State plans a description of the 

standards used to determine eligibility of targeted low-income children.” Under the State plan, 

only targeted low-income children who are ineligible for Medicaid or not covered under a group 

health plan or health insurance coverage (including access to a state health benefits plan) are 

furnished child health assistance under the state child health plan. 


Plan: 









22, 1996, are not eligible for SCHIP for a period of five years, beginning on the date 


under the terms of 8USC 1613. 



DHMH agrees with the recommendation that Local Health Departments (LHD) comply with 

requirements of federal and state law for determining eligibility, including obtaining and 

maintaining required documents and performing verifications to support eligibility decisions. 

DHMH will follow up with each cited LHD, address the issues at quarterly meetings with MCHP 

Supervisors from LHDs, transmit system broadcast messages to all eligibility workers, and add 

appropriate items to the agendas for regular Regional Training and onsite training targeted to LHDs. 

119







DHMH followed up with each cited LHD in November 2009. We addressed the errors cited at 

DHMH’s Maryland Children’s Health Program (MCHP) Quarterly meetings, attended by 

supervisors of the eligibility staff. We added the errors to our agendas for Regional Training 

(targeted to all eligibility workers, Local Department of Social Services and LHD) in November 

2009 and March 2010. We also performed onsite training sessions to work more closely with 

LHD Case Managers. Additionally, we have improved and formalized our process for following 

up on troubling compliance reports, including requesting LHD supervisors to submit corrective 

action plans, and monitoring the effects of these corrective actions. In September 2010, the LHD 

workers received an information memorandum highlighting the types of errors reported, issued 

jointly with Maryland Department of Human Resources as IM 11-05. We have continued 

emphasizing these issues in Regional Training in September and October 2010. 





Findings. Additionally, an Action Transmittal specifically highlighting missing Social Security 

numbers was issued jointly with DHR on July 21, 2011, as #12-01 Missing or Invalid Social 

Security Number. 

We continue to address and review the errors cited with MCHP eligibility workers in the 

Supervisors’ Meeting and Quarterly Meeting. Additionally, we have improved and formalized 

our process for following up on troubling compliance reports, including requesting LHD 

supervisors to submit corrective action plans, and monitoring the effects of these corrective 

actions. Through our internal monitoring efforts, we have not had to request a corrective action 

plan from a LHD since March 2011. 



addressed in our ongoing training sessions. As of August 2011, audit findings are now featured 



See current year finding 2011-1. 

120







CFDA No. 93.775, 93.776, 93.777, 93.778 


Internal Control deficiency over Surveillance and Utilization Review Subsystems (SURS) 

Condition: 

According to the SURS Case Completion Guidelines, cases should be reviewed, resolved, and 

closed within a 90-day time period. There are only three circumstances that would allow for an 

exception. And these circumstances must be documented on the SURS case log. They are: 

1. Awaiting documentation 

2. Records sent to another Agency for review 

3. Awaiting full recoveries of monies 

Also, the case files should be updated to reflect the current status of the case. Upon completion 

of the case review, the SURS case log should be signed by the Program Director and the SURS 

Manager. The SURS unit failed to update 15 out of 25 case records if cases were not closed 

within the 90-day time frame allowed and 17 out of 25 were not signed by the Program Manager 

and/or SURS Manager. 

Criteria: 

OMB Circular A-133, Part 4- Department of Health and Human Services-Compliance 

Supplement, Section N. (1) indicates, “The State plan must provide methods and procedures to 

safeguard against unnecessary utilization of care and services, including long term care 

institutions. According to 42 CFR parts 455, 456, 1002, “The state must have (1) methods or 

criteria for identifying suspected fraud cases; (2) methods for investigating these cases; and (3) 

procedures developed in cooperation with legal authorities, for referring suspected fraud cases to 

law enforcement officials. 

In order to evaluate the appropriateness and quality of Medicaid services, the agency must: 

 

 

Establish and use written criteria for evaluating the appropriateness and quality of 

Medicaid services 

Have procedures for the ongoing post-payment review, on a sample basis, of the need for 

and the quality and timeliness of Medicaid Services 

As an internal control process implemented in the SURS unit, a supervisor reviews all of the 

above as prepared by the case worker. The review is signed off by the supervisors. 

121





Cause: 

The SURS Unit could not show evidence of case updates, reviews, or supervisory signatures 

within the 90-day timeframe. This time frame was established in the guidelines developed by the 

SURS unit per the state plan requirements. 

Effect: 

DHMH cannot provide the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) assurance that the 

SURS program is effective in reducing erroneous expenditures. 


Unknown 


We recommend that DHMH follow the criteria outlined in 42 CFR parts 455, 456, and 1002 by 

updating the selected active case files with proper comments and providing the supervisory 

review to make sure the determinations were appropriate. 


The Department concurs that there were cases out of compliance according to the Guidelines for 

SURS Case Completion. However, the Guidelines for SURS Case Completion Procedures have 

been in place since the inception of SURS and are currently under revision by the Office of 

Inspector General (OIG). The guidelines are not currently being used because they were 

established under the Health Care Financing Administration’s (HCFA) System Performance 

Review (SPR). SPR required the unit open and resolve large numbers of cases on a quarterly 

basis. Therefore, the original case guidelines were developed with that goal in mind. Congress 

repealed the SPR requirements in 1997 with Section 4753 of the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 

1997. This was done to allow States greater flexibility to concentrate on developing and working 

more substantive cases. 

Upon its relocation to the OIG, the Program Integrity Unit (PIU) began drafting a comprehensive 

policy and procedure manual. The procedure manual has not yet been formally approved. The 

staff person tasked with completing the manual left the Department and was not replaced. More 

importantly, with the passage of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 and the creation of the 

Medicaid Integrity Group at the federal level, program integrity has been fluid and dynamic. 

Certain program integrity concepts were developing and changing at the federal level as the 

OIG’s manual was being drafted. The OIG is currently awaiting the results of a review 

conducted by CMS’ Medicaid Integrity Group of our PIU. Pending those results, OIG 

management will take corrective action to ensure that the manual is completed and approved by 

the close of the fiscal year. And that particular cases cited are brought into compliance with the 

revised SURS case guidelines. 

122







A large component of the OIG procedures manual has been completed and is now operational. 

Staff have developed a Pharmacy Protocol Manual to direct efforts in the investigation and 

identification of fraud, waste and abuse with the pharmaceutical claims paid by Maryland 

Medicaid. These guidelines will now be used as a model for all other fraud detection procedures 

as the OIG continues to update and complete the entire program’s procedures. Staff changes at 

the Assistant Inspector’s General position have created some unforeseen delays in the production 

of the final version of this manual, but that position is now filled and concerted efforts to 

complete this project are now reinstated. It is anticipated that the manual will be completed by 

the end of January 2012. 

The algorithm tracking database is now operational. The Data Unit Database (DUD) was 

designed to provide an automated tracking mechanism for staff within the Fraud Detection and 

Determination (FDD) Unit of the OIG to manage SURS data runs and algorithms. In November 

2010, the DUD was implemented after a brief pilot session. The DUD has the ability for FDD 

Unit staff to record all tasks related to fraud detection efforts. For example, SURS programming 

staff can now track all the algorithms periodically run to ensure timeliness and a define schedule 

of future run dates. 

New guidelines for the management of SURS cases originating from the Maryland Medicaid 

programs have begun. A more automated method for case tracking has been initiated to coincide 

with the implementation of the DUD. The DUD has been specially modified to track those 

requests from the Medicaid Program for data runs of their own fraud, waste and abuse 

identification. The 90-day rule for sign-off has been incorporated into this new portion of the 

DUD to allow for more ease of data entry and timely report production to identify those cases 

which are not completed by that 90-day deadline. The Data Analysis Unit Manager (formerly 

known as the SURS Unit Manager) has begun the design of a system with the Medicaid program 

staff to eliminate the old method of individual record creation. This newly devised method will 

allow the SURS staff to create one spreadsheet for all providers within one data run request, and 

therefore permit the SURS staff to produce reports in a more automated manner of those cases 

that need attention or are otherwise beyond the 90-day time frame. 



123






Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant 

CFDA No. 93.959 


Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency over Subrecipient Monitoring 

Condition: 




compliance reviews of the sub-recipients are conducted bi-annually. Upon completion of these 

reviews, if necessary, a corrective action plan must be sent from the Local Health department 

(LHD) or private vendor (“sub-recipient”). The corrective action plan should be approved or 

disapproved by ADAA and sent back to them. We reviewed twenty-five (25) files that contain 

documents related to the award of Federal funds to sub-recipients to obtain reasonable assurance 

that site visits to evaluate the program were conducted in accordance with the General 

Requirements of OMB A-133 and the conditions of the grant award imposed by ADAA. We 

noted that of the twenty-five files reviewed there were two (2) files that required corrective 

action plans but ADAA failed to obtain a corrective action plan from any of the sub-recipients. 

Although there were no corrective action plans, we did note that there were follow-ups 

identified. 

Criteria: 

OMB Circular A-133, General Requirements, Part 3, subpart M, states in pertinent part that 

during the award a pass-through entity is responsible for “monitoring the sub-recipient’s use of 

Federal awards through…site visits, regular contact…or other means to provide reasonable 

assurance that the sub-recipient administers Federal awards in compliance with laws, regulations, 

and the provisions of contracts or grant agreements and that performance goals are achieved.” In 

addition, when there are findings as a result of the compliance review, ADAA’s letter requires 

the sub-recipient to “make the necessary corrections in your program’s procedures and submit a 

copy of your plan of correction…within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter.” 

Cause: 

DHMH failed to perform site visits in accordance with OMB A-133 and the internal control 

procedures in place, and failed to document other means of evaluating the program services 

performed by sub-recipients. 

124





Effect: 

Awards were made to sub-recipients without proper follow-up through site visits to ensure that the 

sub-recipients were complying with applicable laws, regulations and grant requirements. 


Unknown 


We recommend that DHMH adhere to the provisions of OMB Circular A-133, with site visits 

and follow-up on its findings as called for in OMB Circular A-133 and in its agreement with 

LHD and private vendors. 


With the two sub-recipient site visits in question, the ADAA conducted its site visits as scheduled 

and noted that corrections by the sub-recipients were necessary. However, neither of the deficiencies 

by the sub-recipients rose to the level of requiring a corrective action plan. When deficiencies are 

noted but a corrective action plan is not required, the ADAA reviews the deficiency at the next site 

visit for correction. Neither a corrective action plan nor any other written response by the subrecipient 

was requested by the ADAA because the level of non-compliance was low, it had not been 

noted as a past deficiency, and posed no threat to health or safety. 



The Department’s previous response and corrective action plan remains unchanged. With the 

two sub-recipient site visits in question, the ADAA conducted its site visits as scheduled and 

noted that corrections by the sub-recipients were necessary. However, neither of the deficiencies 

by the sub-recipients rose to the level of requiring a corrective action plan. When deficiencies 

are noted but a corrective action plan is not required, the ADAA reviews the deficiency at the 

next site visit for correction. Neither a corrective action plan nor any other written response by 

the sub-recipient was requested by the ADAA because the level of non-compliance was low, it 

had not been noted as a past deficiency, and posed no threat to health or safety. 



The Department’s previous response and corrective action plan remains unchanged. 










125







CFDA No. 93.767 



Condition: 







County, Howard County, Kent County and Alleghany County. The test was composed of 8 

newly established recipients and five existing recipients. All claims were processed during the 

fiscal year ended June 30, 2008. We noted the following exceptions: 



eight new files tested. 


Existing participant was denied medical assistance due to over scale income and was sent a letter 

regarding the premium program in 2002. Since that time, the participant has been using the 

premium program without any redeterminations of the eligibility status by neither the premium 

department, DHR or DHMH. There was no file available for review and within the CARES 

system, there had only been information through January 16, 2002. 

126






DHMH agrees with the finding and recommendation for Baltimore City and has once again 

reinforced the citizenship and identity requirements to the Baltimore City Health Department 

(Baltimore Health Care Access). Baltimore Health Care Access senior management staff has 

assured us that they retrained staff regarding these requirements and are conducting internal 

audits as a follow-up measure. 

The Department concurs with the finding for the Frederick County case as referenced above. 

Upon research, it was discovered the case was not sent on the daily auxiliary file from CARES as 

eligible for redetermination of current eligibility status. However, as of December 17, 2008, the 

client was denied medical assistance due to over scale income and was referred to the MCHP 

Premium Program. To date, the client has been deemed eligible for MCHP Premium. 

Additional analysis is being completed to determine the cause for the transmission error with the 

auxiliary file. In addition, MCHP Premium staff is reviewing the redetermination process for 

overall efficiency and process improvement. In the interim, reports are being generated and 

worked monthly by the MCHP Premium Unit to ensure timely results of application processing 

and redetermination status. 

Auditee’s Updated Response and Corrective Action Plan: 








Redetermination Processing was issued jointly with DHR on August 15, 2011 as #12-08 CHIP 












127





Auditee’s Updated Response and Corrective Action Plan: (continued) 










128







CFDA No. 93.959 


Compliance and Internal Control Weakness over Subrecipient Monitoring 

Condition: 

The Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant program is administered by the Alcohol 

and Drug Abuse Administration (ADAA), which is a division of the Department of Health and Mental 

Hygiene (DHMH). The division director for ADAA indicated that compliance reviews of the subrecipients 

are conducted bi-annually. We reviewed twenty-five (25) files that contain documents related 

to the award of Federal funds to local health departments (LHDs) and private vendors (“sub 

recipients”) to obtain reasonable assurance that site visits to evaluate the program were conducted in 

accordance with the General Requirements of OMB Circular A-133 and the conditions of grant award 

imposed by ADAA. We noted that of the twenty five files reviewed there were three (3) sites that were 

not visited within the last two years; one (1) site that was not visited; and there were three (3) files that 

could not be found. In addition, there were compliance findings noted in five (5) of the files that require 

corrective actions but ADAA failed to obtain a corrective action plan from any of the recipients. 


The ADAA concurs with the findings and recommendation. ADAA acknowledges that one of 

the twenty-five site visits (.04%) was not reviewed and one file did not include a corrective 

action plan to ensure 100% compliance with the federal requirements. However, we do not 

concur with the Cause and Effect comments as noted above. In the future, ADAA will ensure 

that 100% of the required site visits are performed. Furthermore, ADAA will obtain corrective 

action plans, when appropriate, based on the seriousness of the compliance review infraction. 

Auditee Updated Response: 











ADAA has strengthened its procedures to ensure sub-recipients are adequately monitored and 

appropriate corrective action is taken on identified deficiencies in a timely manner. 



129







CFDA No. 93.778 



Condition: 

On July 1, 1985, the Maryland State Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH) 

entered into an agreement with the Maryland State Department of Human Resources (DHR). 

DHR agreed to determine eligibility for Medical Assistance on a uniform basis throughout the 

State for persons who are indigent or medically indigent according to regulations, guidelines and 

procedures established by DHMH. In addition, DHMH’s Local Health Departments are 

responsible for determining eligibility for the Maryland Children’s Health Insurance Program 

(MCHIP) covered under Title XIV of the Social Security Act. 



Jurisdictions: Baltimore City, Charles County, Howard County, Cecil County, and Frederick 

County. The test was composed of a selection of 8 newly established recipients and 5 existing 

recipients. All claims were processed during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008. We noted the 

following exceptions: 


DHR’s Department of Social Services failed to maintain the original signed application. We 

noted the application date was changed from 10/27/07 to 10/27/06 for one of the eight newly 

eligible files. The change on the application appeared to have been made in order to support the 

initial eligibility decision date of 11/09/06. However, the information contained in the 

application was inconsistent with the date of 10/27/06. 

Howard County 

Internal control deficiency in that one of the eight newly eligible files was not located. 


Internal control deficiency in that one of the five existing eligible files could not be located. 

Cecil County 

No signed application, in that the signature page of the application for one of the eight newly 

eligible files was missing. 

130






This is, in part, a repeat finding from Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2004, 2005, and 2006 Single 

Audit Report finding number 2004-24, 2005-5, and 2006-14, respectively. 









Redetermination Processing was issued jointly with DHR on August 15, 2011 as #12-08 CHIP 


















Auditors’ Conclusion: 


131







CFDA No. 93.767 



Condition: 







County, Howard County, Cecil County and Charles County. The test was composed of 8 newly 

established recipients and five existing recipients. All claims were processed during the fiscal 

year ended June 30, 2007. We noted the following exceptions: 



five existing files tested. 


Internal control deficiency in that one of the five existing files could not be located. 

Howard County 

Internal control deficiency in that two of the eight newly eligible files could not be located. 

This is, in part, a repeat finding from fiscal year 2006, Finding 2006-18. 

132






(October, 2011 Update) 







Redetermination Processing was issued jointly with DHR on August 15, 2011, as #12-08 CHIP 


















Auditors’ Conclusion: 


133


SB & Company, LLC 

Baltimore Office: 

200 International Circle, Suite 5500 

Hunt Valley, Maryland 21030 

410.584.0060 (P) 

410.584.0061 (F)


Financial Statements Together with 

Report of Independent Public Accounts 

Years Ended June 30, 2012 and 2011

JUNE 30, 2012 AND 2011 

CONTENTS 

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 1 

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS 3 

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 

Statements of Net Assets 12 

Statements of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Assets 14 

Statements of Cash Flows 16 

Statements of Financial Position – Morgan State University Foundation, Inc. 18 

Statements of Activities and Changes in Net Assets – 

Morgan State University Foundation, Inc. 19 

Notes to Financial Statements 21

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUTANTS 

Board of Regents 


We have audited the accompanying basic financial statements of Morgan State University 

(the University), a component unit of the State of Maryland, as of and for the years ended 

June 30, 2012, and 2011, and the related statements of revenue, expenses and changes in net 

assets and cash flows for the years then ended. These financial statements are the 

responsibility of the University’s management. Our responsibility is to express opinions on 

these financial statements based on our audits. We did not audit the component unit 

financial statements of the Morgan State University Foundation, Inc. (the Foundation) as of 

and for the years ended June 30, 2012, and 2011. These financial statements were audited by 

other auditors whose report dated October 9, 2012, expressed an unqualified opinion, and in 

our opinion, insofar as it relates to the amounts included for this component unit, is based on 

the report of the other auditors. 

We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United 

States of America. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. 

An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in 

the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and the 

significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement 

presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinions. 

In our opinion, based on our audits and the report of the other auditors, the financial statements 

referred to above present fairly, the respective financial position of the University and the 

Foundation as of June 30, 2012, and 2011, and the respective changes in financial position and 

cash flows, where applicable, thereof for the years then ended, in conformity with accounting 

principles generally accepted in the United States of America. 

200 International Circle Suite 5500 Hunt Valley Maryland 21030 P 410.584.0060 F 410.584.0061

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the 

Management’s Discussion and Analysis be presented to supplement the basic financial 

statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by 

the Government Accounting Standards Board who considers it to be an essential part of financial 

reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic or 

historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the required supplementary 

information in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of 

America, which consisted of inquires of management regarding the methods of preparing the 

information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our 

inquires, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audits of 

the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the 

information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express 

an opinion or provide any assurance. 


October 31, 2012 

2


Management’s Discussion and Analysis 

June 30, 2012 and 2011 

PURPOSE 

Morgan State University the (University) is pleased to present its financial statements for fiscal 

year 2012 with prior-year data for comparative purposes. While the University has adopted 

Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 39, Determining Whether 

Certain Universities Are Component Units, an amendment of GASB Statement No. 14, and 

included the discrete financial information of the Morgan State University Foundation, Inc. (the 

Foundation) in its basic financial statements, this management’s discussion and analysis focuses 

on the financial information of the University. The Foundation is a private nonprofit whose 

purposes includes, but are not restricted to, receiving and administering funds to enhance, 

improve, develop, and promote the University and to benefit the University, its students, and 

faculty. Complete financial statements for the Foundation can be obtained from Morgan State 

University Foundation, Truth Hall, Room 201, 1700 East Cold Spring Lane, Baltimore, MD 

21251. There are three financial statements presented for each fiscal year: the Statement of Net 

Assets; the Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Assets; and the Statement of 

Cash Flows. 

This discussion and analysis of the University’s financial statements provides an overview of its 

financial activities for the year. This discussion has been prepared by management along with 

the financial statements and related footnote disclosures and should be read in conjunction with 

the financial statements and footnotes. This discussion and analysis is designed to focus on 

current activities, resulting changes, and current known facts. 

3



June 30, 2012 and 2011 

INSTITUTION FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS 

CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF NET ASSETS 

(in millions) 

2012 2011 2010 

ASSETS 

Current assets $ 77.9 $ 65.7 $ 54.2 

Noncurrent assets: 

Capital assets, net 368.2 347.5 325.8 

Other noncurrent assets 7.8 9.5 9.3 

Total noncurrent assets 376.0 357.0 335.1 

Total Assets 453.9 422.7 389.3 

LIABILITIES 

Current liabilities 36.9 34.6 32.7 

Noncurrent liabilities 63.0 67.6 72.0 

Total Liabilities 99.9 102.2 104.7 

Net assets 

Invested in capital assets, net of related debt 308.8 284.0 252.4 

Restricted 9.4 10.7 10.3 

Unrestricted 36.1 25.8 21.9 

Total Net Assets $ 354.3 $ 320.5 $ 284.6 

Increase in Net Assets $ 33.8 $ 35.9 $ 0.7 

4



June 30, 2012 and 2011 

INSTITUTION FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS (continued) 

These statements include all assets and liabilities using the accrual basis of accounting, which is 

similar to the accounting used by most private-sector institutions. For the year ended June 30, 

2012, the $9.4 million in restricted net assets consists of investments given to the University for 

scholarships and a lecture series, the Federal Perkins loan program, and funds invested for capital 

debt service and disbursements. 

The University’s net assets as of June 30, 2012 increased $33.8 million or 10.55% from the 

previous year’s net assets. This increase indicates that revenues exceeded expenses during fiscal 

year 2012. This increase is primarily the result of the University instituting a hiring freeze and 

other cost saving measures. 

The University’s net assets amount (the difference between assets and liabilities) is one way to 

measure the University’s financial health, or financial position. Over time, increases or 

decreases in the University’s net assets are one indicator of whether the University’s financial 

health is improving. However, several non-financial factors are relevant as well, such as the 

trend and quality of applicants, freshman class size, student retention, building conditions, and 

campus safety, to assess the overall health of the institution. 

5



June 30, 2012 and 2011 

SUMMARY OF REVENUE 

(in millions) 

Years Ended June 30, 

2012 2011 2010 

Operating Revenues 

Tuition and fees, net $ 38.0 $ 40.4 $ 38.2 

Other 64.7 53.2 56.4 

Total Operating Revenue 102.7 93.6 94.6 

Non-Operating Revenues 

State appropriations 73.0 72.2 71.7 

Pell grants 17.7 17.2 14.0 

Other non-operating revenues 0.9 1.6 1.2 

Total Non-Operating Revenues 91.6 91.0 86.9 

Other Revenues 

Capital appropriations 33.6 33.4 7.6 

Other - - 1.9 

Total Other Revenues 33.6 33.4 9.5 

Total Revenues $ 227.9 $ 218.0 $ 191.0 

All of the current year’s revenues and expenses are recorded on the accrual basis of accounting 

without respect to when cash is received or paid. 

6



June 30, 2012 and 2011 

SUMMARY OF EXPENSES 

(in millions) 


2012 2011 2010 

Operating Expenses 

Instruction $ 51.5 $ 47.6 $ 47.8 

Research 31.8 26.1 27.5 

Public service 0.3 0.1 0.1 

Academic support 20.8 18.6 21.1 

Student services 6.5 5.9 6.0 

Institutional support 29.0 28.7 27.5 

Operation and maintenance of plant 18.9 18.2 18.7 

Scholarships and fellowships 3.0 5.4 3.1 

Auxiliary enterprises 29.2 29.4 27.8 

Total Operating Expenses 191.0 180.0 179.6 

Interest on Indebtedness 2.9 1.9 3.3 

Other expenses 0.2 0.2 0.1 

Total Expenses $ 194.1 $ 182.1 $ 183.0 

7



June 30, 2012 and 2011 

SUMMARY OF OPERATING RESULTS 

(in millions) 


2012 2011 2010 

Net Assets, Beginning of Year $ 320.5 $ 284.6 $ 276.6 

Total revenues 227.9 218.0 191.0 

Total expenses (194.1) (182.1) (183.0) 

Increase in net assets 33.8 35.9 8.0 

Net Assets, End of Year $ 354.3 $ 320.5 $ 284.6 

8



June 30, 2012 and 2011 

STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS 

Another way to assess the financial health of an institution is to examine the statement of cash 

flows. Its primary purpose is to provide relevant information about the cash receipts and cash 

payments of an entity during a period. The statement of cash flows also helps users assess: 

 

 

 

An entity’s ability to generate future net cash flows. 

Its ability to meet its obligations as they come due. 

Its needs for external financing. 

CASH FLOWS 

(in millions) 


2012 2011 2010 

Cash provided by : 

Operating activities $ (72.3) $ (64.1) $ (68.3) 

Noncapital financing activities 90.5 87.8 85.1 

Capital and related financing activities (9.9) (8.9) (8.7) 

Investing activities 2.2 1.2 1.0 

Net Increase in 

Cash and Cash Equivalents 10.5 16.0 9.1 

Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of year 55.9 39.9 30.8 

Cash and Cash Equivalents, End of Year $ 66.4 $ 55.9 $ 39.9 

The primary cash receipts from operating activities consist of tuition and fees, and auxiliary 

enterprises. Cash disbursements from operations include salaries and wages, benefits, supplies, 

utilities, maintenance, and scholarships. The overall increase in net cash used by operations 

reflects the increase in tuition and fees together with the timing of payments to suppliers and 

employees from year to year. State appropriations are the primary source of non-capital 

financing. Non-capital state appropriation receipts were $73.0 million in 2012 and $72.2 million 

in 2011. 

9



June 30, 2012 and 2011 

CAPITAL ASSETS 

Major capital additions completed this year and the source of the resources that funded their 

acquisition included (in millions): 

Construction of the Center for Built Environment & Infrastructure 

Studies funded from state capital appropriations $55.3 

Renovation of the Lillie Carol Jackson Museum funded from state 

capital appropriations $3.0 

Academic Quad Land Improvements funded from state capital 

appropriations $2.7 

The University has planned capital expenditures of approximately $61.1 million. These include 

the continuing Campus Wide Utility Upgrades, complete with the following projects: 

1) construction of the North Campus Parking Garage 

2) design of the new School of Business Complex 

3) demolition of the former Hechinger Building 

4) pay the residual vendor payments on the recently completed facilities 

In addition, several projects are in the planning stages including demolition of the E-wing of the 

Montebello building, the construction of a School of Business Complex, and the renovation/ 

replacement of the Jenkins Behavioral Building. Finally, campus-wide site improvements and 

ADA accessibility projects continue to be phased in over the entire campus. More detailed 

information about the University’s capital assets and capital commitments are presented in Note 

4 and Note 7 of the financial statements footnotes. 

DEBT 

As of June 30, 2012, the University had $59.1 million in outstanding long term debt versus $63.5 

million in the previous year, a decrease of 6.9%. The table below summarizes these amounts by 

type of debt instrument. 


2012 2011 2010 

Revenue bonds $ 56.6 $ 59.7 $ 62.8 

Lease obligations 2.5 3.8 5.5 

Total $ 59.1 $ 63.5 $ 68.3 

10



June 30, 2012 and 2011 

SUMMARY 

The University’s overall financial position remains strong. A recent economic downturn has 

caused the financial status of the State of Maryland to weaken. However, the State of Maryland 

continues to give high priority to the higher education institutions. This commitment has 

allowed the University to continue to offer competitive tuition, fees, and other charges for all 

deserving students. 

11


Statements of Net Assets 

As of June 30, 2012 and 2011 

2012 2011 

ASSETS 

Current Assets 

Cash and cash equivalents $ 66,380,721 $ 55,869,849 

Accounts receivable (net of allowance for doubtful accounts 

of $1,422,987 and $2,167,006, respectively) 9,890,073 8,409,726 

Notes receivable 93,748 76,208 

Inventories 909,918 572,785 

Prepaid expenses 76,120 156,148 

Deferred charges, net 555,195 606,167 

Total Current Assets 77,905,775 65,690,883 

Non-Current Assets 

Endowment investments 1,885,434 1,912,368 

Restricted investments 4,661,005 6,006,480 

Notes receivable (net of allowance for doubtful 

notes of $330,441 and $264,025, respectively) 1,494,828 1,575,250 

Capital Assets, Net 368,183,455 347,499,879 

Total Non-Current Assets 376,224,722 356,993,977 

Total Assets $ 454,130,497 $ 422,684,860 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 

12


Statements of Net Assets 


LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS 

Current Liabilities 2012 2011 

Accounts payable and accrued liabilities $ 22,275,853 $ 21,721,309 

Accrued workers’ compensation, current portion 446,710 439,092 

Accrued vacation costs, current portion 3,137,066 2,300,378 

Revenue bonds payable, current portion 3,195,000 3,030,000 

Obligations under capital lease agreements, current portion 850,010 1,301,670 

Deferred revenue 6,030,437 5,112,706 

Funds held for other organizations 870,885 671,893 

Total Current Liabilities 36,805,961 34,577,048 

Non-Current Liabilities 

Accrued workers’ compensation 2,435,290 2,393,760 

Accrued vacation costs 5,457,793 6,053,138 

Revenue bonds payable 53,391,998 56,704,515 

Obligations under capital lease agreements 1,710,476 2,454,644 

Total Non-Current Liabilities 62,995,557 67,606,057 

Total Liabilities 99,801,518 102,183,105 

Net Assets 

Invested in capital assets, net 308,792,343 284,009,050 

Expendable: 

Scholarships and fellowships 2,949,253 2,907,104 

Loans 1,825,742 1,802,818 

Capital projects - 1,433,552 

Debt service 4,661,005 4,572,928 

Total expendable net assets 9,436,000 10,716,402 

Unrestricted Net Assets 36,100,636 25,776,303 

Total Net Assets $ 354,328,979 $ 320,501,755 


13


Statements of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Assets 

For the Years Ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 

2012 2011 

Operating Revenues 

Tuition and fees $ 56,978,024 $ 54,543,855 

Less: Scholarship allowances (19,013,827) (17,194,772) 

37,964,197 37,349,083 

Federal grants and contracts 30,144,206 22,681,012 

State and local grants and contracts 3,926,207 3,218,115 

Private gifts, grants and contracts 1,428,101 2,519,812 

Sales and Services Educational 254,319 525,630 

Residential facilities 18,473,149 17,248,205 


12,410,251 11,914,418 

Parking facilities 1,002,455 868,725 

Less: Scholarship allowances (229,941) (159,339) 

772,514 709,386 

Intercollegiate athletics 9,266,554 9,713,448 


6,491,888 7,152,544 

Bookstore 3,670,564 3,834,035 

Less: Scholarship allowances (602,241) (598,626) 

3,068,323 3,235,409 

Student center 3,321,927 3,239,719 

Less: Scholarship allowances (1,010,330) (932,794) 

2,311,597 2,306,925 

Other auxiliary enterprises revenues 3,890,055 2,017,042 

Total Operating Revenues 102,661,658 93,629,376 


14


Statements of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Assets 


2012 2011 

Operating Expenses 

Instruction $ 51,470,954 $ 47,615,026 

Research 31,799,412 26,097,253 

Public service 250,890 134,548 

Academic support 20,833,996 18,561,072 

Student services 6,553,040 5,938,048 

Institutional support 28,951,817 28,692,290 

Operation and maintenance of plant 18,915,490 18,182,956 

Scholarships and fellowships 2,961,354 5,442,432 

Auxiliary enterprises 29,232,609 29,379,494 

Total Operating Expenses 190,969,562 180,043,119 

Operating Loss (88,307,904) (86,413,743) 

Non-Operating Revenue (Expenses) 

State appropriations 73,001,828 72,195,685 

Pell Grants 17,673,662 17,202,372 

Investment income 863,743 1,617,442 

Interest on indebtedness (2,917,809) (1,855,406) 

Other non-operating expenses (53,499) (56,671) 

Total Non-Operating Revenues, Net 88,567,925 89,103,422 

Gain Before Other Revenues, Expenses, Gains and 

Losses 260,021 2,689,679 

Other Revenues, Expenses, Gains and Losses 

Capital appropriations 33,641,066 33,359,997 

Other losses (73,863) (196,576) 

Total Other Revenues, Expenses, Gains and Losses 33,567,203 33,163,421 

Increase in Net Assets 33,827,224 35,853,100 

Net Assets, beginning of year 320,501,755 284,648,655 

Net Assets, End of Year $ 354,328,979 $ 320,501,755 


15


Statements of Cash Flows 


2012 2011 

Cash Flows From Operating Activities 

Tuition and fees $ 37,939,704 $ 41,420,792 

Contracts and Grants 35,117,191 31,119,511 

Payments to employees (121,274,352) (110,938,867) 

Payments to suppliers and contractors (53,176,541) (49,448,533) 

Loans issued to students (72,100) (46,917) 

Collections of loans to students 135,053 318,841 

Auxiliary enterprises charges: 

Residence halls and dining facilities 12,410,251 8,282,366 

Bookstores 3,068,323 3,135,409 

Other 13,466,055 10,175,396 

Other receipts 115,104 1,873,130 

Net cash provided from operations (72,271,312) (64,108,872) 

Cash Flows From Non-Capital 

Financing Activities 

State appropriations 73,001,828 72,195,685 

Pell grants 

17,673,662 17,202,372 

Other non-operating losses (191,380) (1,573,180) 

Net Cash from Noncapital Financing Activities 90,484,110 87,824,877 

Cash Flows From Capital and 

Related Financing Activities 

Capital appropriations 33,641,066 33,359,997 

Purchases of capital assets (36,432,980) (36,982,024) 

Payments on debt and capital leases (4,225,828) (3,473,191) 

Interest paid on debt and capital leases (2,917,809) (1,855,406) 

Net Cash from Capital and Related Financing Activities (9,935,551) (8,950,624) 

Cash Flows From Investing Activities 

Proceeds from sales and maturities of investments 4,854,364 4,535,993 

Interest on investments 890,677 1,250,756 

Investment expense (2,527) (3,727) 

Purchases of investments (3,508,889) (4,572,928) 

Net Cash from Investing Activities 2,233,625 1,210,094 

Net increase in cash and cash equivalents 10,510,872 15,975,475 

Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of year 55,869,849 39,894,374 

Cash and Cash Equivalents, End of Year $ 66,380,721 $ 55,869,849 


16


Statements of Cash Flows 


Reconciliation of Operating Loss to Net Cash from 

Operating Activities 

2012 2011 

Operating Loss $ (88,307,904) $ (86,413,743) 

Adjustments to Reconcile Operating Loss to Net Cash from 

Operating Activities 

Depreciation Expense 15,749,404 15,240,060 

Effect of Changes in Non-Cash Operating Assets 

and Liabilities 

Accounts receivable, net (1,480,347) 4,576,612 

Inventories (337,133) (9,821) 

Notes receivable 62,882 270,591 

Prepaid expenses 80,028 (104,007) 

Funds held for other organizations 198,992 (821,971) 

Accounts payable and accrued liabilities 554,544 2,033,834 

Deferred revenue 917,731 (113,749) 

Accrued vacation 241,343 680,766 

Accrued workers' compensation 49,148 552,556 

Net Cash from Operating Activities $ (72,271,312) $ (64,108,872) 


17

MORGAN STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION, INC. 

Statements of Financial Position 


2012 2011 

ASSETS 

Cash and cash equivalents $ 1,788,974 $ 2,137,087 

Investments 19,095,514 19,327,024 

Pledges receivable (net of allowance and discount of 

$283,239 and $310,305, respectively) 

1,486,455 1,498,044 

Other assets and deposits 156,822 23,774 

Property (net of accumulated depreciation 

of $29,200 and $25,550, respectively ) 116,800 120,450 

Total Assets $ 22,644,565 $ 23,106,379 

LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS 

Accounts payable and accruals $ 114,560 $ 253,435 

Net Assets 

Unrestricted 289,507 544,283 

Temporarily restricted 4,247,082 5,229,629 

Permanently restricted 17,993,416 17,079,032 

Total Net Assets 22,530,005 22,852,944 

Total Liabilities and Net Assets $ 22,644,565 $ 23,106,379 


18


Statement of Activities and Changes in Net Assets 

For the Year Ended June 30, 2012 

Temporarily Permanently 

Unrestricted Restricted Restricted Total 

Revenues and Support 

Contributions and fund raising $ 439,427 $ 3,351,655 $ 714,384 $ 4,505,466 

Interest and dividend income - 158,498 - 158,498 

Gift annuity - - 200,000 200,000 

Unrealized gain (loss) on investments 234 (1,055,225) - (1,054,991) 

Realized gain on investments - 290,896 - 290,896 

Total Revenues and Support 439,661 2,745,824 914,384 4,099,869 

Net assets released from restrictions: 

Satisfaction of program restrictions 3,728,371 (3,728,371) - - 

Total Revenues, Support and Net Assets 

Released from Restrictions 4,168,032 (982,547) 914,384 4,099,869 

Expenses 

Grants and scholarships 1,318,245 - - 1,318,245 

Program support expenses 2,435,451 - - 2,435,451 

University support 34,706 - - 34,706 

General and administrative 529,019 - - 529,019 

Fund raising 105,387 - - 105,387 

Total Expenses 4,422,808 - - 4,422,808 

Increase (decrease) in net assets (254,776) (982,547) 914,384 (322,939) 

Net assets, beginning of year 544,283 5,229,629 17,079,032 22,852,944 

Net Assets, End of Year $ 289,507 $ 4,247,082 $ 17,993,416 $ 22,530,005 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of this financial statements. 

19


Statement of Activities and Changes in Net Assets 

For the Year Ended June 30, 2011 

Temporarily Permanently 

Unrestricted Restricted Restricted Total 

Revenue and Support 

Contributions and fund raising $ 651,826 $ 2,747,215 $ 1,732,057 $ 5,131,098 

Interest and dividend income - 173,993 - 173,993 

Unrealized gain on investments 9,877 2,472,104 - 2,481,981 

Realized gain on investments - 674,781 - 674,781 

Total revenue and support 661,703 6,068,093 1,732,057 8,461,853 

Net asset reclassifications - (1,148,019) 1,148,019 - 

Net assets released from restrictions: 

Satisfaction of program restrictions 3,898,930 (3,898,930) - - 

Total Revenue, Support and Net 

Assets Released from Restrictions 4,560,633 1,021,144 2,880,076 8,461,853 

Expenses 

Grants and scholarships 1,424,922 - - 1,424,922 

Program support expenses 2,510,641 - - 2,510,641 

University support 49,087 - - 49,087 

General and administrative 476,511 - - 476,511 

Fund raising 126,130 - - 126,130 

Total Expenses 4,587,291 - - 4,587,291 

Increase (decrease) in net assets (26,658) 1,021,144 2,880,076 3,874,562 

Net assets, beginning of year 570,941 4,208,485 14,198,956 18,978,382 

Net Assets, End of Year $ 544,283 $ 5,229,629 $ 17,079,032 $ 22,852,944 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of this financial statement. 

20


Notes to Financial Statements 

June 30, 2012 and 2011 

1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES 

A. Nature of Operations 

Morgan State University (the University) is a modern comprehensive university that 

serves the state, national and international communities by providing its students with 

academic instruction, by conducting research and other activities that advance 

fundamental knowledge, and by disseminating knowledge to the people of Maryland and 

throughout the world. The University awards bachelors, master, and doctoral degrees. 

The University has been designated the urban university of the State by the state 

legislature. 

B. Reporting Entity 

(1) The University is a component unit of the State of Maryland and is included in the 

general-purpose financial statements of the State of Maryland. 

(2) In 1971, the Morgan State University Foundation, Inc, (the Foundation) was 

organized exclusively for charitable, religious, educational, and scientific purposes. 

The Foundation’s purposes further include, but are not restricted to, receiving and 

administering funds to enhance, improve, develop, and promote and to benefit the 

University, its students, and its faculty. The Foundation meets the criteria 

established by the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement 

No. 39, Determining Whether Certain Organizations Are Component Units, and 

qualifies as a component unit of the University; therefore, the activities of the 

Foundation are shown in these financial statements as a discretely presented 

component unit. 

(3) During the years ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, the Foundation distributed $34,706 

and $49,087 to the University for unrestricted purposes. Complete financial 

statements for the Foundation can be obtained from Morgan State University 

Foundation, Truth Hall, Room 201, 1700 East Cold Spring Lane, Baltimore, MD 

21251. 

C. Measurement Focus and Basis of Accounting 

(1) For financial reporting purposes, the University is considered a special-purpose 

government engaged only in business-type activities. Accordingly, the University’s 

financial statements have been presented using the economic resources 

measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting. Under the accrual basis, 

revenues are recognized when earned, and expenses are recorded when an 

obligation has been incurred. 

21



June 30, 2012 and 2011 

1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (continued) 

C. Measurement Focus and Basis of Accounting (continued) 

(2) The Foundation is a private nonprofit that reports under the standards of the 

Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), including FASB Statement No 117, 

Financial Reporting of Not-for-Profit Organizations. As such, certain revenue 

recognition criteria and presentation features differ from GASB revenue recognition 

criteria and presentation features. No modifications have been made to the 

Foundation’s financial information in the University’s financial reporting entity for 

these differences. 

(3) Application of Accounting Standards The University has the option to apply all 

Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) pronouncements issued after 

November 30, 1989, unless FASB conflicts with GASB. The University has 

elected to not apply FASB pronouncements issued after the applicable date. 

(4) Cash Equivalents For purposes of the statements of cash flows, the University 

considers all highly liquid investments with an original maturity of three months or 

less to be cash equivalents. 

(5) Investments The University accounts for its investments at fair value in accordance 

with GASB Statement No. 31, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Certain 

Investments and for External Investment Pools. Changes in unrealized gain (loss) 

on the carrying value of investments are reported as a component of investment 

income in the statements of revenues, expenses, and changes in net assets. 

(6) Accounts Receivable Accounts receivable consists of tuition and fee charges to 

students and auxiliary enterprise services provided to students, faculty and staff, the 

majority of each residing in the State of Maryland. Accounts receivable also 

include amounts due from the Federal government, state and local governments, or 

private sources, in connection with reimbursement of allowable expenditures made 

pursuant to the University’s grants and contracts. Accounts receivable are recorded 

net of estimated uncollectible amounts. 

(7) Notes Receivable Notes consist of notes initiated through the Federal Perkins loan 

program. Based on the criteria of the Perkins loan program, individuals are not 

required to initiate their repayments until leaving the University. 

22



June 30, 2012 and 2011 


D. Basis of Accounting 

(1) Promises to Give – Foundation Unconditional promises to give that are expected to 

be collected within one year are recorded at net realizable value. Unconditional 

promises to give that are expected to be collected in future years are recorded at the 

present value of their estimated future cash flows. The discounts on those amounts 

are computed using risk-free interest rates applicable to the years in which the 

promises to give are received. Amortization of the discounts is included in 

contribution revenue. For the years ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, the discount 

rate was 1.2% and 2.5% and the amount amortized was $7,103 and $10,902, 

respectively. 

Allowances for uncollectible promises to give are estimated based on the date of the 

promise, the term, and the payment history. 

Included in promises to give are the following restricted promises: 

2012 2011 

Promises to give before unamortized discount and 

allowance for uncollectibles $ 1,769,694 $ 1,808,350 

Less: unamortized discount 42,852 49,955 

1,726,842 1,758,395 

Less: allowance for uncollectibles 240,387 260,351 

Net promises to give $ 1,486,455 $ 1,498,044 

The Foundation wrote off $729,589 and $220,268 in uncollectible pledges during 

the years ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively. 

As of June 30, the restricted promises to give are expected to be collected as 

follows: 

Amounts due in: 2012 2011 

One year $ 810,091 $ 867,124 

Two years 449,136 298,182 

Three years 298,016 263,303 

Four years 128,717 215,682 

Five years 48,735 89,059 

Thereafter 34,999 75,000 

Total $ 1,769,694 $ 1,808,350 

23



June 30, 2012 and 2011 


D. Basis of Accounting (continued) 

(2) Inventories - Inventories are carried at cost, determined under the first-in, first-out 

(FIFO) basis, which is not in excess of realizable value. 

(3) Capital Assets - Capital assets are recorded at cost at the date of acquisition, or fair 

value at the date of donation in the case of gifts. For equipment, the University’s 

capitalization policy includes all items including library books in bulk with a unit 

cost of $5,000 or more, and an estimated useful life of greater than one year. The 

University records capital projects such as roads, bridges, tunnels and sidewalks 

with a minimum cost of $100,000 as infrastructure. Building and building 

improvements with a minimum cost of $250,000, which significantly increase the 

value or extend the useful life of the structure, are capitalized. Land improvements 

with a minimum cost of $100,000 are also capitalized since they increase the value 

of related structures. Routine repairs, maintenance and items less than the 

minimum capitalization thresholds are charged to operating expense in the year in 

which the expense was incurred. All costs relating to the construction of capital 

assets owned by the University are capitalized. The University’s museum 

collections, consisting primarily of donated African American art, are not 

capitalized as allowed by criteria of paragraph 118 of GASB Statement No. 34, 

“Basic Financial Statements and Management’s Discussion and Analysis – for State 

and Local Governments”. Depreciation of capitalized assets is computed using the 

straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the assets, generally 40 years 

for buildings and infrastructure, 20 for significant building renovations, 15 years for 

land improvements, 50 years for library books, and 5 to 7 years for furniture and 

equipment. 

(4) Deferred Revenues - Deferred revenues include amounts received for tuition and 

fees and certain auxiliary activities prior to the end of the fiscal year but related to 

the subsequent accounting period. Deferred revenues also include amounts 

received from grant and contract sponsors that have not yet been earned. 

(5) Accrued Vacation Costs - Employee vacation pay is accrued at year-end for 

financial statement purposes. The liability and expense incurred are recorded at 

year-end as accrued vacation payable in the statements of net assets, and as a 

component of expenses in the statement of revenues, expenses, and changes in net 

assets. 

24



June 30, 2012 and 2011 



(6) Non-current Liabilities - Non-current liabilities include principal amounts of 

revenue bonds payable, notes payable, and capital lease obligations with contractual 

maturities greater than one year; and estimated amounts for accrued vacation costs 

and other liabilities such as accrued workers’ compensation that will not be paid 

within the next fiscal year. 

(7) Net Assets - The University’s net assets are classified as follows: 

(a) Invested in capital assets, net of related debt: This represents the University’s 

total investment in capital assets, net of outstanding debt obligations related to 

those capital assets. To the extent debt has been incurred but not yet expended 

for capital assets, such amounts are not included as a component of invested in 

capital assets, net of related debt. 

(b) Restricted net assets - expendable: Restricted expendable net assets include 

resources in which the University is legally or contractually obligated to spend 

resources in accordance with restrictions imposed by external third parties. 

(c) Restricted net assets - nonexpendable: Nonexpendable restricted net assets 

consist of endowment and similar type funds in which donors or other outside 

sources have stipulated, as a condition of the gift investment, that the principal 

is to be maintained inviolate and in perpetuity, and invested for the purpose of 

producing present and future income, which may either be expended or added to 

principal. 

(d) Unrestricted net assets: Unrestricted net assets represent resources derived 

from student tuition and fees, state appropriations, and sales and services of 

educational departments and auxiliary enterprises. These resources are used for 

transactions relating to the educational and general operations of the University, 

and may be used at the discretion of the governing board to meet current 

expenses for any purpose. These resources also include auxiliary enterprises, 

which are substantially self-supporting activities that provide services for 

students, faculty and staff. 

When an expense is incurred that can be paid using either restricted or 

unrestricted resources, the University’s policy is to first apply the expense 

toward restricted resources and then toward unrestricted resources. 

25



June 30, 2012 and 2011 



(8) Income Taxes - University: The University, as a political subdivision of the State 

of Maryland, is exempt from Federal income taxes under Section 1 of the Internal 

Revenue Code, as amended. 

(9) Income Taxes – Foundation: the Foundation is exempt from income taxes under the 

Internal Revenue code Section 501 (c) (3). 

(10) Classification of Revenues: The University has classified its revenues as either 

operating or non-operating revenues according to the following criteria: 

(a) 

(b) 

Operating revenues: Operating revenues include activities that have the 

characteristics of exchange transactions, such as (1) student tuition and fees, 

net of scholarship discounts and allowances, (2) sales and services of auxiliary 

enterprises, net of scholarship discounts and allowances, and (3) interest on 

institutional student loans. 

Non-operating revenues: Non-operating revenues include activities that have 

the characteristics of non-exchange transactions, such as gifts and 

contributions, and other revenue sources that are defined as non-operating 

revenues by GASB No. 9, Reporting Cash Flows of Proprietary and 

Nonexpendable Trust Funds and Governmental Entities That Use Proprietary 

Fund Accounting, and GASB No. 34, such as state appropriations and 

investment income. This category includes most Federal, state and local 

grants and contracts because they are considered non-exchange transactions. 

(11) Scholarship Discounts and Allowances: Student tuition and fee revenues, and 

certain other revenues from students, are reported net of scholarship discounts and 

allowances in the statements of revenues, expenses, and changes in net assets. 

Scholarship discounts and allowances are the difference between the stated charge 

for goods and services provided by the University, and the amount that is paid by 

students and third parties making payments on the students’ behalf. Certain 

governmental grants, such as Pell grants, and other Federal, state or nongovernmental 

programs, are recorded as either operating or non-operating revenues 

in the University’s financial statements. To the extent that revenues from such 

programs are used to satisfy tuition and fees and other student charges, the 

University has recorded a scholarship discount and allowance. 

26



June 30, 2012 and 2011 


E. New Accounting Pronouncements 

As of the year ended June 30, 2012, GASB issued Statement No. 60, entitled Accounting and 

Financial Reporting for Service Concession Arrangements; Statement No. 61, entitled The 

Financial Reporting Entity: Omnibus-an amendment of GASB No. 14 and No. 34; Statement No. 

62, entitled Codification of Accounting and Financial Reporting Guidance Contained in Pre- 

November 30, 1998 GASB and AICPA Pronouncements; Statement No. 63, entitled Financial 

Reporting for Deferred Outflows of Resources, Deferred Inflows of Resources, and Net Position; 

Statement No. 65, entitled Items Previously Reported as Assets and Liabilities; Statement No. 66, 

entitled Technical Corrections – 2012, an amendment of GASB Statements No. 10 and No. 62; 

Statement No. 67, entitled Financial Reporting for Pension Plans and Statement No. 68, entitled 

Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions, and amendment of GASB Statement No. 27. 

The University is analyzing the effects of these pronouncements and plans to adopt them as 

applicable by their effective date. 

F. Reclassification 

Certain amounts have been reclassified from the prior period to conform to current year 

presentation. 

2. DEPOSITS AND INVESTMENTS 

A. Deposits in State of Maryland Cash Pool 

As of June 30, 2012 and 2011, the University had cash on deposit in an internal pooled 

cash account with the Maryland State Treasurer (Treasurer) in the amount of $66,320,000 

and $55,832,910, respectively. The Treasurer has statutory responsibility for the State’s 

cash management activities. The Treasurer maintains these and other State agency funds 

on a pooled basis in accordance with State statutes. The carrying amount of the 

University’s demand and time deposits was $60,721 and $36,939, as compared to bank 

balances of $227,237 and $199,552, as of June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively. 

B. Endowment Investments and Restricted Investments 

(1) With respect to Endowment Funds, statutes authorize the University to invest its 

funds in most types of debt and equity securities, subject to any specific limitations 

set forth in the applicable gift instruments or any applicable law, provided the 

University exercises ordinary business care and prudence and considers long and 

short-term needs for carrying out its stated purposes. 

(2) As of June 30, 2012 and 2011, all investments of the Endowment pool consist of 

common stocks with a market value of $1,885,434 and $1,912,368, respectively. These 

funds are held by a third-party custodial financial institution designated by the State. 

27



June 30, 2012 and 2011 

2. DEPOSITS AND INVESTMENTS (continued) 

(3) The University’s restricted investments of $4,661,005 and $6,006,480, respectively as 

of June 30, 2012 and 2011, are invested by and accounted by the Bond Trustee, the 

Bank of New York Mellon. As required by GASB Statement No. 40, Deposits and 

Investment Risk Disclosures we have classified the investments as follows: 

2012 2011 

Market Value Rating Market Value Rating 

Federated Auto Gov't Money Tranche # 44 $ 2,920,782 AAA $ 2,855,446 AAA 

Fidelity Treasury M Mkt #695 Class 1 1,740,223 AAA 3,151,034 AAA 

Total Investments $ 4,661,005 

$ 6,006,480 

C. Investments and Investment Income 

Investments are recorded at fair value as of June 30, 2012 and 2011, and consisted of the 

following: 

2012 2011 

Quasi Endowment Funds 

Stocks $ 1,100,433 $ 1,131,914 

Unrestricted 

Stocks 785,001 780,454 

Total Market Value 1,885,434 1,912,368 

Prior Year Market Value 1,912,368 1,561,626 

Total Unrealized (Loss)/Gain $ (26,934) $ 350,742 

Foundation investments are recorded at fair value as of June 30, 2012 and 2011, and 

consisted of the following: 

2012 2011 

Restricted and Endowment Funds 

Money Market $ 1,785,351 $ 1,908,231 

Mutual funds 2,509,592 3,106,393 

Certificates of deposit 414,122 407,697 

Common Stock 2,217,960 2,382,353 

Treasury Obligations 1,334,298 1,438,937 

Government Securities 910,095 1,138,162 

Equity Funds 8,653,256 8,134,891 

Other Equities - 50,042 

Corporate and Foreign Bonds 1,270,840 760,318 

Total Restricted and Endowment Fair Value $ 19,095,514 $ 19,327,024 

28



June 30, 2012 and 2011 

3. ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE, ACCOUNTS PAYABLE, AND ACCRUED 

LIABILITIES 

Accounts receivable, accounts payable, and accrued liabilities consisted of the following as 

of June 30, 2012: 

Accounts 

Payable and 

Accounts 

Receivable 

Accrued 

Liabilities 

Student $ 3,877,135 $ 3,160,686 

Federal Grants 4,793,423 - 

Other grants (primarily state grants) 2,518,189 - 

Vendor - 10,127,780 

Employee - 16,014,809 

Other 124,313 1,567,436 

Total 11,313,060 30,870,711 

Less allowance for doubtful accounts 1,422,987 - 

Total $ 9,890,073 $ 30,870,711 

Accounts receivable, accounts payable, and accrued liabilities consisted of the following as 

of June 30, 2011: 

Accounts 

Payable and 

Accounts 

Receivable 

Accrued 

Liabilities 

Student $ 4,243,694 $ 3,206,549 

Federal Grants 4,420,955 - 

Other grants (primarily state grants) 1,852,160 - 

Vendor - 10,039,042 

Employee - 15,126,325 

Other 59,923 1,702,909 

Total 10,576,732 30,074,825 

Less: allowance for doubtful accounts 2,167,006 - 

Total $ 8,409,726 $ 30,074,825 

29



June 30, 2012 and 2011 

4. CAPITAL ASSETS 

The following were the changes in capital assets for the year ended June 30, 2012: 

June 30, 2011 Additions Disposals Transfers June 30, 2012 

Capital assets not being depreciated 

Land $ 10,551,343 $ - $ - $ - $ 10,551,343 

Construction in-progress 44,129,059 31,638,140 (62,688) (60,903,000) 14,801,511 

Total capital assets not being depreciated 54,680,402 31,638,140 (62,688) (60,903,000) 25,352,854 

Other capital assets: 

Infrastructure networks 38,218,997 - - - 38,218,997 

Land improvements 14,952,479 - - 2,650,000 17,602,479 

Buildings 383,076,734 - - 58,253,000 441,329,734 

Furniture, fixtures, and equipment 39,406,442 4,857,527 (1,508,230) - 42,755,739 

Library Materials 2,211,847 - - - 2,211,847 

Total Other Capital Assets 477,866,499 4,857,527 (1,508,230) 60,903,000 542,118,796 

Less accumulated depreciation for: 

Infrastructure networks (6,576,154) (1,251,163) - - (7,827,317) 

Land improvements (7,236,546) (1,069,625) - - (8,306,171) 

Buildings (133,841,851) (11,076,940) - - (144,918,791) 

Furniture, fixtures, and equipment (36,200,481) (2,307,438) 1,508,230 - (36,999,689) 

Library Materials (1,191,990) (44,237) - - (1,236,227) 

Total Accumulated Depreciation (185,047,022) (15,749,403) 1,508,230 - (199,288,195) 

Other capital assets, net 292,819,477 (10,891,876) - 60,903,000 342,830,601 

Capital asset summary 

Capital assets not being depreciated 54,680,402 31,638,140 (62,688) (60,903,000) 25,352,854 

Other captial assets, at cost 477,866,499 4,857,527 (1,508,230) 60,903,000 542,118,796 

Total cost of capital assets 532,546,901 36,495,667 (1,570,918) - 567,471,650 

Less accumulated depreciation (185,047,022) (15,749,403) 1,508,230 - (199,288,195) 

Capital Assets, Net $ 347,499,879 $ 20,746,264 $ (62,688) $ - $ 368,183,455 

30



June 30, 2012 and 2011 

4. CAPITAL ASSETS (continued) 

The following were the changes in capital assets for the ended June 30, 2011: 

June 30, 2010 Additions Disposals Transfers June 30, 2011 

Capital Assets Not Being Depreciated 

Land $ 10,551,343 $ - $ - $ - $ 10,551,343 

Construction in-progress 15,995,517 35,111,542 - (6,978,000) 44,129,059 

Total capital assets not being depreciated 26,546,860 35,111,542 - (6,978,000) 54,680,402 

Other Capital Assets 

Infrastructure networks 31,240,997 - - 6,978,000 38,218,997 

Land improvements 14,952,479 - - - 14,952,479 

Buildings 383,076,734 - - - 383,076,734 

Furniture, fixtures, and equipment 37,677,103 1,870,482 (141,143) - 39,406,442 

Library materials 2,211,847 - - - 2,211,847 

Total other capital assets 469,159,160 1,870,482 (141,143) 6,978,000 477,866,499 

Less accumulated depreciation for: 

Infrastructure networks (5,324,991) (1,251,163) - - (6,576,154) 

Land improvements (6,343,588) (892,958) - - (7,236,546) 

Buildings (123,605,078) (10,236,773) - - (133,841,851) 

Furniture, fixtures, and equipment (33,526,695) (2,814,929) 141,143 - (36,200,481) 

Library Materials (1,147,753) (44,237) - - (1,191,990) 

Total accumulated depreciation (169,948,105) (15,240,060) 141,143 - (185,047,022) 

Other capital assets, net 299,211,055 (13,369,578) - 6,978,000 292,819,477 

Capital asset summary: 

Capital assets not being depreciated 26,546,860 35,111,542 - (6,978,000) 54,680,402 

Other captial assets, at cost 469,159,160 1,870,482 (141,143) 6,978,000 477,866,499 

Total cost of capital assets 495,706,020 36,982,024 (141,143) - 532,546,901 

Less accumulated depreciation (169,948,105) (15,240,060) 141,143 - (185,047,022) 

Capital Assets, Net $ 325,757,915 $ 21,741,964 $ - $ - $ 347,499,879 

31



June 30, 2012 and 2011 

5. LONG-TERM LIABILITIES 

Long-term liability activity for the years ended June 30, 2012, and 2011, were as follows: 

June 30, 2011 Additions Reductions June 30, 2012 

Amounts Due 

Within One 

Year 

Bonds and capital lease obligations: 

Revenue bonds payable $ 58,830,000 $ - $ (3,030,000) $ 55,800,000 $ 3,195,000 

Unamortized bond premium 904,515 - (117,517) 786,998 - 

Total revenue bonds payable 59,734,515 - (3,147,517) 56,586,998 3,195,000 

Capital lease obligations 3,756,314 - (1,195,828) 2,560,486 850,010 

Total bonds and capital lease obligations 63,490,829 - (4,343,345) 59,147,484 4,045,010 

Accrued workers' compensation 2,832,852 709,747 (660,599) 2,882,000 446,710 

Accrued vacation 8,353,516 3,344,984 (3,103,641) 8,594,859 3,137,066 

Total long-term liabilities $ 74,677,197 $ 4,054,731 $ (8,107,585) $ 70,624,343 $ 7,628,786 

June 30, 2010 Additions Reductions June 30, 2011 

Amounts Due 

Within One 

Year 

Bonds and capital lease obligations: 

Revenue bonds payable $ 60,095,000 $ - $ (1,265,000) $ 58,830,000 $ 3,030,000 

Unamortized bond premium 1,031,481 - (126,966) 904,515 - 

Capital appreciation serial bonds 440,363 - (440,363) - - 

Accumulated accretion 1,249,637 - (1,249,637) - - 

Total revenue bonds payable 62,816,481 - (3,081,966) 59,734,515 3,030,000 

Capital lease obligations 5,524,142 - (1,767,828) 3,756,314 1,301,670 

Total bonds and capital lease 

obligations 68,340,623 - (4,849,794) 63,490,829 4,331,670 

Accrued workers' compensation 2,280,296 1,164,165 (611,609) 2,832,852 439,092 

Accrued vacation 7,672,751 3,022,243 (2,341,478) 8,353,516 2,300,378 

Total long-term liabilities $ 78,293,670 $ 4,186,408 $ (7,802,881) $ 74,677,197 $ 7,071,140 

Additional information regarding Revenue Bonds Payable is included at Note 6. Additional 

information regarding capital lease obligations is included at Note 7. 

32



June 30, 2012 and 2011 

6. REVENUE BONDS PAYABLE 

A. Revenue Bonds Payable 

On July 15, 1993, the University issued Academic Fees and Auxiliary Facilities Fees 

Revenue Refunding Bonds 1993 Series (1993 Revenue Bonds), pursuant to Title 19 of the 

Education Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland, as amended. On December 20, 2001, 

the University issued $7,035,000 in Academic Fees and Auxiliary Facilities Fees Revenue 

Bonds 2001 Series (2001 Revenue Bonds), pursuant to Title 19 of the Education Article of 

the Annotated Code of Maryland, as amended, to provide funding toward Murphy Fine Arts 

Center ($4,002,597) and Hughes Stadium ($2,765,000). On January 9, 2003, the University 

issued Academic Fees and Auxiliary Facilities Fees Refunding Bonds 2003 Series (2003 

Series A Bonds and 2003 Series B Bonds), pursuant to Title 19 of the Education Article of 

the Annotated Code of Maryland, as amended to provide funding toward New Student 

Center ($33,050,000) and University Boiler Plant ($4,395,000) The 1993, 2001 and 2003 

Revenue Bonds are limited obligations of the University, payable solely from and secured by 

tuition, academic fees, and auxiliary facilities fees of the University. Debt issued by the 

University for this purpose is not debt of the State. 

The 1993, 2001 and 2003 Revenue Bonds consist of the following as of June 30, 2012, 

and 2011: 

1993 Revenue Bonds: 2012 2011 

Current interest term bonds, maturring July 1, 2015, bearing interest of 

6.05% which is paid semiannually on January 1 and July 1 $8,010,000 $9,730,000 

Capital appreciation serial bonds, $13,385,000 accreted amount at 

maturity, maturing July 1, 1998 through July 1, 2010 with yields to 

maturity between 4.55% and 5.80% - - 

Current interest term bonds, maturring July 1, 2020, bearing interest of 

6.10%, which is paid semiannually on January 1 and July 1 $ 13,075,000 $ 13,075,000 

21,085,000 22,805,000 

Accumulated accretion on capital appreciation bonds - - 

Unamortized bond premium 398,740 503,434 

Total 1993 bonds payable 21,483,740 23,308,434 

2001 Revenue Bonds: 

Current interest term bonds, maturing July 1, 2021, bearing interest of 

2.5%-4.98%, which is paid semiannnually on January 1 and July1 4,280,000 4,615,000 

2003 Revenue Bonds, Series A (New Student Center): 

Current interest term bonds, maturing July 1, 2032 bearing interest of 

3.0% - 5.0% which is paid semiannually on January 1 and July 1 27,545,000 28,315,000 

2003 Revenue Bonds, Series B (University Boiler Plant): 

Current interest term bonds, maturing July 1, 2022 bearing interest of 

2.0% - 5.0% which is paid semiannually on January 1 and July 1 2,890,000 3,095,000 

Unamortized bond premium 388,258 401,081 

Total 2003 Bonds payable 30,823,258 31,811,081 

Total Revenue Bonds Payable $56,586,998 $59,734,515 

33



June 30, 2012 and 2011 

6. REVENUE BONDS PAYABLE (continued) 

B. Principal and Interest Maturities 

(1) Future principal and interest payments of long-term revenue bonds (excluding the 

unamortized bond premium on the current interest term bonds) for the years ending 

June 30 were as follows: 

Total 

Principal Interest Payments 

2013 $ 3,195,000 $ 2,845,319 $ 6,040,319 

2014 3,365,000 2,666,877 6,031,877 

2015 3,550,000 2,482,369 6,032,369 

2016 3,725,000 2,291,776 6,016,776 

2017 3,930,000 2,089,192 6,019,192 

2018-2022 20,030,000 6,900,574 26,930,574 

2023-2027 7,250,000 3,514,213 10,764,213 

2028-2032 8,740,000 1,635,873 10,375,873 

2033 2,015,000 50,375 2,065,375 

Total $ 55,800,000 $ 24,476,568 $ 80,276,568 

(2) Pursuant to Article V of the 1993 Revenue Bond trust agreement, dated July 1, 

1993, the University has covenanted to perform certain actions related to the 

collection of fees, timely payment of debt service, maintenance of adequate 

insurance coverage and performance of independent audits. The University was in 

compliance with these covenants at June 30, 2012. 

(3) The University is subject to Federal arbitrage laws governing the use of these 

proceeds of tax-exempt debt. 

(4) As of June 30, 2012 and 2011 the trustee held restricted investments in mutual 

funds in the amount of $4,661,005, and $6,006,648, respectively. The funds in the 

restricted investments will be used to cover the $4,661,005, revenue bonds debt 

service payments due July 1, 2012. The July 1, 2012 debt service payment will pay 

$1,740,223 ($1,459, 368-2003A; $280, 855-2003B) for the 2003 Revenue Bond 

Debt Service, $449,692, for the 2001 Revenue Bond Debt Service and $2,471,090, 

for the 1993 Revenue Bond Debt Service. 

34



June 30, 2012 and 2011 

6. REVENUE BONDS PAYABLE (continued) 

C. Defeased Revenue Bonds 

(1) In connection with the issuance of the 1993 Revenue Bonds, the Academic Fees 

and Auxiliary Facilities Fees Revenue Bonds, 1990 Series A (1990 Revenue Bonds) 

were legally defeased. Assets were placed in an irrevocable trust with an escrow 

agent to provide for all future debt service payments on the defeased bonds. 

Accordingly, neither the indebtedness nor the assets of the irrevocable trust are 

included in the University’s financial statements. As of June 30, 2012 and 2011, 

the outstanding balance of the defeased 1985 loan and 1990 Revenue Bonds was 

$528,381, and $611,946, respectively. 

7. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES 

A. Contingencies 

(1) In the normal course of operations, certain claims have been brought against the 

University, which are in various stages of resolution. In the opinion of 

management, based on the advice of the State’s Attorney General, the claims 

asserted are not expected to have a material effect on the University’s financial 

position as of June 30, 2012. 

(2) The University receives funds from various Federal and State Agencies to fund 

specific programs. Final determination of various amounts is subject to audit under 

the Federal Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and by the responsible agencies. 

University officials believe that any audit adjustments resulting from final 

settlements will be immaterial in relation to the University’s financial resources. 

B. Leases 

(1) The University maintains capital leases primarily for equipment. As of June 30, 

2012 and 2011, the net gross value of the underlying assets relating to the capital 

lease liability is $7,310,667. 

Interest rates and administrative fees for the capital leases area as follows: 

Range 

Interest Rates 1.0110 - 4.07% 

Administrative Fees .050 - .1120% 

35



June 30, 2012 and 2011 

7. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (continued) 

B. Leases (continued) 

(2) Future minimum lease payments under capital leases for the years ending June 30 are 

as follows: 

For the Years Ending June 30, 

Amount 

2013 $ 850,010 

2014 613,840 

2015 275,679 

2016 209,819 

2017 209,735 

2018-2021 733,352 

Total future minimum payments 2,892,435 

Less: interest 327,062 

administrative fees 4,887 

Net Minimum Lease Payments $ 2,560,486 

(3) Amortization expense for the assets held under capital lease was $732,192, and 

$1,170,102, for the years ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively. 

(4) The University leases certain property under noncancelable operating leases. Future 

minimum lease payments under the operating leases for the years ending June 30, 

are as follows: 

For the Years Ending June 30, Amount 

2013 $ 2,342,747 

2014 2,420,324 

2015 60,000 

Total $ 4,823,071 

Lease expenses for the years ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 were $2,654,163, and 

$2,195,478, respectively. 

36



June 30, 2012 and 2011 

7. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (continued) 

C. Construction Commitments 

As of June 30, 2012, the University had commitments of $61,140,677, for various 

capital improvement projects. These include: 

a. the continuing Campus Wide Utility Upgrades. 

b. complete the construction of the North Campus Parking Garage to house the civil 

engineering, architecture, and transportation studies programs parking needs. 

c. the residual vendor payments on the recently completed facilities (Banneker Hall 

renovation, North Campus Chiller Plant, Center for Built Environmental 

Infrastructure Studies (CBEIS) building, Lillie Carroll Jackson Museum, etc). 

In addition, several projects are in the planning stages including demolition of the E- 

wing of the Montebello Complex and the renovation or replacement of the Jenkins 

Behavioral Center, and the construction of a School of Business Complex. Demolition 

of the Soper Library to make way for the construction of a new Student Services 

Building is scheduled to start. Finally, campus-wide site improvements and ADA 

accessibility projects continue to be phased in over the entire campus. 

D. Contingent Construction Liabilities 

For the 2012 completed construction projects, the University has accrued as of June 30, 2012, 

$1,055,617, (Center for Built Environment and Infrastructure Studies) and $966,917, (Lillie 

Carol Jackson Museum) to cover the estimated residual vendor payments for these facilities. 

In addition, the University is in negotiation with the various contractors on completed 

projects. Based on these negotiations, the University has accrued as of June 30, 2012, 

$450,000, for the Earl S. Richardson Library and $903,903, for the Student Center. 

8. RETIREMENT PLANS 

The University contributes to the Retirement and Pension System of Maryland (the System), 

established by the State to provide pension benefits for State employees and employees of 

certain other participating entities within the State. While the System is an agent multiple 

employer public employee retirement system, the University accounts for the plan as a costsharing 

multiple employer public employees retirement system as a separate valuation is not 

performed for the University and the University’s only obligation to the plan is its required 

annual contributions. The System is considered part of the State’s financial reporting entity 

and is not considered a part of the University’s reporting entity. The System prepares a 

separate Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, which can be obtained, from the State 

Retirement and Pension System of Maryland at 120 East Baltimore Street, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21202. 

37



June 30, 2012 and 2011 

8. RETIREMENT PLANS (continued) 

Plan Description 

The System, which is administered in accordance with Article 73B of the Annotated Code of 

Maryland, consists of the several plans that are managed by the Board of Trustees for the 

System. All State employees and employees of the participating entities are eligible for 

coverage by the plans. The System provides retirement, death, and disability benefits in 

accordance with State statutes. 

Funding Policy 

The University’s required contributions are based upon actuarial valuations. Effective July 1, 

1980, in accordance with the law governing the System, all benefits of the System are funded 

in advance. The entry age normal cost method is the actuarial cost method used. Both the 

University and covered employees are required by State statute to contribute to the System. 

The employees contribute from 2% to 5% of compensation, as defined, depending on the 

participant’s plan. 

The University made its required contributions during the fiscal years ended June 30, 2012, 

2011, and 2010, of $5,250,718, $5,011,224, and $4,162,585, respectively. 

Optional Retirement Plans 

In addition to retirement and pension plans, the University offers optional retirement 

programs for certain faculty and professional staff. The University contributes 4% to 7% of 

the annual salary to these plans. The amount contributed by the University for these Plans 

for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2012, and 2011, were $2,087,477, and $1,835,907, 

respectively. 

Other Post Employment Benefits 

The University provides, in accordance with State Merit System Laws, post-employment 

health care benefits to retired employees and their dependents. The University participates in 

the State Employee and Retiree Health and Welfare Benefits Program (Plan). 

Plan Description 

The State Employee and Retiree Health and Welfare Benefits Program (Plan) is a singleemployer 

defined benefit healthcare plan established by the State Personnel and Pensions 

Article, Sections 2-501-2-516, of the Annotated Code of Maryland. The Plan is self-insured 

to provide medical, hospitalization, prescription drug and dental insurance benefits to eligible 

state employees, retirees and their dependents. State law grants authority to establish and 

amend benefit provisions to the Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management 

(DBM). In addition, the Secretary shall specify by regulation the types or categories of State 

employees who are eligible to enroll, with or without state subsidies, or who are not eligible 

to enroll. 

38



June 30, 2012 and 2011 

8. RETIREMENT PLANS (continued) 

Effective June 1, 2004, the State established the Postretirement Health Benefits Trust Fund 

(OPEB Trust) as a separate entity to receive appropriated funds and contributions, which will 

be used to assist the Plan in financing the State’s postretirement health insurance subsidy. 

The OPEB trust is established in accordance with the State Personnel and Pensions Article, 

Section34-101 of the Annotated Code of Maryland and is administered by a Board of 

Trustees for the State Retirement and Pension System. Financial statements of the Trust may 

be obtained from the Office of the Comptroller, Treasury Building, Annapolis, MD 21401. 

Members of the University’s OPEB plan are generally employees who retired before July 1, 

1984, employees who retired on or after July 1, 1984 with at least 5 years of creditable 

services, and employees who receive disability retirement allowances or special death 

benefits. The University subsidizes approximately 50% to 90% of covered medical and 

hospitalization costs, depending on the type of insurance plan. The University assesses a 

surcharge for post-employment health care benefits, which is based on health care insurance 

charges for current employees. During fiscal years 2012 and 2011, these benefits, which are 

financed on a pay-as-you-go basis, amounted to $3,397,077 and $2,319,128, respectively. 

9. RISK MANAGEMENT 

A. The University is exposed to various risks of loss related to torts; theft of, damage to, and 

destruction of assets; errors and omissions; injuries to and illnesses of employees; and 

natural disasters. The University participates in the State’s various self-insurance 

programs. The State is self-insured for general liability, property and casualty, workers 

compensation, environmental and anti-trust liabilities and certain employee health 

benefits. 

B. The State allocates the cost of providing claims servicing and claims payment by 

charging a “premium” to the University based on a percentage of the University’s 

estimated current-year payroll or based on the average loss experienced by the 

University. This charge considers recent trends in actual claims experience of the State 

as a whole and makes provisions for catastrophic losses. 

39



June 30, 2012 and 2011 

9. RISK MANAGEMENT (continued) 

C. The University records a liability when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the 

amount of that loss can be reasonably estimated. Liabilities recorded include a provision 

for claims incurred but not reported. Because actual claims liabilities depend on complex 

factors such as inflation, changes in legal doctrines, and damage awards, actual claims 

could differ from estimates. Claims liabilities are reevaluated periodically to take into 

consideration recently settled claims, the frequency of claims and other economic and 

social factors. Liabilities for incurred workers’ compensation losses to be settled by fixed 

or reasonably determinable payments over a long period of time are reported at their 

present value using a 4% discount rate. The provision for workers’ compensation is 

based upon a separately determined actuarial valuation for the fiscal year ended June 30, 

2011. Settlement amounts have not exceeded insurance coverage levels for the years 

ended June 30, 2012, 2011, or 2010. 

D. As of June 30, 2012, and 2011, the University has recorded $2,882,000, and $2,832,852, 

respectively in accrued expense liabilities associated with self-insurance. The recorded 

amounts represent the actuary’s allocation of the University’s share of the State’s overall 

liability under the various state self-insurance programs to the University. 

10. RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS 

Morgan State University entered into a Lease Agreement with the Maryland Economic 

Development Corporation, (MEDCO) a public instrumentality of the State of Maryland and a 

development company on March 27, 2002, for the construction of a privatized apartment 

complex less than one-quarter mile from the center of campus. The $38 million of taxexempt 

bonds issued by MEDCO on May 1, 2002 that will mature by 2034, will provide 

apartment-style living for approximately 694 students on a 10-acre parcel of property to 

address the shortage of student housing. MEDCO, subject to certain review and approval 

rights of the University, will construct and subsequently manage this property through 

contractual arrangements. The University will receive the net revenues of the project after 

the developer is repaid for $1.3 million of subordinated bonds and after permitted expenses 

are paid each year as outlined by the associated Bond Indenture. Once the Bonds are paid in 

full by the project revenue, the buildings and land improvements shall become the property 

of Morgan State University. The University is not liable for the repayment of the bonds or 

any costs related to the operation and maintenance of this project. 

40



June 30, 2012 and 2011 

11. NATURAL CLASSIFICATIONS WITH FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS 

The University’s operating expenses by functional classification were as follows for the years 

ended June 30, 2012 and 2011: 

2012 

Natural Classification 

Payments to 

Functional Classification 

Payments to 

Employees 

Suppliers and 

Contractors Depreciation Total 

Instruction $ 44,207,346 $ 2,559,320 $ 4,704,288 $ 51,470,954 

Research 19,437,607 10,724,920 1,636,885 31,799,412 

Public service 97,598 3,142 150,150 250,890 

Academic support 13,174,848 3,582,276 4,076,872 20,833,996 

Student services 5,054,733 1,496,089 2,218 6,553,040 

Institutional support 22,929,487 5,548,992 473,338 28,951,817 

Operation and maintenance of plant 7,769,717 9,643,391 1,502,382 18,915,490 

Scholarships and fellowships 428,975 2,532,379 - 2,961,354 

Auxiliary enterprises 9,111,673 16,917,665 3,203,271 29,232,609 

Total Expenses $ 122,211,984 $ 53,008,174 $ 15,749,404 $ 190,969,562 

2011 

Natural Classification 

Payments to 

Functional Classification 

Payments to 

Employees 

Suppliers and 

Contractors Depreciation Total 

Instruction $ 41,783,097 $ 1,808,393 $ 4,023,536 $ 47,615,026 

Research 14,873,655 9,878,300 1,345,298 26,097,253 

Public service 123,619 10,929 - 134,548 

Academic support 11,963,079 2,277,974 4,320,019 18,561,072 

Student services 4,712,813 1,220,191 5,044 5,938,048 

Institutional support 21,808,115 6,086,753 797,422 28,692,290 

Operation and maintenance of plant 7,734,981 8,932,477 1,515,498 18,182,956 

Scholarships and fellowships 446,027 4,996,405 - 5,442,432 

Auxiliary enterprises 8,690,587 17,455,664 3,233,243 29,379,494 

Total Expenses $ 112,135,973 $ 52,667,086 $ 15,240,060 $ 180,043,119 

Depreciation is allocated to the functional classifications based on the composition of the 

University’s equipment purchases. For example, if a piece of equipment was purchased 

using instructional funds on a budgetary basis, the depreciation for that piece of equipment is 

allocated to the functional classification “Instruction". 

41



June 30, 2012 and 2011 

12. SUBSEQUENT EVENTS 

On September 12, 2012, to take advantage of favorable interest rates, the University issued 

additional Revenue Bonds totaling $33,975,224, (Par value: $29,230,000, Premium: 

$4,745,224). With the proceeds of the issuance, the existing 2001 Revenue Bonds were paid 

off with the residual funds placed in an irrevocable trust. 

The University will continue to make debt service payments on the 2003 Revenue Bonds 

until the July 1, 2013, payment. After this date, the funds in the irrevocable trust will be used 

to pay off the balance of the 2003 Revenue Bonds. 

42

Martin O'Malley 

Governor 

MHEC 

Anthony G. Brown 

U. Governor 

Anwer Hasan 

Cha irperson 

Danette G. Howard 

Interim Secreta ry 

The Maryland Higher Education Commission has received this proposal. This submission will 

not be complete unti I the appropriate fe e. along with a copy of your cover letter, are received by 

MHEC. All fees should be made payable to the Ma."yland Higher Education Commission, 

and sent to the attention of Sue A. Blanshan, Ph.D. Once the payment is received at the 

MHEC office, the proposal will be reviewed by staff and, if necessary, it will be circulated to the 

higher education community of Maryland for comment/o bjection, For your convenience the fee 

schedule is outlined below. Thank you. 

Category' Actions Covered Fee 

Exempt and 

Articulation Agreements; 

SO 

No Fee 

Code Change; 

Mil itary Exemptions; 

Request for Proposal From Community College 

Program at a Regional Higller Education Center 

Nominal Fce 

Change Program Title: 

$ 50 

Disco ntinue Program; 

Non-substantial Program Change; 

Reactivate Program: 

Religio us School Exemption; 

ubstantial Change of Area 0 f Concentration; 

Substantial Change ofa Certi ficate Program: 

Suspend Program 

Modest Fee 

Change of Jnstitutional Designation; 

$250 

Closed Site Approval; 

New Areas of Concentt"ation; 

New Certificate Program Within an Existing Program; 

Off-Campus Program; 

Statewide and Health Manpower Designations; 

Substantial Change to Degl'ee Program 

S ubs tanti ve Fee BTPS Program; 

Cooperative Degree Program; 

New Academic Program; 

New Academic Program At Approved Out-of-State 

Institution Within a Nonrenewal Year; New Stand Alone 

Certificate Program 

$850 

New Degree Level Fee New Degree Level Approval $5,000 plus 

$1,000 per 

prog.ram over 

the first two 

req uested 

Out-of-State and New 

In-State Authorization 

Initial Out-of-State Appli cation; 

New In-State Institutional Stage One Application; 

New In-State Institutional Stage Two Application; 

Out-of-State Distance Education with Physical Presence; 

Out-of-State Location Change/Addition; 

Out-of-State Single Year Renewal Application 

$7,500 plus 

$850 per 

program over 

the first two 

requested 

MARYlAND HIGHER EDUCA nON COMMISSION 

6 N. Liberty Street. 10 '0 Floor. Baltimore . MD 21201 

1 410.767.3300.800.974.0203. F 410.332.0270 • TTY for the Deaf 800.7352 258 wwwmhecstate.md.lls

New Degree Programs 

Guidelines fo r Submission for Non -USM Institutions 

.:. Cover letter addressed to Secretary of Higher Education from chief academic officer 

requesting approval/endorsement ofa new degree program 

.:. Academic Proposal Form 

.:. Rationale and Need for the Program 

.:. Educational objectives of the Program 

.:. Description of program as it would appear in the catalog 

.:. List of courses 

.:. Admissions policy for students selecting this major field of study 

.:. Expected student learning outcomes 

.:. Faculty Resources 

.:. Accreditation requirements 

.:. Cooperative alTangements 

.:. Library requirements 

.:. Facilities and equipment 

.:. Actions and strategies for recruiting minority students 

.:. Finance 

.:. Table I: Resources 

'.' 

Table 2: Expenditures 

.:. See COMAR Title 138.02.03 for the fu II set of regulations

MSU PERIODIC PROGRAM REVIEW SCHEDULE 

Program School Year Accrediting Agency 

Accounting (B) SBM 2011 AACSB 

Architecture (MA) SA&P 2011 NAAB 

Business Administration (MBA) SBM 2011 AACSB 

Business Administration (PhD) SBM 2011 AACSB 

Finance (BS) SBM 2011 AACSB 

Hospitality Management (BS) SBM 2011 AACSB 

Human Resource Management (BS) SBM 2011 AACSB 

Information Science and Systems (BS) SBM 2011 AACSB 

Management (BS) SBM 2011 AACSB 

Marketing (BS) SBM 2011 AACSB 

Project Management (MS) SBM 2011 AACSB 


African-American Studies (MA) CLA 2012 

Bio-Environmental Sciences (PhD) SCMNS 2012 

Bioinformatics (MS) SCMNS 2012 

Biology (BS) SCMNS 2012 

Computer Science (BS) SCMNS 2012 

World Languages (BA) CLA 2012 

International Studies (MA) CLA 2012 

Military Science (N/A) CLA 2012 

Museum Studies Historical Preservation (MA) CLA 2012 

Economics (BA) CLA 2012 

Economics (MA) CLA 2012 


Music (BA) CLA 2013 NASM 

Music (MA) CLA 2013 NASM 

Health Education (BS) SEUS 2013 Not NCATE Reviewed 

Actuarial Science (BS) SCMNS 2013 

Mathematics (BA) SCMNS 2013 

Mathematics (MA) SCMNS 2013 

Community College Leadership (EdD) SEUS 2013 Not NCATE Reviewed 

Family Consumer Science (BS) SEUS 2013 Not NCATE Reviewed 

Higher Education Administration (MS) SEUS 2013 Not NCATE Reviewed 

Higher Education Administration (PhD) SEUS 2013 Not NCATE Reviewed 

Mental Health Technology (BS) SSW ----- Program Closed 1990 

Social Work (BSW) SSW 2013 CSWE 

Social Work (MSW) SSW 2013 CSWE 

Social Work (PhD) SSW 2013 Not CSWE Reviewed 


Chemistry SCMNS 2014 ACS 

Engineering (D.Eng.) SOE 2014 ABET 

Engineering (M.E.) SOE 2014 ABET 

Engineering, Civil (BS) SOE 2014 ABET 

1


Engineering, Electrical and Computer (BS) SOE 2014 ABET 

Engineering, Industrial (BS) SOE 2014 ABET 

Medical Technology (BS) SCMNS 2014 NAACLS 

Medical Technology (M) SCMNS 2014 NAACLS 

Nursing (BSN) SCHP 2014 

Nursing (MSN) SCHP 2014 

Nutritional Science (BS) SCHP 2014 ADA 

Transportation (MS) SOE 2014 ABET 

Transportation Systems (BS) SOE 2014 ABET 


Educational Admin and Supervision (MS) SEUS 2015 NCATE 

Elementary and Middle School Education (MS) SEUS 2015 NCATE 

Elementary Education (BS) SEUS 2015 NCATE 

Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) SEUS 2015 NCATE 

Mathematics Education (MS) SEUS 2015 NCATE 

Public Health (MPH) SCHP 2015 CEPH 

Science (MS) SCMNS 2015 

Science Education (EdD) SEUS 2015 NCATE 

Science Education (MS) SEUS 2015 NCATE 

Fine Arts (BA) CLA 2015 

Philosophy and Religious Studies (BA) CLA 2015 

Urban Educational Leadership (EdD) SEUS 2015 NCATE 


Architecture & Environmental Design (BSAED) SA&P 2016 

Construction Management (BSCM) SA&P 2016 ACC 

Landscape Architecture (MLA) SA&P 2016 LAAB 

Political Science (BA) CLA 2016 

Psychology (BA) CLA 2016 

Psychometrics (MS) CLA 2016 

Psychometrics (PhD) CLA 2016 

Sociology (MA) CLA 2016 

Sociology and Anthropology (BA) CLA 2016 

Theater Arts (BA) CLA 2016 

Visual Arts (BA) CLA 2016 

Accounting (BS) SBM 2016 AACSB 

Architecture (M.Arch.) SA&P 2016 NAAB 

Business Administration (MBA) SBM 2016 AACSB 

Business Administration (PhD) SBM 2016 AACSB 

Finance (BS) SBM 2016 AACSB 

Hospitality Management (BS) SBM 2016 AACSB 

Human Resource Management (BS) SBM 2016 AACSB 

Information Science and Systems (BS) SBM 2016 AACSB 

Management (BS) SBM 2016 AACSB 

Marketing (BS) SBM 2016 AACSB 

2


Project Management (MS) SBM 2016 AACSB 


Economics (BA) CLA 2017 

Economics (MA) CLA 2017 

World Languages (BA) CLA 2017 

International Studies (MA) CLA 2017 

History (MA) CLA 2017 

History (PhD) CLA 2017 

History and Geography (BA) CLA 2017 

Military Science (N/A) CLA 2017 

Museum Studies Historical Preservation (MA) CLA 2017 

Speech Communications (BA) CLA 2017 

Telecommunication Management (MS) CLA 2017 

Telecommunications (BA) CLA 2017 

African-American Studies (MA) CLA 2017 

City and Regional Planning (MCRP) SA&P 2017 PAB 

Actuarial Science (BS) SCMNS 2017 

Bio-Environmental Sciences (PhD) SCMNS 2017 

Bioinformatics (MS) SCMNS 2017 

Biology (BS) SCMNS 2017 

Computer Science (BS) SCMNS 2017 

3


Periodic Review of Programs: 

Policies and Procedures 

October, 2007 

Ad Hoc Task Force on the Periodic Review of Programs: 

Christine Hohmann, Ph.D. 

Wendell Jackson, Ph.D., Chair 

Robert Johnson, Ph.D., P.E. 

Annette Palmer, Ph.D. (January - May 2006)

Acknowledgments 

The Task Force wishes to acknowledge the extraordinary assistance of the Policies and 

Procedures Committee of the School of Graduate Studies, chaired by Dr. Howard Simmons. This 

Committee was instrumental in helping to shape this report in its current form by raising pivotal 

questions; offering constructive additions; sending the Task Force back to the drawing board, when 

necessary; and suggesting some highly useful models from other institutions. 

One such model or template was that of Arizona State University. This template served as 

the basis of Part I, Part II, and Appendix B, although the Task Force added to this template Sections 

A - D of Part I, as well as other meaningful information, throughout. Further, the template was 

rigorously edited to reflect the realities of Morgan State University. 

i


INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................1 

PART I: PROGRAM REVIEW PROCEDURES .......................................................................2 

Phase I. Preparatory Phase ...............................................................................................2 

A. Provide Financial Support for the Review Process ........................................2 

B. Establish a School-Wide Review Committee ..................................................3 

C. Prepare the "Rolling Review" Plan ................................................................3 

D. Distinguish Between Periodic Reviews and Accreditation Reviews .............3 

E. Notify Units ........................................................................................................3 

F. Appoint the Self-Study Committee ..................................................................4 

G. Meet with the Local Dean ................................................................................4 

H. Meet with the School Review Committee .......................................................4 

I. Nominate Site Visitors ........................................................................................4 

J. Select Site Visitors ..............................................................................................5 

Phase II. Self-Study Report: Development and Preparation .........................................5 

A. Prepare Documents ...........................................................................................5 

B. Distribute Documents .......................................................................................6 

C. Provide Sufficient Copies .................................................................................6 

Phase III. The Site Visit and Site Visit Report ................................................................6 

A. Conduct a Two-Day Site Visit ..........................................................................6 

B. Prepare the Site Visit Report ...........................................................................7 

Phase IV. Unit's Response Report and Wrap-up Phase (Appendix B9) .......................7 

A. Respond to the Site Visit Report .....................................................................7 

ii

B. Conduct Wrap-Up .............................................................................................7 

C. Assemble the Permanent Record .....................................................................7 

PART II: INSTRUCTIONS TO SITE VISITORS .....................................................................8 

Travel Arrangements .........................................................................................................8 

Site Visit Overview .............................................................................................................8 

Guidelines for Preparing the Site Visit Report ...............................................................9 

BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................12 

APPENDICES ..............................................................................................................................15 

A1: "Rolling Review" Principles ....................................................................................16 

A2: Sequencing Questionnaire .......................................................................................20 

A3-1: Undergraduate Professional Accreditation Log .................................................21 

A3-2: Graduate Professional Accreditation Log ...........................................................24 

A4-1: SAMPLE Undergraduate Review Roster, By Year ............................................27 

A4-2: SAMPLE Graduate Review Roster, By Year ......................................................28 

A5: Instrument for the Assessment of Program Quality ..............................................29 

B1: Academic Program Review Self-Study Report Template .....................................37 

B2: Guidelines for Recommending Site Visitors ...........................................................42 

B3: Nomination Form for Potential Site Visitors ..........................................................43 

B4: Academic Program Review Self-Study Document Signature Sheet .....................44 

B5: Information Regarding Site Visit Arrangements ...................................................45 

B6: Sample Site Visit Activities and Interviews ............................................................47 

B7: Signature Page for Site Visitors/Reviewers ............................................................49 

iii

B8: Checklist for Program Reviews ...............................................................................50 

B9: The Unit Response Report and Wrap-Up Phase ...................................................51 

iv

INTRODUCTION 

The periodic review of programs at Morgan State University is a natural and inevitable 

consequence of two facts. The first fact is the expansion in recent years of the number of 

undergraduate and graduate (including doctoral) programs, many of which have never been 

evaluated. The second fact is the increasing national trend towards the assessment of program 

quality at both the undergraduate and graduate levels and across many institutions and fields, as a 

result of demands from legislatures, the public, and consumers for proof that dollars spent on 

higher education are well-spent and that the public is receiving something valuable, in return for 

its investment. 

This fact aside, the review process in and of itself proves beneficial to programs, by 

affording the opportunity to document the need for additional resources, either to maintain 

current quality, to correct perceived weaknesses, or to enable a program to advance by realizing 

projected goals; and by documenting those things which the program is doing well and which 

enhance its reputation. Even more importantly, self-initiated review of programs is evidence of a 

degree of institutional maturity, in reflecting upon, and making changes to, its processes, to 

demonstrate institutional discipline, to safeguard institutional integrity, and to ensure that its 

offering constitutes the best possible program an institution is capable of producing. 

This report 1 represents an effort to implement periodic review of programs by 

establishing a conceptual framework based upon, both recommendations of national academic 

bodies, 2 and practices evident at a number of American higher education institutions. 3 

Specifically, this periodic review will cover program inventory of academic units/departments, as 

well as other curricular offerings such as certificates. Thus, program review seeks to: (a) 

evaluate the relationship between programs and the University, School, and Departmental 

1 History of Committee Work: In February, 2006, the Ad Hoc Task Force on the Review of Graduate 

Programs was appointed by Dr. Maurice Taylor, Dean of the School of Graduate Studies, and this Task Force 

functioned as a subcommittee of the Policies and Procedures Committee of the Graduate Council, chaired by Dr. 

Howard Simmons of the School of Education and Urban Affairs. The Task Force activity unfolded in four phases. 

The first phase, APrinciples and Best Practices,@ completed in April, 2006, represents an effort to establish the 

conceptual framework for a review, based upon, both recommendations of national academic bodies, and practices 

evident at a number of American higher education institutions. The second phase of Task Force activity, 

AStandards, Procedures, and Time Tables,@ was completed in October, 2006. In this phase, the Task Force detailed 

parts of the review process -- suggesting a specific review schedule; concrete standards against which a program is to 

be evaluated; and definite procedures for collecting and organizing data, for assessing strengths and weaknesses, for 

converting recommendations into feasible action plans, and for follow-up activities, where needed. The third phase, 

ending in April, 2007, compiles all elements into a single, coordinated, implementation scheme. The fourth phase, 

commencing in October, 2007, involved, not only a redrafting of the graduate plan, to fit the needs and realities of 

the undergraduate program, but also the combining of both graduate and undergraduate schemes into a single, 

university-wide instrument, capable of being applied to any one of the several schools. 

2 These guidelines are based in part upon Marilyn J. Baker, Assessment and Review of Graduate Programs: 

A Policy Statement (Council of Graduate Schools: Washington, D.C., 2005). 

3 Part I, Part II, and Appendix B are based upon templates from Arizona State University. 

1

missions; (b) document program strengths and weaknesses; (c) nurture program improvement, 

based upon data, rather than anecdote; (d) articulate strategies for improvement, especially with 

regard to student competencies and in light of both institutional goals and national standards; (e) 

demonstrate institutional accountability; and (f) identify programs which may need to be placed 

on probation, reduced, suspended from operation for a specified time, merged, or discontinued 

(Sources: Indiana University Southeast and Peter Hernon, Outcomes Assessment). 4 In the end, it 

is understood that no implementation plan can be devoid of flaws and that, therefore, the above 

guiding principles should be open to continuing revision and/or reconsideration, in light of the 

wisdom and experience of the University and its many departments. 

The sections that follow are divided into two parts. Part I includes instructions to units 

preparing for the Program Review process and the preparation of the Self-Study Document. Part 

II provides instructions for site visitors. Those directly responsible for the Program Review 

should familiarize themselves with both parts of the process, including the related appendices. 

PART I: PROGRAM REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The Periodic Review of Programs consists of four phases: the preparatory phase, the 

development of the Self-Study Report, the site visit, and the wrap-up phase. 

Phase I. Preparatory Phase 

A. Provide Financial Support for the Review Process 

Though the institution should seek external services and resources (including consultants) 

which may be free of charge or which may present a merely nominal cost, 5 there must be 

an institutional commitment to expending the funds necessary for an effective program 

review. To support the review process, the Graduate School should consider the services 

of a Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) consultant, as well as purchase Educational 

Testing Service (ETS) questionnaires for the review of master's and doctoral programs. 

4 Any institutional decisions must be guided by pre-approved guidelines outlining rationales and procedures 

implemented in stages which allow lead-time for corrections or adjustments in the program, and mechanisms of 

appeal. 

5 Possible support resources are The American Association for Higher Education and The American 

Association of Colleges and Universities. For instance, the SAGE Group (Strategies for Achieving Greater 

Expectations), a consulting service formed by the latter association, consists of experienced senior administrators 

and educators who collectively offer a wide range of expertise and who provide individual and group consultation to 

institutions engaged in assessment. 

2

B. Establish a School-Wide Review Committee 

To implement the above review, there is a need for a permanent, oversight body, in the 

form of a School Review Committee. This should be a standing committee, composed of 

7 faculty and elected from 7 different programs. The initial terms shall be staggered, as 

determined by the drawing of lots: 3 members will hold 3-year terms; 2 members, 2-year 

terms; and 2 members, 1-year terms. 6 Thereafter, all terms will be 3 years, and all 

members shall be eligible for reelection. The chair of the committee should be appointed 

by the Dean, from the elected members. The Review Committee will oversee all aspects 

of the review process. 

C. Prepare the "Rolling Review" Plan 

The Review Committee will draft a "rolling review" plan, based upon the 

approved system (Appendices A1 - A4). The School should create a database, to 

assist in the management of these rolling reviews. 

D. Distinguish Between Periodic Reviews and Accreditation Reviews 

Although formal accreditation reviews remain critical, administrators often regard 

such reviews as inadequate in assessing program quality, 7 from an institutional 

viewpoint. Thus, program review differs from an accreditation review in the 

former's concern for the extent to which quality programs support or enhance the 

mission of the department, school, and university, rather than adhering to some 

externally-established standard. This distinction notwithstanding, a program 

review should be complementary to, but not duplicative of, accreditation reviews. 

This notion that program reviews should be "complementary" or "supplemental," 

generally would mean that the program review would consider only those 

institutional concerns not addressed by previous, accrediting/licensing 

evaluations. 

E. Notify Units 

One year in advance of the review, the School Review Committee will notify the 

head of the academic unit/department that a review has been scheduled. 

6 Individual schools may decide to choose a smaller committee of 3 or 5 faculty, as appropriate. In the case 

of a committee of 3, one member will hold a 3-year initial term; 1 member, a 2-year term; and 1 member, a 1-year 

term. In the case of a committee of 5, 2 members will hold a 3-year initial term; 2 members will hold a 2-year term; 

and 1 member, a 1-year term. 

7 Lyle V. Jones, Lindzey Gardner, and Porter E. Coggeshall, eds., An Assessment of Research-Doctorate 

Programs in the United States (Washington, D.C.: National Academy P, 1982), 3. 

3

F. Appoint the Self-Study Committee 

Self-study is a critical aspect of program review, in that this process allows the 

unit to reflect upon its own mission, to consider the relationship of this mission to 

its on-going activities, and to judge whether any adjustments need to be made in 

order to prepare the unit for the future. 

Eight months prior to the self-study submission date, the head of the 

unit/department shall forward to the Review Committee the names of the 

self-study committee members, including that of the committee chair. The 

committee should consist of either three or five faculty members. In general, this 

committee should be a representative group of faculty from the unit/department. 

The self-study committee will be responsible for organizing and conducting the 

review process within the unit and for preparing the Self-Study Report. 

G. Meet with the Local Dean 

Once a committee is appointed, the unit/department chair and the self-study 

committee are encouraged to meet with their Local Dean to discuss any requests 

for specific information or to identify issues that the Dean would like included in 

the self-study. 

H. Meet with the School Review Committee 

At least six months prior to the self-study submission deadline, each unit/ 

department should schedule a meeting with the School Review Committee, which 

may advise the unit/department on concerns touching the self-study or the review 

in general. 

I. Nominate Site Visitors 

(Please refer to Appendices B2 & B3) 

There will be a need for external reviews of programs. External reviews, in 

supplementing the self-study review, seek: 

(a) To confirm the results of the program self-study; 

(b) To place the self-study into a broader context, vis-a-vis related programs in the 

institution and to comparable programs nationally; 

(c) To determine if the self-study employed appropriate methods of assessing 

quality; 

(d) To highlight differences in judgments between the self-study and the external 

review; and 

4

(e) To evaluate the efficacy of the unit's goals or targets for the coming 6-year 

review cycle (Source: University of Connecticut). 

The chair of the unit/department, in consultation with the appropriate 

departmental committee and faculty (and with the Local Dean's approval), should 

submit a list of names and qualifications of twelve potential external site visitors, 

including eight names of prominent discipline-based faculty and four local 

community members who are also preferably recent graduates. It is essential that 

unit/departments describe in adequate detail the nominees' areas of expertise, 

credentials, and prior professional relationship to the unit/department. The site 

visit is always scheduled for two full days (Appendix B2). 

J. Select Site Visitors 

Three site visitors are to be selected by university officials (two faculty members 

and one community member who preferably is also a recent graduate). For 

accredited programs, it is advisable that at least one of the consultants be 

knowledgeable in, and experienced with, the procedures of the accrediting agency. 

All communication with site visitors should come from the School Review 

Committee and/or the Office of the Local Dean. 

Phase II. Self-Study Report: Development and Preparation 

A. Prepare Documents 

The Self-Study Report is an interpretive document that uses data to assess current 

program status and future directions (please refer to "Appendix Bl: Academic 

Program Review Self-Study Report Template" for a detailed description of the 

Self-Study Document). Data should be analyzed in relation to a unit/department's 

mission and goals. Although the report is written by the self-study committee, 

the unit/department head is responsible for the content, accuracy, and 

completeness of the work and should actively oversee the report preparation. 

One element of this Self-Study Report should be the unit/department's use of the 

approved evaluative instrument ("Appendix A5: Instrument for the Assessment of 

Program Quality"). 

Multi- and interdisciplinary- programs which offer degrees or certificates should 

be reviewed as independent programs and, hence, would undergo periodic review. 

Reviews should include either faculty/student questionnaires or direct meetings or 

interviews with these constituencies; and there should be definite student 

participation in a variety of ways, not excluding full, voting membership on the 

self-study committee. 

5

The School Review Committee may perform the dual function of (a) coordinating 

the process and receiving the evaluation reports and (b) conducting the actual 

review, or these two functions may be distributed between two committees, one 

coordinating the review process and one conducting the actual review. 

There should be a standard report format with a single set of categories or areas of 

assessment; and this format should be settled prior to the first review, so that data 

can be compared impartially, across programs. Since these data likely will 

include information collected from disparate offices, the Local School might 

consider creating a database strictly for program review purposes. 

B. Distribute Documents 

The Local Dean should be given the opportunity to review the Self-Study 

Document and executive summary, before it is forwarded. When necessary, 

suggested changes/improvements will be returned to the self-study committee for 

revision. The document will be distributed to site visitors only when the 

unit/department, and the Local Dean agree that the document is of adequate 

quality. The latter will sign an endorsement sheet ("Appendix B4: Academic 

Program Review Self-Study Document Signature Sheet"). 

C. Provide Sufficient Copies 

The academic unit/department should provide a sufficient number of copies of the 

final self-study document, including the completed evaluative instrument and any 

appendices, to distribute to site visitors and appropriate university administrators. 

Phase III. The Site Visit and Site Visit Report 

A. Conduct a Two-Day Site Visit 

During a two-day site visit (see "Appendix B5: Information Regarding Site Visit 

Arrangements" and "Appendix B6: Sample Site Visit Activities and Interviews"), 

the external site visit team will analyze the self-study document; collect additional 

relevant information; meet with appropriate faculty, administrators, students, and 

community groups; and prepare a report identifying program strengths, concerns, 

and recommendations. The site visit team is also asked to provide an assessment 

of the future direction and strategic initiatives of the unit/department as these 

elements relate to the unit/department's mission and vision for its programs. 

One element of this site visit should be the visitors' use of the approved evaluative 

instrument (Appendix A5), so that the site visit team's assessment may be 

compared to that of the unit/department. 

6

B. Prepare the Site Visit Report 

Once the site visit is complete, the site visitors will be asked to submit a Site Visit 

Report, within three to four weeks of their visit. This report is sent to the Dean 

for appropriate distribution. 

Phase IV. Unit's Response Report and Wrap-up Phase (Appendix B9) 

A. Respond to the Site Visit Report 

Once the Site Visit Report is received, the Local Dean will review it and share it 

with the unit/department chair. The unit/department head should review the report 

with the faculty and prepare a Unit/Department Response Report that addresses 

the program concerns and recommendations (e.g., program strengths and 

deficiencies, faculty and student quality, resource needs, future plans, strategic 

initiatives, etc.). 

This Unit/Department Response Report should be submitted to the Local Dean 

within 6 weeks of receiving the Site Visitor's report. 

B. Conduct Wrap-Up 

The wrap-up phase will include an assessment of the findings of the site visit team 

and the unit/department's response. A wrap-up letter, drafted by the Local Dean, 

is forwarded to the unit/department head, to summarize this final assessment. 

This phase may also include a meeting of the unit/department head with the Local 

Dean, and the Review Committee, if there are concerns or if further clarification is 

deemed necessary before the final wrap-up letter is sent to the unit/department 

head. 

In the wrap-up letter, the Local Dean, in consultation with the Provost, should 

identify which recommendations cannot be accepted and why. 

C. Assemble the Permanent Record 

The Self-Study Document, the Site Visit Report, the Unit/Department Response, 

and the Wrap-Up Letter will be considered the permanent record of the review, 

and these documents will be forwarded to the Provost for final review and 

approval. 

7

PART II: INSTRUCTIONS TO SITE VISITORS 

Academic Program Reviews serve many purposes, the most important of which is to provide 

information to academic units/departments and the university on ways to improve existing 

programs and to identify avenues of future development. The site visit team plays an important 

evaluative role in the process by providing a presumably more objective, third-party view and by 

helping the unit/department and university to determine where the program fits in the discipline 

at regional, national, and international levels. One of the disciplinary specialists will take the lead 

in drafting the report, but all site visitors are full participants and contributors. Site visitors 

should familiarize themselves with Part I of this document as well as the template in Appendix 

B1 that provides Program Review guidelines. The following information describes specific site 

visitor functions and responsibilities, as well as suggestions for maximizing the effectiveness of 

the site visit. 

Travel Arrangements 

# Travel arrangements are to be completed by the individual site visitor. Every effort 

should be made to minimize travel costs such as for airfare. 

# The School Review Committee will oversee housing arrangements for out-of-town site 

visitors. The office of the Provost will pay travel, lodging, meal expenses, and an 

honorarium. 

# It is anticipated that site visitors from the local community will incur few or no expenses 

beyond parking and the noon meals, since they will live in the metropolitan 

Baltimore/Washington area. They will also receive an honorarium. 

Site Visit Overview 

# Prior to the site visit, the Local School will send copies of the Self-Study Document, 

university catalogs, and a visitation schedule to the site visit team. 

# During the two-day site visit, the site visitors meet with faculty, students, alumni, 

community representatives, and administrators. The site visit begins and ends with 

interviews with the Provost or his/her designee, with the Local Dean, and with the School 

Review Committee. 

# Within three to four weeks after the site visit, the site visitors submit to the Local Dean a 

Site Visit Report that summarizes program evaluations and recommendations (see 

below). The Dean will distribute copies to the head of the academic unit/department, the 

graduate coordinator (in the case of graduate review), the Review Committee, and the 

Provost. 

8

Guidelines for Preparing the Site Visit Report 

There should be a a specific format requirement for the Site Visit Report, although the contents 

and length may vary, depending on the nature and size of the program being reviewed. While the 

report should address each of the substantive areas described below, other program dimensions 

important to program quality and development may be included. 

1. Mission and Goals 

# Are the mission and goals adequately addressed; do they seem appropriate, given the 

university mission; and are there on-going mechanisms within the unit/department to 

evaluate the currency and relevance of those goals? 

# What is the contribution of the unit/department in advancing the state of the 

discipline/profession, and what are the program's reputation and quality, relative to peer 

institutions? 

2. Strategic Initiatives and Future Direction 

What strategic initiatives have been identified by the unit/department, and what is 

the future direction of the program, as identified in the Self-Study Report? (The 

state of the discipline, emerging areas on the national scene, peer institutions and 

aspirational peers as identified by the unit/department should be taken into 

account). 8 

3. Learning Objectives and Curricular Effectiveness 

# Does the unit/department have a clear understanding of curricular content and sequence? 

Does it employ appropriate learning objectives and outcome measures? 

# Is the curriculum current, and does it provide adequate training/education for graduates of 

the program? 

# Are areas of program emphases (e.g., concentrations, certificates, tracks) appropriate, in 

view of available resources (human and physical), and do these emphases address 

community, regional, or national needs? If not, what would the site visit team 

recommend? 

8 A supplement to the April 17, 2003 meeting agenda of the Idaho State Board of Education offers one of 

the most analytical systems for determining both actual and aspirational peer institutions. The report to the Board 

offers the following distinction: AA >peer= is a college or university that is >most like= another college or university 

based on similarities on a group of variables like mission, size, organization, control, location, mix of programs, and 

stud[ent] body characteristics@ (3). However, A[a]spirational peers are those that the institution aspires to be like on 

some criterion, such as faculty salary or compensation levels, or academic reputation@ (4). 

9

# Does the unit/department employ adequate processes to evaluate the effectiveness of its 

programs (i.e., outcome measures)? 

4. Student Recruitment, Retention, and Placement 

# What unit/department processes insure quality recruitment and retention practices? 

# Is the diversity of the student population appropriate, or should efforts be made to 

diversify the program, further? 

# What are the depth and quality of efforts to retain students and foster graduation rates, 

reduce the time to degree, and increase faculty involvement with students in both teaching 

and research? 

# Is adequate attention given to career advisement, development, and placement? 

5. Faculty/Staff Quality 

# How does the level of faculty research/scholarly activity compare with that of peer 

institutions? Are external funding levels appropriate? Are there examples of exceptional 

faculty contributions to the mission of the unit/department and university? 

# Is the faculty research/scholarly agenda appropriately integrated into student learning? 

Are there missed opportunities that should be considered? 

# What are the level and appropriateness of faculty diversity? 

6. Use of Resources 

Does the unit/department make appropriate use, not only of existing resources, 

including physical (e.g., lab or office space), educational (e.g., university 

instruction, library, advisement), and fiscal resources? 

7. Community Engagement 

What is the level of engagement and impact with community professionals/ 

constituents? If improvement is necessary, what steps might the unit/department 

take to foster stronger relationships? 

8. Other Considerations 

# New Curricular Initiatives. If the unit/department has proposed, or plans to propose, a 

new program (e.g., degrees, certificates), what is the potential for quality, success, faculty 

workload responsibility, resource adequacy, and quality student recruitment and 

placement? 

10

# Accredited Programs. If the unit/department houses an accredited program, does the 

program currently meet accreditation standards? If not, what is needed to bring the 

program into conformity with accreditation standards? 

9. Conclusions and Recommendations 

# What does the site visit team consider to be the major strengths of the program? 

# What areas need greatest improvement? What does the team consider to be the major 

limiting factors for future growth and development of the unit/department? What 

opportunities exist for future development? (Recommendations for future growth might 

be couched within a 3-5% funding increase model). 

# Once all members of the site visit team have certified the contents of the report, it should 

be sent directly to: the appropriate Dean, Morgan State University, Baltimore, Maryland 

21251. 

# Each site visit team member should also sign, and forward, the Signature Page for Site 

Visitors (see Appendix B7). 

11

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

"Academic Program Review." Office of the Provost. George Mason University. May, 2005. 

"Academic Program Reviews: Policies and Procedures." University Program 

Review/Accreditation Office (UPRA). Arizona State University Division of Graduate 

Studies, Arizona State University. August, 2006. 

Avery, Elizabeth Fuseler, ed. Assessing Student Learning Outcomes for Information Literacy 

Instruction in Academic Institutions. Chicago: Association of College and Research 

Libraries, 2003. 

Baker, Marilyn J. Assessment and Review of Graduate Programs: A Policy Statement. 

Washington, D.C.: Council of Graduate Schools, 2005. 

Barratt, Will. "Selecting A Student Affairs Graduate Program." Department of Counseling, 

Indiana State University. For the A[merican] C[ollege] P[ersonnel] A[ssociation] 

Professional Development Commission. March 5, 2006 . 

Biggs, John B, and Kevin F. Collis. Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy 

(Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). New York: Academic P, 1982. 

Brown, Clifton E., and Charles L. Tucker, III. "Report of the Task Force on Graduate 

Education." University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. June 4, 1997. March 5, 2006 

. 

"College of Engineering and Information Technology Assessment Plan: Graduate Programs in 

Electrical Engineering." University of South Carolina. March 9, 2001. March 5, 

2006. 

"Comprehensive Assessment Plan (CAP) for Student Learning and Institutional Effecitveness." 

Morgan State University. September, 2005. 

Ewell, Peter T., ed. Assessing Educational Outcomes. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985. 

"Form 4M: Modified Graduate Program Review - 8-Year Graduate Program review." 

University of Alabama. [nd]. October 9, 2006 . 

"Graduate College Guide to Graduate Assessment: Working Draft." The University of 

Oklahoma. March 5, 2006 . 

12

"Handbook of Operating Procedures: University Regulations." The University of Texas at San 

Antonio. September 1, 1997. March 5, 2006 . 

Hernon, Peter, and Robert E. Dugan, eds. Outcomes Assessment in Higher Education: Views 

and Perspectives. Westport: Libraries Unlimited, 2004. 

Idaho State Board of Education. Agenda: Planning, Policy & Governmental Affairs. AB. Peer 

Validation.@ April 17, 2003. June 13, 2007 . 1 - 28. 

"Interaction of Accreditation Reviews with Academic Program Review." Georgia State 

University. February, 2002. 

Jones, Karen Froslid, and Nanette Levinson. "Selected Bibliography of Graduate Student and 

Program Assessment." American University. March 6, 2006 . 

Jones, Lyle V., Gardner Lindzey, and Porter E. Coggeshall, eds. An Assessment of 

Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States. Washington, D.C.: National 

Academy P, 1982. 

"Key Documents for Planning and Assessment." University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth. 

April, 2003. March 5, 2006 . 

"List of Programs Offered." School of Graduate Studies. Morgan State University. [April, 

2006]. 

"Periodic Program Review." Policies and Procedures Manual. Office of the President. Temple 

University. July, 2003. 

"Plan for Assessing Student Academic Achievement: Indiana University Southeast Philosophy 

and Rationale for Assessment." Indiana University Southeast. March 5, 2006 

. 

"Profiles of Excellence: The Graduate Experience." San Francisco State University. September 

19, 1996. March 5,2006 . 

"Quality Enhancement Process at Florida State University: A Model for Institutional 

Effectiveness." Florida State University. [nd] 

"Sage Group." Association of American Colleges and Universities. April 3, 2006 

. 

Salvia, John. Assessment. 5th Ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1991. 

13

Simmons, Howard, and Stephanie Logan. "Periodic Program Review [Survey from Selected 

Universities]." Department of Advanced Studies Leadership and Policy. Morgan State 

University. November 1, 2005. 

"Standard Two: Educational Program And Its Effectiveness." Northwest Commission on 

Colleges and Universities. March 5, 2006 . 

Steward, Doug. "Report on Data from the MLA Guide to Doctoral Programs in English and 

Other Modern Languages: English Departments." ADE Bulletin 137 (Spring 2005): 81 - 

88. 

"Report of the Program Assessment Task Force." University of Connecticut. October 1996. 

March 5, 2006 . 

Wilson, Mark. "Assessment, Accountability and the Classroom: A Community of Judgment." 

Towards Coherence Between Classroom Assessment and 

Accountability. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2004. 1 - 19. 

14

APPENDICES 

15

A1: "Rolling Review" Principles 

The following review plan seeks to create a system of "rolling reviews," in which 

different programs will commence the review cycle at different, appropriate times. Such a plan 

would entail a cycle of staggered reviews, in which programs will undergo different phases of the 

review cycle at different times. This process will naturally require much coordination and will 

necessitate that assessment become an on-going function of each School and that there be 

appointed in each School a standing committee (Review Committee), to oversee and manage this 

process. 

1. Program-Review-Sequence Principles 

Program review sequence should be based upon objective principles, such as alphabetical or 

random selection, although exceptions to this sequence may be made for credible reasons, such 

as volunteering, upcoming external accreditation, or a compelling problem that does not 

otherwise diminish objectivity or impartiality. In most cases, older programs and programs 

which do not routinely undergo external or licensing reviews, should be assessed first. However, 

no new program should be reviewed until it has graduated at least 3 students. 

2. Sequencing Questionnaire 

The review process is initiated when the Review Committee sends out, and receives back from 

the unit/department, the questionnaire which seeks information relevant to the scheduling of a 

specific review ("Appendix A2: Sequencing Questionnaire"). 

3. Resultant Sequencing Plan 

After all "Sequencing Questionnaires" have been received and logged ("Appendix A3: 

Professional Accreditation Log"), the Review Committee studies them and prepares a first draft 

of a Sequencing Plan. This plan identifies the year in which a particular program review cycle 

will commence. This draft should be sent to all units/departments affected, for comment and 

recommendations for revision. The Committee should make every effort to accommodate a 

particular program's scheduling request. When this accommodation is not possible, the Review 

Committee must explain in writing the basis for its decision. 

4. Yearly Review Targets 

After the Sequencing Plan is completed, the Review Committee will publish the name of the 

program and the target year in which the individual review cycle will commence ("Appendix A4: 

SAMPLE Review Roster, By Year"). The Committee will consider additional requests for 

adjustments. When these additional adjustments are not possible, the Review Committee must 

explain in writing the basis for its decision. At the end of the selection process, the Review 

Committee will inform the unit/department that a review has been scheduled, in accordance with 

the one year time frame indicated in "I-E. Notify Units," above. 

16

5. Individual Review Timetable 

The assessment of individual programs will follow the established six-year review cycle. (See 

AYear 1: Assessment Year@; AYears 2 - 5: Implementation of Recommendations, If Any@; and 

AYear 6: Projections,@ below.) 

6. Six-Year Review Cycle 

The six-year review cycle commences for individual programs during the year indicated in the 

"Review Roster, By Year" (Appendix A4). 

17

Timetable 

Year 1: Assessment Year 9 

Programs Without External 

Licensing/Accreditation Reviews (FULL 

REVIEW) 

Programs With External 

Licensing/Accreditation Reviews 

(SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW, WITH NO SITE 

VISIT) 

February 1 Self-study activities are under way. If an external accreditation or licensing review 

was conducted, criteria and standards in the 

accreditation review have been compared with 

those specified by the Review Committee, and a 

plan has been prepared to review (as a 

Supplemental activity) any substantive Program 

Review elements not covered. 

October 1 

November 1 

Self-assessment ("Self-Study") is 

completed, following criteria stipulated in 

the Process. 

The External Evaluation Team has been 

selected as stipulated in the Process, and 

their visit has been organized and 

scheduled. 

External reviewers' visit has concluded; 

the Dean has received their report and 

circulated it to the unit/department; and the 

unit/department has submitted to the Dean 

the Unit/Department Response Report. 

The unit/department has addressed in writing 

the issues and/or questions submitted by the 


The unit/department has submitted to the Dean 

its final responses. 

December 1 The Wrap-Up has been completed. A modified Wrap-Up has been completed, 

involving all of the designated parties, except 

the site visitors, whose report would be omitted. 

9 In the case of ASupplemental Reviews,@ the Review Committee will determine program-by-program which 

(if any) questions or issues of concern in the periodic review have not been addressed by the external, accreditation 

process. Decision will be based upon a close examination of the unit/department=s most recent accreditation report. 

18

Years 2 - 5: Implementation of Recommendations, If Any 10 

Timetable 

January 1 - 

November 1 of 

Each Year 

December 1 of 

Each Year 



Units/Departments should make every 

attempt to implement the review 

recommendations and/or to document 

problems with implementation. 

Units/Departments should report to the 

Dean the recommendations that have been 

implemented and the ones that have not, 

and why. 



Units/Departments should make every 

attempt to implement the review 

recommendations and/or to document 

problems with implementation. 

Units/Departments should report to the Dean 

the recommendations that have been 

implemented and the ones that have not, and 

why. 

Timetable 

Year 6: Projections 11 





December 1 

Unit/departments should assess their 

resources; review departmental goals and 

objectives, in light of thoughtful projections 

of discipline needs and trends; and 

communicate these projections by letter or 

report to the Dean. These projections, along 

with the previous reviews, should form the 

basis of self-study in the upcoming 6-year 

Review Cycle. 

Unit/departments should assess their 

resources; review departmental goals and 

objectives, in light of thoughtful projections of 

discipline needs and trends; and communicate 

these projections by letter or report to the 

Dean. These projections, along with the 

previous reviews, should form the basis of selfstudy 

in the upcoming 6-year Review Cycle. 

10 Should a unit/department complete its task of implementing the recommendations, the unit will proceed to 

the AYear 6: Projections,@ and the periodic review process will be considered closed, until the next 6-year cycle. 

11 This year concerns follow-up and review of this cycle=s assessment reports, in preparation for the next 

review cycle. An aim of the next review cycle is to gauge the success of the cycle proceeding it, to build on prior 

progress, and to project new goals, according to the successes of the past and the needs of the future. 

19

A2: Sequencing Questionnaire 

The School of _________________________ is engaged in establishing a plan for the periodic review of all 

programs. This review will become a permanent process. 

This questionnaire solicits information primarily concerning the participation of your program in external 

licensing/accreditation reviews (other than that of Middle States). In general, those programs which undergo 

such reviews will be included in the periodic program review process, only in a manner that supplements (rather 

than duplicates) the external review experience. Further, such programs are exempt from site visitations but 

will be asked to respond to those issues not addressed by their own accreditation/licensing process. 

Please give accurate information below, and submit a separate sheet for each program in your unit which offers 

a degree or certificate. This information will be preserved in the AProfessional Accreditation Log@ (Appendix 

A3). 

Name of Program 

Degree Offered 

Department/Unit 

College/School/Unit 

Accrediting/Licensing Agency 

(External) 

______________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________ 

_________________________________________ 

(Or Write Anone=) 

Date of Last Accreditation Visit ------------------------------------- 

Date of Next Accreditation Visit ------------------------------------- 

________________________________________________ 

Signature of Dean/Chair/Director/or Other 

Return this form to ________________, Morgan State, or email a facsimile to __________. 

For questions, please phone X____ or X ____. 

20

A3-1: Undergraduate Professional Accreditation Log 12 

Program Degree College/ 

School/ 

Institute 

Accrediting Agency 

Date of Last 

Accreditation 

Visit 

Accreditation 

Cycle 

B.A. 

LA 

Economics 

English 

Fine Art 

History 

Music 

Philosophy 

Political Science 

Scociology 

Speech Communication 

Telecommunications 

Theatre Arts 

B.S. 

Economics 

Psychology 


B.S. 

BM 

Accounting 

Finance 

Business Administration 

12 Based upon catalog entries for Morgan State University (2006 - 2009) and upon AAcademic Program 

Review,@ Office of the Provost, George Mason University (May 2005). 

21


School/ 

Institute 



Accreditation 

Visit 

Accreditation 

Cycle 

Hospitality Management 

Management 

Marketing 

Information Science and 

Systems 

B.S. 

CMNS 

Biology 

Chemistry 

Chemistry (Pre- 

Professional) 


Engineering Physics 

Mathematics 

Medical Technology 

Physics 

B.S. 

EUS 

Family and Consumer 

Sciences 

Health, Physical Education, 

Recreation and Dance 

Social Work 

Teacher Education 

B.S. 

ENG 

22


School/ 

Institute 



Accreditation 

Visit 

Accreditation 

Cycle 

Civil Engineering 


Industrial Engineering 

B.S. 

AP 

Architecture and 

Environmental Design 

23

A3-2: Graduate Professional Accreditation Log 13 


School/ 

Institute 



Accreditation 

Visit 

Accreditation 

Cycle 

Doctoral Degree Programs 

Bioenvironmental Sciences Ph.D. 

CMNS 

Business Administration Ph.D. BM 

Community College 

Leadership 

Ed.D. 

EUS 

Engineering D.Eng EN 

English Ph.D. LA 

Higher Education Ph.D. EUS 

History Ph.D. LA 

Mathematics Education Ed.D. EUS 

Psychometrics Ph.D. LA 

Public Health Dr.PH. PH 

Science Education Ed.D. EUS 

Social Work Ph.D. EUS 

Urban Educational 

Leadership 

Ed.D. 

EUS 

Master=s Degree 

Programs 

African-American Studies M.A. LA 

Architecture M.Arch. AP 

13 Based upon A[Doctorate and Masters Degree Programs],@ School of Graduate Studies, Morgan State 

University ([2007]) and upon AAcademic Program Review,@ Office of the Provost, George Mason University (May 

2005). 

24


School/ 

Institute 



Accreditation 

Visit 

Accreditation 

Cycle 

Bioinformatics M.S. CMNS 

Business Administration M.B.A. BM 

City & Regional Planning M.C.R.P. AP 

Economics M.A. LA 

Education Administration & M.S. 

Supervision 

EUS 

Elementary & Middle 

School Education 

Engineering 

(Civil/Electrical/Industrial) 

M.S. 

M.E. 

EUS 

EN 

English M.A. LA 

History M.A. LA 

International Studies M.A. LA 

Landscape Architecture 

M.L.A./ 

M.S.L.A. 

AP 

Master of Arts in Teaching M.A.T. 

EUS 

Mathematics M.S. CMNS 

Mathematics Education M.S. EUS 

Music M.A. LA 

Psychometrics M.S. LA 

Public Health M.P.H. PH 

Science M.S. CMNS 

Science Education (Biology) M.S. 

CMNS 

Science Education 

(Chemistry) 

M.S. 

CMNS 

Science Education (Physics) M.S. 

CMNS 

25


School/ 

Institute 



Accreditation 

Visit 

Accreditation 

Cycle 

Science Education M.S. EUS 

Social Work M.S.W. EUS 

Sociology 

M.A./M.S.. LA 


Management 

M.S. 

LA 

Transportation Studies M.S. EN 

26

A4-1: SAMPLE Undergraduate Review Roster, By Year 

(NOTE WELL: The information below is presented only for illustration purposes and cannot be regarded as 

either accurate or predictive of any actual Review Roster.) 

Year-1 (Assessment) Commencing in February, 2008 (Cycle Ending 2014) 

Programs Without External Licensing/ 

Accreditation Reviews (FULL REVIEW) 

Programs With External Licensing/Accreditation 

Reviews (SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW) 

English B.A. Landscape Architecture B.S. 

History B.A. Accounting B.S.. 

Mathematics B.S. Civil Engineering B.S. 






Chemistry B.S. Music B.A. 

Economics B.A. Engineering (Electrical) B.S. 

Family and Consumer Sciences B.S. Social Work B.S. 

27

A4-2: SAMPLE Graduate Review Roster, By Year 

(NOTE WELL: The information below is presented only for illustration purposes and cannot be regarded as 

either accurate or predictive of any actual Review Roster.) 






Economics M.A. Architecture M.Arch. 

English M.A. Landscape Architecture M.L.A./M.S.L.A. 

History M.A. Business Administration M.B.A. 

Urban Educational Leadership Ed.D. City & Regional Planning M.C.R.P. 






Bioenvironmental Sciences Ph.D. Music M.A. 

English Ph.D. City and Regional Planning M.C.R.P. 

History Ph.D. Business Administration Ph.D. 

Science Education Ed.D. Public Health Dr.PH. 

Engineering (Civil/Electrical/Industrial) M.Eng. Social Work Ph.D. 

28

A5: Instrument for the Assessment of Program Quality 

Assessment of the Degree Program in: 

Degree Level (B.A.,B.S.): 

Date: 

Evaluators: 

_________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________ 

The assessment involves two(2) types of recommendations B quantitative and qualitative. 

QUANTITATIVE: 

The Assessment Committee is to 1) indicate whether each of the following Objective Standards has 

been fully met, minimally met, partially met, or not met, and 2) supply adequate rationales and/or 

evidence for these assessments. 

1. A standard is fully met when irrefutable evidence supports it. 

2. A standard is minimally met when it is supported by a preponderance of evidence. 

3. A standard is partially met when there is supportive or suggestive evidence, but the evidence is incomplete or inconsistent. 

4. A standard is not met when there is clearly no evidence to support it, thereby revealing a significant program deficit. 

QUALITATIVE: 

In addition to the above quantitative assessment, the Committee will provide a companion qualitative assessment, in which it 

takes into account, not only concerns not covered in the quantitative assessment, but also any intangibles which cannot easily 

be isolated by quantitative methods. 

RECONCILIATION OF QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS: 

Should there be a significant discrepancy between the qualitative and quantitative assessments, then the Committee should 

attempt to reconcile the two and embody this reconciliation in a single set of reasonable recommendations. 

29

PROGRAM 

RATING SHEET 

MET Fully 

Met 

Minimally 

Met Partially 

Not Met 

STANDARD 

CATEGORY 

SPECIFIC STANDARD 

(+3) 

(+2) 

(+1) 

(+0) 

A. Faculty 

1. A teaching faculty with the doctorate (or 

other appropriate terminal degree) and 

relevant professional experience. 

2. Teaching loads consonant with quality 

instruction, including adequate compensation 

for supervision, for advising and mentoring, 

and for culminating experiences such as 

senior theses or graduate theses and 

dissertations. 

3. Appropriate resources for research, 

opportunities to maintain professional and 

pedagogical currency, and opportunities for 

retooling of faculty. 

4. Faculty actively engaged in advancing the 

base of knowledge upon which the discipline 

is founded. 

Category Score (Total Points)/12 = 

B. Student 

Admissions, 

Guidance, 

Supervision, 

Retention, and 

Mentoring 

5. Rigorous entrance requirements, based 

upon typical criteria such as: a. Standardized 

Tests; b. GPA and Course Work; c. 

Transcripts ; d. Essays; e. Letters of 

Recommendation, Resumes, Extracurricular 

Activities, and Experience; and f. Interviews. 

6. Orientation for New Students and 

Departmental student handbook that 

supplements any published by the School or 

30

MET Fully 

Met 

Minimally 

Met Partially 

Not Met 

STANDARD 

CATEGORY 


(+3) 

(+2) 

(+1) 

(+0) 

University. 

7. Availability of financial support for 

students. In the case of graduate students, the 

availability of teaching opportunities and the 

informing of each graduate student about the 

extent of assistance, including support for 

completing theses and dissertations. 

8. Formal process or mechanism for 

advisement and regular, formal checks of 

student progress, including departmental 

monitoring of time limits. 

9. Opportunities for student research, 

scholarship, and/or creative activity and 

evidence of student research output. 14 

10. Involvement of students in the program 

evaluation process. 

11. Placement and career success of 

graduates. 


C. Availability, 

Sophistication, and 

Quality of 

Academic Program 

12. Critical mass 15 of students and faculty and 

sufficient number, frequency, and regularity 

of course offerings. 

13. Required core of courses or adequate 

individual plan to ensure breadth and depth, 

and a formal method of distinguishing 

14 It should be noted that the ability of graduate students to conduct independent research outside of the 

classroom is a central outcome and provides an important index for assessing graduate programs. 

15 ACritical mass@ involves, not only the question of whether enough students are enrolled in a given 

program to provide substantial intellectual cross-fertilization, but also whether there are enough students to ensure 

the stability, variety, and depth of course offerings. 

31

MET Fully 

Met 

Minimally 

Met Partially 

Not Met 

STANDARD 

CATEGORY 


(+3) 

(+2) 

(+1) 

(+0) 

between beginning and advanced courses. 

14. A personalized learning format that 

permits substantial student-professor contact 

(instruction, advising, and guidance) and that 

encourages the mastery of research through 

research papers, literature reviews, reports, or 

case studies. 

15. Adequate facilities and resources 

(including library and information 

technologies) to conduct research and other 

academic work at an appropriate level. 

16. Depth of knowledge, including 

knowledge of the discipline's history and 

development and ability to think critically and 

holistically about the discipline. 

17. Understanding of the expectations for 

success as a professional in the discipline and 

the ability to communicate with the public 

and other scholars regarding knowledge, 

methods, outcomes, standards, products, 

ethics, and behaviors. 

18. An appreciation of the diversity of 

intellectual and/or professional contributions, 

including those of women and minorities; and 

the ability to synthesize and integrate within 

and across disciplines, without increasing the 

total number of hours required for the degree. 


D. Culminating 

Experiences 

19. A written or oral comprehensive 

examination demonstrating the 

breadth of knowledge in the 

discipline, depth in specific areas, 

and the ability to integrate what 

has been learned. 

20. Demonstration of communication skills 

and the ability to apply knowledge 

independently, including: a. senior thesis or 

32

MET Fully 

Met 

Minimally 

Met Partially 

Not Met 

STANDARD 

CATEGORY 


(+3) 

(+2) 

(+1) 

(+0) 

comparable expository paper(s) or a graduate 

thesis or dissertation, b. narrative analyses of 

case studies or problem sets, c. recitals or 

exhibits, and/or d. written reports on a major 

practicum or internship experience. 


33

SUMMARY 

A B C D 

MET Fully MET Minimally Met Partially Not Met 

Total Score (Add Columns) 0 

(A+B+C)/60 = 

RAW SCORE and PERCENTAGE SCORE 16 

LEGEND 

700 - - 7960 = = Sufficient Insufficient Quality Quality 

80 - 89 = Good Quality 

90 - 100 = Excellent Quality 

PERCENTAGE 

16 The RAW SCORE represents the total number of points which a program acquired via this rating 

instrument, divided by the total number of points (i.e., 60) which it could acquire. Thus, the PERCENTAGE 

SCORE indicates the final rating. 

34

COMMENT SHEET 

STANDARDS PARTIALLY MET OR NOT MET 

Raters should elaborate below on specific standards not met and make recommendations for change. 

STANDARD 

NOTES CONCERNING STANDARDS 

APARTIALLY MET@ or ANOT MET@ 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGE 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

35

STANDARD 

NOTES CONCERNING STANDARDS 

APARTIALLY MET@ or ANOT MET@ 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGE 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

36

QUALITATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS: 

37

B1: Academic Program Review Self-Study Report Template 


Academic Program Review Self-Study Report 

Academic Year: 

UNIT/DEPARTMENT NAME: 

_____________________________________ 

_____________________________________ 

Unit/Department Chair or Director: _____________________________________ 

Unit/Department's School: 

Local Dean: 

_____________________________________ 

_____________________________________ 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary (max. three pages) 

(Strengths of the unit's program offerings and any challenges that might exist. Summary of faculty's 

contributions to the program's mission and vision. Long-term plans, strategic directions, etc.) 

II. 

Mission and Scope 

# Unit's Mission Statement 

# Unit Goals 

# Major Strengths of the Unit 

# Areas of Regional/National and International Prominence 

III. 

Peer Comparisons 

# List of peer institutions and related data (can be in table format) 

# List of aspirational peers and related data (can be in table format) 

# Discussion/analysis of the unit's ranking, relative to peers (e.g., the size of the faculty and student body, 

funding, areas of specialty, uniqueness of the programs, etc). 

IV. Findings from Last Review (including any possible accreditation issues) 

V. The Specific Program 

38

1. Program Inventory, Curriculum 

(Please list the titles of all degrees, concentrations, etc., offered by the unit, and provide a brief 

description for each within a table format.) 

Assess the direction and currency of curricular offerings, relative to the state of the discipline. (Please 

describe any new curricular initiatives.) 

2. Student Profile 

(Student enrollment, recruitment, retention and placement.) 

# Provide: 

$ High School GPA or Average (in the case of masters programs, all baccalaureate GPA=s; and in 

the case of doctoral programs, all masters GPA=s, as appropriate) 

$ Headcount by degree/concentration. 

$ Diversity of student population data (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, domestic, international) 

$ Student/faculty ratio 

$ Entrance exams (SAT, GRE, etc.) scores 

$ Job Placement data 

$ Assess the patterns of enrollment in degrees/concentrations and their level of appropriateness, size, 

student/faculty ratios, etc. 

$ Assess degree completion and graduation rates for each program and strategies for improvement. 

$ Placement of students. (Discuss intended placement of students relative to actual placement, e.g., 

in advanced programs or employment in the field.) 

39

3. Student Satisfaction, Advising, Services 

$ Provide data illustrating what students feel about: 

$ Overall academic experience in the unit/department; 

$ Availability of required courses; 

$ Strength of their education; 

$ Practice in public speaking, presentation, and other skills; 

$ Advising on career options within the field (including advanced academic work); and 

$ Concern of faculty for individual students 

$ Identify areas where improvement is necessary and discuss strategic steps to enhance student 

satisfaction. 

VI. 

Other Curricular Offerings 

$ List all curricular offerings (certificates, distance-delivered programs, etc.), and describe in tabular 

format, the name of the offering, focus/target group, and need/justification. 

$ List service courses and indicate the FTE which these courses provide for the university. 

$ Provide a brief description of the contribution of each program to the university. 

VIII. Faculty Activity Reports (Provided by Individual Faculty) 

All tenure/tenure track faculty must submit the following information for the Program Review process: (1) a 

five page (maximum) Activity Report listing his/her contributions to the success of the unit/department for the 

last six years. The Activity Reports submitted may be similar to those used for the annual report but must 

include, at a minimum: 

$ Teaching: Courses taught, titles, year and semester; individualized instruction/mentor activities (i.e., 

dissertations, theses, honors projects, chair and committee responsibilities). In the case of 

theses/dissertations, faculty should specify student name, degree, thesis/dissertation title, and date of 

completion. 

$ Research/Creative Activity: Publications, presentations, grants/funding. 

$ Service: University, professional, and community. 

40

VII. 

Faculty Teaching and Research/Scholarly Work, Staff Quality 

$ Provide data concerning: 

$ Faculty FTE 

$ Staff FTE 

$ Faculty profile 

$ Faculty FTE/Staff FTE 

$ Student FTE/Faculty FTE 

$ Research funding/faculty expenditures 

$ Provide an overview of faculty (e.g., tenure, tenure track, research, etc.) in table format. (Include faculty 

name, title, degree, FTE, and area of specialization as columns in the table.) 

$ Provide an overview of staff in table format. 

$ Describe and evaluate the quality, effectiveness, currency, and diversity of faculty and staff, including 

their research, teaching, and service contribution to the program mission and goals. 

IX 

Resources of the Program 

(Given current resource allocations, compare and discuss the sufficiency of resources related to 

technology, physical space, budgets, library, and human resources.) 

Community Engagement 

(List and describe major community engagement initiatives and their contributions to community 

enrichment.) 

XI. Future Plans and Strategic Plan of the Program 

(Based on the mission statement of the program, analyses in this report, and other pending initiatives, 

outline the unit's major plans for the next three to five years.) 

41

XII. 

Unit/Department Chair's Report 

(This is an optional section that is completed by the unit/department chair, covering areas such as the vision for 

the program, strategic initiatives, any current concerns, faculty assignments, procedures for personnel, etc.) 

42

B2: Guidelines for Recommending Site Visitors 

1. Recommend from 4 - 8 disciplinary site visitors (faculty) and from 2 - 4 recent graduates of the institution 

who are members of the community. Please attempt to diversify your nominations (gender and race/ethnic 

representation). If the academic unit has special areas (e.g., professional/disciplinary, basic/clinical), please 

indicate which site visitors are appropriate for various areas. 

2. The list should be forwarded to the Local Dean for his/her input. 

3. It is absolutely essential that the Local Dean be given sufficient biographical information on the 

nominees, to inform the selection process (e.g., area of specialization, prominence in the field, member of 

national committees in the discipline). 

4. Faculty nominees should be active, respected members of their profession and/or the community, 

particularly in the areas of specialization that are important to the unit under review. 

5. Recent graduate/community nominees should have strong familiarity with the program, should not have 

financial association with Morgan State University, and should reside in the Baltimore/Washington 

metropolitan area. 

6. If a visit is being conducted in anticipation of an accreditation review, several of the recommended 

individuals (specify which ones) should also have a thorough knowledge of the specific accreditation 

procedures that will be used. 

7. In order to avoid conflict of interest, units are urged not to forward names of individuals such as 

former/current faculty, mentors/friends, previous Morgan State University teaching faculty/staff, former/current 

job applicants, donors, contractors, or administrators. 

8. The Dean will extend invitations to the site visitors. (Please do not make contact with potential site visitors 

before the site visit has been set up.) 

9. Copies of the self-study will be sent to the site visitors by the Dean in advance of their visit. 

Dates for the Site Visit 

10. The Review Committee will collaborate with the academic units to establish possible date options for 

potential site visits. 

11. Preferable date options are always Monday/Tuesday or Thursday/Friday combinations. 

12. The site visit is for two full days. 

43

B3: Nomination Form for Potential Site Visitors 

(Complete one form for each nominee) 

Academic unit/department being reviewed: ____________________________ 

I I Disciplinary (Faculty) Specialist I I Community Member I I Recent Graduate 

Name: 

Title or Rank: 

_____________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________ 

Background, including current position: 

______________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________ 

Degrees Subject/Major 

University/Institution 

______________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________ 

Academic unit (if applicable): ______________________________________ 

Current address: 

______________________________________________________________ 

Work phone: 

(___ ) ____ - ______ (please verify phone number) 

Email: _____________________ Fax number: (___ ) ____ - __________ 

Relationship to MSU or unit/department faculty? __________________ 

It is essential to describe in detail the qualifications that make this person an appropriate site visitor for your unit. Indicate any relevant 

academic and professional experience qualifying this person as a reviewer. This biographical information is critical to help the Local Dean 

select site visitors and to provide a biographical overview to administrators who will interact with the site visitors. Please suggest reviewers 

who can offer a balance in representing appropriate areas of emphasis in your program. 

Attach vita/resume of nominee, if available, or a copy of biographical information from a published source (e.g., Who's Who, American Men 

and Women of Science). Duplicate copies of this form should be sent to the Local Dean for approval. Please remember not to nominate 

current or past faculty or administrators, former or present applicants for jobs, donors, or contractors. 

44

B4: Academic Program Review Self-Study Document Signature Sheet 

Academic Unit/Department Name: 

School Name: 

________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________ 

The signatures below indicate that the Dean has had the opportunity to review (and endorse) the contents of the 

unit/department's Self-Study document. 

________________________________________Signature 

Printed Name of Dean (here) 

_____________________ 

Date 

45

Coordination and Site Visit Arrangements 

B5: Information Regarding Site Visit Arrangements 

$ The Review Committee oversees the travel and lodging arrangements for the two-day site visits. Out-of-town site visitors 

typically arrive the evening before the site visit begins and leave the evening of the second day. 

$ Travel arrangements must be completed by the individual site visitors, but these visitors should make every effort to minimize 

travel costs. 

$ The Review Committee will oversee the housing arrangements for the academic consultants, who will spend at least two days 

on campus. The School, with funds from the Office of the Provost, will pay travel, lodging, meal expenses, and an 

honorarium. The unit/department must cover costs for all refreshments served to site visitors or unit/department participants 

during the review meetings, e.g., meals or coffee with faculty and/or student groups. 

$ Since the community member/recent graduate of the site visit team will come from the metropolitan Baltimore/Washington 

area, it is not expected that he or she will incur expenses beyond parking and the noon meals. Should the unit/department 

choose to nominate a recent graduate who does not reside locally, the department itself will reimburse the travel and lodging. 

$ The Review Committee will arrange the meetings with university administrators (i.e., the Local Dean and others, for the 

entrance and exit interviews). It is the unit/department's responsibility to arrange a tour of its facilities; a tour of the library; 

time for reviewing senior and honors projects and theses; and time for the appropriate meetings, as described below. 

Hospitality 

$ The department is the local host for the site visitors. Please ask a faculty member to arrange airport pick up and return 

transportation, transportation to and from the hotel, escort of visitors to their first meetings each day, and general assistance 

over the two days. 

$ On the second day, please arrange for out-of-town visitors to check out of the hotel before noon so that Morgan State 

University is not charged for an extra day. Most local hotels will provide shuttle service to the airport, but scheduling 

conflicts may require that the unit/department provide transportation. 

$ Lavish entertaining of the site visitors is not expected or encouraged. They will have a busy two days on campus and will 

need time to rest and discuss findings. Please leave dinner and evening hours free. 

$ No funds are available for entertainment. If faculty members wish to go out to dinner or lunch with the visitors, they or their 

unit/department will be responsible for those expenses. 

$ The site visitors will be reimbursed for reasonable costs such as for breakfast and dinner, but they need to save original 

receipts. 

$ Please leave at least an hour and a half free immediately preceding the final interview, so that site visitors may organize the 

major themes of their report. 

46

Visits with Students 

$ It is essential that careful planning be used in arranging meetings with a site visitor and any sizable group of students. 

A faculty member and student representatives should be given responsibility for organizing these meetings. (These 

meetings, if left to last minute planning or if poorly attended, can leave a lasting impression on the site visit team). 

$ Brown-bag lunches, coffee hours, and class meetings have worked well. Because students often raise questions for which the 

site visitors will want to seek answers, these meetings should be set up fairly early in the schedule. 

$ After the visitors are introduced and their purpose explained, the unit/department meeting coordinator should leave so that 

students feel free to have a candid discussion with site visitors. 

$ Some time (30 minutes) should be set aside for the site visit team to review senior and honors projects and theses. 

Visits with Faculty Members 

$ Depending on the size of the faculty, two or three small group meetings might be desirable. Meetings with individual faculty 

members are discouraged. The head of the academic unit should not attend the meetings with faculty. 

$ Where appropriate, there should be meetings with other relevant faculty groups (e.g., advisory committees or curriculum 

committees whose work relates to the program review). 

$ It is strongly recommended that site visitors meet with faculty from other related disciplinary areas with whom the unit 

interacts. 

Visits with Unit/Department Administrators 

At least one hour should be scheduled for the site visitors to meet with the head of the academic unit/department. 

Because site visitors will have developed a better understanding of the unit, this meeting should occur on the 

afternoon of the second day. 

Visits with University Administrators 

Because the Program Review is important to school and university planning, meetings will be scheduled with the 

Provost and the Dean of the local school. 

Locations or Groups Suggested by the Site Visitors 

Whenever feasible, site visitors should receive assistance in visiting locations and in meeting groups of the 

reviewers= own choosing. 

47

B6: Sample Site Visit Activities and Interviews 

First Day 

Early morning C 7:45 a.m. 

(Prior to entry meeting) 

8:00 - 9:00 a.m. 

(Building, room number) 

Have Designated faculty pick up outof-town 

site visitors 

Breakfast with (names listed). 

Travel to Campus. 

Conduct Entry Meeting. 

Meet with the Provost and the Local 

Dean. 

9:00-noon 

(Buildings, room numbers) 

12:00-1:30p.m. 


1:30-2:30 p.m. 


2:30-5:00 p.m. 

(Buildings, room numbers) 

5:00-6:00 p.m. 

Meet with Faculty. 

Meet with program-related faculty 

groups. 

Have Lunch with students, faculty, 

community constituents, and/or 

alumni. 

Provide for Site Visitor Preparation Meeting. 

Required time for site visitors to discuss 

major issues and begin preparing site 

report. 

Tour library and laboratory facilities. 

Meet with students. 

Meet with community members and 

employers of students, where possible . 

48

Second Day 

7:45 - 8:45 a..m. 

(Prior to entry meeting) 

9:00 - noon 


Have Breakfast with (names listed). 

Travel to Campus. 

Meet with Key Administrators. 

Meet with the Provost and the Local Dean 

12:00-1:30p.m. 


1:30-2:30 p.m. 


Have Lunch with students, faculty, 

community constituents, and/or alumni. 

Meet with Unit/Department Chair. 

2:30-4:00 p.m. 


Provide for Site Visitor Preparation Meeting. 

Required time for site visitors to discuss major issues 

and to begin preparing site report and exit meeting 

discussion points. The unit/department should have 

available a quiet room with computer access. 

4:00-5:00 p.m. 

Conduct Exit Meeting 

Meet with the Provost, the Local Dean,, and the 


Note: Travel to and from campus will be arranged by the academic unit, and return flights should 

be scheduled not earlier than 7:00 p.m. 

49

B7: Signature Page for Site Visitors/Reviewers 

Each member of the site visit team should complete the form below, attach it to a copy of the 

Program Review Report, and return it to: 

Dean, School of _______________________ 


Baltimore, Maryland 21251 

This report was prepared by: 

Name: 

____________________________________________________________ 

Institution: ____________________________________________________________ 

Address: 

____________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________ 

I have read the Site Visit Report for the _________________________________ program and 

I I 

I I 

concur 

concur with the following reservations: 

____________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________ 

I I 

disagree and have attached a statement 

____________________________________________________________ 

Printed Name 

_______ 

Date 

____________________________________________________________ 

Signature 

____________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________ 

Address 

Note: Please do not include confidential information in the above statement. 

50

B8: Checklist for Program Reviews 

Unit/Department 

__Attend preliminary meetings with the Local Dean and the Review Committee. 

__Recommend the unit/department self-study committee. 

__Nominate site visitors. 

__Collaborate with the Review Committee, to establish possible date options and to arrange the 

site visitation schedule. 

__Complete and submit the Self-Study Report, after it is reviewed by the Local Dean. 

__Assist site visitors during the visit. 

__Distribute Site Visitors' Report to faculty (when received). 

__Schedule faculty meeting to discuss the site visit review. 

__Forward the Unit Response Report, after consultation with the Local Dean. 

__Participate in the Wrap-up phase. 

__Review final recommendations and the actions to be taken, with the Local Dean. 

Local Dean 

__Review and approve the list of proposed site visitors. 

__Approve the Self-Study Report. 

__Interview site visitors. 

__Read Site Visit Report. 

__Participate in Wrap-up phase. 

__Approve recommendations for action. 

Review Committee 

__Notify unit/department about review timetable. 

__Conduct an orientation session with the unit/department, if needed. 

__Finalize site visitors' schedule. 

__Participate in entrance interview. 

__Participate in exit interview. 

__Participate in the wrap-up process. 

__Help to coordinate final record of program review. 

51

B9: The Unit Response Report and Wrap-Up Phase 

The unit/department chair should review the findings of the Site Visit Report with faculty and 

prepare an outline and written response. The unit/department chair should consult her/his Local 

Dean to obtain agreement on major issues prior to report preparation. The final Unit Response 

Report should be submitted to the Dean within six weeks of receiving the Site Visitor's Report. 

Outline of the Unit Response Report 

I. Introduction 

Briefly review and respond to major strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities discussed in 

the Site Visit Report. 

II. 

Strategic Plans To Address Concerns 

A. Issue 1 (identify issue) 

1. Proposed action, expected outcome 

2. Cost/Resource implications 

3. Source of funds/resources 

4. Benchmark and timeline for solution 

B. Issue 2 (identify issue) 

1. Proposed action, expected outcome 

2. Cost/Resource implications 

3. Source of funds/resources 

4. Benchmark and timeline for solution 

C. Etc. 

III. 

Additional Information 

Wrap-Up Phase 

Discuss any other program changes and developments related to the Program Review 

generally, and the Site Visitor Report specifically. 

$ The wrap-up phase will include an assessment of the site visit team's findings and the 

unit/department's response. 

$ A wrap-up letter, drafted by the Dean, will be forwarded to the unit/department head, to 

summarize this final assessment and to endorse all necessary recommendations for change. 

$ This phase may also include a meeting among the relevant parties if there are concerns that 

need to be addressed before the wrap-up letter is sent. 

$ The Dean=s wrap-up letter and recommendations will be forwarded to the Provost for 

approval. 

52

“Growing the Future, Leading the World” 

COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT PLAN FOR 

STUDENT LEARNING AND INSTITUTIONAL 

EFFECTIVENESS 

FALL 2012 2 nd EDITION

Copyright © 2012 Morgan State University 

All Rights Reserved

Table of Contents 

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 

History......................................................................................................................................... 1 

Guiding Principles ...................................................................................................................... 1 

Expected Outcomes .................................................................................................................... 2 

ASSESSMENT OF INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS.......................................................... 3 

ASSESSMENT OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN .............................................................................. 3 

Vision Statement ..................................................................................................................... 3 

Mission Statement ................................................................................................................... 3 

Core Values ............................................................................................................................. 3 

Goal 1: Enhancing Student Success ........................................................................................ 4 

Goal 2: Enhancing Morgan’s Status as a Doctoral Research University................................ 4 

Goal 3: Improving and Sustaining Morgan’s Infrastructure and Operational Processes ........ 5 

Goal 4: Growing Morgan’s Resources ................................................................................... 5 

Goal 5: Engaging with the Community .................................................................................. 5 

Key Performance Indicators ................................................................................................... 5 

Level of Planning, Assessment, and Responsibility ................................................................... 6 

Collaboration with the Division of Planning & Information Technology .................................. 8 

Sample Tools/Resources Available for Assessment ................................................................... 8 

Collaboration with Office of Student Success and Retention ................................................... 10 

Key Review and Planning Committees .................................................................................... 11 

Summary and Model of Institutional Effectiveness.................................................................. 11 

ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING .............................................................................. 12 

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 12 

Leadership for the Comprehensive Assessment Plan ............................................................... 12 

University Assessment Committee ........................................................................................... 13 

Assessment of Student Learning as a Paradigm ....................................................................... 15 

Organization of Student Learning Outcomes ........................................................................... 16 

Institutional Level ................................................................................................................. 16 

Program Level ....................................................................................................................... 18 

Program Review Process ...................................................................................................... 18 

Course Level ......................................................................................................................... 18 

General Education Program .................................................................................................. 19 

Other University Requirements ............................................................................................ 20

Format of the Annual Assessment Plans .................................................................................. 21 

Alignment with Middle States Framework ............................................................................... 22 

Format and Timeline of the Program Review Process ............................................................. 23 

LINKING ASSESSMENT, BUDGET, AND RESOURCE ALLOCATION .............................. 25 

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 25 

Assessment, Planning, and Resource Allocation ...................................................................... 25 

Budget Process .......................................................................................................................... 25 

Role of Senior Administrators .................................................................................................. 26 

Resources for Outcome Assessment and Integrated Planning .................................................. 27 

SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS ................................................................................................ 27 

APPENDIX A: ACADEMIC UNIT ASSESSMENT REPORT TEMPLATE ............................ 29 

APPENDIX B: NON ACADEMIC UNIT REPORT TEMPLATE ............................................. 33 

APPENDIX C: ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORT FEEDBACK TEMPLATE ..................... 37 

APPENDIX D: LIST OF UAC MEMBERS ................................................................................ 40 

APPENDIX E: TIMELINE FOR THE PROGRAM REVIEW PROCESS ................................. 41 

APPENDIX F: COVER PAGE OF THE PROGRAM REVIEW PROCESS .............................. 42 

APPENDIX G: FINANCE AND MANAGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ................... 45 

GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................. 47 

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 50

INTRODUCTION 

History 

Since the 2008 Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) Self-Study and 

subsequent team visit, Morgan State University (MSU) has demonstrated a strong commitment 

to systematic and sustainable assessment of its effectiveness, as required under the MSCHE 

Criteria for Excellence accreditation standards, and under similar standards among the 

professional and discipline-based associations through which the University is currently 

accredited. Morgan considers the assessment of, and accountability for, achieving its mission 

and goals to be one of the most important measures of its success, and has made ongoing 

assessment a pivotal aspect of the University’s life, the rewriting of its new Strategic Plan, and 

the implementation and evaluation of that plan. At Morgan, assessment is a University-wide 

responsibility and involves all segments of the institution. It calls for ongoing, systematic and 

regular assessment of how well the University is fulfilling its mission in all respects and with 

special emphasis on the assessment of student learning and success, which is foremost in its 

mission. 

Guiding Principles 

As outlined in the 2008 MSU Comprehensive Assessment Plan (CAP), assessment at Morgan is 

guided by a set of principles that touch all segments of the University community. These 

principles are outlined below: 

1. That the University will have a strong culture of assessment that supports the assessment 

of institutional effectiveness as a major part of its function as an institution and that 

ensures that assessment is embedded in its institutional mission, goals, and objectives; 

2. That assessment of how well it achieves its mission, objectives, and goals is everyone’s 

responsibility and involves everyone from the top to the bottom, with significant 

leadership provided at the top of the administration, faculty, student body, and staff; 

3. That assessment is comprehensive and focuses on all areas of the University, including 

the total range of educational offerings, services, and processes; 

4. That assessment grows out of collaboration between faculty and administration and 

utilizes input from students, staff and other key stakeholders; 

5. That the total range of educational offerings, services and processes are firmly grounded 

in and effectively achieved through the University’s mission; 

6. That the University’s assessment plan is realistic and based on measurable objectives, 

goals, and expectations; 

7. That everything that the University does is guided by clearly stated goals, objectives, and 

measurable outcomes and expectations; 

1

8. That assessment is systematic, thorough and formalized; uses multiple qualitative and 

quantitative measures to generate data and information; is periodic and regular; is 

conducted in a variety of settings and situations; and reflects the total picture of what the 

University does; 

9. That assessment of student learning is a major focus of the CAP and that assessment of 

all other areas reflects a commitment to student success; 

10. That assessment of student learning benefits from the value-added approach that 

diagnoses where students are academically upon entry and measuring their level of 

achievement over time till graduation; 

11. That assessment aims not only at enhancing student learning, but also at improving 

institutional planning and resource allocation, institutional processes, and the assessment 

process itself; 

12. That assessment results are incorporated into institutional planning and decision making; 

13. That the University commits the resources and provides the administrative structure to 

make effective and comprehensive assessment possible; and 

14. That the assessment process is subjected to periodic review, assessment, and 

reaffirmation. 

Expected Outcomes 

Assessment of institutional effectiveness, with an emphasis on student learning, has had a 

tremendous impact on Morgan, its administration and staff, faculty, students, alumni, and other 

key stakeholders. Assessment is a test and a reflection of the institution’s integrity and of how 

well it is carrying out its mission. Accordingly, Morgan’s CAP has benefitted the institution and 

has led to greater: 

1. Compliance with, or adherence to, and overall effectiveness in achieving institutional 

mission, goals, and objectives; 

2. Success in measuring and charting student learning progress; 

3. Success in determining program effectiveness; 

4. Effectiveness in institutional processes; 

5. Effectiveness of institutional services; 

6. Customer and provider satisfaction with institutional processes and services; 

7. Responsible allocation and efficient use of resources; 

8. Appropriate administrative structures and services that support learning; 

9. Effective strategic planning; 

10. Self-renewal and institutional integrity; and 

11. Compliance with educational and professional accreditation standards. 

2

ASSESSMENT OF INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS 

The University encourages and ensures institutional effectiveness and renewal through a strong 

commitment to assessing student learning, to fulfilling its educational mission, and to planning 

processes and resource allocation to support the mission. Morgan has a broad array of ways in 

which it assesses its overall institutional effectiveness. This section provides a broad sketch of 

the scope of these assessment methods. 

ASSESSMENT OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN 

On August 2, 2011 the Board of Regents approved the University’s new strategic plan. Entitled 

Growing the Future, Leading the World: The Strategic Plan for Morgan State University, 

2011-2021, the new plan replaced the previous plan that covered the period 2008-2012. The 

University enlisted broad participation in the development of the new plan. The steering 

committee comprised of members of the Board of Regents, faculty, students, staff, alumni, 

administrators, deans, and representatives from the neighborhood and local business 

communities. The Plan includes new vision, mission, and core values statements for the 

University. 

Vision Statement 

Morgan State University is the premier public urban research University in Maryland known for 

its excellence in teaching, intensive research, effective public service, and community 

engagement. Morgan prepares diverse and competitive graduates for success in a global, 

interdependent society. 

Mission Statement 

Morgan State University serves the community, region, state, nation, and world as an intellectual 

and creative resource by supporting, empowering and preparing high-quality, diverse graduates 

to lead the world. The University offers innovative, inclusive, and distinctive educational 

experiences to a broad cross section of the population in a comprehensive range of disciplines at 

the baccalaureate, master’s, doctoral, and professional degree levels. Through collaborative 

pursuits, scholarly research, creative endeavors, and dedicated public service, the University 

gives significant priority to addressing societal problems, particularly those prevalent in urban 

communities. 

Core Values 

The core values below guide the promotion of student learning and success, faculty scholarship 

and research, and community engagement at Morgan: 

3

Excellence. Excellence in teaching, research, scholarship, creative endeavors, student 

services, and in all aspects of the University’s operations, is continuously pursued at 

Morgan to ensure institutional effectiveness and efficiency. 

Integrity. At Morgan, honest communications, ethical behavior, and accountability for 

words and deeds are expected from all members of the University community. 

Respect. Each person at Morgan is to be treated with respect and dignity and is to be 

treated equitably in all situations. 

Diversity. A broad diversity of people and ideas are welcomed and supported at Morgan 

as essential to quality education in a global interdependent society. Students will have 

reasonable and affordable access to a comprehensive range of high quality educational 

programs and services. 

Innovation. Morgan encourages and supports its faculty, staff, and students in all forms 

of scholarship including the discovery and application of knowledge in teaching and 

learning and in developing innovative products and processes. 

Leadership. Morgan seeks to provide rigorous academic curricula and challenging cocurricula 

opportunities to promote the development of leadership qualities in students and 

to facilitate leadership development among faculty, staff, and students. 

Five broad goals represent the foundation of this strategic plan. Over the next ten years, these 

goals will guide programs, services, and budgets that are designed to grow Morgan’s future by 

implementing the strategic initiatives for each goal. The goals include: 

Goal 1: Enhancing Student Success 

Morgan will create an educational environment that enhances student success by hiring and 

retaining well qualified, experienced, and dedicated faculty and staff, offering challenging, 

internationally relevant academic curricula, and welcoming and supporting a diverse and 

inclusive campus community. 

Goal 2: Enhancing Morgan’s Status as a Doctoral Research University 

Morgan will enhance its status as a Doctoral Research University through its success in securing 

grants and contracts and its faculty’s achievements in basic and applied research, professional 

expression, artistic creation, and creative inquiry. Additionally, initiatives will be designed to 

enhance doctoral achievement in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematical 

(STEM) and non-STEM disciplines for underrepresented students of color. 

4

Goal 3: Improving and Sustaining Morgan’s Infrastructure and Operational Processes 

Morgan will enhance its infrastructure and processes by improving the efficiency and efficacy of 

its operating procedures, by focusing on the environmental sustainability of its facilities, and by 

meeting the technological customer service needs of its students, faculty, staff and community. 

Goal 4: Growing Morgan’s Resources 

Morgan will expand its human capital as well as its financial resources by investing in the 

professional development of faculty, staff, and students, seeking greater financial support from 

alumni, the State and federal governments, private and philanthropic sources, and establishing 

collaborative relationships with private and public entities. The issue of indirect costs associated 

with contracts and grants will be revisited. 

Goal 5: Engaging with the Community 

Morgan will engage with community residents and officials in the use of knowledge derived 

from faculty and student research, the sharing of mutually beneficial resources, and the 

appropriate and timely dispatch of University experts and professionals to collaborate in 

addressing community concerns. 

Key Performance Indicators 

Each goal has accompanying objectives, anticipated outcome, measure or benchmark, 

assessment method, and specific responsibility. As a means of tracking the implementation of its 

new strategic plan, Morgan has developed metrics representing a wide range of data both 

qualitative and quantitative from every division on campus; and a scorecard or dashboard that 

permits University board members and campus personnel to monitor some two dozen key 

performance indicators (KPIs). The interactive dashboard, which can be accessed via the 

University’s web page by campus personnel, will permit users to drill down to obtain additional 

data concerning each KPI. For each KPI, supporting data, trends, goals and benchmarks are 

available. Examples of the KPIs for each of the strategic goals of the institution are listed below: 

Goal 1: Enhancing Student Success 

• Enrollment 

• Retention Rate 

• Number of Degrees Awarded 

• Value Added (education) 

Goal 2: Enhancing Morgan’s Status as a Doctoral Research University 

• Grants and Contracts 

• Doctorate Degrees Awarded 

• STEM Awards 

• Average Faculty Salary 

• Library Adequacy 

5

Goal 3: Improving and Sustaining Morgan’s Infrastructure and Operational Processes 

• Student Satisfaction 

• Affordability 

• Cost per FTE 

• Average Grad Debt 

Goal 4: Growing Morgan’s Resources 

• Private Funds Raised 

• Size of Endowment 

• Resource Ratio 

• State Funding 

• Average Age of Facilities 

Goal 5: Engaging with the Community 

• Partnerships 

• Public Courses/Events 

• Carnegie Standard 7 (or best practices in public and community service) 

Level of Planning, Assessment, and Responsibility 

The University uses a multi-level system of planning and assessment to ensure institutional 

effectiveness. The four levels of planning and assessment at Morgan State University are listed 

below: 

1. University-Wide Strategic Planning and Assessment Level: Under the leadership of the 

President and the Strategic Planning Committee, key stakeholders conducted SWOT analyses 

(i.e., review of internal strengths and weaknesses and external opportunities and threats) to 

address a number of strategic plan questions and issues about Morgan with the students 

including What is Morgan’s (i.e., the institution’s) mission? What are the core values? What 

does the data (i.e., institutional research) tell us who we are? What does a SWOT (strengths, 

weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis reveal about us? Who are our peers? Who are 

we? What is it that we “say” we do? What is it that “in fact” we do? What is/are the most 

important thing(s) (i.e., values) that define us (i.e., without which would not be true to 

MSU)? In 5 or 10 years (i.e., the length of your strategic plan) will the answers to these 

questions be sufficient? Members of the strategic planning committee (e.g., Board of 

Regents, Provost, Vice Presidents, Deans, student representative, etc.) monitor KPIs, peer 

group comparative data, and other institutional assessment information annually. The 

committee also conduct progress checks of key initiatives outlined in the strategic plan, 

recommend continuance, adjustments, or discontinuance. As a means of helping to ensure 

that funding is distributed consistent with campus plan as well as other priorities, the 

University formed a Budget Advisory Committee (BAC). This committee is broadly 

representative of the campus with strong representation from academic departments. This 

group is provided with briefings on a wide variety of pertinent topics in order to ensure its 

deliberations are well informed; and hold budget request hearings with each vice president to 

discuss their needs and their performance outcomes. 

6

2. University Divisions/College/Institute and School Levels: Planning and assessment at this 

level is conducted under the leadership of the provost, vice presidents or directors and deans. 

Strategic planning at this level responds to the University-wide strategic goals as well as 

specific goals of the respective University division and each of the colleges and library. Each 

college has its own strategic planning committee that oversees and monitors the strategic 

initiatives of the colleges and academic departments. The colleges, library, and University 

offices/divisions prepare annual reports and assessment plans that detail the planning and 

assessment initiatives within their respective areas. Morgan’s CAP requires that all units and 

sub-units assess their effectiveness on an annual basis, in the context of the University’s 

mission and goals, and using the same model/process as the academic departments and 

programs. Morgan’s assessment of institutional effectiveness focuses on the MSCHE 

standards while adhering to other tenets of best practice such as external accrediting 

standards and quality improvement criteria such as the Baldrige. In these terms, assessment 

of institutional effectiveness at Morgan ensures that each unit: 

a. Has a mission, objectives and goal that guide the unit’s assessment processes and 

plans 

b. Engages in planning, resource allocation and renewal informed by assessment 

information and results; 

c. Uses rational and consistent policies for the allocation of resources and a budgeting 

process aligned with mission, goals, and outcomes; 

d. Has leadership and structure that includes a well-defined process for assessment and 

use of assessment results for improvement 

e. Has administrative structure and staff that facilitate assessment, analysis of 

assessment results and use of results for improvement; and 

f. Has a unit-based assessment plan and reporting process. 

3. Departmental/Program Level: Planning and assessment is conducted under the leadership 

of chairpersons or directors of academic departments/student support programs/campus 

offices, with all plans and corresponding assessments subject to review and approval by 

deans and the Assistant Vice President for Assessment and Operations (AVPAO). The 

Annual Report Guidelines, and the Annual Assessment Report Template (see Appendix A) 

are used to document planning and assessment activities (i.e., establishing and prioritizing 

programmatic goals, tracking student learning outcomes and key performance indicators, 

evaluating progress toward goals, using results to develop and implement action plans to 

make programmatic improvements, monitoring the effects of planning initiatives on the 

enhancement of student learning, and providing documentation of the continuous process of 

improvement). 

4. Course/Unit Level: Planning at this level is the responsibility of faculty/instructors/lecturers 

that are performing the duties and tasks that fulfill the commitment of educating and serving 

undergraduate and graduate students. For academic programs, the assessment of learning 

outcomes is embedded in the coursework. A syllabus checklist offers guidelines for the basic 

7

course components or course design, e.g., statement of course purpose, expected learning 

outcomes, course requirements/assignments, required readings and other course materials, 

grading policy or measurement criteria such as a rubric used to assess student learning, 

expectations for student engagement, and class decorum. All instructors at Morgan are 

expected to review their respective end-of-course student performance results to inform 

future improvements in teaching/learning strategies. 

Collaboration with the Division of Planning & Information Technology 

The Division of Planning and Information Technology is responsible for coordinating campus 

data collection activities, carrying out research and analysis in support of campus decisionmaking 

and assessments, and campus computer operations. This division supports institutional 

planning and assessment processes that guide the University in fulfilling its mission, and 

determining how well it is achieving its strategic goals. The Office of Institutional Research is 

responsible for compiling and disseminating information to the University community and 

external groups on many aspects of Morgan State University, including student enrollment and 

demographics, student credit hours, degrees awarded, and faculty and staff characteristics. The 

Office prepares periodic reports on a variety of issues and plays a major role in responding to the 

annual IPEDS data collection and questionnaires from external organizations. The Division of 

Planning and Information Technology is a resource to all members of the University and partners 

in the community on matters pertaining to assessment, improvement, and institutional 

effectiveness. Examples of surveys, data, and reports produced by this division and the Office of 

Institutional Research are listed below: 

• Institutional Research Data 

• University KPIs 

• Higher Education Data for Maryland 

• Student Course Evaluations 

• National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) 

• Freshman Survey 

• Exit Survey of Graduate Students 

• Survey of Employers 

• Alumni Surveys 

• Student Satisfaction Inventory 

• Student Satisfaction Inventory (Honors Students) 

• Annual Program Support Pages 

Sample Tools/Resources Available for Assessment 

While tools of assessment vary across units, there are some commonalities. The following are 

some of the more common resources from the Division of Planning and Information Technology 

available to units, sub-units and programs interested in institutional effectiveness: 

8

Banner 

Banner is an administrative software application developed by the Ellucian Software and 

Services Company specifically for higher education institutions. Banner serves as Morgan's 

official database system and the source for most of the University's data and reporting needs. 

Student, human resources, and financial records are all integrated and maintained in one 

centralized database. 

Oracle Application Express 

Oracle Application Express (APEX) is Morgan's official reporting tool. APEX is reserved for 

cyclical data and reporting needs, APEX uses data from Banner to provide faculty and staff with 

a myriad of student, financial, and personnel data files and reports. From a list of reports, APEX 

users can select parameters, filter data within interactive reports, and export results to a 

spreadsheet. Once data files are exported, users can perform further filtering, data manipulation, 

and statistical analysis. 

Campus Labs 

In 2001, Campus Labs (formerly Student-Voice) was developed to collect information from 

students that could be used to impact program and services. This cutting-edge software platform 

allows customers to build comprehensive programs with expert consultation and superior 

resources. Since 2001, Campus Labs has evolved from the one member campus to over 650, as 

more institutions embrace assessment on every level of their campus. Today, Campus Labs is the 

only specialized, comprehensive assessment program that combines data collection, reporting, 

organization, and campus-wide integration. In addition, Campus Labs connects the assessment 

community with a newly renovated member website which includes access to an on-line forum 

featuring best practices, national benchmarking surveys and latest research based on years of 

collective higher education experience. 

Blackboard 

Blackboard, Morgan's Learning Management System, provides teaching and learning solutions 

that support the needs of students, faculty, and staff. Classroom, fully online, and blended are all 

supported using collaborative environments and digital content. Beginning spring 2013, 

Blackboard will be integrated with Banner for a more seamless student, faculty, staff, and course 

enrollment process. Additional features such as E-Portfolios, course templates, and standard 

content (master courses) will also be made available campus wide in spring 2013. Blackboard 

course templates provide a clear starting point for course development and consistent 

experiences for students. Each template is set up into learning modules that can be used in a 

variety of course types (i.e., fully online, blended, etc.). 

EAC Outcomes 

In fall 2011, the College of Liberal Arts, School of Education & Urban Studies, and the School 

of Architecture & Planning piloted Educational Assessment Corporation Outcomes (EAC 

9

Outcomes) software to facilitate online course evaluations. EAC Outcomes provides students 

access to online course evaluations for each of their participating courses via Blackboard. 

Instead of waiting for hand-tallied feedback, EAC Outcomes provides real time response rates by 

student or by course. Response data can be analyzed more quickly allowing for early 

intervention and dissemination of results. Course evaluation questions can be connected to 

program and accreditation standards. Evaluation responses serve as components of continuous 

improvement for participating programs. 

Smarthinking 

Smarthinking is an online tutoring service offered to Morgan students free of charge. Students 

can connect and interact with a tutor via a live chat. Alternatively, students can submit their 

question(s) directly to a tutor. Smarthinking also has an Online Writing Lab that allows Morgan 

students to submit papers for feedback from a Smarthinking specialist. 

Collaboration with Office of Student Success and Retention 

The purpose of the Morgan State University Office of Student Success and Retention is to work 

in collaboration with the College of Liberal Arts, the School of Engineering, the School of 

Computer, Mathematical and Natural Sciences, the School of Business and Management, the 

School of Education and Urban Studies, the School Community Health & Policy, the School of 

Architecture and Planning, the School of Social Work, and the various academic support 

programs of the University to provide continuous, quality support for undergraduate students 

from matriculation to graduation. The goal of this comprehensive program is to increase student 

retention rates and persistence to graduation with a focus on academic success and achievement 

through early intervention and systematic tracking of undergraduate students. Listed below are 

examples of Campus-Wide Retention Initiatives: 

• Placement Testing (ACCUPLACER) – proctoring, scoring & disseminating 1,200–1,600 

tests per academic year 

• Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) – participating in the nation-wide longitudinal 

cohort of institutions 

• Early Alert & Response System--assisting faculty with intervention for students 

performing below expectations 

• Retention Research & Student Surveys – participating in national benchmarking & 

campus research/surveys 

Placement Testing and Report 

The Office of Student Success and Retention proctor Placement Testing via the ACCUPLACER 

placement test. The purpose of ACCUPLACER is to provide useful information about students' 

academic skills in mathematics, English, and reading. ACCUPLACER is an adaptive test. 

Questions are chosen on the basis of students' answers to previous questions. This technique 

selects just the right questions for students' ability level. Results of the placement test provides 

the University with a level of individual student adaptability, systematic accuracy, and flexibility 

10

in an effort to appropriately place new students in freshman courses consistent with their level of 

preparation and skill. All first-time freshmen at Morgan State University are required to take a 

placement examination to determine their course placement. See the College Board for more 

information on the ACCUPLACER. As mentioned earlier, The Office of Student Success and 

Retention proctors, score and disseminate 1,200—1,600 tests per academic year. 

Key Review and Planning Committees 

University-wide planning and assessment related to institutional effectiveness is also the 

responsibility of several standing committees at Morgan State University. Each committee has its 

particular focus, review criteria, and procedures and protocols: 

• Executive Committee 

• Strategic Planning Committee 

• Curriculum Committee 

• University Assessment Committee 

• Program Review Committee 

• Finance and Facilities Committee 

• Graduate Council Committee 

• Faculty Institute Committee 

• Academic and Student Affairs Committee 

• Audit Committee 

Summary and Model of Institutional Effectiveness 

In summary, institutional effectiveness at Morgan State University is an ongoing, integrated and 

systematic set of institutional processes that include planning, the evaluation of programs and 

services, the identification and measurement of learning outcomes in the context of the 

University’s mission and strategic goals, the use of data and assessment results for decisionmaking 

that results in improvements in programs, service and institutional quality. Each 

college/institute and school has its own strategic planning committee that oversees and monitors 

the strategic initiatives of the academic programs. The colleges, library, and University 

offices/divisions prepare annual reports and assessment plans that detail the planning and 

assessment initiatives within their respective areas. Morgan’s CAP requires that all units and 

sub-units assess their effectiveness on an annual basis. All units and sub-units use assessment 

results to inform annual budget requests. At Morgan institutional effectiveness is a continuous 

quest for quality, efficiency, effectiveness and innovation. The model that follows depicts the 

components of the University’s planning and assessment process. 

11

Adapted from: A Practitioner's Handbook for Institutional Effectiveness and Student Outcomes 

Assessment Implementation by James O. Nichols, Third Edition, 1995, Agathon Press, New York 

Introduction 

ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING 

The assessment of student learning is at the core of the Comprehensive Assessment Plan because 

all that takes place at the University has some impact on student learning, student success, and 

the processes that make student learning possible. The University therefore has committed a 

large portion of its resources and of its effort to the effective assessment of student learning as a 

major aspect of institutional effectiveness. The format for this assessment has been the model 

for the successful implementation of assessment of non-academic units as well. The assessment 

of student learning under the CAP focuses on assessment within the major, and includes a 

separate track for assessing student competency in the core requirements as well as the impact of 

out of classroom learning on the student experience. 

Leadership for the Comprehensive Assessment Plan 

To facilitate the effective and efficient working of Morgan’s Comprehensive Assessment Plan 

for student learning and institutional effectiveness, the University implemented, in 2008, an 

administrative structure and services charged with coordinating the process. Leadership of 

12

assessment on campus rests with the Office of the Assistant Vice President for Assessment and 

Operations in partnership with the Center for Performance Assessment (CPA) directed by the 

General Education Assessment Coordinator and with the University Assessment Committee 

(UAC), a University-wide advisory group that provides guidance in the direction and scope of 

assessment across campus as well as feedback on the annual assessment reports that all units 

must submit. Within each academic department and administrative unit, a local assessment 

coordinator is responsible for overseeing the assessment work of faculty and staff within each 

area. The Office of the AVPAO and the CPA is responsible for collating information from the 

departments and units and compiling that information as feedback to the University through the 

UAC. Requirements for assessment results to be submitted with all resource requests and budget 

requests, as well as within each area’s Annual Report, ensure a concurrent link between 

assessment and resource allocation. An annual data collection, analysis, improvement and 

reporting cycle for all areas within the Comprehensive Assessment Plan 

University Assessment Committee 

The University Assessment Committee is charged with strengthening the University assessment 

and program review process to ensure cogent and disciplined self-assessment of institutional 

effectiveness. The umbrella goal of the UAC is to create an environment of empirically-based 

continuous improvement. The committee collaborates with University leaders and committees to 

fulfill its charge and goals. The goals of the UAC are: 

1. Align the outcome-based assessment processes with the strategic plan; 

2. Strengthen assessment processes that include: updating assessment review format, 

planning assessment training, and establishing and maintaining an assessment webpage; 

3. Create and maintain an archive of assessment reports and reviews; 

4. Evaluate and recommend assessment instruments and software systems; 

5. Review assessment documentation to ensure that it meets the requirements of external 

accreditation bodies and serves University goals for institutional effectiveness; 

6. Ensure that assessment results are analyzed and used for continuous improvement in a 

fair, ethical, and responsible manner; 

7. Verify that timetables for assessment cycles are meaningful and meet the schedules of 

both University and external stakeholders; 

8. Ensure that the status and progress of University assessment efforts are widely and 

effectively communicated; 

13

9. Serve as an internal consulting entity in the areas of academic and non-academic 

assessment; and 

10. Align assessment processes with budgeting and resource allocation systems. 

In addition to faculty members with expertise in assessment from each of the colleges and 

schools, four sub-committees are strategically designed to support the charge and goals of the 

UAC and implementation of the Comprehensive Assessment Plan for Institutional Effectiveness. 

A description of each sub-committee is listed below: 

1. The Academic Affairs Subcommittee (AAS) support the MSU Comprehensive 

Assessment Plan by helping faculty design and implement assessment program, guiding 

the collection of information on undergraduate and graduate assessment activities, and 

helping the University share and recognize best practices of assessment in academic 

programs. AAS is designed to receive, review and provide feedback on the Annual 

Assessment Reports for all MSU academic programs. The Chair of AAS is a member on 

the University Assessment Committee. At least one representative on AAS from each 

college or school as well as the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs, support 

AAS subcommittee members; 

2. The General Education Assessment Subcommittee (GEAS) support the MSU 

Comprehensive Assessment Plan by helping faculty design and implement assessment 

programs, guiding the collection of information on general education assessment 

activities, and helping the University share and utilize assessment data for decision 

making, resource allocation, and improvement. The Chair of GEAS is a member on the 

University Assessment Committee. At least one representative on GEAS from each 

college or school, a representative from the MSU General Education Committee as well 

as the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs, support GEAS subcommittee 

members; 

3. The Student Affairs Assessment Subcommittee (SAAS) support the MSU 

Comprehensive Assessment Plan by helping faculty and Student Affairs staff design and 

implement assessment programs for co-curricular learning, guiding the collection of 

information on Student Affairs assessment activities, and helping the University share 

and utilize assessment data for decision making, resource allocation, and improvement. 

The Chair of SAAS is a member on the University Assessment Committee. There will be 

at least one representative on SAAS from each major unit in the Division of Student 

Affairs; and 

4. The Administrative Unit Assessment Subcommittee (AUAS) support the MSU 

Comprehensive Assessment Plan by helping staff in administrative and student support 

14

areas design and implement assessment programs to evaluate effectiveness and impact on 

the student experience guiding the collection of information on assessment activities in 

these areas, and helping the University share and utilize assessment data for decision 

making, resource allocation, and improvement. The Chair of AUAS is a member on the 

University Assessment Committee. 

Generally, the University Assessment Committee meets every third Monday, from 1-3pm as an 

entire committee. Alternate Mondays are typically used by subcommittees to meet, review 

documents, and/or generate solutions to issues of assessment; program reviews, accreditation, 

and other topics related to institutional effectiveness. 

In summary, The Office of the Assistant Vice President for Assessment and Operations 

(AVPAO) supports the strategic initiatives of Morgan State University by directing the 

implementation of the Comprehensive Assessment Plan and overseeing the operation of the 

Center for Performance Assessment, the Office of General Education, and the University 

Assessment Committee. The Office of the AVPAO collaborates with all divisions at Morgan to 

collect, analyze, report on and use data related to institutional effectiveness, accreditation; 

student success, satisfaction and retention; and campus performance against key benchmark 

indicators. 

Figure 1: Organizational Structure of the University Assessment Committee 

University 

Assessment 

Committee 

Academic 

Affairs 

Subcommittee 

General 

Education 

Subcommittee 

Student Affairs 

Subcommittee 

Administrative 

Unit 

Subcommittee 

Assessment of Student Learning as a Paradigm 

The assessment of student learning is the hub and linchpin of the Comprehensive Assessment 

Plan for Institutional Effectiveness. Virtually all that takes place at the University has some 

impact on student learning or the processes that make student learning possible. The University 

commits a large portion of its resources (human and fiscal) to effective assessment of student 

15

learning. Enhancing Student Success at the undergraduate and graduate levels is the first goal of 

the new strategic plan (2011-2021). Assessment of student learning extends beyond the academic 

divisions as well. All non-academic departments such as Enrollment Services, Advancement, 

Finance, Student Life, Information Technology, Public Relations, Institutional Research, 

Library, etc., assess their effectiveness on an annual basis, in the context of the University’s 

mission and strategic goals (i.e., student learning and success). 

Organization of Student Learning Outcomes 

Student Learning Outcomes are explicit statements describing knowledge, skills, abilities, 

values, and attitudes that a student will be able to demonstrate at the end (or as a result) of a 

particular lesson, course, program, or collegiate experience. Student Learning Outcomes at 

Morgan State University are defined at the following levels: Institutional, Program, Course, 

General Education Program, and Other University Requirements. Learning outcomes are 

evaluated through a number of direct measures (e.g., standardized tests, exams, portfolios, 

research projects, written assignments, etc.), and indirect measures (e.g., course evaluations, 

student surveys, alumni surveys, completion rates, etc.). 

Institutional Level 

The vision and mission of the University and strategic goals have been widely communicated 

throughout the strategic planning process. The strategic planning process has provided a cyclic 

and systematic approach to linking assessment, budget, and resource allocation. This process 

guides individual unit efforts in such a way that University goals are achieved by the collective 

achievement of the individual units. While each of the five strategic goals has implications for 

student learning, there are four which directly relate to educational experience and student 

learning outcomes. They are: 

• To enhance student success through support of high quality teaching, research and 

service; 

• To create an educational environment that enhances student success by: hiring and 

retaining well qualified, experienced, and dedicated faculty and staff; 

• To offer a challenging, internationally relevant academic curricula, and welcoming 

and supporting a diverse and inclusive campus community; and 

• To enhance infrastructure and process by improving the efficiency and efficacy of 

operating procedures, by focusing on the environmental sustainability of facilities, 

and by meeting the technological customer service needs of students, faculty, staff 

and the community. 

Specific strategies associated with these goals emphasize the importance of conducting program 

reviews, building outcome assessment plans, and using data on an annual basis to improve 

student learning, and dimensions of institutional effectiveness. The University's mission calls for 

on-going, systematic and regular assessment of how well the University is fulfilling its mission 

in all respects and for special emphasis on the assessment of student learning, which is foremost 

16

in its mission. At Morgan State University, assessment is a University-wide responsibility and 

involves all segments of the University. 

The Office of Institutional Research administers the National Survey of Student Engagement 

(NSSE). Morgan has participated in this indirect measure of student learning since 2004. Survey 

results indicate that while Morgan freshmen are on par with their counterparts at the University's 

Carnegie peers and nationally on the benchmark comparison of the level of academic challenge, 

Morgan seniors experience greater academic rigor than their counterparts at peer institutions and 

nationally. The Level of Academic Challenge is defined as "challenging intellectual and creative 

work is central to student learning and collegiate quality. Colleges and universities promote high 

levels of student achievement by emphasizing the importance of academic effort and setting high 

expectations for student performance." Items on the survey that address this include (1) 

preparing for class; (2) number of assigned textbooks, books or book- length packs of course 

readings; (3) number of written papers or reports of 20 pages or more; number of written papers 

or reports of between 5 and 19 pages and number of written papers or reports of fewer than 5 

pages; (4) coursework emphasizing analysis of the basic elements of an idea, experience or 

theory; (5) coursework emphasizing synthesis and organizing of ideas, information, or 

experiences into new, more complex interpretations and relationships; (6) coursework 

emphasizing the making of judgments about the value of information, arguments or methods; (7) 

coursework emphasizing application of theories or concepts to practical problems or in new 

situations; (8) working harder than you thought you could to meet an instructor's standards or 

expectations; and (9) campus environment emphasizing time studying and on academic work. 

The University participates in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA). The CLA is a 

nationally-normed examination that provides colleges and universities with information about 

their students' ability to think critically, reason analytically, solve realistic problems and write 

clearly. As such it embodies the majority of competencies required by Middle States. The 

Collegiate Learning Assessment is a direct measure of student learning that uses a sample of 

freshmen and seniors on a three hour examination. This assessment allows universities to 

measure the "value added" by the campus to student academic achievement. The examination 

consists of performance tasks requiring students to use "an integrated set of critical thinking, 

analytic reasoning, problem solving, and written communications skills to answer open-ended 

questions about a hypothetical but realistic situation." The examination also includes two types 

of analytic writing tasks; (1) "Make an Argument" which requires students to support or reject a 

position, and (2) "Critique an Argument" which requires students to evaluate the validity of an 

argument. The University's actual CLA score is compared to its expected CLA score. Expected 

scores are derived from the relationship of the University's average SAT score and its average 

CLA score. 

The University also uses the Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress (MAPP) to 

assess student learning at the institutional level. The MAPP integrates general education skills by 

assessing four core skill areas: critical thinking, reading, writing and mathematics. The MAPP 

test is statistically equated to the former Academic Profile assessment, so that prior Academic 

Profile scores may be used to conduct longitudinal or cross-sectional studies. It is intended for 

use by colleges and universities in assessing the outcomes of their general education programs to 

improve the quality of instruction and learning. The test focuses on the academic skills 

17

developed through general education courses rather than on the knowledge acquired about the 

subjects taught in these courses. The MAPP does this by testing college-level reading, writing, 

critical thinking, and mathematics in the context of humanities, social sciences, and natural 

sciences. 

Program Level 

The goal of creating a program assessment plan is to establish a culture of assessment and 

facilitate continuous program level improvement. Each program at the undergraduate and 

graduate levels at the University is expected to develop and implement a comprehensive 

assessment plan on an annual basis. The plan is evaluated by the University Assessment 

Committee, using the Annual Student Learning Assessment Report Feedback Template 

(Appendix C). Numeric results as well as comments from the committee members are submitted 

to AVPAO. The AVPAO discusses results of the assessment plan with each academic program 

and monitors efforts to incorporate the feedback into the assessment process to support programlevel 

change and improvements. 

Program Review Process 

Assessment at the program review level varies across the University. Several programs have a 

strong history of assessment via external accrediting process that are tied to rigorous professional 

standards; for example, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE); 

the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB International); the 

Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), etc. The external program review 

cycle of programs with external accrediting processes are aligned with their professional 

associations’ standards (5-7 years). Program review cycle for programs without external 

accrediting processes is 5 years in accordance with University's strategic planning process. The 

latter programs can use an established external or discipline specific reviewer and/or collaborate 

with the AVPAO to conduct a rigorous internal self-study to demonstrate how the curriculum 

supports student learning outcomes, how outcomes are assessed and how assessment results are 

used to improve practice. Program reviews require the signatures of the dean of the college in 

which the program resides and the Provost. The process is overseen by the Office of the 

AVPAO. 

Course Level 

Course level assessment of student learning is the responsibility of the instructor teaching the 

course. Methods vary according to the type of course (e.g., project-based, information rich, 

online, or skill development). Student learning is assessed on the skills, values, and knowledge 

that students are expected to know upon completion of a course. At this level, faculty members 

summarize and use assessment results to improve courses and teaching effectiveness. They 

report their results to department committees, assessment coordinators and chairs, as part of 

coordinating education within degree programs, schools, and the wider University mission. 

18

General Education Program 

Morgan's General Education Program embraces the areas of competency specified in the Middle 

States Association's Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education, and it incorporates its 

emphasis on assessing student learning and institutional effectiveness. Morgan’s General 

Education program is a broad network of courses, tests and extra-curricular experiences aimed at 

ensuring a common core of liberal arts knowledge, skills and collegiate experiences for all 

Morgan students. The courses which are part of the General Education Requirements have 

seventeen discreet objectives, which are based on the principle that General Education is one of 

the most significant components of undergraduate education. The program also sets a number of 

clearly defined learning goals for students that reflect the five competencies in Standard 12 of the 

Middle States Association accreditation criteria (Morgan State University Catalog, 2010-2013, 

pages 61-64). 

Morgan State University defines competency in written communication as (1) being able to 

write multi-paragraph essays with a properly constructed introduction, including a clear thesis; 

no fewer than three paragraphs in the body of the essay; a definite method of development; a 

conclusion; and demonstrated mastery of grammar, punctuation, mechanics and sentence 

structure; and (2) being able to write a documented paper (long essay) based on research in the 

library and other technology-based information resources and following the proper research and 

composition procedures, inclusive of choosing and limiting a subject; preparing a bibliography; 

taking notes; drawing reasonable conclusions; organizing notes; preparing a rough draft and 

allowing for several stages of revision; constructing a précis; successfully incorporating outside 

research sources in proper style; preparing a works-cited page; and preparing and editing the 

final document. Morgan State University defines competency in oral communication as (1) 

correctness in articulation, including pronunciation, enunciation, tone, rate, emphasis and 

audience contact; (2) effectiveness in oral reading; and (3) effectiveness in extemporaneous 

speaking. 

Morgan defines competency in scientific and quantitative reasoning as understanding and 

employing the philosophy of science and the problem-solving scientific method; understanding 

the fundamental concepts of the disciplines (biology, chemistry, mathematics, physics), and 

being able to employ college-level mathematical skills in reasoning through problem solving. 

Morgan State University defines critical analysis and reasoning competency as: (1) being able 

to analyze arguments' logical validity, (2) being able to compose logically valid arguments; (3) 

being able to understand the nature, classes and forms of propositions; (4) being able to 

understand the nature and forms of deductive and inductive reasoning; and (5) being able to 

understand formal and informal fallacies. Morgan defines technological competency as the 

understanding of the basics of computer operations, the broad-based use of technology in 

learning and living, the impact of technology on society and social behavior, and the challenges 

that technology presents to human values. Its approach is interdisciplinary, not just technical, and 

it embraces students' use of technology in their majors. Morgan State University defines 

information literacy as the ability (1) to seek out and retrieve information, whether from the 

library or from other sources made possible by modern technology; (2) to decode that 

information through reading, listening, viewing, or a combination of these methods; (3) to reflect 

critically and analytically, sometimes scientifically and quantitatively, on the information; and 

19

(4) to express that information, along with ideas, interpretations of it and reflections about it, 

effectively in written and spoken standard English. 

The General Education program at Morgan is currently undergoing a year-long evaluation and 

revision designed to ensure that core requirements fully support Morgan’s mission as well as 

student learning and success within a global society. However, although general education 

requirements are evolving and changing in response to evolving student needs and expectations, 

Morgan has implemented a comprehensive assessment of student learning for the core 

competency areas that centers on the use of standardized testing, course-and program-based 

assessments, and student perceptions of their learning derived from nationally-normed 

instruments. Examples of direct and indirect measures utilized to assess the General Education 

are listed below: 

• Quizzes and examinations; 

• Portfolios; 

• The Writing Proficiency Examination; 

• The Speech Proficiency Examination; 

• The Collegiate Learning Assessment; 

• The National Survey of Student Engagement; and 

• The Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress Tests of reading, mathematics, 

writing and critical thinking skills. 

The General Education Task Force, The General Education Assessment Coordinator, AVPAO, 

and faculty committees in departments offering general education courses form the General 

Education Advisory Council and are responsible for the assessment of the general education 

program. The aforementioned council monitors, gathers data on, and gives feedback to the 

departments about student performance and efficacy of the general education program. An 

annual report is developed by the General Education Assessment Coordinator. Action plan(s) 

is/are developed to address gaps and improve dimensions (e.g., content and delivery) of the 

General Education Program. 

Other University Requirements 

Other University-wide requirements, which do not fall under the General Education Program, 

include developmental courses in reading and mathematics which are required of students testing 

into them, the required courses in physical education (1 credit) and freshmen orientation (1 

credit), the Writing Proficiency Examination and the Speech Proficiency Examination. The 

developmental courses in physical education and freshmen orientation have the same assessment 

requirements and follow the same assessment procedures as the general education courses 

outlined above. However, the University gives special attention to student performance in 

developmental courses and to ensuring that they do not proceed to follow-on courses until they 

have demonstrated proficiency in those fundamental areas. 

The Writing Proficiency Examination is required of all Morgan students once they complete 

four-courses of freshmen English-humanities sequence, and the Speech Proficiency Examination 

is required of all students at the end of the sophomore year. Both are capstone experiences that 

20

assess students’ proficiency in written and oral communication, respectively. In order to ensure 

that students understand what is expected of them on these examinations and the criteria used to 

assess their performance, the University will require that both examinations have a published 

statement that includes: 

• A clear set of published objectives; 

• A published list of skills in which students are expected to demonstrate proficiency; 

• A published description of the format of the examinations (length, duration, etc.); 

• A scoring chart or rubric which assesses student proficiency in the learning; and 

expectation areas and gives them feedback on strengths and weakness in their 

performance. 

Annual reports are utilized to communicate student performance in developmental courses and 

on the Writing Proficiency Examination and the Speech Proficiency Examination. The reports 

include statistics on overall performance records by college/school and by major. The reports 

contain comparative data on areas of weakness and strengths demonstrated by the students. 

These data are reviewed and discussed annually by appropriate committees and department 

faculty in the departments that offer the courses and administer the score the examination and 

also by the college/ school faculties. These data are discussed periodically at University-wide 

events (e.g., University-wide Faculty Institute). Feedback from the orientation and physical 

education courses are provided in the same manner as that from general education courses, with 

particular emphasis placed on student performance in freshmen orientation, the all-important 

high-school-to-college transition course. For the Writing Proficiency Examination and the 

Speech Proficiency Examination, feedback is also very important for the students taking the 

examinations. Accordingly, departments administering those two examinations score them using 

rubrics that can be shared with students and give them some guidance for improvement or for 

registering for courses that can assist them in improving their skills. 

Format of the Annual Assessment Plans 

The Comprehensive Assessment Plan of Morgan State University requires that all units and subunits 

assess their effectiveness on an annual basis, in the context of the mission and strategic 

goals of the University. Each program is required to have an approved Assessment Plan in which 

the program learning outcomes, assessment measures, corresponding rubrics, and time frame for 

data collection and review are described in detail. Program data are collected and analyzed on an 

annual basis according to the schedule included in the plan. The assessment plan also articulates 

the responsible entity and review processes associated with the plan. Units are expected to seek 

approval of any modifications or improvements to their assessment plans. 

Assessment Plans are submitted to the University Assessment Committee for review in January 

or June of each academic year. The UAC use the Annual Student Learning Assessment Report 

Feedback Template to provide feedback to all units and sub-units (Appendix C). Numeric results 

as well as comments from the committee members are submitted to the AVPAO. The AVPAO 

discuss results of the assessment plan with each program and monitor efforts to incorporate the 

feedback into the assessment process to support change and improvements. 

21

Alignment with Middle States Framework 

Assessment, whether at the course, program, division, or University-wide level, can be viewed as 

a four-step cycle: 

1. Defining clearly articulated goals in accordance with institutional mission and strategic 

goals; 

2. Implementing strategies to achieve those goals; 

3. Assessing achievement of those goals; and 

4. Using the results of those assessments to improve programs and services and inform 

planning and resource allocation decisions. 

The effectiveness of the University rests upon the contribution that each of the institution’s 

programs and services makes toward achieving the goals of the institution as a whole. Morgan’s 

Comprehensive Assessment Plan is aligned with the Middle States Framework of Student 

Learning Assessment. See Appendix A for components of the assessment plan for the academic 

programs and Appendix B for the non-academic units. The areas that must be included in each 

assessment plan are listed below: 

I. Basic Information 

II. 

III. 

IV. 

Mission of the Department/Education Unit 

Alignment of Mission with Strategic Goal(s) of the University 

Alignment of the Mission with Strategic Goal(s) of the College/School 

V. Student Learning Outcomes 

VI. 

VII. 

VIII. 

IX. 

Opportunities to Achieve Learning Outcomes 

Assessment Tools for Measuring the Learning Outcomes 

Timeline of the Assessments 

Communication Plan 

X. What Were Your Primary Findings From Your Assessments? 

XI. 

XII. 

How Did These Findings Differ from Last’s Year’s Results? 

To What Extent Did You Complete the Action Steps for Improvement Identified 

in Last Year’s Report? 

22

XIII. 

How Do You Plan to Use This Year’s Assessment Results for Improvement 

within Your Department? 

XIV. Please Describe Any Additional Resources That Will Be Required to Fully 

Implement These Improvements? Address How You Will Use Your 

AssessmentResults to Inform Your Decisions about Resource Allocation and 

Use? 

XV. 

Required Signatures 

Format and Timeline of the Program Review Process 

In 2007, the University adopted a policy and procedure document guiding “Periodic Program 

Review.” The process was developed by the Graduate Council for Graduate Programs and then 

adopted for use for all programs. The AVPAO and the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies 

collaborated to develop a schedule for program review on a five year cycle. Those programs that 

have professional accreditation cycles were placed in the review cycle to match the external 

accreditation process. Morgan is in its third year of the cycle. From the program review 

document: “program review seeks to: (a) evaluate the relationship between programs and the 

University, School, and Departmental missions; (b) document program strengths and 

weaknesses; (c) nurture program improvement, based upon data, rather than anecdote; (d) 

articulate strategies for improvement, especially with regard to student competencies and in light 

of both institutional goals and national standards; (e) demonstrate institutional accountability; 

and (f) identify programs which may need to be placed on probation, reduced, suspended from 

operation for a specified time, merged, or discontinued“ (Morgan State University Periodic 

Review of Programs: Policies and Procedures, October 2007, pp. 1-2). 

See Appendix 8 for the timeline of the program review process. The following sections are 

included in your Academic Program Review Self-Study Report. 

Goals 

• List the major learning outcomes for students in the program. 

• List your overall program goals and how you expect to/are achieving these goals. 

Quality 

Describe and analyze: 

• Evidence that students are achieving each major learning outcome (Your department 

assessment report/results) 

• The curriculum’s effectiveness in helping students achieve the major learning outcomes (Data 

from course matrix included in assessment report) 

• The effectiveness of faculty teaching methods and out-of-class interactions and support in 

helping students achieve the major learning outcomes (Course evaluation results and coursebased 

assessment results) 

23

• The technological skills that students develop in the program 

• The program’s effectiveness in meeting the needs of a diverse student population and 

preparing students to function in a diverse society 

• How students benefit from faculty scholarly activities. For example, to what extent are 

students actively involved in faculty scholarship and/or research? How has faculty scholarship 

helped improve the curriculum and/or teaching methods? 

• Other programs—both at Morgan and elsewhere—with which the program competes for 

students. How does your program compare with peer or competing programs and/or with 

professional standards? What makes your program distinctive? 

Demand 

Describe and analyze: 

• Past and anticipated enrollment trends in the program (five years). 

• Regional and/or national trends in this discipline and their impact on this program. 

• The curriculum’s effectiveness in addressing the needs of graduates and their employers. 

Cost-Effectiveness 

Analyze the cost-effectiveness of the program. Depending on their relevance and availability, 

you may wish to consider such factors as class size, budget, credit enrollments, student/faculty 

ratio, cost per credit hour, and space utilization. 

Other Information 

Describe and analyze any other information essential to understanding the program and planning 

its future. 

Summary Analysis of Major Strengths and Weaknesses 

Summarize the major strengths and weaknesses of the program, as evidenced by your self-study 

and the external reviewer’s report. 

Action Plan 

Outline substantive changes planned over the next five years (e.g., in courses and curricula, 

teaching methods, faculty, institutional support) in response to this program review and strategies 

for achieving those changes. An action plan must be provided for each identified program 

weakness. 

24

LINKING ASSESSMENT, BUDGET, AND RESOURCE ALLOCATION 

Introduction 

The University encourages and ensures institutional effectiveness and renewal through a strong 

commitment to assessing student learning, to fulfilling its educational mission, and to planning 

processes and resource allocation to support the mission and strategic goals (Appendix G). 

Morgan’s CAP requires that all units and sub-units assess their effectiveness on an annual basis. 

All units and sub-units use assessment results to inform annual budget requests. At Morgan 

institutional effectiveness is a continuous quest for quality, efficiency, effectiveness and 

innovation. 

Assessment, Planning, and Resource Allocation 

The results of outcome assessment from all units and sub-units provide empirical data for the 

academic and non-academic units to develop annual and long-range plans. At the institutional 

level, this information, as well as information from assessment of institutional outcomes, is 

analyzed and coordinated within the scope of the University’s mission and its projected 

resources and priorities to develop its recommendations for resource allocation and long-range 

planning. Assessment results provide empirical support for decisions regarding allocation of 

resources and annual and long-range planning at all levels of the University. 

Budget Process 

The Division of Finance and Management is designed to function as an effective conduit for the 

planning, securing and expenditure of the necessary operating and capital resources to achieve 

the wider mission and strategic plan of the University. Further, the division provides a variety of 

administrative, business and financial support services to assist faculty and staff in the delivery 

of the best living/learning environment possible. 

Morgan State University utilizes a participatory budget process and will do so even during 

periods of budget reductions to maintain communications and an understanding of the finances 

among relevant segments of the University. The University uses incremental budget practices for 

the allocation of additional resources. Each year, Vice Presidents are asked to present their 

resource needs to the President’s Budget Advisory Committee. The Budget Advisory 

Committee assembles, deliberates the requests and makes recommendations to the President for 

consideration. Below is an eighteen month timeline as it relates to the budget process: 

Calendar 

March – Request resource needs from Vice Presidents 

April - Budget discussions with Vice Presidents 

25

May – Provide institutional needs to the President 

June – Develop tentative prioritized needs 

July – Discuss draft prioritized needs with VPs and departments 

August – Submit to Board for approval 

September – Submit request to the State 

October – Presentation to the Maryland Higher Education Commission 

November – Hearing(s) with Department of Budget and Management 

December – Governor’s decision 

January – Governor submit budget to the Legislature 

February/March – Legislative Session 

April – Budget approved by the Legislature 

April/May – Budget Advisory Committee Recommendations 

May/June – Discussion with the Vice Presidents and Board; President finalizes prioritized needs 

with involvement of Vice Presidents and Board 

July – Preliminary allocation 

September – Budget adjustments in consideration of enrollment 

Role of Senior Administrators 

Senior Administrators (President, Provost, Vice-Presidents, Deans, Chairpersons, Program 

Directors, etc.) are primarily responsible for institutional planning and resource allocation. The 

aforementioned leaders are key supporters of institutional assessment and consumers of the 

information generated by assessment activities and reports. They use results of institutional 

assessment to determine how effectively the University is fulfilling its mission. These analytical 

roles are associated with a creative process of planning and budgeting in such a way as to 

continuously strengthen the educational mission of the institution. The Provost and AVPAO 

ensure that the University Assessment Committee has the resources necessary to carry its charge 

and functions. 

26

Resources for Outcome Assessment and Integrated Planning 

All assessment efforts on campus will be accessible to all academic and administrative divisions 

and departments. As a means of tracking the implementation of its new strategic plan, the 

campus developed a scorecard/dashboard that permits University board members and campus 

personnel to monitor some two dozen key performance indicators. An interactive dashboard, 

which can be accessed via the University’s web page by campus personnel, will permit users to 

drill down to obtain additional data concerning each KPI. Morgan is committed to sustaining the 

assessment process. During the past five years the University funded assessment tools such as 

Banner, PLATO, Smarthinking, Campus Labs, and Blackboard. In addition, resources (human 

and fiscal) were allocated to the following assessment instruments and processes: NSSE, CLA, 

MAPP, and ACCUPLACER. The Office of the Assistant Vice President for Assessment and 

Operations (AVPAO) supported strategic plan initiatives associated with student learning 

outcomes and institutional effectiveness. 

Morgan has embraced many integrated planning principles as enrollment has increased. Facility 

planning is integrated with institutional goals and objectives, as well as with capital budgets and 

operating budgets, all of which are linked with the strategic goal of student success. The campus 

master plan and facility building programs are examples of an inclusive, participatory, and 

integrated planning process, which empowers end users, operational service providers, and 

external stakeholders to provide the input. Faculty and support staff resource requests associated 

with growth are assessed by departments, colleges, and the Provost‘s Office and generally 

allocated on an annual basis. Facility and support resources are allocated on an annual basis with 

additional resources provided on an as-needed basis. 

SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS 

In summary, the University encourages and ensures institutional effectiveness and renewal 

through a commitment to assessing student learning, to fulfilling its educational goals and 

objectives, and to planning processes and resource allocation to support the mission. To that end, 

the University has adopted a comprehensive plan for integrating assessment into the structural 

and procedural fabric of the University. 

Under the leadership of the AVPAO, the Provost, and the UAC, significant progress in the 

assessment of academic and administrative outcomes has been accomplished since the last 

decennial visit. Below is a summary of some of the many assessment accomplishments that the 

University has implemented since its decennial accreditation visit: 

• Re-examined and revised the Comprehensive Assessment Plan to include mission-based 

assessment goals for student learning, academic programs, services, and administrative 

processes; 

• Implemented the revised Comprehensive Assessment Plan; 

• Shared the results of the Comprehensive Assessment Plan with all constituents, and 

promoted understanding of the use and impact of assessment results on planning and 

resource allocation; 

27

• Developed and implemented institutional assessment plans; 

• Developed and disseminated annual Progress Reports; and 

• Developed professional development opportunities on best assessment practices for staff, 

faculty, and administrators. 

Significant progress in the assessment of academic and administrative outcomes has been 

accomplished; however the University is committed to improve its efforts in developing 

assessment plans with valid and reliable methods that yield useful data for improving programs 

and services. Below are several next steps that the University and UAC plans to pursue: 

• Demonstrate utilization of assessment findings to improve student learning and 

institutional effectiveness; 

• Continue to implement Institutional Assessment Plan; 

• Continue to develop and disseminate annual progress reports; 

• Continue to implement the program review process; 

• Continue to develop professional development opportunities on best assessment practices 

for staff, faculty, and administrators; and 

• Adopt a software application to guide and provide alignment of multiple processes, 

including assessment, planning, accreditation, budgeting and institutional priorities. 

28

APPENDIX A: ACADEMIC UNIT ASSESSMENT REPORT TEMPLATE 

The following are areas that must be included in each assessment plan: 

I. Basic Information 

Program/Department: 

Report Semester/Year: 

College: 

Assessment Coordinator: 

Specialized Accreditation NO ☐ Yes ☐ 

Specialized Agency/Organization & Date: 

II. Department Mission 

III. 

Which Morgan State University Strategic Goal(s) Does This Mission Support? 

MORGAN STATE UNIVERSITY STRATEGIC GOALS 

DEPARTMENT MISSION 

SUPPORTS THIS GOAL 

1. Enhancing Student Success 

2. Enhancing Morgan’s Success as a Doctoral Research University 

3. Improving and Sustaining Infrastructure and Operational 

Processes 

4. Growing Morgan’s Resources 

5. Engaging with the Community 

29

IV. 

Which College/School Strategic Goal(s) Does This Mission Support? 

COLLEGE/SCHOOL/INSTITUTE STRATEGIC GOALS 


SUPPORTS THIS GOAL 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

V. Department Student Learning Outcomes: 

Please List 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

VI. 

What Opportunities Did Students Have This Year to Achieve These Outcomes? 

(Please Attach or Insert Copies of Instruments, Assignments, Etc.) 

Course, Internship, Comp, Thesis, 

Project, Surveys, Etc. 

Outcome 1 Outcome 2 Outcome 3 Outcome 4 Outcome 5 

30

VII. 

What Assessment Tools Did You Use to Measure These Outcomes? (Please Attach or 

Insert Copies of Instruments, Assignments, Etc.) 

Assessment Tools Outcome 1 Outcome 2 Outcome 3 Outcome 4 Outcome 5 

VIII. When Did You Conduct These Assessments? (Please Check All That Apply) 

☐ 

☐ 

☐ 

☐ 

☐ 

☐ 

☐ 

☐ 

During the Semester 

At the Beginning of the Semester 

At the End of the Semester 

At the Beginning and End of the Major Program 

In the Capstone Course 

During the Senior Year 

Post-Graduation 

Other (Please Specify): 

IX. With Whom Will You Share Assessment Information? (Please Check All That Apply) 

☐ 

☐ 

☐ 

☐ 

☐ 

☐ 

☐ 

Faculty in the Department 

Students in the Program 

Campus Administrators 

Alumni 

Employers 

External Community Members 

Other (Please Specify): 

X. What Were Your Primary Findings From Your Assessments? Please Attach or Insert 

Copies of Data Analyses, Summaries, Reports, ETC. 

31

XI. 

How Did These Findings Differ from Last’s Year’s Results? 

XII. 

To What Extent Did You Complete the Action Steps for Improvement Identified in 

Last Year’s Report? Please Address Each Action Step Identified in Last Year’s Report. 

XIII. How Do You Plan to Use This Year’s Assessment Results for Improvement within 

Your Department? Please Attach an Action Plan or Timeline for Implementing 

Improvements Based on Assessment Results 

XIV. Please Describe Any Additional Resources That Will Be Required to Fully 

Implement These Improvements? Address How You Will Use Your Assessments 

Results To Inform Your Decisions About Resource Allocation And Use. Attach Any 

Additional Information As Needed. 

XV. Required Signatures Date 

Assessment Coordinator: _____________________ ________________ 

Department Chair: _____________________ ________________ 

Dean: _____________________ ________________ 

AVP Academic Affairs: _____________________ ________________ 

Chairperson, SLA Committee: _____________________ ________________ 

32

APPENDIX B: NON ACADEMIC UNIT REPORT TEMPLATE 


NON ACADEMIC UNIT ASSESSMENT REPORT 

UNIT/OFFICE: _____________________ REPORT YEAR: __________________ 

DIVISION: _______________ 

ASSESSMENT COORDINATOR: ____________________ 

UNIT MISSION 

WHICH MORGAN STATE UNIVERSITY STRATEGIC GOAL(S) DOES THIS MISSION SUPPORT? 

MORGAN STATE UNIVERSITY STRATEGIC GOALS 

1. Enhancing Student Success 

2. Enhancing Morgan’s Success as a Doctoral Research University 

3. Improving and Sustaining Morgan’s Infrastructure and Operational 

Processes 

4. Growing Morgan’s Resources 

5. Engaging with the Community 

UNIT MISSION 

SUPPORTS THIS 

GOAL 

WHICH DIVISION STRATEGIC GOAL(S) DOES THIS MISSION SUPPORT? 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

DIVISION STRATEGIC GOALS (PLEASE LIST) 

DEPARTMENT 

MISSION 

SUPPORTS THIS 

GOAL 

UNIT OUTCOMES: (PLEASE LIST) 

1. 

2. 

33

3. 

4. 

5. 

WHAT OPPORTUNITIES DO YOUR STAFF HAVE TO ACHIEVE THESE OUTCOMES? (PLEASE 

ATTACH COPIES OF INSTRUMENTS, ASSIGNMENTS, ETC) 

OPPORTUNITY 

OUTCOME 

1 

OUTCOME 

2 

OUTCOME 

3 

OUTCOME 

4 

OUTCOME 

5 

WHEN DID YOU ASSESS EACH OUTCOME? 

UNIT OUTCOME FALL 2012 

SPRING 

2013 

WHICH ASSESSMENT TOOLS DO YOU USE TO MEASURE THESE OUTCOMES? PLEASE ATTACH 

COPIES OF INSTRUMENTS, CRITERIA, ETC. 

ASSESSMENT TOOL 

OUTCOME 

1 

OUTCOME 

2 

OUTCOME 

3 

OUTCOME 

4 

OUTCOME 

5 

34

WHEN DID YOU CONDUCT THESE ASSESSMENTS? (PLEASE CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) 

DURING THE SEMESTER AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF THE COURSE AT THE 

END OF EACH ACADEMIC YEAR 

AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF THE MAJOR PROGRAM 

DURING SENIOR YEAR 

POST-GRADUATION OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) 

________________________________________________________ 

IN THE CAPSTONE COURSE 

WITH WHOM WILL YOU SHARE YOUR ASSESSMENT INFORMATION? (PLEASE CHECK ALL 

THAT APPLY) 

STAFF STUDENTS CAMPUS ADMINISTRATORS 

ALUMNI EMPLOYERS EXTERNAL COMMUNITY MEMBERS 

OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) 

________________________________________________________ 

WHAT WERE YOUR PRIMARY FINDINGS FROM YOUR ASSESSMENTS? PLEASE ATTACH COPIES OF 

DATA ANALYSES, SUMMARIES, REPORTS, ETC. 

HOW DID THESE FINDINGS DIFFER FROM LAST’S YEAR’S RESULTS? 

TO WHAT EXTENT DID YOU COMPLETE THE ACTION STEPS FOR IMPROVEMENT IDENTIFIED 

IN LAST YEAR’S ASSESSMENT REPORT? PLEASE ADDRESS EACH ACTION STEP IDENTIFIED IN LAST 

YEAR’S REPORT. 

35

HOW DO YOU PLAN TO USE THIS YEAR’S ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR IMPROVEMENT WITHIN 

YOUR UNIT? PLEASE ATTACH AN ACTION PLAN OR TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTING IMPROVEMENTS BASED ON 

ASSESSMENT RESULTS. 

HOW WILL YOU ALTER/REVISE YOUR UNIT OUTCOMES FOR THE COMING ACADEMIC YEAR 

BASED ON THIS YEAR’S ASSESSMENT RESULTS? PLEASE ATTACH A COPY OF REVISED GOALS, IF 

APPROPRIATE. 

PLEASE DESCRIBE ANY ADDITIONAL RESOURCES THAT WILL BE REQUIRED TO FULLY 

IMPLEMENT THESE IMPROVEMENTS? ADDRESS HOW YOU WILL USE YOUR ASSESSMENT 

RESULTS TO INFORM YOUR DECISIONS ABOUT RESOURCE ALLOCATION AND USE. PLEASE 

ATTACH ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS NEEDED. 

Required Signatures 

Date 

Assessment Coordinator: _____________________ ________________ 

Unit Director: _____________________ ________________ 

AVP Academic Affairs: _____________________ ________________ 

Chairperson, SLA Committee: _____________________ ________________ 

36

APPENDIX C: ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORT FEEDBACK TEMPLATE 

UNIVERSITY ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE 

ANNUAL STUDENT LEARNING ASSESSMENT REPORT FEEDBACK 

Program/Department: 

Assessment Coordinator: 

Reviewed by: 

Date of Review: 


Undeveloped: there is no mission statement listed, or the mission is vague and provides no 

insight into the goals and direction of the program. 

Developing: the mission statement provides cursory insight into the goals and direction of 

the program. 

Established: the mission statement provides clear insight into the goals and direction of 

the program. 

Exemplary: the mission statement provides clear insight into the goals and direction of the 

program AND links to the MSU mission statement. 

Comments: 

STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES 

Undeveloped: there are no student learning outcomes listed, or the outcomes are vague 

and/or unclear. 

Developing: there are clear student learning outcomes listed but they may be difficult to 

measure. 

Established: there are student learning outcomes listed that are clear and measureable. 

Exemplary: there are student learning outcomes listed that are clear and measureable AND 

connect to the mission of the department. 

Comments: 

37

OPPORTUNITIES TO ACHIEVE STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES 

Undeveloped: there are no opportunities provided to achieve student learning outcomes or 

only one opportunity per outcome. 

Developing: there are one or two opportunities provided for students to achieve each 

learning outcome. 

Established: there are more than two opportunities for students to achieve each learning 

outcome. 

Exemplary: there are more than two opportunities for students to achieve each learning 

outcome AND at least two of the opportunities provide for achievement of more than one 

outcome. 

Comments: 

ASSESSMENT TOOLS 

Undeveloped: there are no assessment tools linked to outcomes or only one tool per 

outcome. 

Developing: there are one or two assessment tools for each learning outcome. 

Established: there are more than two assessment tools for each learning outcome. 

Exemplary: there are more than two assessment tools for each learning outcome AND at 

least two of the tool will measure more than one outcome. 

Comments: 

ASSESSMENT TIMELINE AND SHARING OF INFORMATION 

Undeveloped: there is no assessment timeline or indication of how/with whom information 

will be shared. 

Developing: an assessment timeline is given but there is no indication of how/with whom 

information will be shared. 

Established: an assessment timeline and a plan for sharing information are provided. 

Exemplary: an assessment timeline is provided with two or more assessment times noted 

as well as a plan to share assessment information with two or more groups. 

Comments: 

38

USE OF RESULTS 

Undeveloped: there is no evidence of a plan to systematically use assessment results for 

improvement. 

Developing: there is evidence of a plan to use assessment results for improvement but the 

plan is not systematic. 

Established: there is evidence of a systematic plan to use assessment results for 

improvement. 

Exemplary: there is evidence of a systematic plan to use assessment results for 

improvement that INCLUDES assessment of the improvements. 

Comments: 

LINKING RESULTS TO BUDGET AND RESOURCE ALLOCATION 

Undeveloped: there is no evidence of a plan to systematically link assessment results to 

budget and resource allocation. 

Developing: there is evidence of a plan to link assessment results to budget and resource 

allocation, but the plan is not systematic. 

Established: there is evidence of a systematic plan to link assessment results to budget and 

resource allocation. 

Exemplary: there is evidence of a systematic plan to link assessment results to budget and 

resource allocation that INCLUDES assessment of the impact of allotted resources. 

Comments: 

ITEMS IN THE REPORT THAT THE DEPARTMENT/PROGRAM SHOULD WORK TO IMPROVE: 

Signature of Reviewer___________________________________ 

Date Reviewed_________________ 

39

APPENDIX D: LIST OF UAC MEMBERS 

UAC Members Affiliation Email 

Solomon Alao Education & Urban Studies Solomon.alao@morgan.edu 

Nicassia Belton Mathematics nicassia.belton@morgan.edu 

Mark Garrison Graduate School mark.garrison@morgan.edu 

Ann Gunnett Nursing ann.gunnett@morgan.edu 

Douglas Gwynn Residence Life Douglas.Gwynn@morgan.edu 

Garrya Hatton Academic Affairs garrya.hatton@morgan.edu 

Ricardo Howell Liberal Arts Ricardo.Howell@morgan.edu 

Brenda James Academic Success brenda.james@morgan.edu 

Petronella James Electrical Engineering petronella.james@morgan.edu 

Bickram Janak Finance & Management Bickram.Janak@morgan.edu 

Phyllis Keys Business phyllis.keys@morgan.edu 

Kemi Ladeji-Osias School of Engineering jumoke.ladeji-osias@morgan.edu 

Melissa Littlefield Social Work melissa.littlefield@morgan.edu 

Vinetta McCullough Business & Auxiliary vinetta.mccullough@morgan.edu 

Cynthia Mendoza-Robinson Information Technology cynthia.mendoza@morgan.edu 

Tiffany Mfume Student Retention tiffany.mfume@morgan.edu 

Allan Noonan Public Health Allan.Noonan@morgan.edu 

Sandip Patel Information Science sandip.patel@morgan.edu 

Carrol Perrino Psychology Carrol.Perrino@morgan.edu 

Evelyn Perry Education & Urban Studies Evelyn.Perry@morgan.edu 

Glenda Prime Education & Urban Studies Glenda.Prime@Morgan.edu 

Cheryl Rollins Institutional Research Cheryl.Rollins@morgan.edu 

Karen Rubinstein Technology Training karen.rubinstein@morgan.edu 

Services 

Tanya Rush Student Affairs Tanya.Rush@morgan.edu 

Craig Scott School of Engineering craig.scott@morgan.edu 

Siddhartha Sen Architecture and Planning siddhartha.sen@morgan.edu 

40

Kim Sydnor Public Health kim.sydnor@morgan.edu 

Paul Voos Architecture and Planning paul.voos@morgan.edu 

Henrietta Wright Education & Urban Studies Henrietta.wright@morgan.edu 

APPENDIX E: TIMELINE FOR THE PROGRAM REVIEW PROCESS 

Deadline 

Summer prior 

to review 

Action 

The Assistant Vice President for Assessment and Operations (AVP) sends 

you a reminder about your upcoming program review. 

The AVP meets with you to review the program review process. 

You identify three potential external reviewers, confirm their willingness to 

serve, and submit their credentials to your Dean. 

The Dean notifies you of his/her choice for external reviewer. 

By September 

30 

By December 15 

By April 15 

By May 15 

By June 15 

You design your program review process: 

Develop a calendar to ensure that the review is completed on 

schedule and submit it to your dean and the Assistant Vice President 

for Assessment and Operations (AVP). 

Schedule the external reviewer’s visit and complete necessary 

paperwork. 

You obtain and analyze information and draft the program review report. 

To ensure that the vision developed during the program review process is 

feasible, keep your Dean informed of your work and thinking throughout 

the program review process. 

You host the external reviewer’s visit and receive the external reviewer’s 

report. 

You finalize the program review (self-study) and draft the two-page 

summary report to be submitted to the Dean and Provost. 

You submit your program review report, including the external reviewers 

report and your response, to your Dean for review. 

You meet with your Dean to discuss the report and receive the Dean’s 

signature on the report. 

41

By July 15 

By August 15 

By September 

15 

By September 

30 

By October 15 

You submit all program review materials (program review report, external 

reviewer’s report, two-page summary report, and signed signature form) to 

the AVP for processing. 

The AVP reviews the report for compliance with guidelines, contacting the 

Dean, Chair, Director, or Coordinator for information or clarification if 

needed. 

The AVP submits the report to the Academic Program Review Committee 

for substantive review and comment. These comments, the summary 

report, and the signature form are then sent from the Committee to the 

Provost for review and signature. 

The Provost will meet with the Dean to discuss the review. 

The Provost submits the Program Review to the President. 

APPENDIX F: COVER PAGE OF THE PROGRAM REVIEW PROCESS 

COVER PAGE FOR PERIODIC PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT 

COMPLETE THIS COVER PAGE FOR EACH PROGRAM REVIEW AND SUBMIT TO YOUR DEAN 

ALONG WITH A COPY OF THE SELF-STUDY REPORT, EXTERNAL REVIEWER’S REPORT, AND 

DEPARTMENT ACTION PLAN. 

SCHOOL/COLLEGE: 

DEPARTMENT: 

PROGRAM(S) REVIEWED: 

YEAR OF PROGRAM REVIEW: 

ACCREDITING BODY (IF APPLICABLE): 

EXTERNAL REVIEWER(S): 

SUMMARY OF THE INTERNAL SELF-STUDY REVIEW (INCLUDE FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION): 

SUMMARY OF THE EXTERNAL SELF-STUDY REVIEW (INCLUDE FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTIONS): 

42

ENROLLMENTS AND DEGREES AWARDED FOR EACH OF THE PAST FIVE YEARS IN THIS 

PROGRAM: 

DEGREES AWARDED 2007-2011 

BACHELORS MASTERS PHD 

ENROLLMENT 2007-2011 

BACHELORS MASTERS PHD 

DEPARTMENT ACTION PLAN(S) FOR ADDRESSING RECOMMENDATIONS, INCLUDING 

RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS AND METHODS FOR ASSESSING PROGRESS ON PLAN: 

Action plan will follow the AACSB Maintenance of Accreditation Handbook recommendations 

for steps to increase faculty expertise and interaction with the local business community. Action 

steps will also be developed as part of the School’s new Strategic Plan. 

DEPARTMENT CHAIR (PRINT NAME) SIGNATURE DATE 

DEAN (PRINT NAME) SIGNATURE DATE 

AVP ASSESSMENT (PRINT NAME) SIGNATURE DATE 

ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW 

COMMITTEE 

SIGNATURE 

DATE 

VICE PRESIDENT AND PROVOST (PRINT 

NAME) 

SIGNATURE 

DATE 

PRESIDENT (PRINT NAME) SIGNATURE DATE 

44

APPENDIX G: FINANCE AND MANAGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 

Finance and Management Developed Goals and Objectives 

In addition to the budget process, the Finance and Management Division has worked with the 

Assessment Committee to develop goals and objectives and engage in periodic assessment of 

how well it is achieving them. See the matrix below: 

Unit/Program Mission: To effectively and efficiently provide a variety of financial, administrative and 

construction management support services to faculty, staff and students. Further, the Division strives to 

ensure an attractive, safe, and functional environment to facilitate quality teaching, learning, research, 

and public service activities. 

MSU Strategic 

Goal 

Enhancing 

Student 

Success 

Unit/Program 

Goal 

1. Expanded food 

service options for 

faculty, staff and 

students 

2. Improve 

employee morale 

3. Improve student 

safety awareness 

relations and safe 

pedestrian travel 

4. Provide inperson 

services to 

non-traditional 

students 

5. Provide direct 

deposit 

Methods to 

Accomplish 

Goal 

1. Expansion of 

facilities 

2. Updating HR 

manuals and 

making web 

access 

convenient 

3. Community 

outreach, 

institute safe 

walk 

orientation 

program 

4. Extended 

hours of 

operation 

Methods to 

Assess Goal 

1. Increased 

value of sales 

2. Employee 

surveys 

3. Customer 

satisfaction 

survey 

4. Schedule 

modifications and 

surveys 

5. Transfer of 

funds 

Anticipated 

Outcomes 

1. Improved 

customer 

satisfaction 

2. Better 

appreciation and 

understanding of 

decisions 

3. Improved 

relationship w/ 

community and 

students and to 

provide crime 

prevention 

education 

4. Increased 

satisfaction of 

non-traditional 

students 

Timeline for 

Assessment 

2015 

Ongoing 

2014 

1/1/13 – 

1/1/14 

1/1/14 

6/30/13 

Responsibility 

for Assessment 

Business Services 

Director 

HR Director 

Director of OCPS 

Bursar 

Asst. V.P. for 

Finance & 

Management 

V.P. for Finance 

& Management 

6. Provide 

information/visitor 

center 

5. Obtain 

approval from 

State system 

6. Provide 

furniture and 

staffing 

6. Operational 

station 

5. Accelerated/ 

convenient 

means of 

disbursing 

refunds 

6 Improved 

informational 

services to 

students. 

Enhancing 

MSU Status as 

Doctoral 

Research 

7. Develop tenyear 

facilities 

master plan aimed 

at defining capital 

infrastructure 

7. Assessment 

of historical and 

current trends; 

meet with 

faculty, staff 

and students; 

7. Completion 

and approval of 

master plan by 

President and 

Board of Regents, 

submittal of plan 

7. Ten-year 

capital plan with 

schedule for 

implementation 

of individual 

projects and 

1 year Facilities Planner 

45

University 

Improving and 

Sustaining 

Infrastructure 

and 

Operational 

Processes 

8. Development 

and submittal of 

facility programs to 

obtain State 

funding to design 

and construct 

state-of-the-art 

buildings that will 

meet the needs of 

faculty and 

students as well as 

various disciplines 

9. Increase student 

housing 

10. Enhance 

payment processes 

online 

11. Obtain 

accreditation from 

the International 

Association of 

Campus Law 

Enforcement 

Executives for the 

Police Department 

12. Maintain a 

healthy, safe and 

clean learning 

environment 

understanding 

current and 

future teaching 

pedagogies 

8. Data 

collection and 

analysis of 

University-wide 

inputs specific 

to the particular 

unit being 

addressed 

9. Pursue 

various 

financing 

options 

10. Build and 

maintain an 

interface 

between 

payment 

gateway and 

Banner 

11. Obtain an 

accreditation 

manager; 

improve dept. 

infrastructure 

to better 

facilitate day to 

day operations; 

upgrade rules, 

procedures and 

public safety 

practices 

to State 

controlling 

agencies 

8. Completion 

and submittal of 

programs 

9. Signing of 

contract 

10. Work with 

I.T. and Touchnet 

to ensure 

connectivity and 

compatibility 

11. Self 

assessment and 

accreditation by 

IACLEE review 

panel 

12. Physical 

inspections, 

assessments and 

maintenance by 

contractor(s) 

inclusion of 

projects in 

annual five-year 

CIP request to 

the State for 

support 

8. Additional 

capital funding 

9. 300-500 

additional 

University or 

Universityaffiliated 

housing 

10. Reduced 

lines and 

improved 

customer 

satisfaction 

11. The Police 

Department will 

adhere to the 

latest practices 

and standards in 

higher education 

12. Improved 

appearance, 

cleanliness and 

safety of campus 

Annually 

1/1/14 

7/1/11 – 

6/30/13 

2015 

Ongoing 

Facilities Planner 

/ 

Design & 

Construction 

Director 

V.P. for Finance 

& Management 

Bursar 


Physical Plant 

Director 

Growing 

Morgan’s 

Resources 

Engaging with 

the 

Community 

13. Expand use of 

one card (I.D./debit 

card) to several 

retail operations 

14. Evaluate 

operations for 

increased 

efficiencies 

15. Continue to 

update the 

community on 

planned 

development 

activities on 

campus, forging 

12. Recruit and 

retain qualified 

staff, 

maintenance 

contracts in 

specialized 

areas 

13. Agreements 

with vendors 

and service 

from I.T. 

14. Contract 

professional 

firm to identify 

opportunities 

15. Community 

outreach – 

ongoing 

meetings and 

various other 

forums 

13. Number of 

additional 

units/operations 

14. Establish 

savings versus 

constrained 

services 

15. Feedback 

from surrounding 

community 

organizations 

13. Increased 

convenience for 

students 

14. Reallocation 

opportunities 

15. Improved 

relationship with 

the community 

and increased 

support for 

future campus 

projects 

1/1/13 

1/1/13 

Ongoing 

Business Services 

Director 

Asst. V.P. for 

Finance & 

Management 

Design & 

Construction 

Director / 

Community & 

Economic 

Development 

Director 

46

mutually beneficial 

development 

opportunities 

16. Provide 

businesses in the 

community with 

crime prevention 

information and 

security 

assessments 

16. Provide 

security 

assessments to 

businesses in 

the Northeast 

Baltimore area 

16. Written 

security surveys 

that will allow 

business owners 

to see how to 

prevent crimes 

and decrease 

product 

shrinkage 

16. Businesses 

will have fewer 

crimes and loss 

less merchandise 

2014 


GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

47

AACSB: Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business 

AAS: Academic Affairs Subcommittee 

ABET: Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology 

Accountability: justifying the investment of resources by providing substantive evidence and 

analysis for demonstrating that the investment yields significant results. 

Action Plan: a description of activities to be undertaken for achieving objective(s), including 

implementation details, scheduled date(s) of completion, and the required financial commitment. 

Activity: an event designed to affect a specified outcome. Activities occur as components of 

courses in instructional programs and as extracurricular events in non-instructional programs; or 

they can occur independently from programs. 

APEX: Oracle Application Express 

Assessment: the ongoing process of establishing clear expected goals and outcomes with 

measurable objectives; ensuring that there are sufficient opportunities for affected areas to 

achieve the outcomes and objectives; and systematically gathering, analyzing, and interpreting 

evidence to determine the degree to which outcomes and objectives match expectations 

AUAS: Administrative Unit Assessment Subcommittee 

AVPAO: Assistant Vice President for Assessment & Operations 

BAC: Budget Advisory Committee 

CAP: Comprehensive Assessment Plan 

CLA: Collegiate Learning Assessment 

Closing the Loop: using assessment results for program change & improvement. Direct and Indirect 

Measures of Learning – a direct measure is one by which students demonstrate what they have 

learned (exam, project). An indirect measure provides second hand information about student 

learning (a student questionnaire about what they’ve learned). 

Course: an organized series of instructional and learning activities, dealing with specified 

subject-matter, designed to affect specified learning outcomes. 

Data: factual information, such as observations or measurements—especially such information 

organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions. 

Evaluation: 1) the part of the assessment process that uses professional judgment to form 

conclusions about the data. 2) Using assessment information in combination with professional 

judgment to make appropriate decisions about what has been assessed. 

48

GEAS: General Education Assessment Subcommittee 

Goal: a broad institutional, unit, or program aim (e.g., to enhance student success or to provide 

community service), deriving from the institution, unit, or program’s mission and effectuated for 

a given period of time through a planning process. 

Institutional Effectiveness: the ability of an institution to achieve its stated mission and goals, 

i.e., its expanded statement of institutional purpose. 

KPIs: Key Performance Indicators or quantifiable goals that measure performance. These goals 

are well-defined, critical to an organization's success, and reflect the organization's mission and 

goals. KPIs are usually measured against benchmarks. 

MAPP: Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress 

MSCHE: Middle States Commission on Higher Education 

MSU: Morgan State University 

NCATE: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education 

NSSE: National Survey of Student Engagement 

Nichols Assessment Model: A widely used Assessment Reporting Model designed by James O. 

Nichols of Institutional Effectiveness Associates. 

Objective: a specific operational or strategic, measurable aim derived from an overarching goal 

or outcome. Objectives add a specificity to outcomes that allows for measurement. Achieving 

any outcome generally requires fulfilling a number of objectives. Well-constructed objectives 

identify an Agent who will be performing a behavior, the nature of the Behavior to be exhibited, 

any pertinent Conditions under which the behavior will occur, the Degree that defines acceptable 

performance of the behavior, and an Endpoint, the time by which the behavior will be 

demonstrated (or ABCDE) approach. 

Program Review: Periodic self-studies in which departments are asked to present their mission 

statements; resources, including the number of faculty, faculty qualifications and productivity, 

teaching load, curriculum, and technology; learning outcomes and assessment measures; the 

ways in which departments have shared assessment results and used those results to inform 

departmental decision-making; and plans for improving learning. 

Rubric: A criteria-based scoring guideline that can be used to evaluate performance. Rubrics 

indicate the qualities the judge/reviewer will look for in differentiating levels of performance and 

assessing achievement. 

SAAS: Student Affairs Assessment Subcommittee 

49

Standards: Requirements of competency from an accrediting body. Standards set a level of 

accomplishment that students are expected to meet or exceed. Meeting assessment standards does not 

imply standardization of programs, rather that students were able to learn certain required skill sets 

through multiple pathways in a program before graduation. 

STEM: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 

Strategic Goals: goals based on a prediction that current circumstances will not prevail in the 

future, i.e., that there will be new trends, changes, or surprises. 

Strategic Plan: a document that articulates the institution’s strategic goals and identifies the best 

approaches for achieving them. 

Strategic Planning: a systematic and ongoing activity that an organization uses to anticipate and 

respond to its predicted needs and the predicted needs of its constituents for a three- to five-year 

period and beyond. 

Student Learning Outcome: Criteria for determining whether overall program goals are being 

successfully met and whether students are learning a program’s curriculum to a satisfactory level. 

UAC: University Assessment Committee 

REFERENCES 

Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for 

college teachers (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

50

Nichols, James O., A (1995). Practitioner’s Handbook for Institutional Effectiveness and Student 

Outcomes Assessment Implementation, Agathon Press, New York, Third Edition. 

Walvoord, B. E. (2010). Assessment clear and simple: A practical guide for institutions, 

departments, and general education (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Walvoord, B., & Anderson, V. J. (2009). Effective grading: A tool for learning and assessment 

(2nd ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

51

Verification of Compliance - Morgan State University

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?