Seal of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Massachusetts Audit Explorer - what the State Auditor found

← all audits

Department of Education Community Partnerships for Children Program

· Read the full official report (PDF) ↗

Audit covers July 1, 1996 – June 30, 1999

In plain English
The preschool grant program was serving children well overall, but the auditor found weak oversight and about $10 million in problem spending or reporting issues that needed quick attention.
source
“However, we found deficiencies in seven areas involving approximately $10 million in state funds.”
Read the plain-English breakdown
What is this?

This is a state audit of Massachusetts' Community Partnerships for Children program, which gave money to local communities for preschool services for three- and four-year-olds.

“Under the CPC program, the Massachusetts Department of Education (DOE) awards grants and contracts to communities to serve three- and four-year-old children in preschool programs.”
Why was it audited?

The auditor reviewed whether the Department of Education had good controls over the program and whether local programs followed rules for using public money.

“The objective of our review was to assess the system of administrative and accounting controls DOE had established relative to the operation of the CPC program and, where necessary, to make recommendations on how to improve these controls.”
Why it matters

The program had grown quickly and was handling a large amount of taxpayer money, so poor controls could mean money was not reaching children and families as intended.

“Specifically, from fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 1999, state appropriations rose from $22.6 million to $78.6 million--a 247% funding increase.”
What's in it for me?

If you are a parent, taxpayer, or community member, this matters because the program was supposed to make preschool more affordable and accessible, especially for working families.

“Families participating in the CPC program must pay fees in accordance with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Subsidized Child Care Sliding Fee Scale.”
The bottom line

The auditor said the program was doing useful work, but the Department of Education needed stronger rules, monitoring, reporting, and recovery of unused or improperly spent funds.

“Our audit found that overall, the CPC program is providing quality program services to its target population.”
What happens next

The report recommends that DOE tighten oversight, require better reports, set penalties for late or missing filings, conduct site reviews, and recover improper charges where appropriate.

“DOE should establish procedures to effectively monitor CPC activities and ensure that CPC program participants are eligible for services, parents are properly charged, and the Commonwealth does not incur inappropriate expenses.”
Why it's significant

This was significant because the audit found problems across many parts of the program: reporting, unused funds, improper purchases, questionable construction spending, subcontractor billing, eligibility checks, collaboration, and missing contracts.

“These deficiencies, which were primarily the result of inadequate internal controls within DOE's system of administrative and accounting controls over the CPC program, warrant immediate attention and action by DOE and the CPCs.”
Jargon, unpacked

CPC means Community Partnerships for Children, DOE means the Massachusetts Department of Education, and a CPC Council is the local group meant to coordinate preschool services in a community.

“Legislation requires that participating communities form a CPC Council, which is a mechanism for developing collaborative relationships and partnerships that improve early childhood care and education in the community.”
Identified in this audit - source-verified
$591,388

20 figure(s) pending source verification - not shown

What the Auditor checked

What the Auditor found

DOE lacked adequate internal controls over CPC funding, reporting, monitoring, and recovery of unexpended funds.
internal controlsrecordkeeping/documentationreporting timelinessgrants management

Why it matters: There was inadequate assurance that CPC funds were safeguarded, accurately reported, and returned when unexpended, and legislative funding decisions could be based on incomplete or inaccurate information.

Standard: Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 15, Section 54(K); DOE Final Financial Report requirements. ( Part I, Section (B), of DOE's Final Financial Report )

6 recommendations
  • DOE should consider promulgating CPC program regulations.
  • DOE should update CPC program guidelines if regulations are not promulgated.
  • DOE should require more detailed annual reporting from CPCs.
  • DOE should establish penalties for late or missing FFRs and unpaid balances.
  • DOE should conduct regular site reviews.
  • DOE should ensure required reports are submitted and unexpended funds are remitted.
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "DOE's Chief Financial Officer indicated that the internal control deficiencies noted were, in part, due to inadequate administrative funding received by DOE."
CPCs spent about $1.1 million on unnecessary, unallowable, and late purchases instead of direct services.
procurement/contractsgrants managementinternal controls

Why it matters: Funds intended for direct services were redirected to supplies, equipment, and services, reducing resources available to eligible preschool children and conflicting with fiscal year spending rules.

Standard: Chapter 15, Section 54, of the General Laws; DOE Form AM1; Office of the State Comptroller fiscal year closing instructions. ( Chapter 15, Section 54, of the General Laws; DOE Form AM1; Office of the State Comptroller fiscal year closing/opening instructions )

3 recommendations
  • DOE should establish monitoring and internal control procedures over CPC activities.
  • DOE should determine how much CPC funding directly serves children of working parents.
  • DOE should evaluate future CPC service need and report it annually to the Legislature.
Chicopee and Worcester used $563,096 in CPC funds for questionable capital expenditures.
procurement/contractsgrants managementinternal controlsvendor oversight

Why it matters: Capital improvements primarily benefited non-CPC children and private nonprofit providers, creating unallowable or questionable costs to the Commonwealth.

Standard: Chapter 15, Section 54, of the General Laws. ( Chapter 15, Section 54, of the General Laws )

1 recommendation
  • DOE should monitor capital project expenditures to ensure CPC children receive the required benefit.
Subcontractors improperly billed CPC services, causing $234,916 in unnecessary charges.
procurement/contractsvendor oversightinternal controlscash handling

Why it matters: The Commonwealth paid for retained parent fees, unreturned funds, duplicate payments, and service days when children were not enrolled.

Standard: DOE program guidelines and the Commonwealth Terms and Conditions for Contracts. ( Commonwealth Terms and Conditions for contracts; DOE program guidelines )

3 recommendations
  • DOE should develop specific rules for parent fee treatment in CPC budgets and billings.
  • DOE should require CPCs to identify and collect unexpended subcontractor funds and define billable nonenrolled days.
  • DOE should recover improperly billed and unnecessary charges.
CPCs did not properly assess eligibility or apply the sliding fee scale.
eligibility determinationrecordkeeping/documentationinternal controls

Why it matters: Families and the Commonwealth were charged incorrect amounts, and CPC funds served some ineligible children or children of non-working parents.

Standard: Commonwealth of Massachusetts Subsidized Child Care Sliding Fee Scale; Chapter 15, Section 54, of the General Laws; DOE program guidelines. ( Commonwealth of Massachusetts Subsidized Child Care Sliding Fee Scale; Chapter 15, Section 54, of the General Laws )

1 recommendation
  • DOE should monitor CPC eligibility and fee assessment activities.
CPCs were not consistently operating as collaborative councils.
internal controlsrecordkeeping/documentationgrants management

Why it matters: There was inadequate assurance that CPC services were coordinated and delivered optimally.

Standard: Chapter 15, Section 54(c), of the General Laws; DOE guidelines for Community Partnership Councils. ( Chapter 15, Section 54(c), of the General Laws; DOE guidelines )

2 recommendations
  • DOE should require CPC compliance attestations and sanctions for violations.
  • DOE should require minimum attendance standards for CPC Councils.
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "Regarding the attendance at Council meetings, most of the CPC officials with whom we spoke stated that it was difficult to get parents to participate on the Council and attend meetings."
CPC services totaling $1,297,516 were provided without properly executed written contracts.
procurement/contractsvendor oversightrecordkeeping/documentationinternal controls

Why it matters: Parties may not have understood their obligations and CPCs lacked a mechanism to monitor and evaluate subcontractor performance.

Standard: Section VII of DOE guidelines. ( Section VII of DOE guidelines )

1 recommendation
  • DOE should ensure CPCs enter into formal written agreements with all subcontracted service providers.

Verified dollar findings

Improper payments identified $591,388

Money paid out that the audit found should not have been - overpayments, unallowable and nonreimbursable charges, improper claims.

$356,472 - unallowable expenses
$234,916 - unnecessary charges
Other identified $1,106,077 not in headline

Identified dollar findings that do not fall in a named band.

$1,106,077 - reallocated funds