During the program’s first four fiscal years—2010 through 2013—the  USOC served an intermediary role in program management, receiving  grant funds from VA and sub-granting them to organizations that provided  adaptive sports opportunities and events. Grant Selection Process Had Limitations in Fiscal Year 2014, but VA Implemented an Improved Process in Fiscal Year 2015

		VA Faced a Tight Timeframe in Selecting Fiscal Year 2014 Grantees

In fiscal year 2014, the first year VA was responsible for selecting eligible  entities to receive grants under the adaptive sports grant program, VA  officials reported challenges because of tight time frames to obtain and  review grant applications and the lack of a standard application form  tailored for the adaptive sports grant program. Because law and regulation required the program’s  grant applications to include information that the SF-424 forms are not  designed to include—such as a description of the roles of any partner  organization—VA required narrative attachments to this standard  application form. These narratives varied greatly in length, detail, and  format. In addition, VA officials said that,  despite repeated VA communication, some applicants did not understand  the limitation on administrative expenses. However, 3 of 16 grant files we reviewed contained neither this form nor  any other documentation of the administrative and financial capabilities of  the grantee. For  example, 7 of the 16 grant applications we reviewed lacked clear  documentation that the 7.5 percent limit on administrative expenses had  been observed in proposed budgets. VA Monitors Grantees in Several Ways, but its Approach for 2014 Grantees Had Limitations

		The Design of VA’s Monitoring Approach is Consistent with Grants Management Criteria, but Further Improvements Could be Made

VA’s approach to monitoring grantees, as outlined in VA grants  management policy and an agency memorandum on monitoring  techniques, includes regular grantee reporting, supplemented with  monitoring through detailed site visits and desk audits of selected  grantees. However, the draft plan lacks certain  elements, such as information on the number and frequency of site visits  and desk audits. Also, in our review of the selected  grantee files, we found evidence that VA reviewed the quarterly reports to  ensure that grantees were operating according to the terms of their grant  agreements with VA.
For 6 of the first-quarter and 12 of the second-quarter reports we  reviewed, we found that VA identified issues for follow up, and requested  additional information from grantees. We reviewed reports on the results of 8 VA site visits, covering 9 of its 69  grants, conducted from November 2014 through June 2015. In August 2015, a VA official stated that they had initiated  a desk audit of one grantee. VA Grants Funded a Range of Adaptive Sports Activities, but Some Grantees Expressed Concern with No-Shows

		Fiscal Year 2014 Grants Funded Many Distinct Sport Activities

The 69 adaptive sports grants awarded by VA in fiscal year 2014  supported a wide range of activities, with cycling, boating, snow skiing,  and archery among the most frequent (see fig. 2). 3). Importantly, a total  of about $459,000—about 5.7 percent of the total $8 million awarded— was budgeted as administrative costs. VA officials confirmed that no-shows are a problem. However, VA has not systematically gathered and disseminated  permissible techniques for reducing no-show rates to all of its grantees. Our review indicates that through the first half of  fiscal year 2015, grantees were substantially complying with reporting  requirements and that site visits to selected grantees have identified  opportunities for improvement. Further, VA is amending its quarterly  reporting template so that it will require a report of staff time spent on  direct personal interaction with participants, and time spent on other  matters, as required by program regulations. However, VA’s draft  monitoring plan does not include a regular schedule for site visits or desk  audits, which risks the possibility that none will be performed in some  years, or that they will be performed very late in the year. VA concurred with our conclusions and both of our  recommendations. Regarding the second recommendation, VA stated that the agency  plans to systematically gather and disseminate techniques from a variety  of sources to reduce no-show rates. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and Methodology

The objectives of this engagement were to determine (1) how the VA  adaptive sports grant program selected grantees to provide adaptive  sports programs and activities for veterans and service members with  disabilities; (2) how VA monitors grantees’ use of funds; and (3) what  programs and activities have been supported with fiscal year 2014 funds,  and what is known about how veterans and service members with  disabilities have benefited from these programs and activities.
Why GAO Did This Study

VA's adaptive sports grant program distributes $8 million annually to organizations that provide sports activities for veterans and service members with disabilities. The U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC) played an intermediary role from fiscal year 2010, when the program was implemented, through 2013. USOC received funds from VA and subgranted them to selected grantees. VA is now responsible for selecting grantees and program administration. Congress included a provision in statute for GAO to review VA's program management.
GAO reviewed (1) how VA selected grantees to provide activities for veterans and service members with disabilities; (2) how VA monitors grantees' use of funds; and (3) what programs and activities were supported with fiscal year 2014 funds, and what is known about its benefits. GAO reviewed a nongeneralizable sample of 16 of the 69 grant files accounting for about $3.7 million of the $8 million awarded in fiscal year 2014; and interviewed VA officials, as well as grantee officials and adaptive sports participants during site visits to adaptive sports events in three states, selected in part to ensure regional diversity.

What GAO Found

From December 2013 through September 2014, VA developed implementing regulations, announced availability of funding, and selected grantees—ultimately awarding 69 grants from a pool of 161 applications to receive funding under its adaptive sports grant program. VA selected grantees in three steps, including (1) eliminating non-qualifying applications, (2) scoring and ranking qualifying applications using nine criteria, such as strength of the proposed program concept, and (3) a final step that included, among other things, eliminating unnecessary costs from proposed budgets. VA officials said limited available time necessitated the use of a standard federal grant application form rather than one tailored for the program. Because the form did not include some information needed to assess applications—such as the roles of partner organizations—VA asked for narrative attachments. These attachments varied greatly in length and detail which VA officials said made their review quite labor intensive. In addition, some applications did not contain needed information. For example, 3 of the 16 grant files reviewed by GAO did not contain documentation of the grantee's financial management capabilities. VA customized its application form for fiscal year 2015, and VA officials said this led to a substantial improvement in the application process.
VA developed a grant monitoring approach for fiscal year 2014 grants that relied on quarterly and annual reports from grantees (containing information on financial and sports activities), site visits, and remote auditing of selected grantees. In the sample of 16 grant files reviewed, GAO found grantees generally complied with VA's quarterly reporting requirements. VA has improved the quarterly report template so that it requests information on time spent on direct personal interaction with participants. Through June 2015, VA provided GAO with reports of 8 visits covering 9 of its 69 grants. However, VA did not initiate a remote audit until August 2015. The agency developed a draft grant monitoring plan in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2015, but the plan does not specify the number or frequency of site visits and remote audits. This omission risks the possibility that none will be performed in some years, or performed very late in the year, thus missing an opportunity for prompt detection of the misuse of funds.
The grants supported a variety of sports activities and afforded participant benefits such as socialization and improved personal independence, according to the participants, coaches, and grantee officials GAO interviewed. The 69 grantees in fiscal year 2014 planned activities that encompassed many different adaptive sports, with cycling, boating, and snow skiing among the most common. Overall, the allotment for administrative costs in grantees' budgets was about 5.7 percent of the total $8 million awarded in fiscal year 2014—below the statutory maximum of 7.5 percent. However, some grantee officials expressed concern about a significant no-show rate. VA officials confirmed that no-shows are a problem, and stated that they had shared information with some grantees about ways to reduce no-shows. However, they have not systematically gathered and disseminated such techniques to all grantees, which could promote higher attendance rates and maximum benefit of federal dollars.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that VA (1) specify the number and frequency of annual site visits and remote audits, and (2) systematically identify and disseminate techniques for reducing no-shows. VA concurred with both recommendations.