Independent Audit Flags ‘Material Weakness’ in ED’s Most Recent Budget Estimates for Student Loan Cancellation

By Hugh T. Ferguson, NASFAA Managing Editor

President Joe Biden’s student loan debt relief plan has come under increased scrutiny from an annual audit of the Department of Education’s (ED) finances.

The audit, conducted by KPMG, an independent certified public accounting firm contracted by ED’s Office of Inspector General, reviewed the department’s financial report for fiscal year 2022, and expressed concern over estimates related to costs associated with the debt cancellation plan.

The audit went so far as to decline to render an opinion of ED’s fiscal year 2022 financial statements because it “has not been able to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide a basis for an audit opinion.”

KPMG explained that its lack of opinion stemmed from uncertainty surrounding ED’s broad-based debt relief estimates.

“Management was unable to provide adequate evidential matter to support certain key assumptions used to estimate the subsidy costs,” KPMG wrote.

As a part of budget estimates, the department concluded that the program would cost $305 billion over the course of a decade, while another analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that the program would cost $400 billion.

KPMG’s audit found ED’s process for developing its estimate for the program’s take-up rates was not properly designed, where the department’s estimate assumes that the vast majority of eligible borrowers — 81% — would participate in the program.

“Management's internal controls were not properly designed at an appropriate level of precision to address the relevance and reliability of the underlying data used to develop the take-up rate assumption used in the various loan program estimates,” KPMG wrote, finding “material weakness” in the estimates. “In addition, management did not design sufficiently precise controls over the relevance and reliability of certain data used in other key assumptions for the  Student Loan Model (SLM) cash flow model to develop the subsidy cost estimates.”

Congressional Republicans have continuously balked at the projected costs associated with the program and are now arguing that ED’s initial budget report is nothing more than a “sham.”

"The Department is blatantly lying about how much taxpayer money it is giving away,” said Education and the Workforce Committee Chairwoman Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.). “Two years and a half a trillion dollars later, it appears nothing has changed.”


Publication Date: 1/27/2023

Ben R | 2/16/2023 3:57:30 PM

When the first IBR plan was written in 2007 it was based on the "average" borrower who held about $19,000 at the time (now over $35,000). They weren't thinking about the high uptake among graduate borrowers who can borrow essentially uncapped amounts and typically enter IDR with $100K plus in loans.

Jeff A | 1/27/2023 10:6:19 AM

Looks like ED continues to repeat miscalculation findings raising serious doubt about their administrative capability.
Copied that directly from a FAD where <$50 Pell errors were repeated a few times over several years. Immaterial and outstanding compared to this audit result.

You must be logged in to comment on this page.

Comments Disclaimer: NASFAA welcomes and encourages readers to comment and engage in respectful conversation about the content posted here. We value thoughtful, polite, and concise comments that reflect a variety of views. Comments are not moderated by NASFAA but are reviewed periodically by staff. Users should not expect real-time responses from NASFAA. To learn more, please view NASFAA’s complete Comments Policy.

Related Content

Court Blocks Maximum Program Length Rule for GE Programs


Today's News for June 24, 2024


View Desktop Version