Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Budget Disbursement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DOE deputy commissioner says department has sped up project payments, shifted majority of awards to 25% advance
Summary
Deputy Commissioner Suzanne Pridgen told the Higher Education Budget Subcommittee the Department of Education has implemented workflow tools, digitized much of its RFA process and moved most member-appropriation awards to a 25% advance payment to reduce delays; she also described audit practices and timelines for follow-up.
The Florida Department of Education has overhauled how it issues legislatively funded project awards, the department told the Higher Education Budget Subcommittee on Monday. Suzanne Pridgen, deputy commissioner for finance and operations, said the department identified roughly 230 requests for applications (RFAs) that generated nearly 1,100 state awards and that it has also processed about 85 federally funded RFAs that resulted in about 1,500 grant awards.
Pridgen said DOE moved away from primarily reimbursement-based payments and “shifted to advance payment for the majority of the awards for the 25-26 year,” meaning recipients now receive 25% of their award up front. She described the approach as a response to community-based organizations and smaller entities that lack operating cash and said the department requires recipients to demonstrate that they have spent 90% of project funds before issuing the next tranche.
The change accompanies process improvements recommended in a vendor-conducted study, Pridgen said. The department is implementing a workflow management system to track RFAs, preapprovals, prioritized funding lists, grant award proposals and amendments. Pridgen told the committee most grant packages and incoming items are now digitized and that staff are conducting internal and external training so entities can use the new system.
Committee members pressed DOE on performance metrics and internal oversight. Representative Franklin asked whether DOE runs internal audits and what targets the department measures. Pridgen said programmatic audits occur at the project level, the comptroller’s office reviews financials, and the department’s inspector general conducts internal audits; she said timing and specific metrics differ by project because deliverables are set in each member’s RFA.
On timeliness, Pridgen said DOE aims to respond to follow-up questions from applicants within about 10 business days and often within five, but acknowledged that final payment timing can vary depending on the workflow between program staff and the comptroller’s office. She also said RFAs list unallowable costs, and DOE follows the Department of Financial Services’ guidance on allowable expenditures.
Members asked for clearer public-facing guidance. Vice Chair Gossett Seidman and Representative Blanco sought specifics about which parts of the grant lifecycle are digitized and whether the department collects front-line feedback to measure program impact. Pridgen said DOE will provide percentages on digitization in a follow-up and that project forms include return-on-investment elements; she described frequent phone and checklist-based support and pairing experienced DOE staff with new entity contacts to reduce turnover-related delays.
Chair Posada thanked Pridgen and opened the committee to the next presentation. The subcommittee did not take formal action during the meeting.
