(The following post ran in Thompson's education blog, Title 1-derland.) The Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling upholding the Affordable Care Act— one of its most important decisions of the past decade — has significant implications for education. The Act’s expansion of Medicaid asked the justices to decide whether Congress could, in effect, require a quid pro quo from states that receive federal dollars, a question with far-reaching implications for all kinds of federal grants, including those in education. Title I-Derland addressed the issue previously here and here.

(The following was excerpted from an article in the Single Audit Information Service.) The Louisiana Legislative Auditor (LLA) urged the state homeland security office to comply with its own policies to properly document the use of federal funds for Hazard Mitigation grant projects and to ensure that those funds be used for authorized purposes.

Again today, I’m tying my blog post to a recent movie. This weekend, we watched a DVD of the 2011 movie “We Bought a Zoo,” starring Matt Damon and Scarlett Johansson. What we thought would be an interesting movie for our kids turned out to be a rather serious movie with often somber overtones. It did have its amusing parts and the kids liked the animal scenes, but overall I’m not exactly sure it was really a kid-friendly movie. That’s not to say I didn’t like it; I’d give it a solid B.

Remember the California preacher last year who said that the world was going to end on May 21, 2011. Much was written about his doomsday warnings, and sects of believers were all set for the world to end that day. And then the fateful day came … and nothing happened. Life continued to go on as normal. The preacher even readjusted his doomsday prediction, set another date, and that day went off without a hitch. It’s June 22, 2012, and we’re all still here.

(The following was excerpted from an article in the Federal Grants Management Handbook.) States estimating their reimbursements for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families services should understand how to establish reasonable estimates and how to determine which expenditures are allowable as TANF maintenance-of-effort.

It’s really getting dicey now. It’s June 19 and the Office of Management and Budget still hasn’t finalized the OMB Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement. The agency has issued it in draft form, but we still await the final version.

Hurricane Katrina caused so much devastation to lives and property when it roared through the Gulf Coast almost seven years ago. Unfortunately, attempts at recovery have been just as tragic as federal emergency funding has continued to go misspent.

(The following was excerpted from an article in the Single Audit Information Service.) While most state auditor financial or performance audits offer recommendations specifically for entities within the state, a recent Oregon Audits Division report expanded that scope and urged federal agencies to consider the impacts of grantee level of effort requirements.

Looking around for something of interest to discuss in this blog post, a recent Department of Housing and Urban Development memo happened across my desk that struck me as a good idea in theory, but something that must be a real challenge to actually implement.

In a blog post a year ago today, I complained about the confusing language in a change made in the 2011 OMB Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement. I even offered a much clearer alternative. I mentioned my suggestion to others in the audit community and they favored my phrasing. Could it be that OMB used my suggestion in the draft version of the 2012 supplement? Apparently not.