Digital Trust in Public Funds: An Explainable AI Framework for Continuous Compliance Monitoring of U.S. Federal Grant Subrecipients
Keywords:
explainable artificial intelligence, anomaly detection, grant compliance monitoring, tamper-evident audit trails, Uniform Guidance, subrecipient oversight, public-sector accountability, digital trustAbstract
Background: Federal grants flow through thousands of state agencies and subrecipients, yet oversight remains largely periodic and document-driven. Two 2024 regulatory developments transformed this environment: the revised OMB Uniform Guidance (2 CFR Part 200, effective 1 October 2024) directs pass-through entities toward risk-based, continuous subrecipient monitoring and raised the Single Audit threshold to one million dollars, while OMB Memorandum M-24-10 (March 2024) established risk-management expectations for artificial intelligence in federal use — including requirements for explainability and human oversight. Together they create both the mandate and the guardrails for AI-assisted compliance monitoring. Objective: We design and specify an explainable AI (XAI) framework — the Grant Risk Assessment and Compliance Engine (GRACE) — for continuous monitoring of subrecipient compliance that couples cross-system anomaly detection with tamper-evident evidence preservation. Methods: Following a design-science methodology, we (i) analyzed the 2024 regulatory corpus (2 CFR 200, GAO fraud-risk guidance, NIST AI Risk Management Framework), (ii) derived a cross-system red-flag taxonomy spanning financial, payroll, procurement, and performance-reporting systems, (iii) specified a five-component architecture, and (iv) evaluated it through regulatory-requirement mapping and a fully synthetic case demonstration. Results: GRACE maps onto every major obligation of the 2024 Uniform Guidance monitoring cycle; the synthetic walkthrough shows how feature-level attributions (e.g., duplicate-invoice rate +1.82, payroll-to-performance mismatch +1.45) translate into a triaged composite score (89/100 → site review) with a plain-language explanation and an immutable ledger entry for every monitoring event. Tamper-evident logging via hash chains and periodic Merkle-root anchoring gives auditors and pass-through entities a shared, verifiable evidence base. Conclusions: Explainable, provenance-preserving anomaly detection can convert subrecipient oversight from episodic document review into continuous, defensible, and auditable practice — a foundational mechanism of digital trust in the stewardship of public funds. Empirical validation on operational data is the required next step and is specified as such.
References
1. Office of Management and Budget, "Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance," 2 CFR Part 200 (2024 Revision), 89 FR 30046, Apr. 22, 2024 (effective Oct. 1, 2024). [Online]. Available: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/22/2024-07496/guidance-for-federal-financial-assistance
2. Office of Management and Budget, "Modernizing Federal Grant Guidance to Strengthen Agency Operations and Improve Outcomes," Executive Office of the President, Apr. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
3. Office of Management and Budget, "Advancing Governance, Innovation, and Risk Management for Agency Use of Artificial Intelligence," Memorandum M-24-10 for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Mar. 28, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/M-24-10-Advancing-Governance-Innovation-and-Risk-Management-for-Agency-Use-of-Artificial-Intelligence.pdf
4. Executive Order 14110, "Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence," 88 FR 75191, Nov. 1, 2023 (signed Oct. 30, 2023).
5. National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0)," NIST AI 100-1, Jan. 2023. doi: 10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1.
6. U.S. Government Accountability Office, "A Framework for Managing Fraud Risks in Federal Programs," GAO-15-593SP, Jul. 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-15-593sp
7. U.S. Government Accountability Office, "High-Risk Series: Efforts Made to Achieve Progress Need to Be Maintained and Expanded to Fully Address All Areas," GAO-23-106203, Apr. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-106203
8. Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, "Occupational Fraud 2024: A Report to the Nations," ACFE, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://legacy.acfe.com/report-to-the-nations/2024/
9. D. R. Cressey, Other People's Money: A Study in the Social Psychology of Embezzlement. Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1953.
10. M. Fazekas and G. Kocsis, "Uncovering high-level corruption: cross-national objective corruption risk indicators using public procurement data," British Journal of Political Science, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 155-164, 2020. doi: 10.1017/S0007123417000461.
11. F. T. Liu, K. M. Ting, and Z.-H. Zhou, "Isolation forest," in Proc. 8th IEEE Int. Conf. on Data Mining (ICDM 2008), 2008. doi: 10.1109/ICDM.2008.17.
12. V. Chandola, A. Banerjee, and V. Kumar, "Anomaly detection: a survey," ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 1-58, 2009. doi: 10.1145/1541880.1541882.
13. M. T. Ribeiro, S. Singh, and C. Guestrin, "'Why should I trust you?': Explaining the predictions of any classifier," in Proc. NAACL-HLT 2016, 2016. doi: 10.18653/v1/n16-3020.
14. S. M. Lundberg and S.-I. Lee, "A unified approach to interpreting model predictions," in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 (NeurIPS 2017), 2017. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.07874
15. S. Wachter, B. Mittelstadt, and C. Russell, "Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box: automated decisions and the GDPR," Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, vol. 31, no. 2, 2017. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3063289.
16. C. Rudin, "Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead," Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 1, pp. 206-215, 2019. doi: 10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x.
17. National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework: Generative Artificial Intelligence Profile," NIST AI 600-1, Jul. 2024. doi: 10.6028/NIST.AI.600-1.
18. ISO/IEC 42001:2023, Information technology - Artificial intelligence - Management system. International Organization for Standardization, 2023.
19. J. A. Kroll, J. Huey, S. Barocas, E. W. Felten, J. R. Reidenberg, D. G. Robinson, and H. Yu, "Accountable algorithms," University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol. 165, pp. 633-705, 2017.
20. R. C. Merkle, "A digital signature based on a conventional encryption function," in Advances in Cryptology - CRYPTO '87, LNCS 293, Springer, 1987. doi: 10.1007/3-540-48184-2_32.
21. B. Laurie, A. Langley, E. Kasper, E. Messeri, and R. Stradling, "Certificate Transparency Version 2.0," IETF RFC 9162, Dec. 2021. doi: 10.17487/RFC9162.
22. K. Kent and M. Souppaya, "Guide to Computer Security Log Management," NIST SP 800-92, Sep. 2006. doi: 10.6028/NIST.SP.800-92.
23. National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Security and Privacy Controls for Information Systems and Organizations," NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5, Sep. 2020. doi: 10.6028/NIST.SP.800-53r5.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 The author(s)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
AlphaTech Systems LLC publishes the version of record under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0), permitting sharing and adaptation for any purpose with appropriate attribution, a link to the licence, and an indication of changes. The public licence applies upon publication and is irrevocable for compliant users; submission alone does not license unpublished material.