FAC Explorer

Audit 296001

FY End
2022-12-31
Total Expended
$2.37M
Findings
6
Programs
9
Organization: Employment Connection (MO)
Year: 2022 Accepted: 2024-03-20
Auditor: Uhy LLP

Organization Exclusion Status:

Findings

ID Ref Severity Repeat Requirement
382293 2022-001 Material Weakness - E
382294 2022-002 Significant Deficiency - L
382295 2022-002 Significant Deficiency - L
958735 2022-001 Material Weakness - E
958736 2022-002 Significant Deficiency - L
958737 2022-002 Significant Deficiency - L

Programs

ALN Program Spent Major Findings
17.259 Wia Youth Activities $239,125 Yes 0
14.267 Continuum of Care Program $199,357 - 0
14.231 Emergency Solutions Grant Program $192,288 Yes 1
93.558 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families $140,235 Yes 1
10.561 State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program $139,376 - 0
14.231 Homeless Prevention and Repid Re-Housing $41,249 Yes 0
14.889 Community Development Block Grants/entitlement Grants $31,185 - 0
14.218 Community Development Block Grants/entitlement Grants $28,544 - 0
21.027 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds $8,461 - 0

Contacts

Name Title Type
G8CRECP5LBN3 Nora Davis Auditee
3143335637 Jody Lurk Auditor
No contacts on file

Notes to SEFA

Title: BASIS OF PRESENTATION Accounting Policies: Expenditures reported on the Schedule are reported on the accrual basis of accounting. Such expenditures are recognized following the cost principles contained in the Uniform Guidance, wherein certain types of expenditures are not allowable or are limited as to reimbursement. No federal awards were expended in the form of noncash assistance. De Minimis Rate Used: Y Rate Explanation: The Organization has elected to use the 10 percent de minimis indirect cost rate as allowed under the Uniform Guidance on the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, the Workforce Investment and Opportunity Act program and the Emergency Solutions Grant – Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-housing (Coronavirus) The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards (the Schedule) includes the federal grant and loan activity of Employment Connection (the Organization) for the year ended December 31, 2022. The information in this Schedule is presented in accordance with the requirements of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). Because this Schedule presents only a selected portion of the operations of the Organization, it is not intended to and does not present the financial position, changes in net assets or cash flows of the Organization. Pass-through entity identifying numbers are presented where available.
Title: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICES Accounting Policies: Expenditures reported on the Schedule are reported on the accrual basis of accounting. Such expenditures are recognized following the cost principles contained in the Uniform Guidance, wherein certain types of expenditures are not allowable or are limited as to reimbursement. No federal awards were expended in the form of noncash assistance. De Minimis Rate Used: Y Rate Explanation: The Organization has elected to use the 10 percent de minimis indirect cost rate as allowed under the Uniform Guidance on the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, the Workforce Investment and Opportunity Act program and the Emergency Solutions Grant – Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-housing (Coronavirus) Expenditures reported on the Schedule are reported on the accrual basis of accounting. Such expenditures are recognized following the cost principles contained in the Uniform Guidance, wherein certain types of expenditures are not allowable or are limited as to reimbursement. No federal awards were expended in the form of noncash assistance.
Title: INDIRECT COST RATE Accounting Policies: Expenditures reported on the Schedule are reported on the accrual basis of accounting. Such expenditures are recognized following the cost principles contained in the Uniform Guidance, wherein certain types of expenditures are not allowable or are limited as to reimbursement. No federal awards were expended in the form of noncash assistance. De Minimis Rate Used: Y Rate Explanation: The Organization has elected to use the 10 percent de minimis indirect cost rate as allowed under the Uniform Guidance on the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, the Workforce Investment and Opportunity Act program and the Emergency Solutions Grant – Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-housing (Coronavirus) The Organization has elected to use the 10 percent de minimis indirect cost rate as allowed under the Uniform Guidance on the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, the Workforce Investment and Opportunity Act program and the Emergency Solutions Grant – Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-housing (Coronavirus)

Finding Details

Finding 2022-001
Criteria: Eligibility must be evaluated by the Organization. Documentation must be maintained by the Organization, including evidence of a service plan. Condition: Sixty client files were selected for test of eligibility. Eleven files were not reviewed as agency that referred the client ultimately denied the client’s application. Three files were not reviewed as referring agency had no record of the application. Of the forty-six files reviewed: Twenty-one did not have sufficient evidence that the client was eligible for services. Cause: The subrecipient relied upon a referring agency to determine eligibility for the program. The Organization provided utility assistance without reviewing or obtaining eligibility documentation. Effect: Utility assistance may have been provided to clients that are not eligible. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs include all participant’s selected with insufficient or no supporting documentation of eligibility. The total amount of these errors is $13,566.46 of the $18,722.01 reviewed. Likely questioned costs are estimated based on known error rate applied to all participants referred to Employment Connection by another agency not subject to testing. The total likely questioned costs based on this analysis would be $138,805. Recommendation: The Organization should assess the eligibility of the applicant prior to providing services. Documentation to support this review should be maintained.
Finding 2022-002
Criteria: Payroll allocated to the program should be signed by the employee, approved by the appropriate official and coincide with a pay period. Condition: Seven of forty payroll charges did not contain adequate evidence of a timely review by an appropriate official. Three timesheets had no evidence of a review. 4 timesheets had a review dated 11 months after the date of the timesheet. Cause: Due to competing resources and staffing, one manager did not review in a timely manner Effect: Payroll allocated to the program may be inappropriate based on the timesheet. Recommendation: Timesheets should be reviewed by the appropriate official as outlined in the grant.
Finding 2022-002
Criteria: Payroll allocated to the program should be signed by the employee, approved by the appropriate official and coincide with a pay period. Condition: Seven of forty payroll charges did not contain adequate evidence of a timely review by an appropriate official. Three timesheets had no evidence of a review. 4 timesheets had a review dated 11 months after the date of the timesheet. Cause: Due to competing resources and staffing, one manager did not review in a timely manner Effect: Payroll allocated to the program may be inappropriate based on the timesheet. Recommendation: Timesheets should be reviewed by the appropriate official as outlined in the grant.
Finding 2022-001
Criteria: Eligibility must be evaluated by the Organization. Documentation must be maintained by the Organization, including evidence of a service plan. Condition: Sixty client files were selected for test of eligibility. Eleven files were not reviewed as agency that referred the client ultimately denied the client’s application. Three files were not reviewed as referring agency had no record of the application. Of the forty-six files reviewed: Twenty-one did not have sufficient evidence that the client was eligible for services. Cause: The subrecipient relied upon a referring agency to determine eligibility for the program. The Organization provided utility assistance without reviewing or obtaining eligibility documentation. Effect: Utility assistance may have been provided to clients that are not eligible. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs include all participant’s selected with insufficient or no supporting documentation of eligibility. The total amount of these errors is $13,566.46 of the $18,722.01 reviewed. Likely questioned costs are estimated based on known error rate applied to all participants referred to Employment Connection by another agency not subject to testing. The total likely questioned costs based on this analysis would be $138,805. Recommendation: The Organization should assess the eligibility of the applicant prior to providing services. Documentation to support this review should be maintained.
Finding 2022-002
Criteria: Payroll allocated to the program should be signed by the employee, approved by the appropriate official and coincide with a pay period. Condition: Seven of forty payroll charges did not contain adequate evidence of a timely review by an appropriate official. Three timesheets had no evidence of a review. 4 timesheets had a review dated 11 months after the date of the timesheet. Cause: Due to competing resources and staffing, one manager did not review in a timely manner Effect: Payroll allocated to the program may be inappropriate based on the timesheet. Recommendation: Timesheets should be reviewed by the appropriate official as outlined in the grant.
Finding 2022-002
Criteria: Payroll allocated to the program should be signed by the employee, approved by the appropriate official and coincide with a pay period. Condition: Seven of forty payroll charges did not contain adequate evidence of a timely review by an appropriate official. Three timesheets had no evidence of a review. 4 timesheets had a review dated 11 months after the date of the timesheet. Cause: Due to competing resources and staffing, one manager did not review in a timely manner Effect: Payroll allocated to the program may be inappropriate based on the timesheet. Recommendation: Timesheets should be reviewed by the appropriate official as outlined in the grant.