Audit 30560

Condition: During the current year, the Organization submitted some of their draw requests to one of its funding agencies past the 45-day requirement. Per the grant agreement, any requests submitted beyond this timeframe can be denied for reimbursement at the discretion of the granting agency. Criteria: Based on the standards of documentation of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), denied reimbursement requests due to timing requirements can be considered both as an unallowed cost and falling outside of the period of performance. Effect: The Organization was out of compliance with the required submission timeframe designated by the grant agreement. This could have led to a denial of reimbursement of funds to the Organization; however, the funding agency paid the funds without further incident. Cause: The combination of a new Finance Director during the year, who submits the draw requests, and no formalized procedures in place for the submission process caused the Organization to be out of compliance on their draw requests. Questioned Costs: No known questioned costs were identified during the course of the audit. Recommendation: We recommend that all primary accounting procedures be further developed and documented, and cross-training be provided where applicable. This is especially crucial for month-end and year-end procedures. Better documentation of procedures should reduce the likelihood of noncompliance and other accounting errors resulting from employee turnover or prolonged absences.

Condition: Based on the controls in place as described by staff of the organization, there were multiple instances of invoices and timesheets that did not contain evidence of approvals. Criteria: Monitoring and reporting program performance, as prescribed by 2 CFR section 200.329, requires all requests for reimbursement and reports to be evidenced by formal review and approval processes. Effect: By not having proper review and approvals in place, inaccurate information could have been submitted to the funding agency. In addition, the funding agency could have rejected reimbursement requests and found the Organization to be out of compliance. Cause: There is inconsistent documentation of approvals on invoices and timesheets. In addition, there is no formalized procedure in place on reviewing and submitting the required reports to the funding agency. Questioned Costs: No known questioned costs were identified during the course of the audit. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization further develop their policies and procedures related to federal awards to ensure compliance with the grant contracts and ensure there is proper review and documented approval.

Condition: During the current year, the Organization submitted some of their draw requests to one of its funding agencies past the 45-day requirement. Per the grant agreement, any requests submitted beyond this timeframe can be denied for reimbursement at the discretion of the granting agency. Criteria: Based on the standards of documentation of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), denied reimbursement requests due to timing requirements can be considered both as an unallowed cost and falling outside of the period of performance. Effect: The Organization was out of compliance with the required submission timeframe designated by the grant agreement. This could have led to a denial of reimbursement of funds to the Organization; however, the funding agency paid the funds without further incident. Cause: The combination of a new Finance Director during the year, who submits the draw requests, and no formalized procedures in place for the submission process caused the Organization to be out of compliance on their draw requests. Questioned Costs: No known questioned costs were identified during the course of the audit. Recommendation: We recommend that all primary accounting procedures be further developed and documented, and cross-training be provided where applicable. This is especially crucial for month-end and year-end procedures. Better documentation of procedures should reduce the likelihood of noncompliance and other accounting errors resulting from employee turnover or prolonged absences.

Condition: Based on the controls in place as described by staff of the organization, there were multiple instances of invoices and timesheets that did not contain evidence of approvals. Criteria: Monitoring and reporting program performance, as prescribed by 2 CFR section 200.329, requires all requests for reimbursement and reports to be evidenced by formal review and approval processes. Effect: By not having proper review and approvals in place, inaccurate information could have been submitted to the funding agency. In addition, the funding agency could have rejected reimbursement requests and found the Organization to be out of compliance. Cause: There is inconsistent documentation of approvals on invoices and timesheets. In addition, there is no formalized procedure in place on reviewing and submitting the required reports to the funding agency. Questioned Costs: No known questioned costs were identified during the course of the audit. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization further develop their policies and procedures related to federal awards to ensure compliance with the grant contracts and ensure there is proper review and documented approval.