District officials should maintain internal controls ensuring all disbursements are supported by proper supporting documentation, including a unique vendor invoice and shipping documents for goods received. District expenditures totaling $46,700 for classroom furniture and equipment and $5,663 for laptops were made in duplicate and lacked proper supporting documentation. Although these payments represent unallowable costs under the grant program, the District included the duplicate payments in program costs reported on the grant expenditure reimbursements report. The District issued duplicate payments in three instances. The extra payments were based on an order acknowledgement, a double billing by the vendor, and an invoice paid by both the District and a pass-through entity. The District was able to recover $46,700 and is discussion with the subrecipient to recover the remaining $5,663. The District did not detect duplicate payment for the effected purchases and reported unallowable program costs on expenditure reimbursement request reports. The District did not match purchase order numbers or packing slips prior to processing the duplicate vendor invoice for payment.
District should maintain internal contorls to ensure grant expenditures are consistent with program budgets adopted and approved by the pass through entity. District reported custodial expenditures totaling $26,486 in FY22 and $43,955 in FY23 as program costs on ESSER III grant expenditure reimbursement reports. However, the District's program budget for these costs was $25,000. The expenditures in excess of budget represent unallowable costs under the program. The District budget to actual comparison worksheet combined all program costs for this function and object. This comparison was not sufficiently detailed to identify the overspending of the budget for custodial services. The District reported program costs for custodial services in exess of amounts adopted in program budget and approved by the passthrough entity. The District budget to actual comparison worksheet combined all program costs for this function and object. This comparison was not sufficiently detailed to identify the overspending of the budget for custodial services
District should perform all subrecipient montioring activities required under the Uniform Guidance, including performing subrecipient risk assessments and ensuring subrecipients are clearly notified of the program identification, period of performance, amounts, and project purpose. The District did not perform all required subrecipient monitoring activities. Key elements of the subaward program were not formally documented. The District did not clearly distinguish program costs to be paid directly by the District and those paid by the subrecipient for reimbursement. The Uniform Guidance details specific components of federal award identification, risk assessment, monitoring activities, and followup requirements. The District could not provide documentation for each subrecipient monitoring and management requirement. The District and subreceipient seperately paid the same invoice and was not able to detect the duplicate payment. The District has historically not participated in grants that necessitated a single audit or subrecipient monitoring and management activities.
District officials should maintain internal controls ensuring all disbursements are supported by proper supporting documentation, including a unique vendor invoice and shipping documents for goods received. District expenditures totaling $46,700 for classroom furniture and equipment and $5,663 for laptops were made in duplicate and lacked proper supporting documentation. Although these payments represent unallowable costs under the grant program, the District included the duplicate payments in program costs reported on the grant expenditure reimbursements report. The District issued duplicate payments in three instances. The extra payments were based on an order acknowledgement, a double billing by the vendor, and an invoice paid by both the District and a pass-through entity. The District was able to recover $46,700 and is discussion with the subrecipient to recover the remaining $5,663. The District did not detect duplicate payment for the effected purchases and reported unallowable program costs on expenditure reimbursement request reports. The District did not match purchase order numbers or packing slips prior to processing the duplicate vendor invoice for payment.
District officials should maintain internal controls ensuring all disbursements are supported by proper supporting documentation, including a unique vendor invoice and shipping documents for goods received. District expenditures totaling $46,700 for classroom furniture and equipment and $5,663 for laptops were made in duplicate and lacked proper supporting documentation. Although these payments represent unallowable costs under the grant program, the District included the duplicate payments in program costs reported on the grant expenditure reimbursements report. The District issued duplicate payments in three instances. The extra payments were based on an order acknowledgement, a double billing by the vendor, and an invoice paid by both the District and a pass-through entity. The District was able to recover $46,700 and is discussion with the subrecipient to recover the remaining $5,663. The District did not detect duplicate payment for the effected purchases and reported unallowable program costs on expenditure reimbursement request reports. The District did not match purchase order numbers or packing slips prior to processing the duplicate vendor invoice for payment.
District should maintain internal contorls to ensure grant expenditures are consistent with program budgets adopted and approved by the pass through entity. District reported custodial expenditures totaling $26,486 in FY22 and $43,955 in FY23 as program costs on ESSER III grant expenditure reimbursement reports. However, the District's program budget for these costs was $25,000. The expenditures in excess of budget represent unallowable costs under the program. The District budget to actual comparison worksheet combined all program costs for this function and object. This comparison was not sufficiently detailed to identify the overspending of the budget for custodial services. The District reported program costs for custodial services in exess of amounts adopted in program budget and approved by the passthrough entity. The District budget to actual comparison worksheet combined all program costs for this function and object. This comparison was not sufficiently detailed to identify the overspending of the budget for custodial services
District should perform all subrecipient montioring activities required under the Uniform Guidance, including performing subrecipient risk assessments and ensuring subrecipients are clearly notified of the program identification, period of performance, amounts, and project purpose. The District did not perform all required subrecipient monitoring activities. Key elements of the subaward program were not formally documented. The District did not clearly distinguish program costs to be paid directly by the District and those paid by the subrecipient for reimbursement. The Uniform Guidance details specific components of federal award identification, risk assessment, monitoring activities, and followup requirements. The District could not provide documentation for each subrecipient monitoring and management requirement. The District and subreceipient seperately paid the same invoice and was not able to detect the duplicate payment. The District has historically not participated in grants that necessitated a single audit or subrecipient monitoring and management activities.
District officials should maintain internal controls ensuring all disbursements are supported by proper supporting documentation, including a unique vendor invoice and shipping documents for goods received. District expenditures totaling $46,700 for classroom furniture and equipment and $5,663 for laptops were made in duplicate and lacked proper supporting documentation. Although these payments represent unallowable costs under the grant program, the District included the duplicate payments in program costs reported on the grant expenditure reimbursements report. The District issued duplicate payments in three instances. The extra payments were based on an order acknowledgement, a double billing by the vendor, and an invoice paid by both the District and a pass-through entity. The District was able to recover $46,700 and is discussion with the subrecipient to recover the remaining $5,663. The District did not detect duplicate payment for the effected purchases and reported unallowable program costs on expenditure reimbursement request reports. The District did not match purchase order numbers or packing slips prior to processing the duplicate vendor invoice for payment.