Criteria: Regulations require that the Institution calculate refunds for students who withdrew during the semester, and any refunds should be remitted to the Department of Education in a timely manner, typically within 45 days of withdrawal.
Condition: Eleven students were selected for withdrawal test work. Of these eleven students, the Institution calculated an amount that needed to be returned for seven (four students tested did not require a return of any funds). Two of those students who required funds be refunded were not returned timely.
Cause: Process and controls over the return of funds for students are insufficient.
Effect: Funds were held in the University’s cash account longer than necessary and such funds were no longer technically the property of the University after the student withdrew from the University.
Questioned costs: $-0- Identification of repeat findings: Yes, see FA-2023-005.
Recommendation: The University should increase its efforts through training to ensure that federal refunds are calculated and remitted timely when students withdraw from the Institution.
Views of responsible officials: The University agrees with the finding. See Client’s Corrective Action Plan – Single Audit Findings.
Criteria: Regulations require that the Institution calculate refunds for students who withdrew during the semester, and any refunds should be remitted to the Department of Education in a timely manner, typically within 45 days of withdrawal.
Condition: Eleven students were selected for withdrawal test work. Of these eleven students, the Institution calculated an amount that needed to be returned for seven (four students tested did not require a return of any funds). Two of those students who required funds be refunded were not returned timely.
Cause: Process and controls over the return of funds for students are insufficient.
Effect: Funds were held in the University’s cash account longer than necessary and such funds were no longer technically the property of the University after the student withdrew from the University.
Questioned costs: $-0- Identification of repeat findings: Yes, see FA-2023-005.
Recommendation: The University should increase its efforts through training to ensure that federal refunds are calculated and remitted timely when students withdraw from the Institution.
Views of responsible officials: The University agrees with the finding. See Client’s Corrective Action Plan – Single Audit Findings.
Criteria: Regulations require that the Institution calculate refunds for students who withdrew during the semester, and any refunds should be remitted to the Department of Education in a timely manner, typically within 45 days of withdrawal.
Condition: Eleven students were selected for withdrawal test work. Of these eleven students, the Institution calculated an amount that needed to be returned for seven (four students tested did not require a return of any funds). Two of those students who required funds be refunded were not returned timely.
Cause: Process and controls over the return of funds for students are insufficient.
Effect: Funds were held in the University’s cash account longer than necessary and such funds were no longer technically the property of the University after the student withdrew from the University.
Questioned costs: $-0- Identification of repeat findings: Yes, see FA-2023-005.
Recommendation: The University should increase its efforts through training to ensure that federal refunds are calculated and remitted timely when students withdraw from the Institution.
Views of responsible officials: The University agrees with the finding. See Client’s Corrective Action Plan – Single Audit Findings.
Criteria: Regulations require that the Institution calculate refunds for students who withdrew during the semester, and any refunds should be remitted to the Department of Education in a timely manner, typically within 45 days of withdrawal.
Condition: Eleven students were selected for withdrawal test work. Of these eleven students, the Institution calculated an amount that needed to be returned for seven (four students tested did not require a return of any funds). Two of those students who required funds be refunded were not returned timely.
Cause: Process and controls over the return of funds for students are insufficient.
Effect: Funds were held in the University’s cash account longer than necessary and such funds were no longer technically the property of the University after the student withdrew from the University.
Questioned costs: $-0- Identification of repeat findings: Yes, see FA-2023-005.
Recommendation: The University should increase its efforts through training to ensure that federal refunds are calculated and remitted timely when students withdraw from the Institution.
Views of responsible officials: The University agrees with the finding. See Client’s Corrective Action Plan – Single Audit Findings.
Criteria: Under the Pell grant and direct loan programs, institutions are responsible for timely enrollment reporting to NSLDS whether they report directly or via a third-party servicer such as the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC). Enrollment Reporting in a timely and accurate manner is critical for effective management of the programs. Enrollment information must be reported within 60 days whenever the enrollment status changes for students, unless a roster will be submitted within 60 days.
Condition: We tested NSLDS Enrollment Detail Records for eleven students with changes in enrollment. Out of these eleven students tested, we noted that the NSLDS status was not changed in a timely manner for eight of them.
Cause: The enrollment data transmitted to NSC was not accurate until changes in the status were reported.
Effect: Enrollment statuses in NSLDS for the affected individuals were not correct and may have resulted in improper loan deferments and interest subsidiaries on outstanding loans.
Questioned costs: $-0- Identification of repeat findings: Yes, see FA-2023-002.
Recommendation: The University should work with its Information Technology Department and NSC to determine the root cause of the enrollment reporting issues and develop a corrective action as soon as possible to avoid future reporting inaccuracies. The corrective action should be closely monitored by the Registrar on a regular basis to ensure the process is functioning as intended and resulting in accurate enrollment reporting.
Views of responsible officials: The University agrees with the finding. See Client’s Corrective Action Plan – Single Audit Findings.
Criteria: Under the Pell grant and direct loan programs, institutions are responsible for timely enrollment reporting to NSLDS whether they report directly or via a third-party servicer such as the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC). Enrollment Reporting in a timely and accurate manner is critical for effective management of the programs. Enrollment information must be reported within 60 days whenever the enrollment status changes for students, unless a roster will be submitted within 60 days.
Condition: We tested NSLDS Enrollment Detail Records for eleven students with changes in enrollment. Out of these eleven students tested, we noted that the NSLDS status was not changed in a timely manner for eight of them.
Cause: The enrollment data transmitted to NSC was not accurate until changes in the status were reported.
Effect: Enrollment statuses in NSLDS for the affected individuals were not correct and may have resulted in improper loan deferments and interest subsidiaries on outstanding loans.
Questioned costs: $-0- Identification of repeat findings: Yes, see FA-2023-002.
Recommendation: The University should work with its Information Technology Department and NSC to determine the root cause of the enrollment reporting issues and develop a corrective action as soon as possible to avoid future reporting inaccuracies. The corrective action should be closely monitored by the Registrar on a regular basis to ensure the process is functioning as intended and resulting in accurate enrollment reporting.
Views of responsible officials: The University agrees with the finding. See Client’s Corrective Action Plan – Single Audit Findings.
Criteria: Under the Pell grant and direct loan programs, institutions are responsible for timely enrollment reporting to NSLDS whether they report directly or via a third-party servicer such as the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC). Enrollment Reporting in a timely and accurate manner is critical for effective management of the programs. Enrollment information must be reported within 60 days whenever the enrollment status changes for students, unless a roster will be submitted within 60 days.
Condition: We tested NSLDS Enrollment Detail Records for eleven students with changes in enrollment. Out of these eleven students tested, we noted that the NSLDS status was not changed in a timely manner for eight of them.
Cause: The enrollment data transmitted to NSC was not accurate until changes in the status were reported.
Effect: Enrollment statuses in NSLDS for the affected individuals were not correct and may have resulted in improper loan deferments and interest subsidiaries on outstanding loans.
Questioned costs: $-0- Identification of repeat findings: Yes, see FA-2023-002.
Recommendation: The University should work with its Information Technology Department and NSC to determine the root cause of the enrollment reporting issues and develop a corrective action as soon as possible to avoid future reporting inaccuracies. The corrective action should be closely monitored by the Registrar on a regular basis to ensure the process is functioning as intended and resulting in accurate enrollment reporting.
Views of responsible officials: The University agrees with the finding. See Client’s Corrective Action Plan – Single Audit Findings.
Criteria: Under the Pell grant and direct loan programs, institutions are responsible for timely enrollment reporting to NSLDS whether they report directly or via a third-party servicer such as the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC). Enrollment Reporting in a timely and accurate manner is critical for effective management of the programs. Enrollment information must be reported within 60 days whenever the enrollment status changes for students, unless a roster will be submitted within 60 days.
Condition: We tested NSLDS Enrollment Detail Records for eleven students with changes in enrollment. Out of these eleven students tested, we noted that the NSLDS status was not changed in a timely manner for eight of them.
Cause: The enrollment data transmitted to NSC was not accurate until changes in the status were reported.
Effect: Enrollment statuses in NSLDS for the affected individuals were not correct and may have resulted in improper loan deferments and interest subsidiaries on outstanding loans.
Questioned costs: $-0- Identification of repeat findings: Yes, see FA-2023-002.
Recommendation: The University should work with its Information Technology Department and NSC to determine the root cause of the enrollment reporting issues and develop a corrective action as soon as possible to avoid future reporting inaccuracies. The corrective action should be closely monitored by the Registrar on a regular basis to ensure the process is functioning as intended and resulting in accurate enrollment reporting.
Views of responsible officials: The University agrees with the finding. See Client’s Corrective Action Plan – Single Audit Findings.
Criteria: Regulations require Institutions to consider students who have stopped attending classes in the semester to be considered an unofficial withdrawal. If a student withdraws officially or unofficially within the first 60% of the semester, the Institution must calculate a refund to the student’s account statement. If a student withdraws after the 60% date in the semester, they are considered to have earned their aid and will not have a refund calculated.
Condition: We tested the withdrawal process for eleven students. Out of these eleven, seven students withdrew in a period of 60% and needed a calculation of the return of funds to be made. We noted that one of these students received a refund of aid, though they did not cease attending their classes until after the 60% mark.
Cause: Process and controls over attendance records and unofficial withdrawals are insufficient.
Effect: Federal funds were returned to the Department of Education when the student had in fact earned the aid for the semester.
Questioned costs: -$4,983 Identification of repeat findings: Not a repeat finding.
Recommendation: The University should closely monitor the attendance records of students to ensure that if a student stops attending but returns later in the semester, that any issues with federal aid are addressed timely and appropriately.
Views of responsible officials: The University agrees with the finding. See Client’s Corrective Action Plan – Single Audit Findings.
Criteria: Regulations require Institutions to consider students who have stopped attending classes in the semester to be considered an unofficial withdrawal. If a student withdraws officially or unofficially within the first 60% of the semester, the Institution must calculate a refund to the student’s account statement. If a student withdraws after the 60% date in the semester, they are considered to have earned their aid and will not have a refund calculated.
Condition: We tested the withdrawal process for eleven students. Out of these eleven, seven students withdrew in a period of 60% and needed a calculation of the return of funds to be made. We noted that one of these students received a refund of aid, though they did not cease attending their classes until after the 60% mark.
Cause: Process and controls over attendance records and unofficial withdrawals are insufficient.
Effect: Federal funds were returned to the Department of Education when the student had in fact earned the aid for the semester.
Questioned costs: -$4,983 Identification of repeat findings: Not a repeat finding.
Recommendation: The University should closely monitor the attendance records of students to ensure that if a student stops attending but returns later in the semester, that any issues with federal aid are addressed timely and appropriately.
Views of responsible officials: The University agrees with the finding. See Client’s Corrective Action Plan – Single Audit Findings.
Criteria: Regulations require Institutions to consider students who have stopped attending classes in the semester to be considered an unofficial withdrawal. If a student withdraws officially or unofficially within the first 60% of the semester, the Institution must calculate a refund to the student’s account statement. If a student withdraws after the 60% date in the semester, they are considered to have earned their aid and will not have a refund calculated.
Condition: We tested the withdrawal process for eleven students. Out of these eleven, seven students withdrew in a period of 60% and needed a calculation of the return of funds to be made. We noted that one of these students received a refund of aid, though they did not cease attending their classes until after the 60% mark.
Cause: Process and controls over attendance records and unofficial withdrawals are insufficient.
Effect: Federal funds were returned to the Department of Education when the student had in fact earned the aid for the semester.
Questioned costs: -$4,983 Identification of repeat findings: Not a repeat finding.
Recommendation: The University should closely monitor the attendance records of students to ensure that if a student stops attending but returns later in the semester, that any issues with federal aid are addressed timely and appropriately.
Views of responsible officials: The University agrees with the finding. See Client’s Corrective Action Plan – Single Audit Findings.
Criteria: Regulations require Institutions to consider students who have stopped attending classes in the semester to be considered an unofficial withdrawal. If a student withdraws officially or unofficially within the first 60% of the semester, the Institution must calculate a refund to the student’s account statement. If a student withdraws after the 60% date in the semester, they are considered to have earned their aid and will not have a refund calculated.
Condition: We tested the withdrawal process for eleven students. Out of these eleven, seven students withdrew in a period of 60% and needed a calculation of the return of funds to be made. We noted that one of these students received a refund of aid, though they did not cease attending their classes until after the 60% mark.
Cause: Process and controls over attendance records and unofficial withdrawals are insufficient.
Effect: Federal funds were returned to the Department of Education when the student had in fact earned the aid for the semester.
Questioned costs: -$4,983 Identification of repeat findings: Not a repeat finding.
Recommendation: The University should closely monitor the attendance records of students to ensure that if a student stops attending but returns later in the semester, that any issues with federal aid are addressed timely and appropriately.
Views of responsible officials: The University agrees with the finding. See Client’s Corrective Action Plan – Single Audit Findings.
Criteria: Regulations require that the Institution calculate refunds for students who withdrew during the semester, and any refunds should be remitted to the Department of Education in a timely manner, typically within 45 days of withdrawal.
Condition: Eleven students were selected for withdrawal test work. Of these eleven students, the Institution calculated an amount that needed to be returned for seven (four students tested did not require a return of any funds). Two of those students who required funds be refunded were not returned timely.
Cause: Process and controls over the return of funds for students are insufficient.
Effect: Funds were held in the University’s cash account longer than necessary and such funds were no longer technically the property of the University after the student withdrew from the University.
Questioned costs: $-0- Identification of repeat findings: Yes, see FA-2023-005.
Recommendation: The University should increase its efforts through training to ensure that federal refunds are calculated and remitted timely when students withdraw from the Institution.
Views of responsible officials: The University agrees with the finding. See Client’s Corrective Action Plan – Single Audit Findings.
Criteria: Regulations require that the Institution calculate refunds for students who withdrew during the semester, and any refunds should be remitted to the Department of Education in a timely manner, typically within 45 days of withdrawal.
Condition: Eleven students were selected for withdrawal test work. Of these eleven students, the Institution calculated an amount that needed to be returned for seven (four students tested did not require a return of any funds). Two of those students who required funds be refunded were not returned timely.
Cause: Process and controls over the return of funds for students are insufficient.
Effect: Funds were held in the University’s cash account longer than necessary and such funds were no longer technically the property of the University after the student withdrew from the University.
Questioned costs: $-0- Identification of repeat findings: Yes, see FA-2023-005.
Recommendation: The University should increase its efforts through training to ensure that federal refunds are calculated and remitted timely when students withdraw from the Institution.
Views of responsible officials: The University agrees with the finding. See Client’s Corrective Action Plan – Single Audit Findings.
Criteria: Regulations require that the Institution calculate refunds for students who withdrew during the semester, and any refunds should be remitted to the Department of Education in a timely manner, typically within 45 days of withdrawal.
Condition: Eleven students were selected for withdrawal test work. Of these eleven students, the Institution calculated an amount that needed to be returned for seven (four students tested did not require a return of any funds). Two of those students who required funds be refunded were not returned timely.
Cause: Process and controls over the return of funds for students are insufficient.
Effect: Funds were held in the University’s cash account longer than necessary and such funds were no longer technically the property of the University after the student withdrew from the University.
Questioned costs: $-0- Identification of repeat findings: Yes, see FA-2023-005.
Recommendation: The University should increase its efforts through training to ensure that federal refunds are calculated and remitted timely when students withdraw from the Institution.
Views of responsible officials: The University agrees with the finding. See Client’s Corrective Action Plan – Single Audit Findings.
Criteria: Regulations require that the Institution calculate refunds for students who withdrew during the semester, and any refunds should be remitted to the Department of Education in a timely manner, typically within 45 days of withdrawal.
Condition: Eleven students were selected for withdrawal test work. Of these eleven students, the Institution calculated an amount that needed to be returned for seven (four students tested did not require a return of any funds). Two of those students who required funds be refunded were not returned timely.
Cause: Process and controls over the return of funds for students are insufficient.
Effect: Funds were held in the University’s cash account longer than necessary and such funds were no longer technically the property of the University after the student withdrew from the University.
Questioned costs: $-0- Identification of repeat findings: Yes, see FA-2023-005.
Recommendation: The University should increase its efforts through training to ensure that federal refunds are calculated and remitted timely when students withdraw from the Institution.
Views of responsible officials: The University agrees with the finding. See Client’s Corrective Action Plan – Single Audit Findings.
Criteria: Under the Pell grant and direct loan programs, institutions are responsible for timely enrollment reporting to NSLDS whether they report directly or via a third-party servicer such as the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC). Enrollment Reporting in a timely and accurate manner is critical for effective management of the programs. Enrollment information must be reported within 60 days whenever the enrollment status changes for students, unless a roster will be submitted within 60 days.
Condition: We tested NSLDS Enrollment Detail Records for eleven students with changes in enrollment. Out of these eleven students tested, we noted that the NSLDS status was not changed in a timely manner for eight of them.
Cause: The enrollment data transmitted to NSC was not accurate until changes in the status were reported.
Effect: Enrollment statuses in NSLDS for the affected individuals were not correct and may have resulted in improper loan deferments and interest subsidiaries on outstanding loans.
Questioned costs: $-0- Identification of repeat findings: Yes, see FA-2023-002.
Recommendation: The University should work with its Information Technology Department and NSC to determine the root cause of the enrollment reporting issues and develop a corrective action as soon as possible to avoid future reporting inaccuracies. The corrective action should be closely monitored by the Registrar on a regular basis to ensure the process is functioning as intended and resulting in accurate enrollment reporting.
Views of responsible officials: The University agrees with the finding. See Client’s Corrective Action Plan – Single Audit Findings.
Criteria: Under the Pell grant and direct loan programs, institutions are responsible for timely enrollment reporting to NSLDS whether they report directly or via a third-party servicer such as the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC). Enrollment Reporting in a timely and accurate manner is critical for effective management of the programs. Enrollment information must be reported within 60 days whenever the enrollment status changes for students, unless a roster will be submitted within 60 days.
Condition: We tested NSLDS Enrollment Detail Records for eleven students with changes in enrollment. Out of these eleven students tested, we noted that the NSLDS status was not changed in a timely manner for eight of them.
Cause: The enrollment data transmitted to NSC was not accurate until changes in the status were reported.
Effect: Enrollment statuses in NSLDS for the affected individuals were not correct and may have resulted in improper loan deferments and interest subsidiaries on outstanding loans.
Questioned costs: $-0- Identification of repeat findings: Yes, see FA-2023-002.
Recommendation: The University should work with its Information Technology Department and NSC to determine the root cause of the enrollment reporting issues and develop a corrective action as soon as possible to avoid future reporting inaccuracies. The corrective action should be closely monitored by the Registrar on a regular basis to ensure the process is functioning as intended and resulting in accurate enrollment reporting.
Views of responsible officials: The University agrees with the finding. See Client’s Corrective Action Plan – Single Audit Findings.
Criteria: Under the Pell grant and direct loan programs, institutions are responsible for timely enrollment reporting to NSLDS whether they report directly or via a third-party servicer such as the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC). Enrollment Reporting in a timely and accurate manner is critical for effective management of the programs. Enrollment information must be reported within 60 days whenever the enrollment status changes for students, unless a roster will be submitted within 60 days.
Condition: We tested NSLDS Enrollment Detail Records for eleven students with changes in enrollment. Out of these eleven students tested, we noted that the NSLDS status was not changed in a timely manner for eight of them.
Cause: The enrollment data transmitted to NSC was not accurate until changes in the status were reported.
Effect: Enrollment statuses in NSLDS for the affected individuals were not correct and may have resulted in improper loan deferments and interest subsidiaries on outstanding loans.
Questioned costs: $-0- Identification of repeat findings: Yes, see FA-2023-002.
Recommendation: The University should work with its Information Technology Department and NSC to determine the root cause of the enrollment reporting issues and develop a corrective action as soon as possible to avoid future reporting inaccuracies. The corrective action should be closely monitored by the Registrar on a regular basis to ensure the process is functioning as intended and resulting in accurate enrollment reporting.
Views of responsible officials: The University agrees with the finding. See Client’s Corrective Action Plan – Single Audit Findings.
Criteria: Under the Pell grant and direct loan programs, institutions are responsible for timely enrollment reporting to NSLDS whether they report directly or via a third-party servicer such as the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC). Enrollment Reporting in a timely and accurate manner is critical for effective management of the programs. Enrollment information must be reported within 60 days whenever the enrollment status changes for students, unless a roster will be submitted within 60 days.
Condition: We tested NSLDS Enrollment Detail Records for eleven students with changes in enrollment. Out of these eleven students tested, we noted that the NSLDS status was not changed in a timely manner for eight of them.
Cause: The enrollment data transmitted to NSC was not accurate until changes in the status were reported.
Effect: Enrollment statuses in NSLDS for the affected individuals were not correct and may have resulted in improper loan deferments and interest subsidiaries on outstanding loans.
Questioned costs: $-0- Identification of repeat findings: Yes, see FA-2023-002.
Recommendation: The University should work with its Information Technology Department and NSC to determine the root cause of the enrollment reporting issues and develop a corrective action as soon as possible to avoid future reporting inaccuracies. The corrective action should be closely monitored by the Registrar on a regular basis to ensure the process is functioning as intended and resulting in accurate enrollment reporting.
Views of responsible officials: The University agrees with the finding. See Client’s Corrective Action Plan – Single Audit Findings.
Criteria: Regulations require Institutions to consider students who have stopped attending classes in the semester to be considered an unofficial withdrawal. If a student withdraws officially or unofficially within the first 60% of the semester, the Institution must calculate a refund to the student’s account statement. If a student withdraws after the 60% date in the semester, they are considered to have earned their aid and will not have a refund calculated.
Condition: We tested the withdrawal process for eleven students. Out of these eleven, seven students withdrew in a period of 60% and needed a calculation of the return of funds to be made. We noted that one of these students received a refund of aid, though they did not cease attending their classes until after the 60% mark.
Cause: Process and controls over attendance records and unofficial withdrawals are insufficient.
Effect: Federal funds were returned to the Department of Education when the student had in fact earned the aid for the semester.
Questioned costs: -$4,983 Identification of repeat findings: Not a repeat finding.
Recommendation: The University should closely monitor the attendance records of students to ensure that if a student stops attending but returns later in the semester, that any issues with federal aid are addressed timely and appropriately.
Views of responsible officials: The University agrees with the finding. See Client’s Corrective Action Plan – Single Audit Findings.
Criteria: Regulations require Institutions to consider students who have stopped attending classes in the semester to be considered an unofficial withdrawal. If a student withdraws officially or unofficially within the first 60% of the semester, the Institution must calculate a refund to the student’s account statement. If a student withdraws after the 60% date in the semester, they are considered to have earned their aid and will not have a refund calculated.
Condition: We tested the withdrawal process for eleven students. Out of these eleven, seven students withdrew in a period of 60% and needed a calculation of the return of funds to be made. We noted that one of these students received a refund of aid, though they did not cease attending their classes until after the 60% mark.
Cause: Process and controls over attendance records and unofficial withdrawals are insufficient.
Effect: Federal funds were returned to the Department of Education when the student had in fact earned the aid for the semester.
Questioned costs: -$4,983 Identification of repeat findings: Not a repeat finding.
Recommendation: The University should closely monitor the attendance records of students to ensure that if a student stops attending but returns later in the semester, that any issues with federal aid are addressed timely and appropriately.
Views of responsible officials: The University agrees with the finding. See Client’s Corrective Action Plan – Single Audit Findings.
Criteria: Regulations require Institutions to consider students who have stopped attending classes in the semester to be considered an unofficial withdrawal. If a student withdraws officially or unofficially within the first 60% of the semester, the Institution must calculate a refund to the student’s account statement. If a student withdraws after the 60% date in the semester, they are considered to have earned their aid and will not have a refund calculated.
Condition: We tested the withdrawal process for eleven students. Out of these eleven, seven students withdrew in a period of 60% and needed a calculation of the return of funds to be made. We noted that one of these students received a refund of aid, though they did not cease attending their classes until after the 60% mark.
Cause: Process and controls over attendance records and unofficial withdrawals are insufficient.
Effect: Federal funds were returned to the Department of Education when the student had in fact earned the aid for the semester.
Questioned costs: -$4,983 Identification of repeat findings: Not a repeat finding.
Recommendation: The University should closely monitor the attendance records of students to ensure that if a student stops attending but returns later in the semester, that any issues with federal aid are addressed timely and appropriately.
Views of responsible officials: The University agrees with the finding. See Client’s Corrective Action Plan – Single Audit Findings.
Criteria: Regulations require Institutions to consider students who have stopped attending classes in the semester to be considered an unofficial withdrawal. If a student withdraws officially or unofficially within the first 60% of the semester, the Institution must calculate a refund to the student’s account statement. If a student withdraws after the 60% date in the semester, they are considered to have earned their aid and will not have a refund calculated.
Condition: We tested the withdrawal process for eleven students. Out of these eleven, seven students withdrew in a period of 60% and needed a calculation of the return of funds to be made. We noted that one of these students received a refund of aid, though they did not cease attending their classes until after the 60% mark.
Cause: Process and controls over attendance records and unofficial withdrawals are insufficient.
Effect: Federal funds were returned to the Department of Education when the student had in fact earned the aid for the semester.
Questioned costs: -$4,983 Identification of repeat findings: Not a repeat finding.
Recommendation: The University should closely monitor the attendance records of students to ensure that if a student stops attending but returns later in the semester, that any issues with federal aid are addressed timely and appropriately.
Views of responsible officials: The University agrees with the finding. See Client’s Corrective Action Plan – Single Audit Findings.