Audit 344486

FY End
2023-12-31
Total Expended
$1.65M
Findings
14
Programs
3
Year: 2023 Accepted: 2025-03-03

Organization Exclusion Status:

Checking exclusion status...

Findings

ID Ref Severity Repeat Requirement
525262 2023-001 Material Weakness - B
525263 2023-002 Material Weakness Yes B
525264 2023-003 Material Weakness Yes B
525265 2023-004 Material Weakness - B
525266 2023-005 Material Weakness - B
525267 2023-006 Material Weakness - E
525268 2023-007 Material Weakness - I
1101704 2023-001 Material Weakness - B
1101705 2023-002 Material Weakness Yes B
1101706 2023-003 Material Weakness Yes B
1101707 2023-004 Material Weakness - B
1101708 2023-005 Material Weakness - B
1101709 2023-006 Material Weakness - E
1101710 2023-007 Material Weakness - I

Programs

ALN Program Spent Major Findings
21.027 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds $993,207 Yes 4
93.575 Child Care and Development Block Grant $541,441 Yes 3
84.425D Education Stabilization Fund $114,776 - 0

Contacts

Name Title Type
V39ET4AYHS39 Brianna Wheeler Auditee
3036645455 Austin Barbee Auditor
No contacts on file

Notes to SEFA

Accounting Policies: This schedule includes the federal awards activity of the Organization and is presented on the accrual basis of accounting. 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). De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: The Organization has not elected to use the 10% de minimus indirect cost rate to charge costs to their federal awards.

Finding Details

Criteria or Specific Requirement – Management is required to ensure that there are sufficient internal controls in place over payroll costs charged to the program. This includes internal controls that ensure that all supporting documentation is retained to demonstrate compliance. Conditions – Documentation supporting employee costs charged to the both major programs was unavailable or incomplete. Context – During our testing of allowable costs and activities for the Child Care and Development Block Grant, we selected twenty-seven journal entries for payroll testing. The Organization provided us detail listings for each of the twenty-seven journal entries which included employees and charges that supported the journal entry and we were able to make sub selections to the employee level. For each employee selected, we were able to verify the validity of the employee. However, we were not able to validate the approved rate of pay. During our testing of allowable costs and activities, for the SLFRF grants we selected two journal entries for payroll testing. The Organization provided us detail listings for each of the two journal entries which included employees and charges that supported the journal entry and we were able to make sub selections to the employee level. For each employee selected, we were able to verify the validity of the employee. However, for one of the selections which was charged to the SLFRF pass-through grant from Laramie County, WY, we were not able to validate the approved rate of pay. Cause – For periods for which payroll records were not available, the Organization was using a different payroll process system. As a result, such records could no longer be accessed. Effect – Complete documentation to support certain payroll transactions was not available. We were able to verify the existence of the employee. We were also able to verify that the amounts charged were reasonable based on the nature of the program as well as subsequent activity. As a result, we considered the total costs charged to the program to be reasonable. However, internal controls were not in place related to the proper retention of records.
Criteria or Specific Requirement – Management is required to ensure that there are sufficient internal controls in place over expenses charged to the program. This includes internal controls that ensure that expenditures are verifiable with adequate supporting documentation. Conditions – Documentation for certain expenditures was not maintained to support the expenditures charged to the Child Care and Development Block Grant program. Context – During our testing of allowable costs and activities, we sampled thirteen non-payroll expenditures totaling $20,257. The total population of non-payroll expenditures charged to the program was $422,829. In our sample, we found that two selections of expenditures totaling $1,373 did not have adequate supporting documentation on file. In the same sample, we also identified one expenditure totaling $2,345 which may be unallowable and is reported as a separate finding (see finding 2023-003). Cause – Supporting documentation was not consistently maintained. Effect – Unallowable costs may have been charged to the program.
Criteria or Specific Requirement – Management is required to ensure that costs charged to the program are allowable costs. This includes having internal controls that ensure that all costs are allowable costs. Conditions – Unallowable costs may have been charged to the Child Care and Development Block Grant program. Context – During our testing of allowable costs and activities, we noted that the Organization charged mileage expenses to the program, which may be unallowable. Sampled costs related to mileage was $2,345. Through further audit procedures we determined that total mileage costs charged to the program, which may be unallowable, was $12,907. Cause – Existing procedures surrounding the determination of allowable costs of non-payroll costs were not followed. Effect – Mileage was charged to the program which may be unallowable costs.
Criteria or Specific Requirement – A portion of the SLFRF ARPA Scholarship program was to provide funding for CCAP losses incurred for Boulder County Children. Management is required to ensure that there are sufficient internal controls in place over expenses charged to the SLFRF program. This includes internal controls that ensure that reports used in determining expenditures are complete, accurate, and compliant with the program. Conditions – Documentation used for calculating expenditures was not accurate. Context – During our testing of allowable costs and activities, we reviewed reports used for CCCAP loss calculations. We selected six of nineteen locations to verify the Boulder County resident percentage used for allowable expenditures. The six locations accounted for 82% of all students. We noted the number of students did not agree between the reports used for the calculations and the support provided. However, the errors resulted n more expenses being allowable; as a result, there are no questionable costs. Cause – Controls were not in place to ensure correct data was gathered to provide for accurate reporting. Effect – Reports submitted were inaccurate.
Criteria or Specific Requirement – A portion of the funds received under the SLFRF ARPA Scholarship Program was to provide financial aid to children of Boulder County residents who are low-income and/or historically marginalized who have disparate access to childcare services. Conditions – Unallowable costs may have been charged to the program. Context – In our testing of financial assistance provided, we selected 25 recipients who in total received $11,384 in financial aid. The grant was for a total of $500,000 of which $350,000 was for financial aid. In our sample, we found the following instances in which the recipients of financial aid may not have been eligible: • 3 of the recipients of financial aid were children of employees of the Organization. Financial aid of $3,333 was provided to these recipients without verification of eligibility. • For 7 of our selections totaling $2,216, documentation was not on file to support eligibility. Cause – Established controls for determining allowable activity were not adequate. Effect – Employee childcare was charged to the program which may be unallowable costs.
Criteria or Specific Requirement – The Organization had reporting requirements for the SLFRF grants. Conditions – Required program reporting was not followed. Context – During our testing of reporting, we sampled four required reports. In our sample, we found that for one selection, Boulder County ARPA Capital Project, required reporting was not completed for the October through November 2023 period. Cause – Controls to ensure proper reporting were not sufficient. Effect – Required reporting requirements were not met.
Criteria or Specific Requirement – Management is required to ensure that there are sufficient internal controls in place over SLFRF program purchasing. This includes internal controls that ensure that approved vendors are used for purchases in excess of $25,000. Conditions – Verification of SAMS.gov vendors was not performed. Context – During our testing of procurement, we sampled three expenditures totaling $595,584. The total population of procurement expenditures charged to the program was $725,854. We noted that all three selections of expenditures did not have SAMS.gov verification documentation. Cause – Procurement policy was not sufficient to ensure full compliance. Effect – Use of non-approved vendors could have occurred. However, as part our audit procedures, we determined that the expenditures were made with contractors which were not suspended or disbarred and were approved on the SAMS.gov website.
Criteria or Specific Requirement – Management is required to ensure that there are sufficient internal controls in place over payroll costs charged to the program. This includes internal controls that ensure that all supporting documentation is retained to demonstrate compliance. Conditions – Documentation supporting employee costs charged to the both major programs was unavailable or incomplete. Context – During our testing of allowable costs and activities for the Child Care and Development Block Grant, we selected twenty-seven journal entries for payroll testing. The Organization provided us detail listings for each of the twenty-seven journal entries which included employees and charges that supported the journal entry and we were able to make sub selections to the employee level. For each employee selected, we were able to verify the validity of the employee. However, we were not able to validate the approved rate of pay. During our testing of allowable costs and activities, for the SLFRF grants we selected two journal entries for payroll testing. The Organization provided us detail listings for each of the two journal entries which included employees and charges that supported the journal entry and we were able to make sub selections to the employee level. For each employee selected, we were able to verify the validity of the employee. However, for one of the selections which was charged to the SLFRF pass-through grant from Laramie County, WY, we were not able to validate the approved rate of pay. Cause – For periods for which payroll records were not available, the Organization was using a different payroll process system. As a result, such records could no longer be accessed. Effect – Complete documentation to support certain payroll transactions was not available. We were able to verify the existence of the employee. We were also able to verify that the amounts charged were reasonable based on the nature of the program as well as subsequent activity. As a result, we considered the total costs charged to the program to be reasonable. However, internal controls were not in place related to the proper retention of records.
Criteria or Specific Requirement – Management is required to ensure that there are sufficient internal controls in place over expenses charged to the program. This includes internal controls that ensure that expenditures are verifiable with adequate supporting documentation. Conditions – Documentation for certain expenditures was not maintained to support the expenditures charged to the Child Care and Development Block Grant program. Context – During our testing of allowable costs and activities, we sampled thirteen non-payroll expenditures totaling $20,257. The total population of non-payroll expenditures charged to the program was $422,829. In our sample, we found that two selections of expenditures totaling $1,373 did not have adequate supporting documentation on file. In the same sample, we also identified one expenditure totaling $2,345 which may be unallowable and is reported as a separate finding (see finding 2023-003). Cause – Supporting documentation was not consistently maintained. Effect – Unallowable costs may have been charged to the program.
Criteria or Specific Requirement – Management is required to ensure that costs charged to the program are allowable costs. This includes having internal controls that ensure that all costs are allowable costs. Conditions – Unallowable costs may have been charged to the Child Care and Development Block Grant program. Context – During our testing of allowable costs and activities, we noted that the Organization charged mileage expenses to the program, which may be unallowable. Sampled costs related to mileage was $2,345. Through further audit procedures we determined that total mileage costs charged to the program, which may be unallowable, was $12,907. Cause – Existing procedures surrounding the determination of allowable costs of non-payroll costs were not followed. Effect – Mileage was charged to the program which may be unallowable costs.
Criteria or Specific Requirement – A portion of the SLFRF ARPA Scholarship program was to provide funding for CCAP losses incurred for Boulder County Children. Management is required to ensure that there are sufficient internal controls in place over expenses charged to the SLFRF program. This includes internal controls that ensure that reports used in determining expenditures are complete, accurate, and compliant with the program. Conditions – Documentation used for calculating expenditures was not accurate. Context – During our testing of allowable costs and activities, we reviewed reports used for CCCAP loss calculations. We selected six of nineteen locations to verify the Boulder County resident percentage used for allowable expenditures. The six locations accounted for 82% of all students. We noted the number of students did not agree between the reports used for the calculations and the support provided. However, the errors resulted n more expenses being allowable; as a result, there are no questionable costs. Cause – Controls were not in place to ensure correct data was gathered to provide for accurate reporting. Effect – Reports submitted were inaccurate.
Criteria or Specific Requirement – A portion of the funds received under the SLFRF ARPA Scholarship Program was to provide financial aid to children of Boulder County residents who are low-income and/or historically marginalized who have disparate access to childcare services. Conditions – Unallowable costs may have been charged to the program. Context – In our testing of financial assistance provided, we selected 25 recipients who in total received $11,384 in financial aid. The grant was for a total of $500,000 of which $350,000 was for financial aid. In our sample, we found the following instances in which the recipients of financial aid may not have been eligible: • 3 of the recipients of financial aid were children of employees of the Organization. Financial aid of $3,333 was provided to these recipients without verification of eligibility. • For 7 of our selections totaling $2,216, documentation was not on file to support eligibility. Cause – Established controls for determining allowable activity were not adequate. Effect – Employee childcare was charged to the program which may be unallowable costs.
Criteria or Specific Requirement – The Organization had reporting requirements for the SLFRF grants. Conditions – Required program reporting was not followed. Context – During our testing of reporting, we sampled four required reports. In our sample, we found that for one selection, Boulder County ARPA Capital Project, required reporting was not completed for the October through November 2023 period. Cause – Controls to ensure proper reporting were not sufficient. Effect – Required reporting requirements were not met.
Criteria or Specific Requirement – Management is required to ensure that there are sufficient internal controls in place over SLFRF program purchasing. This includes internal controls that ensure that approved vendors are used for purchases in excess of $25,000. Conditions – Verification of SAMS.gov vendors was not performed. Context – During our testing of procurement, we sampled three expenditures totaling $595,584. The total population of procurement expenditures charged to the program was $725,854. We noted that all three selections of expenditures did not have SAMS.gov verification documentation. Cause – Procurement policy was not sufficient to ensure full compliance. Effect – Use of non-approved vendors could have occurred. However, as part our audit procedures, we determined that the expenditures were made with contractors which were not suspended or disbarred and were approved on the SAMS.gov website.