During our audit, we noted that the County charged payroll costs to federal grants based on budgeted time allocations rather than actual time spent on grant activities. The County lacked sufficient documentation to support the actual time worked on the grant program and did not perform a true-up or reconciliation process to adjust these charges to reflect the actual effort expended on the grant projects.The absence of a reconciliation process between budgeted and actual time spent on grant activities may have resulted in inaccurate charges to federal awards. This could potentially lead to questioned costs and impact the allowability of payroll expenses charged to the grants. The County’s policies and procedures did not include a process for reconciling budgeted payroll allocations to actual time spent on grant activities. Additionally, there was a lack of understanding among some department personnel regarding the requirement to base final charges on actual effort rather than budget estimates. As provided in 2 CFR §200.430(i) of the Uniform Guidance, charges to federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. Payroll distribution records must reasonably reflect an employee’s total activity and support the allocation of salary or wages across specific activities. The County should strengthen its comprehensive internal control policies and procedures to ensure that payroll costs charged to federal awards are accurate, allowable, and properly supported. Additionally, the County should implement a process to reconcile the budgeted payroll allocations with actual time spent on grant activities. The County's corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned actions of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses or corrective actions and therefore we provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
During our audit, we noted that the County charged payroll costs to federal grants based on budgeted time allocations rather than actual time spent on grant activities. The County lacked sufficient documentation to support the actual time worked on the grant program and did not perform a true-up or reconciliation process to adjust these charges to reflect the actual effort expended on the grant projects.The absence of a reconciliation process between budgeted and actual time spent on grant activities may have resulted in inaccurate charges to federal awards. This could potentially lead to questioned costs and impact the allowability of payroll expenses charged to the grants. The County’s policies and procedures did not include a process for reconciling budgeted payroll allocations to actual time spent on grant activities. Additionally, there was a lack of understanding among some department personnel regarding the requirement to base final charges on actual effort rather than budget estimates. As provided in 2 CFR §200.430(i) of the Uniform Guidance, charges to federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. Payroll distribution records must reasonably reflect an employee’s total activity and support the allocation of salary or wages across specific activities. The County should strengthen its comprehensive internal control policies and procedures to ensure that payroll costs charged to federal awards are accurate, allowable, and properly supported. Additionally, the County should implement a process to reconcile the budgeted payroll allocations with actual time spent on grant activities. The County's corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned actions of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses or corrective actions and therefore we provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
During our audit, we noted that the County charged payroll costs to federal grants based on budgeted time allocations rather than actual time spent on grant activities. The County lacked sufficient documentation to support the actual time worked on the grant program and did not perform a true-up or reconciliation process to adjust these charges to reflect the actual effort expended on the grant projects.The absence of a reconciliation process between budgeted and actual time spent on grant activities may have resulted in inaccurate charges to federal awards. This could potentially lead to questioned costs and impact the allowability of payroll expenses charged to the grants. The County’s policies and procedures did not include a process for reconciling budgeted payroll allocations to actual time spent on grant activities. Additionally, there was a lack of understanding among some department personnel regarding the requirement to base final charges on actual effort rather than budget estimates. As provided in 2 CFR §200.430(i) of the Uniform Guidance, charges to federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. Payroll distribution records must reasonably reflect an employee’s total activity and support the allocation of salary or wages across specific activities. The County should strengthen its comprehensive internal control policies and procedures to ensure that payroll costs charged to federal awards are accurate, allowable, and properly supported. Additionally, the County should implement a process to reconcile the budgeted payroll allocations with actual time spent on grant activities. The County's corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned actions of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses or corrective actions and therefore we provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
The County failed to allocate 20 percent, $83,949, of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Youth Activities spending to provide in-school and out-of-school youth with paid and unpaid work experiences. Instead, the County spent only 13 percent, or $57,365, of the required 20 percent and spent the remaining 7 percent, or $26,584, for other youth activities. The minimum appropriation of funding was not received by County youth through paid and unpaid work experiences. The County did not properly monitor the WIOA Youth Activities monies to ensure the 20 percent earmarking requirement was met. As provided in 20 CFR §681.590 of the Uniform Guidance, grantees must not expend less than 20 percent of the WIOA Youth Activities program funding to provide eligible in-school and out-of-school youth with paid and unpaid work experiences. The County should strengthen WIOA Youth Activities program policies and procedures to ensure no less than the required 20 percent of its monies is spent to provide in-school and out-of-school youth with paid and unpaid work experience, retain qualified in-school and out-ofschool youth, and consistently monitor the County's and subrecipients spending throughout the award period. The County's corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned actions of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses or corrective actions and therefore we provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
The County failed to allocate 20 percent, $83,949, of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Youth Activities spending to provide in-school and out-of-school youth with paid and unpaid work experiences. Instead, the County spent only 13 percent, or $57,365, of the required 20 percent and spent the remaining 7 percent, or $26,584, for other youth activities. The minimum appropriation of funding was not received by County youth through paid and unpaid work experiences. The County did not properly monitor the WIOA Youth Activities monies to ensure the 20 percent earmarking requirement was met. As provided in 20 CFR §681.590 of the Uniform Guidance, grantees must not expend less than 20 percent of the WIOA Youth Activities program funding to provide eligible in-school and out-of-school youth with paid and unpaid work experiences. The County should strengthen WIOA Youth Activities program policies and procedures to ensure no less than the required 20 percent of its monies is spent to provide in-school and out-of-school youth with paid and unpaid work experience, retain qualified in-school and out-ofschool youth, and consistently monitor the County's and subrecipients spending throughout the award period. The County's corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned actions of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses or corrective actions and therefore we provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
The County failed to allocate 20 percent, $83,949, of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Youth Activities spending to provide in-school and out-of-school youth with paid and unpaid work experiences. Instead, the County spent only 13 percent, or $57,365, of the required 20 percent and spent the remaining 7 percent, or $26,584, for other youth activities. The minimum appropriation of funding was not received by County youth through paid and unpaid work experiences. The County did not properly monitor the WIOA Youth Activities monies to ensure the 20 percent earmarking requirement was met. As provided in 20 CFR §681.590 of the Uniform Guidance, grantees must not expend less than 20 percent of the WIOA Youth Activities program funding to provide eligible in-school and out-of-school youth with paid and unpaid work experiences. The County should strengthen WIOA Youth Activities program policies and procedures to ensure no less than the required 20 percent of its monies is spent to provide in-school and out-of-school youth with paid and unpaid work experience, retain qualified in-school and out-ofschool youth, and consistently monitor the County's and subrecipients spending throughout the award period. The County's corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned actions of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses or corrective actions and therefore we provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
The County failed to comply with subrecipient monitoring requirements as mandated by federal regulations and the grant terms. The County did not conduct regular oversight and monitoring of its subrecipients' programmatic and financial activities. The non-compliance with 2 CFR §200.330-332 (Subrecipient Monitoring) increases the likelihood of unallowable costs, misallocated resources, and non-compliance with program objectives. There was a change in key personnel responsible for the County's compliance with guidelines related to the federal program. Per 2 CFR §200.330-200.332, pass-through entities must monitor subrecipients to ensure compliance with federal statutes, award terms, and program objectives The County should strengthen its internal control procedures to ensure that the subaward agreement includes a clause for subrecipient monitoring activities and conduct monitoring reviews on a regular basis. The County's corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned actions of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses or corrective actions and therefore we provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
The County failed to comply with subrecipient monitoring requirements as mandated by federal regulations and the grant terms. The County did not conduct regular oversight and monitoring of its subrecipients' programmatic and financial activities. The non-compliance with 2 CFR §200.330-332 (Subrecipient Monitoring) increases the likelihood of unallowable costs, misallocated resources, and non-compliance with program objectives. There was a change in key personnel responsible for the County's compliance with guidelines related to the federal program. Per 2 CFR §200.330-200.332, pass-through entities must monitor subrecipients to ensure compliance with federal statutes, award terms, and program objectives The County should strengthen its internal control procedures to ensure that the subaward agreement includes a clause for subrecipient monitoring activities and conduct monitoring reviews on a regular basis. The County's corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned actions of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses or corrective actions and therefore we provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
The County failed to comply with subrecipient monitoring requirements as mandated by federal regulations and the grant terms. The County did not conduct regular oversight and monitoring of its subrecipients' programmatic and financial activities. The non-compliance with 2 CFR §200.330-332 (Subrecipient Monitoring) increases the likelihood of unallowable costs, misallocated resources, and non-compliance with program objectives. There was a change in key personnel responsible for the County's compliance with guidelines related to the federal program. Per 2 CFR §200.330-200.332, pass-through entities must monitor subrecipients to ensure compliance with federal statutes, award terms, and program objectives The County should strengthen its internal control procedures to ensure that the subaward agreement includes a clause for subrecipient monitoring activities and conduct monitoring reviews on a regular basis. The County's corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned actions of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses or corrective actions and therefore we provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
The County did not comply with the grantor's requirements for the timely submission of deliverables. Specifically, required monthly reimbursement reports and quarterly programmatic reports were submitted up to 120 days past their prescribed deadline. Failure to submit accurate and complete reports within the required timelines may result in delayed payments or retention of fund by the grantor. The delay in report submissions was attributed to a change in key personnel responsible for ensuring compliance with federal program guidelines. This transition resulted in lapses in oversight and adherence to reporting deadlines. The quarterly programmatic reports are due within 30 days after the end of each quarter. Monthly reimbursement reports should be prepared and submitted in a timely manner to avoid payment delays and minimize the risk of omitting information crucial for the reimbursement process. The County should strengthen its internal control procedures to ensure the required reports are prepared accurately and submitted within 30 days of the reporting period. The County's corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned actions of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses or corrective actions and therefore we provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
The County did not comply with the grantor's requirements for the timely submission of deliverables. Specifically, required monthly reimbursement reports and quarterly programmatic reports were submitted up to 120 days past their prescribed deadline. Failure to submit accurate and complete reports within the required timelines may result in delayed payments or retention of fund by the grantor. The delay in report submissions was attributed to a change in key personnel responsible for ensuring compliance with federal program guidelines. This transition resulted in lapses in oversight and adherence to reporting deadlines. The quarterly programmatic reports are due within 30 days after the end of each quarter. Monthly reimbursement reports should be prepared and submitted in a timely manner to avoid payment delays and minimize the risk of omitting information crucial for the reimbursement process. The County should strengthen its internal control procedures to ensure the required reports are prepared accurately and submitted within 30 days of the reporting period. The County's corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned actions of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses or corrective actions and therefore we provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
The County did not comply with the grantor's requirements for the timely submission of deliverables. Specifically, required monthly reimbursement reports and quarterly programmatic reports were submitted up to 120 days past their prescribed deadline. Failure to submit accurate and complete reports within the required timelines may result in delayed payments or retention of fund by the grantor. The delay in report submissions was attributed to a change in key personnel responsible for ensuring compliance with federal program guidelines. This transition resulted in lapses in oversight and adherence to reporting deadlines. The quarterly programmatic reports are due within 30 days after the end of each quarter. Monthly reimbursement reports should be prepared and submitted in a timely manner to avoid payment delays and minimize the risk of omitting information crucial for the reimbursement process. The County should strengthen its internal control procedures to ensure the required reports are prepared accurately and submitted within 30 days of the reporting period. The County's corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned actions of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses or corrective actions and therefore we provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
During our audit, we noted that the County charged payroll costs to federal grants based on budgeted time allocations rather than actual time spent on grant activities. The County lacked sufficient documentation to support the actual time worked on the grant program and did not perform a true-up or reconciliation process to adjust these charges to reflect the actual effort expended on the grant projects. The absence of a reconciliation process between budgeted and actual time spent on grant activities may have resulted in inaccurate charges to federal awards. This could potentially lead to questioned costs and impact the allowability of payroll expenses charged to the grants. The County’s policies and procedures did not include a process for reconciling budgeted payroll allocations to actual time spent on grant activities. Additionally, there was a lack of understanding among some department personnel regarding the requirement to base final charges on actual effort rather than budget estimates. As provided in 2 CFR §200.430(i) of the Uniform Guidance, charges to federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. Payroll distribution records must reasonably reflect an employee’s total activity and support the allocation of salary or wages across specific activities. The County should strengthen its comprehensive internal control policies and procedures to ensure that payroll costs charged to federal awards are accurate, allowable, and properly supported. Additionally, the County should implement a process to reconcile the budgeted payroll allocations with actual time spent on grant activities.
The County's corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned actions of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses or corrective
actions and therefore we provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
During our audit, we noted that the County charged payroll costs to federal grants based on budgeted time allocations rather than actual time spent on grant activities. The County lacked sufficient documentation to support the actual time worked on the grant program and did not perform a true-up or reconciliation process to adjust these charges to reflect the actual effort expended on the grant projects.The absence of a reconciliation process between budgeted and actual time spent on grant activities may have resulted in inaccurate charges to federal awards. This could potentially lead to questioned costs and impact the allowability of payroll expenses charged to the grants. The County’s policies and procedures did not include a process for reconciling budgeted payroll allocations to actual time spent on grant activities. Additionally, there was a lack of understanding among some department personnel regarding the requirement to base final charges on actual effort rather than budget estimates. As provided in 2 CFR §200.430(i) of the Uniform Guidance, charges to federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. Payroll distribution records must reasonably reflect an employee’s total activity and support the allocation of salary or wages across specific activities. The County should strengthen its comprehensive internal control policies and procedures to ensure that payroll costs charged to federal awards are accurate, allowable, and properly supported. Additionally, the County should implement a process to reconcile the budgeted payroll allocations with actual time spent on grant activities. The County's corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned actions of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses or corrective actions and therefore we provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
During our audit, we noted that the County charged payroll costs to federal grants based on budgeted time allocations rather than actual time spent on grant activities. The County lacked sufficient documentation to support the actual time worked on the grant program and did not perform a true-up or reconciliation process to adjust these charges to reflect the actual effort expended on the grant projects.The absence of a reconciliation process between budgeted and actual time spent on grant activities may have resulted in inaccurate charges to federal awards. This could potentially lead to questioned costs and impact the allowability of payroll expenses charged to the grants. The County’s policies and procedures did not include a process for reconciling budgeted payroll allocations to actual time spent on grant activities. Additionally, there was a lack of understanding among some department personnel regarding the requirement to base final charges on actual effort rather than budget estimates. As provided in 2 CFR §200.430(i) of the Uniform Guidance, charges to federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. Payroll distribution records must reasonably reflect an employee’s total activity and support the allocation of salary or wages across specific activities. The County should strengthen its comprehensive internal control policies and procedures to ensure that payroll costs charged to federal awards are accurate, allowable, and properly supported. Additionally, the County should implement a process to reconcile the budgeted payroll allocations with actual time spent on grant activities. The County's corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned actions of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses or corrective actions and therefore we provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
During our audit, we noted that the County charged payroll costs to federal grants based on budgeted time allocations rather than actual time spent on grant activities. The County lacked sufficient documentation to support the actual time worked on the grant program and did not perform a true-up or reconciliation process to adjust these charges to reflect the actual effort expended on the grant projects.The absence of a reconciliation process between budgeted and actual time spent on grant activities may have resulted in inaccurate charges to federal awards. This could potentially lead to questioned costs and impact the allowability of payroll expenses charged to the grants. The County’s policies and procedures did not include a process for reconciling budgeted payroll allocations to actual time spent on grant activities. Additionally, there was a lack of understanding among some department personnel regarding the requirement to base final charges on actual effort rather than budget estimates. As provided in 2 CFR §200.430(i) of the Uniform Guidance, charges to federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. Payroll distribution records must reasonably reflect an employee’s total activity and support the allocation of salary or wages across specific activities. The County should strengthen its comprehensive internal control policies and procedures to ensure that payroll costs charged to federal awards are accurate, allowable, and properly supported. Additionally, the County should implement a process to reconcile the budgeted payroll allocations with actual time spent on grant activities. The County's corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned actions of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses or corrective actions and therefore we provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
The County failed to allocate 20 percent, $83,949, of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Youth Activities spending to provide in-school and out-of-school youth with paid and unpaid work experiences. Instead, the County spent only 13 percent, or $57,365, of the required 20 percent and spent the remaining 7 percent, or $26,584, for other youth activities. The minimum appropriation of funding was not received by County youth through paid and unpaid work experiences. The County did not properly monitor the WIOA Youth Activities monies to ensure the 20 percent earmarking requirement was met. As provided in 20 CFR §681.590 of the Uniform Guidance, grantees must not expend less than 20 percent of the WIOA Youth Activities program funding to provide eligible in-school and out-of-school youth with paid and unpaid work experiences. The County should strengthen WIOA Youth Activities program policies and procedures to ensure no less than the required 20 percent of its monies is spent to provide in-school and out-of-school youth with paid and unpaid work experience, retain qualified in-school and out-ofschool youth, and consistently monitor the County's and subrecipients spending throughout the award period. The County's corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned actions of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses or corrective actions and therefore we provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
The County failed to allocate 20 percent, $83,949, of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Youth Activities spending to provide in-school and out-of-school youth with paid and unpaid work experiences. Instead, the County spent only 13 percent, or $57,365, of the required 20 percent and spent the remaining 7 percent, or $26,584, for other youth activities. The minimum appropriation of funding was not received by County youth through paid and unpaid work experiences. The County did not properly monitor the WIOA Youth Activities monies to ensure the 20 percent earmarking requirement was met. As provided in 20 CFR §681.590 of the Uniform Guidance, grantees must not expend less than 20 percent of the WIOA Youth Activities program funding to provide eligible in-school and out-of-school youth with paid and unpaid work experiences. The County should strengthen WIOA Youth Activities program policies and procedures to ensure no less than the required 20 percent of its monies is spent to provide in-school and out-of-school youth with paid and unpaid work experience, retain qualified in-school and out-ofschool youth, and consistently monitor the County's and subrecipients spending throughout the award period. The County's corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned actions of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses or corrective actions and therefore we provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
The County failed to allocate 20 percent, $83,949, of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Youth Activities spending to provide in-school and out-of-school youth with paid and unpaid work experiences. Instead, the County spent only 13 percent, or $57,365, of the required 20 percent and spent the remaining 7 percent, or $26,584, for other youth activities. The minimum appropriation of funding was not received by County youth through paid and unpaid work experiences. The County did not properly monitor the WIOA Youth Activities monies to ensure the 20 percent earmarking requirement was met. As provided in 20 CFR §681.590 of the Uniform Guidance, grantees must not expend less than 20 percent of the WIOA Youth Activities program funding to provide eligible in-school and out-of-school youth with paid and unpaid work experiences. The County should strengthen WIOA Youth Activities program policies and procedures to ensure no less than the required 20 percent of its monies is spent to provide in-school and out-of-school youth with paid and unpaid work experience, retain qualified in-school and out-ofschool youth, and consistently monitor the County's and subrecipients spending throughout the award period. The County's corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned actions of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses or corrective actions and therefore we provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
The County failed to comply with subrecipient monitoring requirements as mandated by federal regulations and the grant terms. The County did not conduct regular oversight and monitoring of its subrecipients' programmatic and financial activities. The non-compliance with 2 CFR §200.330-332 (Subrecipient Monitoring) increases the likelihood of unallowable costs, misallocated resources, and non-compliance with program objectives. There was a change in key personnel responsible for the County's compliance with guidelines related to the federal program. Per 2 CFR §200.330-200.332, pass-through entities must monitor subrecipients to ensure compliance with federal statutes, award terms, and program objectives The County should strengthen its internal control procedures to ensure that the subaward agreement includes a clause for subrecipient monitoring activities and conduct monitoring reviews on a regular basis. The County's corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned actions of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses or corrective actions and therefore we provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
The County failed to comply with subrecipient monitoring requirements as mandated by federal regulations and the grant terms. The County did not conduct regular oversight and monitoring of its subrecipients' programmatic and financial activities. The non-compliance with 2 CFR §200.330-332 (Subrecipient Monitoring) increases the likelihood of unallowable costs, misallocated resources, and non-compliance with program objectives. There was a change in key personnel responsible for the County's compliance with guidelines related to the federal program. Per 2 CFR §200.330-200.332, pass-through entities must monitor subrecipients to ensure compliance with federal statutes, award terms, and program objectives The County should strengthen its internal control procedures to ensure that the subaward agreement includes a clause for subrecipient monitoring activities and conduct monitoring reviews on a regular basis. The County's corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned actions of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses or corrective actions and therefore we provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
The County failed to comply with subrecipient monitoring requirements as mandated by federal regulations and the grant terms. The County did not conduct regular oversight and monitoring of its subrecipients' programmatic and financial activities. The non-compliance with 2 CFR §200.330-332 (Subrecipient Monitoring) increases the likelihood of unallowable costs, misallocated resources, and non-compliance with program objectives. There was a change in key personnel responsible for the County's compliance with guidelines related to the federal program. Per 2 CFR §200.330-200.332, pass-through entities must monitor subrecipients to ensure compliance with federal statutes, award terms, and program objectives The County should strengthen its internal control procedures to ensure that the subaward agreement includes a clause for subrecipient monitoring activities and conduct monitoring reviews on a regular basis. The County's corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned actions of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses or corrective actions and therefore we provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
The County did not comply with the grantor's requirements for the timely submission of deliverables. Specifically, required monthly reimbursement reports and quarterly programmatic reports were submitted up to 120 days past their prescribed deadline. Failure to submit accurate and complete reports within the required timelines may result in delayed payments or retention of fund by the grantor. The delay in report submissions was attributed to a change in key personnel responsible for ensuring compliance with federal program guidelines. This transition resulted in lapses in oversight and adherence to reporting deadlines. The quarterly programmatic reports are due within 30 days after the end of each quarter. Monthly reimbursement reports should be prepared and submitted in a timely manner to avoid payment delays and minimize the risk of omitting information crucial for the reimbursement process. The County should strengthen its internal control procedures to ensure the required reports are prepared accurately and submitted within 30 days of the reporting period. The County's corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned actions of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses or corrective actions and therefore we provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
The County did not comply with the grantor's requirements for the timely submission of deliverables. Specifically, required monthly reimbursement reports and quarterly programmatic reports were submitted up to 120 days past their prescribed deadline. Failure to submit accurate and complete reports within the required timelines may result in delayed payments or retention of fund by the grantor. The delay in report submissions was attributed to a change in key personnel responsible for ensuring compliance with federal program guidelines. This transition resulted in lapses in oversight and adherence to reporting deadlines. The quarterly programmatic reports are due within 30 days after the end of each quarter. Monthly reimbursement reports should be prepared and submitted in a timely manner to avoid payment delays and minimize the risk of omitting information crucial for the reimbursement process. The County should strengthen its internal control procedures to ensure the required reports are prepared accurately and submitted within 30 days of the reporting period. The County's corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned actions of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses or corrective actions and therefore we provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
The County did not comply with the grantor's requirements for the timely submission of deliverables. Specifically, required monthly reimbursement reports and quarterly programmatic reports were submitted up to 120 days past their prescribed deadline. Failure to submit accurate and complete reports within the required timelines may result in delayed payments or retention of fund by the grantor. The delay in report submissions was attributed to a change in key personnel responsible for ensuring compliance with federal program guidelines. This transition resulted in lapses in oversight and adherence to reporting deadlines. The quarterly programmatic reports are due within 30 days after the end of each quarter. Monthly reimbursement reports should be prepared and submitted in a timely manner to avoid payment delays and minimize the risk of omitting information crucial for the reimbursement process. The County should strengthen its internal control procedures to ensure the required reports are prepared accurately and submitted within 30 days of the reporting period. The County's corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned actions of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses or corrective actions and therefore we provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
During our audit, we noted that the County charged payroll costs to federal grants based on budgeted time allocations rather than actual time spent on grant activities. The County lacked sufficient documentation to support the actual time worked on the grant program and did not perform a true-up or reconciliation process to adjust these charges to reflect the actual effort expended on the grant projects. The absence of a reconciliation process between budgeted and actual time spent on grant activities may have resulted in inaccurate charges to federal awards. This could potentially lead to questioned costs and impact the allowability of payroll expenses charged to the grants. The County’s policies and procedures did not include a process for reconciling budgeted payroll allocations to actual time spent on grant activities. Additionally, there was a lack of understanding among some department personnel regarding the requirement to base final charges on actual effort rather than budget estimates. As provided in 2 CFR §200.430(i) of the Uniform Guidance, charges to federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. Payroll distribution records must reasonably reflect an employee’s total activity and support the allocation of salary or wages across specific activities. The County should strengthen its comprehensive internal control policies and procedures to ensure that payroll costs charged to federal awards are accurate, allowable, and properly supported. Additionally, the County should implement a process to reconcile the budgeted payroll allocations with actual time spent on grant activities.
The County's corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned actions of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses or corrective
actions and therefore we provide no assurances as to their accuracy.