Criteria: Federal cost principles, as identified in 2 CFR 200.430, require salaries allocated to more than one federal award activity or cost objective to be supported by records which accurately reflect the distribution of salary or wages. Budget estimates determined before the services are performed do not qualify as support for charges to the federal awards. Personnel activity reports are required when time is allocated between federal awards and cost objectives. Periodic certifications are required when an individual’s salary is charged solely to one federal award or cost objective. Condition: During our testing of compliance with the federal program, we noted that personnel activity reports to document time and effort were not completed for individuals whose salaries were allocated to one single federal award activity and the District’s General Fund. Additionally, individuals charged solely to one federal award activity and cost objective did not complete periodic certifications. Questioned costs: None. Context: Of the District’s payroll charges related to the major programs during fiscal year 2024, we haphazardly selected 31 individual charges from the bi-weekly payroll periods. All employees charged to the grants were selected for testing at least once with the sample representing $91,454 of $547,102 in payroll related charges. During the examination of charges, we noted two instances where an individual who is charged 30% to the Special Education Cluster (IDEA and Preschool) and 70% to the District’s General Fund, did not have a monthly personnel activity report completed and one instance where an individual was charged 100% to the IDEA federal program did not have a semi-annual certification completed. Effect or potential effect: Failure to adequately document personnel activity in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Federal Regulations increases the risk that the District will request reimbursement for expenditures which were not related to employee time spent on the federal awards. Cause: For periodic certifications of time and effort, the District’s grant manager prepared the periodic certification forms for distribution to the employees. The certifications were not returned by the employees in the instances noted above. Recommendation: We recommend whenever an employee’s salary is allocated 100% to a federal award and single cost objective the District prepare, at a minimum, semi-annual certifications of time and effort. Additionally, when an employee’s salary is allocated to multiple federal awards or cost objectives the District should complete, at a minimum, monthly personnel activity reports showing the distribution of the employee’s time and effort. Any changes from the initial budgeted amounts written into the federal awards and actual time and effort as documented in the personnel activity reports must be adjusted such that the final amount charged to the federal award is accurate, allowable, and properly allocated. Views of responsible officials: The Business Office is providing continued training to cost center managers. Throughout the summer we have had the Finance Manager training the Community Education administrative team and responsible grant managers to ensure compliance with the time and effort requirements.
Criteria: Federal cost principles, as identified in 2 CFR 200.430, require salaries allocated to more than one federal award activity or cost objective to be supported by records which accurately reflect the distribution of salary or wages. Budget estimates determined before the services are performed do not qualify as support for charges to the federal awards. Personnel activity reports are required when time is allocated between federal awards and cost objectives. Periodic certifications are required when an individual’s salary is charged solely to one federal award or cost objective. Condition: During our testing of compliance with the federal program, we noted that personnel activity reports to document time and effort were not completed for individuals whose salaries were allocated to one single federal award activity and the District’s General Fund. Additionally, individuals charged solely to one federal award activity and cost objective did not complete periodic certifications. Questioned costs: None. Context: Of the District’s payroll charges related to the major programs during fiscal year 2024, we haphazardly selected 31 individual charges from the bi-weekly payroll periods. All employees charged to the grants were selected for testing at least once with the sample representing $91,454 of $547,102 in payroll related charges. During the examination of charges, we noted two instances where an individual who is charged 30% to the Special Education Cluster (IDEA and Preschool) and 70% to the District’s General Fund, did not have a monthly personnel activity report completed and one instance where an individual was charged 100% to the IDEA federal program did not have a semi-annual certification completed. Effect or potential effect: Failure to adequately document personnel activity in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Federal Regulations increases the risk that the District will request reimbursement for expenditures which were not related to employee time spent on the federal awards. Cause: For periodic certifications of time and effort, the District’s grant manager prepared the periodic certification forms for distribution to the employees. The certifications were not returned by the employees in the instances noted above. Recommendation: We recommend whenever an employee’s salary is allocated 100% to a federal award and single cost objective the District prepare, at a minimum, semi-annual certifications of time and effort. Additionally, when an employee’s salary is allocated to multiple federal awards or cost objectives the District should complete, at a minimum, monthly personnel activity reports showing the distribution of the employee’s time and effort. Any changes from the initial budgeted amounts written into the federal awards and actual time and effort as documented in the personnel activity reports must be adjusted such that the final amount charged to the federal award is accurate, allowable, and properly allocated. Views of responsible officials: The Business Office is providing continued training to cost center managers. Throughout the summer we have had the Finance Manager training the Community Education administrative team and responsible grant managers to ensure compliance with the time and effort requirements.
Criteria: Federal cost principles, as identified in 2 CFR 200.430, require salaries allocated to more than one federal award activity or cost objective to be supported by records which accurately reflect the distribution of salary or wages. Budget estimates determined before the services are performed do not qualify as support for charges to the federal awards. Personnel activity reports are required when time is allocated between federal awards and cost objectives. Periodic certifications are required when an individual’s salary is charged solely to one federal award or cost objective. Condition: During our testing of compliance with the federal program, we noted that personnel activity reports to document time and effort were not completed for individuals whose salaries were allocated to one single federal award activity and the District’s General Fund. Additionally, individuals charged solely to one federal award activity and cost objective did not complete periodic certifications. Questioned costs: None. Context: Of the District’s payroll charges related to the major programs during fiscal year 2024, we haphazardly selected 31 individual charges from the bi-weekly payroll periods. All employees charged to the grants were selected for testing at least once with the sample representing $91,454 of $547,102 in payroll related charges. During the examination of charges, we noted two instances where an individual who is charged 30% to the Special Education Cluster (IDEA and Preschool) and 70% to the District’s General Fund, did not have a monthly personnel activity report completed and one instance where an individual was charged 100% to the IDEA federal program did not have a semi-annual certification completed. Effect or potential effect: Failure to adequately document personnel activity in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Federal Regulations increases the risk that the District will request reimbursement for expenditures which were not related to employee time spent on the federal awards. Cause: For periodic certifications of time and effort, the District’s grant manager prepared the periodic certification forms for distribution to the employees. The certifications were not returned by the employees in the instances noted above. Recommendation: We recommend whenever an employee’s salary is allocated 100% to a federal award and single cost objective the District prepare, at a minimum, semi-annual certifications of time and effort. Additionally, when an employee’s salary is allocated to multiple federal awards or cost objectives the District should complete, at a minimum, monthly personnel activity reports showing the distribution of the employee’s time and effort. Any changes from the initial budgeted amounts written into the federal awards and actual time and effort as documented in the personnel activity reports must be adjusted such that the final amount charged to the federal award is accurate, allowable, and properly allocated. Views of responsible officials: The Business Office is providing continued training to cost center managers. Throughout the summer we have had the Finance Manager training the Community Education administrative team and responsible grant managers to ensure compliance with the time and effort requirements.
Criteria: Federal cost principles, as identified in 2 CFR 200.430, require salaries allocated to more than one federal award activity or cost objective to be supported by records which accurately reflect the distribution of salary or wages. Budget estimates determined before the services are performed do not qualify as support for charges to the federal awards. Personnel activity reports are required when time is allocated between federal awards and cost objectives. Periodic certifications are required when an individual’s salary is charged solely to one federal award or cost objective. Condition: During our testing of compliance with the federal program, we noted that personnel activity reports to document time and effort were not completed for individuals whose salaries were allocated to one single federal award activity and the District’s General Fund. Additionally, individuals charged solely to one federal award activity and cost objective did not complete periodic certifications. Questioned costs: None. Context: Of the District’s payroll charges related to the major programs during fiscal year 2024, we haphazardly selected 31 individual charges from the bi-weekly payroll periods. All employees charged to the grants were selected for testing at least once with the sample representing $91,454 of $547,102 in payroll related charges. During the examination of charges, we noted two instances where an individual who is charged 30% to the Special Education Cluster (IDEA and Preschool) and 70% to the District’s General Fund, did not have a monthly personnel activity report completed and one instance where an individual was charged 100% to the IDEA federal program did not have a semi-annual certification completed. Effect or potential effect: Failure to adequately document personnel activity in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Federal Regulations increases the risk that the District will request reimbursement for expenditures which were not related to employee time spent on the federal awards. Cause: For periodic certifications of time and effort, the District’s grant manager prepared the periodic certification forms for distribution to the employees. The certifications were not returned by the employees in the instances noted above. Recommendation: We recommend whenever an employee’s salary is allocated 100% to a federal award and single cost objective the District prepare, at a minimum, semi-annual certifications of time and effort. Additionally, when an employee’s salary is allocated to multiple federal awards or cost objectives the District should complete, at a minimum, monthly personnel activity reports showing the distribution of the employee’s time and effort. Any changes from the initial budgeted amounts written into the federal awards and actual time and effort as documented in the personnel activity reports must be adjusted such that the final amount charged to the federal award is accurate, allowable, and properly allocated. Views of responsible officials: The Business Office is providing continued training to cost center managers. Throughout the summer we have had the Finance Manager training the Community Education administrative team and responsible grant managers to ensure compliance with the time and effort requirements.
Criteria: Federal cost principles, as identified in 2 CFR 200.430, require salaries allocated to more than one federal award activity or cost objective to be supported by records which accurately reflect the distribution of salary or wages. Budget estimates determined before the services are performed do not qualify as support for charges to the federal awards. Personnel activity reports are required when time is allocated between federal awards and cost objectives. Periodic certifications are required when an individual’s salary is charged solely to one federal award or cost objective. Condition: During our testing of compliance with the federal program, we noted that personnel activity reports to document time and effort were not completed for individuals whose salaries were allocated to one single federal award activity and the District’s General Fund. Additionally, individuals charged solely to one federal award activity and cost objective did not complete periodic certifications. Questioned costs: None. Context: Of the District’s payroll charges related to the major programs during fiscal year 2024, we haphazardly selected 31 individual charges from the bi-weekly payroll periods. All employees charged to the grants were selected for testing at least once with the sample representing $91,454 of $547,102 in payroll related charges. During the examination of charges, we noted two instances where an individual who is charged 30% to the Special Education Cluster (IDEA and Preschool) and 70% to the District’s General Fund, did not have a monthly personnel activity report completed and one instance where an individual was charged 100% to the IDEA federal program did not have a semi-annual certification completed. Effect or potential effect: Failure to adequately document personnel activity in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Federal Regulations increases the risk that the District will request reimbursement for expenditures which were not related to employee time spent on the federal awards. Cause: For periodic certifications of time and effort, the District’s grant manager prepared the periodic certification forms for distribution to the employees. The certifications were not returned by the employees in the instances noted above. Recommendation: We recommend whenever an employee’s salary is allocated 100% to a federal award and single cost objective the District prepare, at a minimum, semi-annual certifications of time and effort. Additionally, when an employee’s salary is allocated to multiple federal awards or cost objectives the District should complete, at a minimum, monthly personnel activity reports showing the distribution of the employee’s time and effort. Any changes from the initial budgeted amounts written into the federal awards and actual time and effort as documented in the personnel activity reports must be adjusted such that the final amount charged to the federal award is accurate, allowable, and properly allocated. Views of responsible officials: The Business Office is providing continued training to cost center managers. Throughout the summer we have had the Finance Manager training the Community Education administrative team and responsible grant managers to ensure compliance with the time and effort requirements.
Criteria: Annually, each student applying for free or reduced meal prices must complete and submit an application to the District by October 1st. Additionally, on a monthly basis the State produces a listing of the children enrolled in the District who receive federal assistance and qualify for free meals (direct certification). Condition: During our testing of compliance with the federal program, we noted two instances in which the information regarding household income or household size from the submitted applications was incorrectly entered into the District’s computer program. As a result, one applicant was determined to be eligible for reduced meal prices that qualified for free, and another applicant was determined to be eligible for reduced meal prices that should been paid. Questioned costs: None that require reporting. Context: A sample was selected from the applications on file that that had been approved as qualifying for free or reduced-price meals. The information on the applications was compared to the information entered into the District’s computer program to test whether the eligibility was properly determined. Based on a sample size of 40 applications, we noted that there were data input discrepancies on two of the applications. We further determined that the eligibility status was incorrectly determined on those two applications. Effect or potential effect: Internal control over the determination of food service program eligibility requirements needs to be strengthened. Failure to properly determine the school lunch program eligibility status of students increases the risk that students who do not qualify for the free or reduced benefits under the program will improperly receive benefits throughout the year. Cause: The District’s procedures for determining eligibility include manually entering the information from the applications into the computer determination program. The information is entered by the Food Service Director and not verified by a second person. The procedure of not having a second person review the information resulted in incorrect data not being identified and corrected. Recommendation: We recommend that the information be entered into the computer determination program by one individual and then verified by the Food Service Director. The review process is a necessary control procedure designed to reduce the risk of noncompliance with the eligibility requirements. Views of responsible officials: The Business Office has met with the responsible party and explained the need to be more careful. There is also a new person responsible for that input.
Criteria: Annually, each student applying for free or reduced meal prices must complete and submit an application to the District by October 1st. Additionally, on a monthly basis the State produces a listing of the children enrolled in the District who receive federal assistance and qualify for free meals (direct certification). Condition: During our testing of compliance with the federal program, we noted two instances in which the information regarding household income or household size from the submitted applications was incorrectly entered into the District’s computer program. As a result, one applicant was determined to be eligible for reduced meal prices that qualified for free, and another applicant was determined to be eligible for reduced meal prices that should been paid. Questioned costs: None that require reporting. Context: A sample was selected from the applications on file that that had been approved as qualifying for free or reduced-price meals. The information on the applications was compared to the information entered into the District’s computer program to test whether the eligibility was properly determined. Based on a sample size of 40 applications, we noted that there were data input discrepancies on two of the applications. We further determined that the eligibility status was incorrectly determined on those two applications. Effect or potential effect: Internal control over the determination of food service program eligibility requirements needs to be strengthened. Failure to properly determine the school lunch program eligibility status of students increases the risk that students who do not qualify for the free or reduced benefits under the program will improperly receive benefits throughout the year. Cause: The District’s procedures for determining eligibility include manually entering the information from the applications into the computer determination program. The information is entered by the Food Service Director and not verified by a second person. The procedure of not having a second person review the information resulted in incorrect data not being identified and corrected. Recommendation: We recommend that the information be entered into the computer determination program by one individual and then verified by the Food Service Director. The review process is a necessary control procedure designed to reduce the risk of noncompliance with the eligibility requirements. Views of responsible officials: The Business Office has met with the responsible party and explained the need to be more careful. There is also a new person responsible for that input.
Criteria: Annually, each student applying for free or reduced meal prices must complete and submit an application to the District by October 1st. Additionally, on a monthly basis the State produces a listing of the children enrolled in the District who receive federal assistance and qualify for free meals (direct certification). Condition: During our testing of compliance with the federal program, we noted two instances in which the information regarding household income or household size from the submitted applications was incorrectly entered into the District’s computer program. As a result, one applicant was determined to be eligible for reduced meal prices that qualified for free, and another applicant was determined to be eligible for reduced meal prices that should been paid. Questioned costs: None that require reporting. Context: A sample was selected from the applications on file that that had been approved as qualifying for free or reduced-price meals. The information on the applications was compared to the information entered into the District’s computer program to test whether the eligibility was properly determined. Based on a sample size of 40 applications, we noted that there were data input discrepancies on two of the applications. We further determined that the eligibility status was incorrectly determined on those two applications. Effect or potential effect: Internal control over the determination of food service program eligibility requirements needs to be strengthened. Failure to properly determine the school lunch program eligibility status of students increases the risk that students who do not qualify for the free or reduced benefits under the program will improperly receive benefits throughout the year. Cause: The District’s procedures for determining eligibility include manually entering the information from the applications into the computer determination program. The information is entered by the Food Service Director and not verified by a second person. The procedure of not having a second person review the information resulted in incorrect data not being identified and corrected. Recommendation: We recommend that the information be entered into the computer determination program by one individual and then verified by the Food Service Director. The review process is a necessary control procedure designed to reduce the risk of noncompliance with the eligibility requirements. Views of responsible officials: The Business Office has met with the responsible party and explained the need to be more careful. There is also a new person responsible for that input.
Criteria: Annually, each student applying for free or reduced meal prices must complete and submit an application to the District by October 1st. Additionally, on a monthly basis the State produces a listing of the children enrolled in the District who receive federal assistance and qualify for free meals (direct certification). Condition: During our testing of compliance with the federal program, we noted two instances in which the information regarding household income or household size from the submitted applications was incorrectly entered into the District’s computer program. As a result, one applicant was determined to be eligible for reduced meal prices that qualified for free, and another applicant was determined to be eligible for reduced meal prices that should been paid. Questioned costs: None that require reporting. Context: A sample was selected from the applications on file that that had been approved as qualifying for free or reduced-price meals. The information on the applications was compared to the information entered into the District’s computer program to test whether the eligibility was properly determined. Based on a sample size of 40 applications, we noted that there were data input discrepancies on two of the applications. We further determined that the eligibility status was incorrectly determined on those two applications. Effect or potential effect: Internal control over the determination of food service program eligibility requirements needs to be strengthened. Failure to properly determine the school lunch program eligibility status of students increases the risk that students who do not qualify for the free or reduced benefits under the program will improperly receive benefits throughout the year. Cause: The District’s procedures for determining eligibility include manually entering the information from the applications into the computer determination program. The information is entered by the Food Service Director and not verified by a second person. The procedure of not having a second person review the information resulted in incorrect data not being identified and corrected. Recommendation: We recommend that the information be entered into the computer determination program by one individual and then verified by the Food Service Director. The review process is a necessary control procedure designed to reduce the risk of noncompliance with the eligibility requirements. Views of responsible officials: The Business Office has met with the responsible party and explained the need to be more careful. There is also a new person responsible for that input.
Criteria: Annually, each student applying for free or reduced meal prices must complete and submit an application to the District by October 1st. Additionally, on a monthly basis the State produces a listing of the children enrolled in the District who receive federal assistance and qualify for free meals (direct certification). Condition: During our testing of compliance with the federal program, we noted two instances in which the information regarding household income or household size from the submitted applications was incorrectly entered into the District’s computer program. As a result, one applicant was determined to be eligible for reduced meal prices that qualified for free, and another applicant was determined to be eligible for reduced meal prices that should been paid. Questioned costs: None that require reporting. Context: A sample was selected from the applications on file that that had been approved as qualifying for free or reduced-price meals. The information on the applications was compared to the information entered into the District’s computer program to test whether the eligibility was properly determined. Based on a sample size of 40 applications, we noted that there were data input discrepancies on two of the applications. We further determined that the eligibility status was incorrectly determined on those two applications. Effect or potential effect: Internal control over the determination of food service program eligibility requirements needs to be strengthened. Failure to properly determine the school lunch program eligibility status of students increases the risk that students who do not qualify for the free or reduced benefits under the program will improperly receive benefits throughout the year. Cause: The District’s procedures for determining eligibility include manually entering the information from the applications into the computer determination program. The information is entered by the Food Service Director and not verified by a second person. The procedure of not having a second person review the information resulted in incorrect data not being identified and corrected. Recommendation: We recommend that the information be entered into the computer determination program by one individual and then verified by the Food Service Director. The review process is a necessary control procedure designed to reduce the risk of noncompliance with the eligibility requirements. Views of responsible officials: The Business Office has met with the responsible party and explained the need to be more careful. There is also a new person responsible for that input.