Finding 2025-001: Suspension and Debarment Criteria: The recipient must comply with the requirements regarding Suspension and Debarment (2 CFR Part 180 and 2 CFR § 417.300), which requires that the recipient not enter into any transaction with a person or entity who is proposed for debarment, debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in Federal programs or activities. For the CACFP, the USDA maintains a National Disqualified List (NDL) to facilitate this compliance. Condition: The Sponsoring Organization did not consistently document the verification that new Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) centers or Family Child Care (FCC) providers were not suspended or debarred prior to enrollment. During testing of five new CACFP centers/FCC providers enrolled during the audit period, one center/FCC provider file (20% of the sample) did not contain documentation of the required verification against the USDA National Disqualified List (NDL) or other appropriate suspension/debarment verification source prior to the effective date of the enrollment agreement. Cause: Personnel responsible for the enrollment process did not consistently follow the established internal control procedure to document verification of new centers/FCC providers against the USDA National Disqualified List (NDL) prior to finalizing the enrollment. Effect: A lack of documented verification increases the risk that the Sponsoring Organization could inadvertently enroll a center or FCC provider that has been suspended or debarred from participation in Federal programs, leading to non-compliance with Federal regulations and potential loss of Federal funding. Questioned Costs: None noted. Context: This is the first year this finding has been reported. The internal control deficiency appears to be a breakdown in the execution of the established procedure rather than an absence of a control. Repeat Finding: No. This is the first time this specific finding has been identified. Recommendation: We recommend the Sponsoring Organization reinforce the established internal control procedure and implement a supervisory review to ensure that all enrollment files for new CACFP centers and FCC providers include clear, documented evidence that the suspension and debarment verification was performed and dated prior to the execution of the enrollment agreement.
Finding 2025-002: Subrecipient Monitoring Criteria: The Uniform Guidance (2 CFR §200.332) requires a non-Federal entity to monitor the activities of its subrecipients as necessary to ensure that Federal awards are used for authorized purposes in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Specifically, the Sponsoring Organization is required to perform specific monitoring activities, including site visits, for its CACFP subrecipients (centers/homes). To ensure that these required monitoring activities are occurring timely and correctly, the Sponsoring Organization's internal controls include a requirement for monthly meetings between the Program Manager and the Monitoring Specialist to review the status of subrecipient monitoring. Condition: During the review of internal controls related to subrecipient monitoring, it was noted that the required monthly meetings between the Program Manager and the Monitoring Specialist were not consistently performed throughout the fiscal year. Specifically, for the 12-month period tested, the required monthly reviews were not documented for 3 out of 12 months. Cause: The lapse in the required monthly reviews was attributed to staff turnover in the program office and competing priorities that diverted staff time away from this control activity. Effect: The lack of consistent management oversight through the required monthly meetings increases the risk that mandatory subrecipient monitoring activities (e.g., required site visits, review of subrecipient documentation) could be delayed, missed, or performed inadequately. This could result in non-compliance by the subrecipients going undetected, potentially leading to inaccurate claims and funds being used for unauthorized purposes. Questioned Costs: None noted. Context: This is the first year this finding has been reported. The internal control deficiency appears to be a breakdown in the execution of the established procedure rather than an absence of a control. Repeat Finding: No. This is the first time this specific finding has been identified. Recommendation: We recommend that management reinforce the importance of this control and implement a documented process to ensure that the monthly meetings between the Program Manager and the Monitoring Specialist occur consistently. This should include establishing a recurring meeting schedule and requiring documentation (e.g., signed meeting minutes, checklist) that demonstrates the review of monitoring status took place each month, even during periods of staff turnover or high-priority competing demands.
Finding 2025-003: Subrecipient Monitoring Criteria: The Uniform Guidance (2 CFR §200.332) requires a non-Federal entity to monitor the activities of its subrecipients as necessary to ensure that Federal awards are used for authorized purposes in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Furthermore, the Organization's policy and/or CACFP regulations governing the Sponsoring Organization require an initial on-site review of each new center or Family Child Care (FCC) provider within the first 28 calendar days of program operation. This is a critical component of initial subrecipient monitoring to ensure program integrity and compliance with Federal requirements. Condition: The Sponsoring Organization did not consistently perform the required initial on-site review for new subrecipients (centers and FCC providers) within the mandatory 28-day timeframe. A sample of 40 new centers/FCC providers was selected for testing. Four (4) of the 40 subrecipients (10%) did not have their initial on-site review completed within the first 28 days of operation. The delays in conducting the initial reviews ranged from 6 to 23 days past the required 28-day deadline. Cause: The cause appears to be an inadequate internal control or process to ensure initial review scheduling and completion are prioritized and managed to meet the 28-day deadline, potentially due to competing demands or staffing limitations. Effect: Failure to conduct initial on-site reviews within the required timeframe weakens the Sponsoring Organization's internal controls over subrecipient monitoring and oversight. Timely initial reviews are essential for early identification and correction of compliance issues, proper training, and ensuring new centers/FDCH providers operate in accordance with Federal CACFP requirements from the outset. Questioned Costs: None noted. Context: This is the first time this issue has been noted as a finding. The Sponsoring Organization performed the required reviews; however, they were completed after the regulatory deadline. Repeat Finding: No. This is the first time this specific finding has been identified. Recommendation: The Sponsoring Organization should strengthen its internal controls and monitoring procedures to ensure that all new centers and FCC providers receive the required initial on-site review within the 28-day mandatory timeframe. This should include: 1. Establishing a formal process with documented timeframes for assigning and completing initial reviews immediately upon a new site's approval. 2. Implementing a system to track and alert monitoring staff of the 28-day deadline for each new subrecipient. 3. Providing targeted training to monitoring staff to emphasize the importance of timely initial reviews and the associated regulatory deadlines.