Criteria Per 7 CFR 225.15 (c)(1), “Sponsors shall maintain accurate records justifying all meals claimed and documenting that all program funds were spent only on allowable Child Nutrition Program costs. Failure to maintain such records may be grounds for denial of reimbursement for meals served and/or administrative costs claimed during the period covered by the records in question. The sponsor's records shall be available at all times for inspection and audit by representatives of the Secretary, the Comptroller General of the United States, and the State agency for a period of three years following the date of submission of the final claim for reimbursement for the fiscal year.” Per 7 CFR 226.10 (c), “Claims for Reimbursement shall report information in accordance with the financial management system established by the State agency, and in sufficient detail to justify the reimbursement claimed… In submitting a Claim for Reimbursement, each institution shall certify that the claim is correct and that records are available to support that claim.” Condition During the procedures performed over meals claimed under the School Breakfast Program in the fiscal year 2025, it was noted that monthly meal counts recorded in the District’s Cafeteria Management System (CMS) were not fully supported by underlying documentation (e.g., meal count sheets). We sampled a total 25 daily meal counts from the months of September 2024, November 2024, and February 2025. We then validated that the meal counts recorded in the CMS for Breakfast and Lunch were supported by either meal count sheets used at the school sites or by the point-of-sale (POS) system data. As a result of our testing, we noted variances in four (4) daily meal counts between the CMS count and the meal count sheets for Breakfast in Class. Breakfast counts were overclaimed by 111 based on a total sample of 3,793 meals tested from a total reported population of 12,688,107 meals. Our samples were statistically valid samples. Cause and Effect The condition is as a result of human error while manually counting the paper meal count sheets for Breakfast in Class. Inaccurate claims of meal counts could lead to questioned costs. Questioned Costs Federal regulation 2 CFR 200.516 (a)(3) requires the auditor to report questioned costs when likely questioned costs exceed $25,000. An overclaim of $315 was identified, resulting from overclaimed quantities of 111 breakfasts multiplied by the reimbursement rate of $2.84 under the School Breakfast Program – Severe Need. Recommendation We recommend the District continue to strengthen its controls over the meal claim process to ensure that meals are accurately counted, input into CMS, and claimed for reimbursement.
Criteria 2 CFR section 200.430(i), Standards for Documentation of Personnel Expenses, requires: “ (1) Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non-Federal entity, not exceeding 100% of compensated activities; (iv) Encompass both federally assisted and all other activities compensated by the non-Federal entity on an integrated basis, but may include the use of subsidiary records as defined in the non-Federal entity's written policy; (v) Comply with the established accounting policies and practices of the non-Federal entity; (vi) [Reserved] (vii) Support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity.” Condition As part of our compliance review over payroll expenditures, we selected samples of payroll expenditures charged to the program and reviewed the supporting documents to ascertain if they were allowable per program regulations, accurately charged to the program, and appropriately supported in accordance with 2 CFR section 200.430(i). Title I: During our review of a sample of thirty (30) payroll expenditures, we noted the following exceptions: 1. One (1) employee’s timesheet reflected an inconsistency between the hours submitted and the records in SAP. The SAP recorded fifty-four (54) regular work hours instead of the accurate sixty (60) regular work hours. The six (6) hours variance was incorrectly classified as full pay illness instead of regular time pay. The District subsequently corrected this discrepancy. 2. One (1) timesheet amounting to $613 was not signed by the employee and contained a supervisor’s signature that was obtained after the submission deadline. Perkins: During our review of a sample of thirty (30) payroll expenditures, we identified three (3) timesheets contained supervisor’s signatures that were obtained after the submission deadline. The total amount of payroll expenditures associated with these exceptions was $20,067. Cause and Effect The discrepancies occurred due to inadequate review and verification of employee timesheets prior to payroll processing, as well as a lack of timely completion of required authorization signatures. Failure to ensure the accuracy and completeness of timesheet records increases the risk of payroll misstatements, improper classification of labor costs, and potential noncompliance with internal control and documentation requirements under Federal grant regulations. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified as a result of the discrepancy in hours reported, as there was no difference in the amount of pay between regular time pay and full pay illness. Likewise, there were no questioned costs related to the missing or untimely signatures on timesheets, as the payroll costs incurred were still considered allowable under the respective programs (Title I and Perkins), despite the timing and documentation issues. Recommendation We recommend that the District strengthen and reinforce internal controls over the preparation, review, and approval of employee timesheets to ensure the accuracy and completeness of payroll records. This should include implementing procedures to reconcile timesheet data with system records (e.g., SAP) prior to payroll processing, ensuring that hours worked and pay classifications are correctly reported. In addition, the District should enforce policies requiring all timesheets to be signed by employees and approved by supervisors prior to the submission deadline. The review and approval process should be adequately documented to provide evidence of compliance with established payroll and Federal grant requirements.
Criteria 2 CFR section 200.403, Factors affecting allowability of costs. Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following criteria to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the recipient or subrecipient. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. For example, a cost must not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for State and local governments and Indian Tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See § 200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See §§ 200.300 through 200.309. (h) Administrative closeout costs may be incurred until the due date of the final report(s). If incurred, these costs must be liquidated prior to the due date of the final report(s) and charged to the final budget period of the award unless otherwise specified by the Federal agency. All other costs must be incurred during the approved budget period. At its discretion, the Federal agency is authorized to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods. See § 200.308(g)(3). 10th Edition Procurement Manual issued by the District in September 2023, Chapter 8 – What to Do When Item or Services Are Received A. Online Goods Receipts Prior to entering an online Goods Receipt (GR), schools and offices must have a copy of the vendor invoice and Purchase Order (PO). They are responsible for verifying the accuracy of the order and entering the “online receiver” into SAP immediately after delivery of materials. Partial receiving is acceptable to account only for materials actually received. Payments are processed based on materials that have been received online. F.1. Payment for Materials Accounts Payable will process payment when the following three items are matched in SAP: (1) Purchase Order, (2) Goods Receipt, and (3) vendor invoice. F.2.c. Contracted Professional Services Accounts Payable will process payments for contracted professional services when the following four items are matched: executed contract/amendment, Purchase Order, vendor invoice, and approved authorization for payment. F.3. Contract Close-Out Upon contract expiration or termination, the District must ensure all deliverables have been received, final invoices paid, indirect costs settled, and any unspent funds unencumbered and transferred to the appropriate District account. Condition As part of our review of cash disbursement expenditures, we selected a statistically valid sample of forty (40) cash disbursement transactions from each of the following programs: Title I, Title IV, and Perkins. We reviewed the supporting documentation for these transactions to determine whether the expenditures were allowable under program regulations, accurately charged to the programs, and appropriately supported in accordance with 2 CFR Section 200.403 and the District Procurement Manual. Title I: From the $3,265,728 sample tested (out of $48,286,535 total disbursements), we identified one (1) purchase order with a variance between the Goods Receipt (GR) and vendor invoice (IR) amounts. This discrepancy resulted in an overstatement of reported expenditures by $21,394. The District subsequently corrected this by reversing the amount to the expenditure accounts in FY 2026. Title IV: From the $560,572 sample tested (out of $9,999,536 total disbursements), we identified one (1) purchase order with a variance between the GR and IR amounts, resulting in an overstatement of reported expenditures by $94,500. The District subsequently corrected this by reversing the amount to the expenditure accounts in FY 2026. Perkins: Additionally, from a $329,432 sample (out of $5,738,606 total disbursements), we identified seven (7) disbursements totaling $868 that lacked adequate proof of delivery of materials. Supporting documentation, such as signed delivery receipts or equivalent evidence of goods received, was not available for these transactions. Cause and Effect These conditions occurred because adjustments were not made to the GR amounts to reflect changes in goods or services received after the initial recording. The unadjusted GR balances led to variances between the GR and IR amounts, resulting in overstatements of reported expenditures for the affected programs. In addition, the lack of adequate proof of delivery of materials occurred because GR were entered without supporting documentation to substantiate that the materials were received. This increased the risk of payment for goods not received, misstatement of expenditures, and noncompliance with federal cost documentation requirements under 2 CFR section 200.403(g). Questioned Costs • Title I (AL No. 84.010): $21,394 overstated due to GR-IR variance. • Title IV (AL No. 84.424A): $94,500 overstated due to GR-IR variance. • Perkins (AL No. 84.048): $868 lacked sufficient supporting documentation that the goods were received. Recommendation We recommend that the District: 1. Strengthen review and reconciliation procedures to ensure that adjustments to the Goods Receipt (GR) are made promptly to reflect actual goods or services received. 2. Enforce documentation controls to require that all Goods Receipts are supported by adequate proof of delivery (e.g., signed delivery receipts, receiving reports, or equivalent evidence) before processing payments. 3. Provide staff training on documentation and reconciliation requirements to ensure compliance with federal cost principles and the District Procurement Manual.