Eligibility Documentation - Federal Agency: Department of Education. Award Name: Adult Education and Family Literacy Act. Program Year: 2025. Assistance Listing Number: 84.002A. Criteria: Eligible individuals are individuals who are at least 16 years of age, who are not enrolled or required to be enrolled in secondary school under state law, and who are basic skills deficient, do not have a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent and have not achieved an equivalent level of education, or are English language learners (29 USC 3272(4)). Condition: Students are required to fill out an application prior to being admitted to the program. The Center reviews the application and inputs the data into the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) system, however does not maintain the applications to support that the students met the eligibility requirements. Context: For twenty-five student selections, there was no documentation maintained to support student age. Cause: Documentation was shredded due to personal information. Effect: Documentation was not maintained to support compliance with the standards. Questioned Costs: None. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: Documentation should be maintained to support all eligible students enrolled in the program. Views of Responsible Parties: We concur with the finding. The absence of required eligibility documentation resulted primarily from destroying all personal information. We have implemented a policy to scan and maintain all student applications on the network.
Allowable Cost Approval - Federal Agency: Department of Education. Award Name: Adult Education and Family Literacy Act. Program Year: 2025. Assistance Listing Number: 84.002A. Criteria: The recipient must: establish, document, and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the recipient is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the federal award. Condition: Payroll is an allowable cost per the grant agreement once approved by DESE in the program budget. Employee changes throughout the year require reapproval of the budget. The Center did not maintain documentation to support reapprovals and budget changes during the year, nor was there any documented review of the budget change submitted. Context: For twenty-five payroll selections, there was no documentation maintained to support a direct correlation to the approved payroll budget. Cause: Due to the size of the entity, the Executive Director is the only one that processes and reviews grant expenditures. Effect: No documentation was maintained to support review of the payroll expenditures when changes were made to the grant. Questioned Costs: None. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: Implement review procedures over allowable cost to ensure all employees charged to the grant have received DESE approval. Views of Responsible Parties: We concur with the finding. The absence of payroll controls resulted primarily from the size of the staff. We have implemented a policy for a program manager to review all allowable costs.
Cash Management - Federal Agency: Department of Education. Award Name: Adult Education and Family Literacy Act. Program Year: 2025. Assistance Listing Number: 84.002A. Criteria: The recipient must: establish, document, and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the recipient is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the federal award. Condition: Non-Federal entities funded under the reimbursement method must maintain documentation to support that reimbursement was requested prior to the date of the reimbursement request. There were no documented review controls indicating a secondary review of expenditures prior to draw down. Context: For four cash drawdowns, there was no documentation over review of the drawdown support prior to requesting the funds. Cause: There was a lack of review of the drawdowns. Effect: Drawdown requests were not reviewed prior to submission. Questioned Costs: None. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: All drawdown support should be reviewed prior to requesting the funds. Views of Responsible Parties: We concur with the finding. The absence of required controls over cash management was primarily due to the size of the entity.