Audit 51311

FY End
2022-12-31
Total Expended
$10.55M
Findings
2
Programs
2
Organization: The Carmelite System, Inc. (NY)
Year: 2022 Accepted: 2023-09-27

Organization Exclusion Status:

Checking exclusion status...

Findings

ID Ref Severity Repeat Requirement
45645 2022-001 Significant Deficiency - P
622087 2022-001 Significant Deficiency - P

Programs

ALN Program Spent Major Findings
93.498 Provider Relief Fund $8.68M Yes 0
97.036 Disaster Grants - Public Assistance (presidentially Declared Disasters) $1.87M Yes 1

Contacts

Name Title Type
LR6AB92EJWE5 Corrinne Schindler Auditee
6782307881 Lisa Hilling Auditor
No contacts on file

Notes to SEFA

Accounting Policies: Expenditures reported on the Schedule are reported on the accrual basis of accounting. Such expenditures are recognized following the cost principles contained in the Uniform Guidance, wherein certain types of expenditures are not allowable or are limited as to reimbursement. The System has elected not to use the 10 percent de minimis indirect cost rate as allowed under Uniform Guidance.The consolidated financial statements reflect revenue recognized from the Provider Relief Fund of approximately $13,351,206 and $9,610,369 in the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively. The Schedule includes Provider Relief Funds of $16,155,028 that were received in Period 3 and 4 in accordance with the requirements of the compliance supplement for assistance listing number 93.498. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: The auditee did not use the de minimis cost rate.

Finding Details

Criteria: The System?s internal controls related to the FEMA Public Assistance Grant Program state that authorization form are required to be obtained by the appropriate level of management for all capital purchases. Condition: The compliance requirements state that FEMA evaluates the eligibility of all costs claimed by the applicant. Not all costs incurred as a result of the incident are eligible. Costs must be authorized and not prohibited under federal, state, territorial, tribal, or local government laws or regulations as well as consistent with applicant?s internal policies, regulations, and procedures that apply uniformly to both federal awards and other activities of the applicant. Questioned Costs: $-0- Context: It was noted that as a part of The Carmelite System, Inc. and Affiliates? internal controls related to FEMA funding, as well as other capital projects, that one duplicate check was charged against the FEMA grant. Per discussions with client, the duplicate check was due to error of oversight. Effect: There is potential that expenses could be inappropriately charged against the grant. Recommendation: We recommend that for all expenses recorded against the grant, a formal review is performed from the appropriate level of management. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees that they submitted the same invoice twice. The amount of the invoice was $700. They also believe that there were many expenses incurred of which they could have submitted and therefore have not used the grant monies inappropriately. We agree that a more in-depth review could be done for future submissions.
Criteria: The System?s internal controls related to the FEMA Public Assistance Grant Program state that authorization form are required to be obtained by the appropriate level of management for all capital purchases. Condition: The compliance requirements state that FEMA evaluates the eligibility of all costs claimed by the applicant. Not all costs incurred as a result of the incident are eligible. Costs must be authorized and not prohibited under federal, state, territorial, tribal, or local government laws or regulations as well as consistent with applicant?s internal policies, regulations, and procedures that apply uniformly to both federal awards and other activities of the applicant. Questioned Costs: $-0- Context: It was noted that as a part of The Carmelite System, Inc. and Affiliates? internal controls related to FEMA funding, as well as other capital projects, that one duplicate check was charged against the FEMA grant. Per discussions with client, the duplicate check was due to error of oversight. Effect: There is potential that expenses could be inappropriately charged against the grant. Recommendation: We recommend that for all expenses recorded against the grant, a formal review is performed from the appropriate level of management. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees that they submitted the same invoice twice. The amount of the invoice was $700. They also believe that there were many expenses incurred of which they could have submitted and therefore have not used the grant monies inappropriately. We agree that a more in-depth review could be done for future submissions.