Condition: The Organization has policies and procedures to document transactions and the means to authorize and record these transactions. Examples would include vouchers which accompany each vendor expense invoice and employee time sheets. Key documentation typically requires multiple sign-offs including the performance of critical procedures, thus enhancing the system of internal controls. Criteria: The Organization?s system of controls requires documentation of the performance of critical procedures in the recording and recognition of expenditures. The procedures are to be documented on a voucher which is required to accompany and be attached to each authorized vendor invoice. Cause: Audit procedures tested a sample of expense vouchers. Approximately 17.5% of the expense vouchers tested omitted being marked as to posting in the accounting system.Effect: The lack of procedure documentation on vouchers supporting expense transactions mitigates the system of internal controls. Failure to document critical procedures may be perceived that the procedure was not performed. In the event that the procedure was indeed performed but not documented, the procedure, in this case posting of vendor expense invoices, may be duplicated, thus resulting in errors by overstating program expenses. It is noted that no actual duplication of recording vendor expense vouchers was observed.
Condition: The Organization incurs various expenses which are not a direct cost of a particular program, but rather are joint costs of multiple programs. This finding is a repeat of preceding finding 2021-002.Criteria: The Federal Register provides that such joint costs need to be prorated using a base which accurately measures the benefits provided to each award or activity. Cause: Audit procedures tested a sample of expense vouchers, including both direct and joint costs. Certain more material expenses were also tested. The majority of costs appear to be reasonably allocated. However, based on these tests, it was observed that certain joint costs may have been allocated in a manner mis-measuring benefits provided to each award or activity. Examples include insurance expense allocated between the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG), Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and CARES programs with no insurance expense allocated to the Shelter program, approximately half of the audit cost allocated to the CSBG program, with no audit cost allocated to the CARES program, and approximately two-thirds of the net rent expense allocated to the CSBG program with no rent expense allocated to the Shelter program. Effect: Misallocations of joint costs will misalign costs on a program-by-program basis. The effect will be more pronounced on individual financial status reports for payment requests. The effect on the financial statements may be mitigated by a.) overstatement of certain costs on one program offset by understatement of those costs in other programs, and b.) program costs which may appear under-allocated are offset by costs embedded in other programs.
Condition: The Organization has policies and procedures to document transactions and the means to authorize and record these transactions. Examples would include vouchers which accompany each vendor expense invoice and employee time sheets. Key documentation typically requires multiple sign-offs including the performance of critical procedures, thus enhancing the system of internal controls. Criteria: The Organization?s system of controls requires documentation of the performance of critical procedures in the recording and recognition of expenditures. The procedures are to be documented on a voucher which is required to accompany and be attached to each authorized vendor invoice. Cause: Audit procedures tested a sample of expense vouchers. Approximately 17.5% of the expense vouchers tested omitted being marked as to posting in the accounting system.Effect: The lack of procedure documentation on vouchers supporting expense transactions mitigates the system of internal controls. Failure to document critical procedures may be perceived that the procedure was not performed. In the event that the procedure was indeed performed but not documented, the procedure, in this case posting of vendor expense invoices, may be duplicated, thus resulting in errors by overstating program expenses. It is noted that no actual duplication of recording vendor expense vouchers was observed.
Condition: The Organization incurs various expenses which are not a direct cost of a particular program, but rather are joint costs of multiple programs. This finding is a repeat of preceding finding 2021-002.Criteria: The Federal Register provides that such joint costs need to be prorated using a base which accurately measures the benefits provided to each award or activity. Cause: Audit procedures tested a sample of expense vouchers, including both direct and joint costs. Certain more material expenses were also tested. The majority of costs appear to be reasonably allocated. However, based on these tests, it was observed that certain joint costs may have been allocated in a manner mis-measuring benefits provided to each award or activity. Examples include insurance expense allocated between the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG), Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and CARES programs with no insurance expense allocated to the Shelter program, approximately half of the audit cost allocated to the CSBG program, with no audit cost allocated to the CARES program, and approximately two-thirds of the net rent expense allocated to the CSBG program with no rent expense allocated to the Shelter program. Effect: Misallocations of joint costs will misalign costs on a program-by-program basis. The effect will be more pronounced on individual financial status reports for payment requests. The effect on the financial statements may be mitigated by a.) overstatement of certain costs on one program offset by understatement of those costs in other programs, and b.) program costs which may appear under-allocated are offset by costs embedded in other programs.
Condition: The Organization has policies and procedures to document transactions and the means to authorize and record these transactions. Examples would include vouchers which accompany each vendor expense invoice and employee time sheets. Key documentation typically requires multiple sign-offs including the performance of critical procedures, thus enhancing the system of internal controls. Criteria: The Organization?s system of controls requires documentation of the performance of critical procedures in the recording and recognition of expenditures. The procedures are to be documented on a voucher which is required to accompany and be attached to each authorized vendor invoice. Cause: Audit procedures tested a sample of expense vouchers. Approximately 17.5% of the expense vouchers tested omitted being marked as to posting in the accounting system.Effect: The lack of procedure documentation on vouchers supporting expense transactions mitigates the system of internal controls. Failure to document critical procedures may be perceived that the procedure was not performed. In the event that the procedure was indeed performed but not documented, the procedure, in this case posting of vendor expense invoices, may be duplicated, thus resulting in errors by overstating program expenses. It is noted that no actual duplication of recording vendor expense vouchers was observed.
Condition: The Organization incurs various expenses which are not a direct cost of a particular program, but rather are joint costs of multiple programs. This finding is a repeat of preceding finding 2021-002.Criteria: The Federal Register provides that such joint costs need to be prorated using a base which accurately measures the benefits provided to each award or activity. Cause: Audit procedures tested a sample of expense vouchers, including both direct and joint costs. Certain more material expenses were also tested. The majority of costs appear to be reasonably allocated. However, based on these tests, it was observed that certain joint costs may have been allocated in a manner mis-measuring benefits provided to each award or activity. Examples include insurance expense allocated between the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG), Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and CARES programs with no insurance expense allocated to the Shelter program, approximately half of the audit cost allocated to the CSBG program, with no audit cost allocated to the CARES program, and approximately two-thirds of the net rent expense allocated to the CSBG program with no rent expense allocated to the Shelter program. Effect: Misallocations of joint costs will misalign costs on a program-by-program basis. The effect will be more pronounced on individual financial status reports for payment requests. The effect on the financial statements may be mitigated by a.) overstatement of certain costs on one program offset by understatement of those costs in other programs, and b.) program costs which may appear under-allocated are offset by costs embedded in other programs.
Condition: The Organization has policies and procedures to document transactions and the means to authorize and record these transactions. Examples would include vouchers which accompany each vendor expense invoice and employee time sheets. Key documentation typically requires multiple sign-offs including the performance of critical procedures, thus enhancing the system of internal controls. Criteria: The Organization?s system of controls requires documentation of the performance of critical procedures in the recording and recognition of expenditures. The procedures are to be documented on a voucher which is required to accompany and be attached to each authorized vendor invoice. Cause: Audit procedures tested a sample of expense vouchers. Approximately 17.5% of the expense vouchers tested omitted being marked as to posting in the accounting system.Effect: The lack of procedure documentation on vouchers supporting expense transactions mitigates the system of internal controls. Failure to document critical procedures may be perceived that the procedure was not performed. In the event that the procedure was indeed performed but not documented, the procedure, in this case posting of vendor expense invoices, may be duplicated, thus resulting in errors by overstating program expenses. It is noted that no actual duplication of recording vendor expense vouchers was observed.
Condition: The Organization incurs various expenses which are not a direct cost of a particular program, but rather are joint costs of multiple programs. This finding is a repeat of preceding finding 2021-002.Criteria: The Federal Register provides that such joint costs need to be prorated using a base which accurately measures the benefits provided to each award or activity. Cause: Audit procedures tested a sample of expense vouchers, including both direct and joint costs. Certain more material expenses were also tested. The majority of costs appear to be reasonably allocated. However, based on these tests, it was observed that certain joint costs may have been allocated in a manner mis-measuring benefits provided to each award or activity. Examples include insurance expense allocated between the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG), Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and CARES programs with no insurance expense allocated to the Shelter program, approximately half of the audit cost allocated to the CSBG program, with no audit cost allocated to the CARES program, and approximately two-thirds of the net rent expense allocated to the CSBG program with no rent expense allocated to the Shelter program. Effect: Misallocations of joint costs will misalign costs on a program-by-program basis. The effect will be more pronounced on individual financial status reports for payment requests. The effect on the financial statements may be mitigated by a.) overstatement of certain costs on one program offset by understatement of those costs in other programs, and b.) program costs which may appear under-allocated are offset by costs embedded in other programs.
Condition: The Organization has policies and procedures to document transactions and the means to authorize and record these transactions. Examples would include vouchers which accompany each vendor expense invoice and employee time sheets. Key documentation typically requires multiple sign-offs including the performance of critical procedures, thus enhancing the system of internal controls. Criteria: The Organization?s system of controls requires documentation of the performance of critical procedures in the recording and recognition of expenditures. The procedures are to be documented on a voucher which is required to accompany and be attached to each authorized vendor invoice. Cause: Audit procedures tested a sample of expense vouchers. Approximately 17.5% of the expense vouchers tested omitted being marked as to posting in the accounting system.Effect: The lack of procedure documentation on vouchers supporting expense transactions mitigates the system of internal controls. Failure to document critical procedures may be perceived that the procedure was not performed. In the event that the procedure was indeed performed but not documented, the procedure, in this case posting of vendor expense invoices, may be duplicated, thus resulting in errors by overstating program expenses. It is noted that no actual duplication of recording vendor expense vouchers was observed.
Condition: The Organization incurs various expenses which are not a direct cost of a particular program, but rather are joint costs of multiple programs. This finding is a repeat of preceding finding 2021-002.Criteria: The Federal Register provides that such joint costs need to be prorated using a base which accurately measures the benefits provided to each award or activity. Cause: Audit procedures tested a sample of expense vouchers, including both direct and joint costs. Certain more material expenses were also tested. The majority of costs appear to be reasonably allocated. However, based on these tests, it was observed that certain joint costs may have been allocated in a manner mis-measuring benefits provided to each award or activity. Examples include insurance expense allocated between the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG), Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and CARES programs with no insurance expense allocated to the Shelter program, approximately half of the audit cost allocated to the CSBG program, with no audit cost allocated to the CARES program, and approximately two-thirds of the net rent expense allocated to the CSBG program with no rent expense allocated to the Shelter program. Effect: Misallocations of joint costs will misalign costs on a program-by-program basis. The effect will be more pronounced on individual financial status reports for payment requests. The effect on the financial statements may be mitigated by a.) overstatement of certain costs on one program offset by understatement of those costs in other programs, and b.) program costs which may appear under-allocated are offset by costs embedded in other programs.
Condition: The Organization has policies and procedures to document transactions and the means to authorize and record these transactions. Examples would include vouchers which accompany each vendor expense invoice and employee time sheets. Key documentation typically requires multiple sign-offs including the performance of critical procedures, thus enhancing the system of internal controls. Criteria: The Organization?s system of controls requires documentation of the performance of critical procedures in the recording and recognition of expenditures. The procedures are to be documented on a voucher which is required to accompany and be attached to each authorized vendor invoice. Cause: Audit procedures tested a sample of expense vouchers. Approximately 17.5% of the expense vouchers tested omitted being marked as to posting in the accounting system.Effect: The lack of procedure documentation on vouchers supporting expense transactions mitigates the system of internal controls. Failure to document critical procedures may be perceived that the procedure was not performed. In the event that the procedure was indeed performed but not documented, the procedure, in this case posting of vendor expense invoices, may be duplicated, thus resulting in errors by overstating program expenses. It is noted that no actual duplication of recording vendor expense vouchers was observed.
Condition: The Organization incurs various expenses which are not a direct cost of a particular program, but rather are joint costs of multiple programs. This finding is a repeat of preceding finding 2021-002.Criteria: The Federal Register provides that such joint costs need to be prorated using a base which accurately measures the benefits provided to each award or activity. Cause: Audit procedures tested a sample of expense vouchers, including both direct and joint costs. Certain more material expenses were also tested. The majority of costs appear to be reasonably allocated. However, based on these tests, it was observed that certain joint costs may have been allocated in a manner mis-measuring benefits provided to each award or activity. Examples include insurance expense allocated between the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG), Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and CARES programs with no insurance expense allocated to the Shelter program, approximately half of the audit cost allocated to the CSBG program, with no audit cost allocated to the CARES program, and approximately two-thirds of the net rent expense allocated to the CSBG program with no rent expense allocated to the Shelter program. Effect: Misallocations of joint costs will misalign costs on a program-by-program basis. The effect will be more pronounced on individual financial status reports for payment requests. The effect on the financial statements may be mitigated by a.) overstatement of certain costs on one program offset by understatement of those costs in other programs, and b.) program costs which may appear under-allocated are offset by costs embedded in other programs.
Condition: The Organization has policies and procedures to document transactions and the means to authorize and record these transactions. Examples would include vouchers which accompany each vendor expense invoice and employee time sheets. Key documentation typically requires multiple sign-offs including the performance of critical procedures, thus enhancing the system of internal controls. Criteria: The Organization?s system of controls requires documentation of the performance of critical procedures in the recording and recognition of expenditures. The procedures are to be documented on a voucher which is required to accompany and be attached to each authorized vendor invoice. Cause: Audit procedures tested a sample of expense vouchers. Approximately 17.5% of the expense vouchers tested omitted being marked as to posting in the accounting system.Effect: The lack of procedure documentation on vouchers supporting expense transactions mitigates the system of internal controls. Failure to document critical procedures may be perceived that the procedure was not performed. In the event that the procedure was indeed performed but not documented, the procedure, in this case posting of vendor expense invoices, may be duplicated, thus resulting in errors by overstating program expenses. It is noted that no actual duplication of recording vendor expense vouchers was observed.
Condition: The Organization incurs various expenses which are not a direct cost of a particular program, but rather are joint costs of multiple programs. This finding is a repeat of preceding finding 2021-002.Criteria: The Federal Register provides that such joint costs need to be prorated using a base which accurately measures the benefits provided to each award or activity. Cause: Audit procedures tested a sample of expense vouchers, including both direct and joint costs. Certain more material expenses were also tested. The majority of costs appear to be reasonably allocated. However, based on these tests, it was observed that certain joint costs may have been allocated in a manner mis-measuring benefits provided to each award or activity. Examples include insurance expense allocated between the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG), Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and CARES programs with no insurance expense allocated to the Shelter program, approximately half of the audit cost allocated to the CSBG program, with no audit cost allocated to the CARES program, and approximately two-thirds of the net rent expense allocated to the CSBG program with no rent expense allocated to the Shelter program. Effect: Misallocations of joint costs will misalign costs on a program-by-program basis. The effect will be more pronounced on individual financial status reports for payment requests. The effect on the financial statements may be mitigated by a.) overstatement of certain costs on one program offset by understatement of those costs in other programs, and b.) program costs which may appear under-allocated are offset by costs embedded in other programs.
Condition: The Organization has policies and procedures to document transactions and the means to authorize and record these transactions. Examples would include vouchers which accompany each vendor expense invoice and employee time sheets. Key documentation typically requires multiple sign-offs including the performance of critical procedures, thus enhancing the system of internal controls. Criteria: The Organization?s system of controls requires documentation of the performance of critical procedures in the recording and recognition of expenditures. The procedures are to be documented on a voucher which is required to accompany and be attached to each authorized vendor invoice. Cause: Audit procedures tested a sample of expense vouchers. Approximately 17.5% of the expense vouchers tested omitted being marked as to posting in the accounting system.Effect: The lack of procedure documentation on vouchers supporting expense transactions mitigates the system of internal controls. Failure to document critical procedures may be perceived that the procedure was not performed. In the event that the procedure was indeed performed but not documented, the procedure, in this case posting of vendor expense invoices, may be duplicated, thus resulting in errors by overstating program expenses. It is noted that no actual duplication of recording vendor expense vouchers was observed.
Condition: The Organization incurs various expenses which are not a direct cost of a particular program, but rather are joint costs of multiple programs. This finding is a repeat of preceding finding 2021-002.Criteria: The Federal Register provides that such joint costs need to be prorated using a base which accurately measures the benefits provided to each award or activity. Cause: Audit procedures tested a sample of expense vouchers, including both direct and joint costs. Certain more material expenses were also tested. The majority of costs appear to be reasonably allocated. However, based on these tests, it was observed that certain joint costs may have been allocated in a manner mis-measuring benefits provided to each award or activity. Examples include insurance expense allocated between the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG), Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and CARES programs with no insurance expense allocated to the Shelter program, approximately half of the audit cost allocated to the CSBG program, with no audit cost allocated to the CARES program, and approximately two-thirds of the net rent expense allocated to the CSBG program with no rent expense allocated to the Shelter program. Effect: Misallocations of joint costs will misalign costs on a program-by-program basis. The effect will be more pronounced on individual financial status reports for payment requests. The effect on the financial statements may be mitigated by a.) overstatement of certain costs on one program offset by understatement of those costs in other programs, and b.) program costs which may appear under-allocated are offset by costs embedded in other programs.
Condition: The Organization has policies and procedures to document transactions and the means to authorize and record these transactions. Examples would include vouchers which accompany each vendor expense invoice and employee time sheets. Key documentation typically requires multiple sign-offs including the performance of critical procedures, thus enhancing the system of internal controls. Criteria: The Organization?s system of controls requires documentation of the performance of critical procedures in the recording and recognition of expenditures. The procedures are to be documented on a voucher which is required to accompany and be attached to each authorized vendor invoice. Cause: Audit procedures tested a sample of expense vouchers. Approximately 17.5% of the expense vouchers tested omitted being marked as to posting in the accounting system.Effect: The lack of procedure documentation on vouchers supporting expense transactions mitigates the system of internal controls. Failure to document critical procedures may be perceived that the procedure was not performed. In the event that the procedure was indeed performed but not documented, the procedure, in this case posting of vendor expense invoices, may be duplicated, thus resulting in errors by overstating program expenses. It is noted that no actual duplication of recording vendor expense vouchers was observed.
Condition: The Organization incurs various expenses which are not a direct cost of a particular program, but rather are joint costs of multiple programs. This finding is a repeat of preceding finding 2021-002.Criteria: The Federal Register provides that such joint costs need to be prorated using a base which accurately measures the benefits provided to each award or activity. Cause: Audit procedures tested a sample of expense vouchers, including both direct and joint costs. Certain more material expenses were also tested. The majority of costs appear to be reasonably allocated. However, based on these tests, it was observed that certain joint costs may have been allocated in a manner mis-measuring benefits provided to each award or activity. Examples include insurance expense allocated between the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG), Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and CARES programs with no insurance expense allocated to the Shelter program, approximately half of the audit cost allocated to the CSBG program, with no audit cost allocated to the CARES program, and approximately two-thirds of the net rent expense allocated to the CSBG program with no rent expense allocated to the Shelter program. Effect: Misallocations of joint costs will misalign costs on a program-by-program basis. The effect will be more pronounced on individual financial status reports for payment requests. The effect on the financial statements may be mitigated by a.) overstatement of certain costs on one program offset by understatement of those costs in other programs, and b.) program costs which may appear under-allocated are offset by costs embedded in other programs.
Condition: The Organization has policies and procedures to document transactions and the means to authorize and record these transactions. Examples would include vouchers which accompany each vendor expense invoice and employee time sheets. Key documentation typically requires multiple sign-offs including the performance of critical procedures, thus enhancing the system of internal controls. Criteria: The Organization?s system of controls requires documentation of the performance of critical procedures in the recording and recognition of expenditures. The procedures are to be documented on a voucher which is required to accompany and be attached to each authorized vendor invoice. Cause: Audit procedures tested a sample of expense vouchers. Approximately 17.5% of the expense vouchers tested omitted being marked as to posting in the accounting system.Effect: The lack of procedure documentation on vouchers supporting expense transactions mitigates the system of internal controls. Failure to document critical procedures may be perceived that the procedure was not performed. In the event that the procedure was indeed performed but not documented, the procedure, in this case posting of vendor expense invoices, may be duplicated, thus resulting in errors by overstating program expenses. It is noted that no actual duplication of recording vendor expense vouchers was observed.
Condition: The Organization incurs various expenses which are not a direct cost of a particular program, but rather are joint costs of multiple programs. This finding is a repeat of preceding finding 2021-002.Criteria: The Federal Register provides that such joint costs need to be prorated using a base which accurately measures the benefits provided to each award or activity. Cause: Audit procedures tested a sample of expense vouchers, including both direct and joint costs. Certain more material expenses were also tested. The majority of costs appear to be reasonably allocated. However, based on these tests, it was observed that certain joint costs may have been allocated in a manner mis-measuring benefits provided to each award or activity. Examples include insurance expense allocated between the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG), Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and CARES programs with no insurance expense allocated to the Shelter program, approximately half of the audit cost allocated to the CSBG program, with no audit cost allocated to the CARES program, and approximately two-thirds of the net rent expense allocated to the CSBG program with no rent expense allocated to the Shelter program. Effect: Misallocations of joint costs will misalign costs on a program-by-program basis. The effect will be more pronounced on individual financial status reports for payment requests. The effect on the financial statements may be mitigated by a.) overstatement of certain costs on one program offset by understatement of those costs in other programs, and b.) program costs which may appear under-allocated are offset by costs embedded in other programs.