Condition We selected a non statistical sample of 40 case files which approximated $32,000 in monthly benefit payments, out of a population of approximately 981 case files which approximated $4.89 million in total annual benefit payments, for testing and noted exceptions in 13 case files as follows: ? Three case files where the Police Protective Custody form or Voluntary Foster Custody Agreement was missing and therefore did not support whether the child was removed as part of a voluntary placement agreement or judicial determination. ? Three case files where the State, FBI, and/or child abuse and neglect clearances were missing. ? Seven case files where the ?difficulty of care? determination was missing and therefore did not support the assistance amount paid. ? Two case files where the ?Certificate of Approval? was missing and therefore did not support whether the prospective foster parents were licensed. Criteria Pursuant to 42 USC 672(a)(2), the State must determine whether the removal and foster care placement of a child was in accordance with a voluntary placement agreement or judicial determination. Pursuant to 42 USC 675(4)(A), the foster care maintenance payments should cover the cost of (and the cost of providing) food, clothing, shelter, daily supervision, and a child?s personal incidentals. Pursuant to 42 USC 672(c)(1)(A), a foster family home means the home of an individual family that is licensed or approved by the State in which it is situated as a foster family home that meets the standards established for the licensing or approval. Pursuant to 42 USC 671(a)(20)(A), any prospective foster parent must satisfactorily have met a criminal records check, including a fingerprint-based check of national crime information databases, before the foster parent may be finally approved for placement of a child. Effect Failure to follow the established policies and procedures in place over the application process and determination of assistance amount represent instances of noncompliance with the requirements above, resulting in questioned costs. Cause and View of Responsible Officials Although the Department has established policies and procedures in place regarding the application process and determination of assistance amount, there was a lack of diligence in complying with the policies and procedures. Recommendation We recommend that program management ensure that program personnel are familiar with all grant requirements, including those specified under Criteria above. Additionally, we recommend that the Department diligently comply with its policies and procedures.
Condition We selected a non statistical sample of 40 case files which approximated $32,000 in monthly benefit payments, out of a population of approximately 981 case files which approximated $4.89 million in total annual benefit payments, for testing and noted exceptions in 13 case files as follows: ? Three case files where the Police Protective Custody form or Voluntary Foster Custody Agreement was missing and therefore did not support whether the child was removed as part of a voluntary placement agreement or judicial determination. ? Three case files where the State, FBI, and/or child abuse and neglect clearances were missing. ? Seven case files where the ?difficulty of care? determination was missing and therefore did not support the assistance amount paid. ? Two case files where the ?Certificate of Approval? was missing and therefore did not support whether the prospective foster parents were licensed. Criteria Pursuant to 42 USC 672(a)(2), the State must determine whether the removal and foster care placement of a child was in accordance with a voluntary placement agreement or judicial determination. Pursuant to 42 USC 675(4)(A), the foster care maintenance payments should cover the cost of (and the cost of providing) food, clothing, shelter, daily supervision, and a child?s personal incidentals. Pursuant to 42 USC 672(c)(1)(A), a foster family home means the home of an individual family that is licensed or approved by the State in which it is situated as a foster family home that meets the standards established for the licensing or approval. Pursuant to 42 USC 671(a)(20)(A), any prospective foster parent must satisfactorily have met a criminal records check, including a fingerprint-based check of national crime information databases, before the foster parent may be finally approved for placement of a child. Effect Failure to follow the established policies and procedures in place over the application process and determination of assistance amount represent instances of noncompliance with the requirements above, resulting in questioned costs. Cause and View of Responsible Officials Although the Department has established policies and procedures in place regarding the application process and determination of assistance amount, there was a lack of diligence in complying with the policies and procedures. Recommendation We recommend that program management ensure that program personnel are familiar with all grant requirements, including those specified under Criteria above. Additionally, we recommend that the Department diligently comply with its policies and procedures.
Condition We selected a non statistical sample of 60 case files which approximated $33,000 in monthly benefit payments, out of a population of approximately 2,500 case files which approximated $15.4 million in total annual benefit payments, for testing and noted exceptions in 38 case files as follows: ? 19 case files where the initial or modified adoption agreement was missing and therefore did not have any support for the amount of monthly assistance paid. ? 21 case files where the State, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and/or child abuse and neglect clearances were missing. ? Eight case files where the ?difficulty of care? determination was missing and therefore did not have any support for the assistance amount paid. ? Eight case files where documentation of a child?s special needs was missing. ? Eight case files where the supporting documentation regarding whether the State determined that the child cannot or should not be returned to the home of his or her parents was missing. ? One case file where documentation of monthly non-recurring expenses was missing. ? One case file where documentation regarding continuation of monthly subsidy payments after the child?s 18th birthday was missing. ? One case file where the final approval was granted to a household with an individual who was convicted of spousal abuse. ? Five case files where the adoption decree was missing from the case records. Criteria Pursuant to 42 USC 673(a)(3), the amount of the adoption assistance payments to be made shall be determined through agreement between the adoptive parents and the State or local agency administering the program, which shall take into consideration the circumstances of the adopting parents and the needs of the child being adopted, and may be readjusted periodically, with the concurrence of the adopting parents (which may be specified in the adoption assistance agreement), depending upon changes in such circumstances. Pursuant to 42 USC 671(a)(20)(A), the State must have procedures for criminal records checks, including a fingerprint-based check of national crime information databases (as defined in 28 USC 534(f)(3)(A)), for any prospective adoptive parent before the adoptive parent may be finally approved for placement of a child. Pursuant to 42 USC 671(a)(20)(B), the State shall check any child abuse and neglect registry maintained by the State for information on any prospective foster or adoptive parent and on any other adult living in the home of such a prospective parent. Pursuant to 42 USC 673(a)(2)(A), the State must determine the child to have special needs to be eligible for adoption assistance payments. Pursuant to 42 USC 673(c)(1), the State must determine whether the child cannot or should not be returned to the home of his or her parents. Pursuant to 45 CFR 1356.41(a), the amount of the payment made for nonrecurring expenses of adoption shall be determined though the agreement between the adopting parent(s) and the title IV E agency administering the program. The agreement must indicate the nature and amount of the nonrecurring expenses to be paid. Pursuant to 42 USC 673(a)(4)(A), a payment may not be made to a child who has attained 18 years of age, unless the individual is determined to be one with special needs. Pursuant to 42 USC 671(a)(20)(A)(i), in any case involving a child on whose behalf such payments are to be so made in which a record check reveals a felony conviction for spousal abuse, such final approval shall not be granted. Pursuant to 42 USC 675(3), the agreement for the adoption subsidy must be signed before the final decree of adoption and contains information concerning the nature of services. Effect Failure to follow the established policies and procedures in place over the application process and determination of assistance amount represents an instance of noncompliance with the requirements specified above, resulting in questioned costs. Cause and View of Responsible Officials Although the Department has established policies and procedures in place regarding the application process and determination of assistance amount, there was a lack of diligence in complying with the policies and procedures. Recommendation We recommend that program management ensure that program personnel are familiar with all grant requirements, including those specified under Criteria above. Additionally, we recommend that the Department diligently comply with its policies and procedures.
Condition We selected a non statistical sample of 60 case files which approximated $33,000 in monthly benefit payments, out of a population of approximately 2,500 case files which approximated $15.4 million in total annual benefit payments, for testing and noted exceptions in 38 case files as follows: ? 19 case files where the initial or modified adoption agreement was missing and therefore did not have any support for the amount of monthly assistance paid. ? 21 case files where the State, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and/or child abuse and neglect clearances were missing. ? Eight case files where the ?difficulty of care? determination was missing and therefore did not have any support for the assistance amount paid. ? Eight case files where documentation of a child?s special needs was missing. ? Eight case files where the supporting documentation regarding whether the State determined that the child cannot or should not be returned to the home of his or her parents was missing. ? One case file where documentation of monthly non-recurring expenses was missing. ? One case file where documentation regarding continuation of monthly subsidy payments after the child?s 18th birthday was missing. ? One case file where the final approval was granted to a household with an individual who was convicted of spousal abuse. ? Five case files where the adoption decree was missing from the case records. Criteria Pursuant to 42 USC 673(a)(3), the amount of the adoption assistance payments to be made shall be determined through agreement between the adoptive parents and the State or local agency administering the program, which shall take into consideration the circumstances of the adopting parents and the needs of the child being adopted, and may be readjusted periodically, with the concurrence of the adopting parents (which may be specified in the adoption assistance agreement), depending upon changes in such circumstances. Pursuant to 42 USC 671(a)(20)(A), the State must have procedures for criminal records checks, including a fingerprint-based check of national crime information databases (as defined in 28 USC 534(f)(3)(A)), for any prospective adoptive parent before the adoptive parent may be finally approved for placement of a child. Pursuant to 42 USC 671(a)(20)(B), the State shall check any child abuse and neglect registry maintained by the State for information on any prospective foster or adoptive parent and on any other adult living in the home of such a prospective parent. Pursuant to 42 USC 673(a)(2)(A), the State must determine the child to have special needs to be eligible for adoption assistance payments. Pursuant to 42 USC 673(c)(1), the State must determine whether the child cannot or should not be returned to the home of his or her parents. Pursuant to 45 CFR 1356.41(a), the amount of the payment made for nonrecurring expenses of adoption shall be determined though the agreement between the adopting parent(s) and the title IV E agency administering the program. The agreement must indicate the nature and amount of the nonrecurring expenses to be paid. Pursuant to 42 USC 673(a)(4)(A), a payment may not be made to a child who has attained 18 years of age, unless the individual is determined to be one with special needs. Pursuant to 42 USC 671(a)(20)(A)(i), in any case involving a child on whose behalf such payments are to be so made in which a record check reveals a felony conviction for spousal abuse, such final approval shall not be granted. Pursuant to 42 USC 675(3), the agreement for the adoption subsidy must be signed before the final decree of adoption and contains information concerning the nature of services. Effect Failure to follow the established policies and procedures in place over the application process and determination of assistance amount represents an instance of noncompliance with the requirements specified above, resulting in questioned costs. Cause and View of Responsible Officials Although the Department has established policies and procedures in place regarding the application process and determination of assistance amount, there was a lack of diligence in complying with the policies and procedures. Recommendation We recommend that program management ensure that program personnel are familiar with all grant requirements, including those specified under Criteria above. Additionally, we recommend that the Department diligently comply with its policies and procedures.
Condition We selected a non statistical sample of 60 case files which approximated $55,000 in monthly benefit payments, out of a population of approximately 380 case files which approximated $3.9 million in total annual benefit payments, for testing and noted exceptions in 17 case files as follows: ? Seven case files where the initial or modified guardianship/permanency assistance agreement was missing and therefore did not have any support for the amount of monthly assistance paid. ? Four case files where the ?difficulty of care? determination was missing and therefore did not have any support for the assistance amount paid. ? One case file where we were unable to determine if a child who attained the age of 14 was consulted regarding the kinship guardianship agreement. ? Three case files where the State, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and/or child abuse and neglect clearances were missing in the case files. ? Two case files where documentation regarding continuation of monthly subsidy payments after the child?s 18th birthday was missing. ? One case file where the supporting documentation regarding whether the State determined that the guardian/permanent custodian has a strong commitment to caring permanently for the child was missing. Criteria Pursuant to 42 USC 673(d)(1), an executed kinship guardianship assistance agreement with the prospective relative guardian must include the amount of and any adjustments based on the needs of the child. The "Guardianship/Permanency Assistance Agreement? (Agreement) is the agreement executed with the relative guardian. The Agreement outlines the terms and conditions for the participants and the Department and includes the total amount of assistance payments. The Agreement may be further supplemented due to difficulties in caring for a child as determined by a caseworker on an as needed basis and documented on the ?Difficulty of Care? (DOC) worksheet. In the event of an increase or decrease to the amount of the assistance payments, the caseworkers are required to execute a revised Agreement. Pursuant to 42 USC 673(d)(3)(A), a child is eligible when the state agency determines the following: a) With respect to a child who has attained 14 years of age, the child has been consulted regarding the kinship guardianship arrangement. b) Eligible for foster care maintenance payments under 42 USC 672 while residing for at least six consecutive months in the home of the prospective relative guardian. c) Removed from his or her home pursuant to a voluntary placement agreement or as a result of a judicial determination to the effect that continuation in the home would be contrary to the welfare of the child. Pursuant to 42 USC 673(a)(4)(A), assistance payments must stop for a child who has attained 18 years of age or greater or 21 years of age if the State determines that the child has a mental or physical handicap. Pursuant to 42 USC 671(a)(20)(c), any relative guardian must satisfactorily have met a criminal records check, including a fingerprint-based check of national crime information databases (as defined in 28 USC 534(e)(3)(A)), and for checks described in 42 USC 671(a)(20)(B) on any relative guardian and any other adult living in the home of any relative guardian, before the relative guardian may receive kinship guardianship assistance payments on behalf of the child. Pursuant to 42 USC 673(d)(3)(A)(iii), the Title IV-E agency must determine that the child demonstrates a strong attachment to the prospective relative guardian and the relative guardian has a strong commitment to caring permanently for the child. Effect Failure to follow the established policies and procedures in place over the application process and determination of assistance amount represents an instance of noncompliance with the requirements specified above, resulting in questioned costs. Cause and View of Responsible Officials Although the Department has established policies and procedures in place over the application process and determination of assistance amount, there was a lack of diligence in complying with the policies and procedures. Recommendation We recommend that program management ensure that program personnel are familiar with all grant requirements, including those specified under Criteria above. Additionally, we recommend that the Department diligently comply with its policies and procedures.
Condition We selected a non statistical sample of 60 case files which approximated $55,000 in monthly benefit payments, out of a population of approximately 380 case files which approximated $3.9 million in total annual benefit payments, for testing and noted exceptions in 17 case files as follows: ? Seven case files where the initial or modified guardianship/permanency assistance agreement was missing and therefore did not have any support for the amount of monthly assistance paid. ? Four case files where the ?difficulty of care? determination was missing and therefore did not have any support for the assistance amount paid. ? One case file where we were unable to determine if a child who attained the age of 14 was consulted regarding the kinship guardianship agreement. ? Three case files where the State, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and/or child abuse and neglect clearances were missing in the case files. ? Two case files where documentation regarding continuation of monthly subsidy payments after the child?s 18th birthday was missing. ? One case file where the supporting documentation regarding whether the State determined that the guardian/permanent custodian has a strong commitment to caring permanently for the child was missing. Criteria Pursuant to 42 USC 673(d)(1), an executed kinship guardianship assistance agreement with the prospective relative guardian must include the amount of and any adjustments based on the needs of the child. The "Guardianship/Permanency Assistance Agreement? (Agreement) is the agreement executed with the relative guardian. The Agreement outlines the terms and conditions for the participants and the Department and includes the total amount of assistance payments. The Agreement may be further supplemented due to difficulties in caring for a child as determined by a caseworker on an as needed basis and documented on the ?Difficulty of Care? (DOC) worksheet. In the event of an increase or decrease to the amount of the assistance payments, the caseworkers are required to execute a revised Agreement. Pursuant to 42 USC 673(d)(3)(A), a child is eligible when the state agency determines the following: a) With respect to a child who has attained 14 years of age, the child has been consulted regarding the kinship guardianship arrangement. b) Eligible for foster care maintenance payments under 42 USC 672 while residing for at least six consecutive months in the home of the prospective relative guardian. c) Removed from his or her home pursuant to a voluntary placement agreement or as a result of a judicial determination to the effect that continuation in the home would be contrary to the welfare of the child. Pursuant to 42 USC 673(a)(4)(A), assistance payments must stop for a child who has attained 18 years of age or greater or 21 years of age if the State determines that the child has a mental or physical handicap. Pursuant to 42 USC 671(a)(20)(c), any relative guardian must satisfactorily have met a criminal records check, including a fingerprint-based check of national crime information databases (as defined in 28 USC 534(e)(3)(A)), and for checks described in 42 USC 671(a)(20)(B) on any relative guardian and any other adult living in the home of any relative guardian, before the relative guardian may receive kinship guardianship assistance payments on behalf of the child. Pursuant to 42 USC 673(d)(3)(A)(iii), the Title IV-E agency must determine that the child demonstrates a strong attachment to the prospective relative guardian and the relative guardian has a strong commitment to caring permanently for the child. Effect Failure to follow the established policies and procedures in place over the application process and determination of assistance amount represents an instance of noncompliance with the requirements specified above, resulting in questioned costs. Cause and View of Responsible Officials Although the Department has established policies and procedures in place over the application process and determination of assistance amount, there was a lack of diligence in complying with the policies and procedures. Recommendation We recommend that program management ensure that program personnel are familiar with all grant requirements, including those specified under Criteria above. Additionally, we recommend that the Department diligently comply with its policies and procedures.
Condition During our audit, we selected a non statistical sample of 60 providers for testing out of a population of approximately 1,800 providers. The providers selected for testing represented approximately $240,000 of payments out of a total payment population of $7.2 million. The results of our testing were as follows: ? Four providers where the DHS Form 1139 was not maintained. ? Eight providers where the DHS Form 1139 did not support revalidation within the most recent five year period. Criteria Pursuant to 42 CFR Part 455, subpart E, the Department?s MED Quest Division is required to screen and enroll providers and obtain certain disclosure in accordance with 42 CFR Part 455, subpart B. Pursuant to 42 CFR 455.414, the State Medicaid Agency must revalidate the enrollment of all providers regardless of provider type at least every five years. Pursuant to 42 CFR 455, subpart B, Providers are to comply with the requirements of the State Plan, including the disclosure requirement. Effect Failure to follow the established policies and procedures in place over the provider eligibility determination process represents an instance of noncompliance with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200, resulting in questioned costs. Cause and View of Responsible Officials Although the Department has policies and procedures in place requiring the maintenance of required documentation, there was a lack of diligence in complying with the policies and procedures. Recommendation We recommend the Department be more diligent in following its existing policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the program requirements.
Condition During our audit, we noted the Department only partially obtained the required audited financial reports and did not conduct or contract an independent audit of the encounter and financial data submitted. Criteria Pursuant to 42 CFR 438.3(m), the Department must require MCOs, PIHPs, and PAHPs to submit audited financial reports, conducted in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and generally accepted auditing standards, specific to its Medicaid contract on an annual basis. Pursuant to 42 CFR 438.602(e), the Department must periodically, but no less frequently than once every three years, conduct, or contract for the conduct of, an independent audit of the accuracy, truthfulness, and completeness of the encounter and financial data submitted by, or on behalf of, each MCO, PIHP or PAHP. Effect Failure to obtain the necessary financial audit reports represents an instance of noncompliance with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. Cause and View of Responsible Officials Although the Department has policies and procedures in place requiring the maintenance of required documentation, there was a lack of diligence in complying with the policies and procedures. Recommendation We recommend the Department be more diligent in following its existing policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the program requirements.
Condition We selected a non statistical sample of 60 case files for testing and noted 11 instances where the Department?s records did not support the use of the income information obtained through Income Eligibility and Verification System (?IEVS?) to evaluate or re-evaluate the benefit calculation. Criteria Pursuant to 45 CFR 205.55, the Department is required to request through the IEVS, wage information, unemployment compensation, Social Security Administration, unearned income, and any other income information. Effect Failure to properly use IEVS information to evaluate benefit amounts resulted in potential over payment of benefits. Cause and View of Responsible Officials There was a lack of diligence in following the Department?s established policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements. Recommendation We recommend that program management ensure that program personnel are familiar with all grant requirements. Additionally, we recommend that the Department diligently comply with its policies and procedures.
Condition We selected a non statistical sample of 60 participant files, representing approximately $39,000 of benefit payments, out of a population of approximately 8,700 cases, representing approximately $17.8 million of benefit payments, for testing and noted exceptions in 17 case files as follows: ? Nine case files where eligibility redeterminations were not completed in the timeframe required by the State Plan. ? Seven case files where there was no evidence of a TANF case worker?s signature on the eligibility redetermination form. ? One case file where the interview process was not conducted within the forty-five (45) day timeframe required by the State Plan. Criteria The State of Hawaii Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (?TANF?) State Plan states that a review of all eligibility requirements is required every 12 months for all TANF households. The State Plan also states that for the Department to make a decision regarding an applicant?s eligibility, an interview must be conducted with the applicant no later than forty-five (45) days after the application is received. In addition, Administration for Children and Families (?ACF?) program instruction TANF-ACF-PI-2020-01 indicates that States may make program changes but must submit a plan amendment within 30 days of the program changes. The program instruction recommends that the State seek guidance from ACF on whether a particular action is allowable under program requirements. Effect Failure to follow the established procedures in place over the eligibility determination process and to submit the plan amendment or to seek guidance from ACF on whether a particular action is allowable under program requirements, resulted in non-compliance with the requirement and questioned costs. Cause and View of Responsible Officials Due to the COVID 19 pandemic, the Department elected to suspend all eligibility redeterminations until July 2021 and the interview process until July 2022. Although program changes are allowed, the Department was not able to submit the amendment to the State Plan until April 2022. Recommendation We recommend that the Department work with ACF to determine what remediation actions, if any, are required.
Condition We selected a non statistical sample of 14 participant files for testing out of a population of 138 participant files that were initially determined by the Title IV-D agency as not cooperating with the child support enforcement requirements. We noted 3 files did not contain any correspondence, notices, or documentation to indicate whether any follow up action, up to and including case closure and cessation of benefits, were performed. Criteria Pursuant to 45 CFR 264.30, the Title IV A agency is required to take appropriate action, as defined, if the Title IV D agency determines that an individual is not cooperating with the child support enforcement requirements. Effect Failure to retain documentation to support a determination that appropriate action was taken limits the Department?s ability to demonstrate compliance with the requirement and resulted in questioned costs. Cause and View of Responsible Officials There was a lack of diligence in following the Department?s established policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements. Recommendation We recommend that program management ensure that program personnel are familiar with all grant requirements. Additionally, we recommend that the Department diligently comply with its policies and procedures.
Condition During our audit, we tested a non statistical sample of six subawards and found no evidence that the reporting required by Section 2, Full Disclosure of Entities Receiving Federal Funding, of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (?FFATA?) was completed for one subaward and five instances of untimely submission. Criteria Section 2, Full Disclosure of Entities Receiving Federal Funding, of the FFATA requires an entity to report subcontracts made under federally-awarded contracts by the end of the month following the month in which the prime recipient awards any subgrant greater than or equal to $30,000. Effect Failure to file required reports reduced transparency on the use of program funds and represents an instance of noncompliance with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. Cause and View of Responsible Officials There was a lack of diligence in following the Department?s established policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements. Recommendation We recommend that program management ensure that program personnel are familiar with all award requirements, and that program personnel ensure that required FFATA reports are filed timely.
Condition During our audit, we selected a non statistical sample of 60 participants for testing out of a population of approximately 7,900 participants whose work participation activity was reported on the ACF-199. We noted one instance where a work eligible participant complied with their work participation plan, but the Department inaccurately reported the participant as noncompliant. Criteria Pursuant to 45 CFR 265.3(b)(1), on a quarterly basis, the Department is required to submit disaggregated information on families receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits, which includes demographic data such as work participation activities. Effect Failure to report accurate work participation information limits the Department?s ability to demonstrate compliance with the requirement and could result in non-compliance with the minimum work participation rate requirements. Cause and View of Responsible Officials There was a lack of diligence in following the Department?s established policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements. Recommendation We recommend that program management ensure that program personnel are familiar with all grant requirements. Additionally, we recommend that the Department diligently comply with its policies and procedures.
Condition The Department achieved a two-parent work participation rate of 12.4%, which is below the federally mandated rate of 15.7%, calculated by subtracting the caseload reduction credit of 74.3% from the base 90.0%. Criteria Pursuant to 45 CFR 261.23, a State must achieve a 90% minimum two-parent participation rate minus any caseload reduction credit to which it is entitled. Pursuant to 45 CFR 261.40(a)(2)(i), the minimum two-parent participation rate the State must meet decreases by the number of percentage points the prior-year two-parent caseload, including two-parent cases receiving assistance under a separate State program, fell in comparison to the FY 2005 two-parent caseload, including two-parent cases receiving assistance under a separate State program. Effect Failure to meet the minimum two-parent work participation rate may result in a reduction in the amount of State family assistance grants received. Cause and View of Responsible Officials There was a lack of diligence in following the Department?s established policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements. Recommendation We recommend that program management ensure that program personnel are familiar with all grant requirements. Additionally, we recommend that the Department diligently comply with its policies and procedures.
Condition We selected a non statistical sample of 60 case files for testing and noted 11 instances where the Department?s records did not support the use of the income information obtained through Income Eligibility and Verification System (?IEVS?) to evaluate or re-evaluate the benefit calculation. Criteria Pursuant to 45 CFR 205.55, the Department is required to request through the IEVS, wage information, unemployment compensation, Social Security Administration, unearned income, and any other income information. Effect Failure to properly use IEVS information to evaluate benefit amounts resulted in potential over payment of benefits. Cause and View of Responsible Officials There was a lack of diligence in following the Department?s established policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements. Recommendation We recommend that program management ensure that program personnel are familiar with all grant requirements. Additionally, we recommend that the Department diligently comply with its policies and procedures.
Condition We selected a non statistical sample of 60 participant files, representing approximately $39,000 of benefit payments, out of a population of approximately 8,700 cases, representing approximately $17.8 million of benefit payments, for testing and noted exceptions in 17 case files as follows: ? Nine case files where eligibility redeterminations were not completed in the timeframe required by the State Plan. ? Seven case files where there was no evidence of a TANF case worker?s signature on the eligibility redetermination form. ? One case file where the interview process was not conducted within the forty-five (45) day timeframe required by the State Plan. Criteria The State of Hawaii Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (?TANF?) State Plan states that a review of all eligibility requirements is required every 12 months for all TANF households. The State Plan also states that for the Department to make a decision regarding an applicant?s eligibility, an interview must be conducted with the applicant no later than forty-five (45) days after the application is received. In addition, Administration for Children and Families (?ACF?) program instruction TANF-ACF-PI-2020-01 indicates that States may make program changes but must submit a plan amendment within 30 days of the program changes. The program instruction recommends that the State seek guidance from ACF on whether a particular action is allowable under program requirements. Effect Failure to follow the established procedures in place over the eligibility determination process and to submit the plan amendment or to seek guidance from ACF on whether a particular action is allowable under program requirements, resulted in non-compliance with the requirement and questioned costs. Cause and View of Responsible Officials Due to the COVID 19 pandemic, the Department elected to suspend all eligibility redeterminations until July 2021 and the interview process until July 2022. Although program changes are allowed, the Department was not able to submit the amendment to the State Plan until April 2022. Recommendation We recommend that the Department work with ACF to determine what remediation actions, if any, are required.
Condition We selected a non statistical sample of 14 participant files for testing out of a population of 138 participant files that were initially determined by the Title IV-D agency as not cooperating with the child support enforcement requirements. We noted 3 files did not contain any correspondence, notices, or documentation to indicate whether any follow up action, up to and including case closure and cessation of benefits, were performed. Criteria Pursuant to 45 CFR 264.30, the Title IV A agency is required to take appropriate action, as defined, if the Title IV D agency determines that an individual is not cooperating with the child support enforcement requirements. Effect Failure to retain documentation to support a determination that appropriate action was taken limits the Department?s ability to demonstrate compliance with the requirement and resulted in questioned costs. Cause and View of Responsible Officials There was a lack of diligence in following the Department?s established policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements. Recommendation We recommend that program management ensure that program personnel are familiar with all grant requirements. Additionally, we recommend that the Department diligently comply with its policies and procedures.
Condition During our audit, we tested a non statistical sample of six subawards and found no evidence that the reporting required by Section 2, Full Disclosure of Entities Receiving Federal Funding, of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (?FFATA?) was completed for one subaward and five instances of untimely submission. Criteria Section 2, Full Disclosure of Entities Receiving Federal Funding, of the FFATA requires an entity to report subcontracts made under federally-awarded contracts by the end of the month following the month in which the prime recipient awards any subgrant greater than or equal to $30,000. Effect Failure to file required reports reduced transparency on the use of program funds and represents an instance of noncompliance with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. Cause and View of Responsible Officials There was a lack of diligence in following the Department?s established policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements. Recommendation We recommend that program management ensure that program personnel are familiar with all award requirements, and that program personnel ensure that required FFATA reports are filed timely.
Condition During our audit, we selected a non statistical sample of 60 participants for testing out of a population of approximately 7,900 participants whose work participation activity was reported on the ACF-199. We noted one instance where a work eligible participant complied with their work participation plan, but the Department inaccurately reported the participant as noncompliant. Criteria Pursuant to 45 CFR 265.3(b)(1), on a quarterly basis, the Department is required to submit disaggregated information on families receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits, which includes demographic data such as work participation activities. Effect Failure to report accurate work participation information limits the Department?s ability to demonstrate compliance with the requirement and could result in non-compliance with the minimum work participation rate requirements. Cause and View of Responsible Officials There was a lack of diligence in following the Department?s established policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements. Recommendation We recommend that program management ensure that program personnel are familiar with all grant requirements. Additionally, we recommend that the Department diligently comply with its policies and procedures.
Condition The Department achieved a two-parent work participation rate of 12.4%, which is below the federally mandated rate of 15.7%, calculated by subtracting the caseload reduction credit of 74.3% from the base 90.0%. Criteria Pursuant to 45 CFR 261.23, a State must achieve a 90% minimum two-parent participation rate minus any caseload reduction credit to which it is entitled. Pursuant to 45 CFR 261.40(a)(2)(i), the minimum two-parent participation rate the State must meet decreases by the number of percentage points the prior-year two-parent caseload, including two-parent cases receiving assistance under a separate State program, fell in comparison to the FY 2005 two-parent caseload, including two-parent cases receiving assistance under a separate State program. Effect Failure to meet the minimum two-parent work participation rate may result in a reduction in the amount of State family assistance grants received. Cause and View of Responsible Officials There was a lack of diligence in following the Department?s established policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements. Recommendation We recommend that program management ensure that program personnel are familiar with all grant requirements. Additionally, we recommend that the Department diligently comply with its policies and procedures.
Condition During our audit, we selected a non statistical sample of 60 providers for testing out of a population of approximately 1,800 providers. The providers selected for testing represented approximately $21 million of payments out of a total payment population of $223 million. The results of our testing were as follows: ? Four providers where the DHS Form 1139 was not maintained. ? Eight providers where the DHS Form 1139 did not support revalidation within the most recent five year period. Criteria Pursuant to 42 CFR Part 455, subpart E, the Department?s MED Quest Division is required to screen and enroll providers and obtain certain disclosures in accordance with 42 CFR Part 455, subpart B. Pursuant to 42 CFR 455.414, the State Medicaid Agency must revalidate the enrollment of all providers regardless of provider type at least every five years. Pursuant to 42 CFR 455, subpart B, providers are to comply with the requirements of the State Plan, including the disclosure requirement. Effect Failure to follow the established policies and procedures in place over the provider eligibility determination process represents an instance of noncompliance with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200, resulting in questioned costs. Cause and View of Responsible Officials Although the Department has policies and procedures in place requiring the maintenance of required documentation, there was a lack of diligence in complying with the policies and procedures. Recommendation We recommend the Department be more diligent in following its existing policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the program requirements.
Condition During our audit, we noted the Department only partially obtained the required audited financial reports and did not conduct or contract an independent audit of the encounter and financial data submitted. Criteria Pursuant to 42 CFR 438.3(m), the Department must require managed care organizations (?MCO?), prepaid inpatient health plans (?PIHP?), and prepaid ambulatory health plans (?PAHP?) to submit audited financial reports, conducted in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and generally accepted auditing standards, specific to its Medicaid contract on an annual basis. Pursuant to 42 CFR 438.602(e), the Department must periodically, but no less frequently than once every three years, conduct, or contract for the conduct of, an independent audit of the accuracy, truthfulness, and completeness of the encounter and financial data submitted by, or on behalf of, each MCO, PIHP, or PAHP. Effect Failure to obtain the necessary financial audit reports represents an instance of noncompliance with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. Cause and View of Responsible Officials Although the Department has policies and procedures in place requiring the maintenance of required documentation, there was a lack of diligence in complying with the policies and procedures. Recommendation We recommend the Department be more diligent in following its existing policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the program requirements.
Condition During our audit, we selected a non statistical sample of 60 providers for testing out of a population of approximately 1,800 providers. The providers selected for testing represented approximately $21 million of payments out of a total payment population of $223 million. The results of our testing were as follows: ? Four providers where the DHS Form 1139 was not maintained. ? Eight providers where the DHS Form 1139 did not support revalidation within the most recent five year period. Criteria Pursuant to 42 CFR Part 455, subpart E, the Department?s MED Quest Division is required to screen and enroll providers and obtain certain disclosures in accordance with 42 CFR Part 455, subpart B. Pursuant to 42 CFR 455.414, the State Medicaid Agency must revalidate the enrollment of all providers regardless of provider type at least every five years. Pursuant to 42 CFR 455, subpart B, providers are to comply with the requirements of the State Plan, including the disclosure requirement. Effect Failure to follow the established policies and procedures in place over the provider eligibility determination process represents an instance of noncompliance with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200, resulting in questioned costs. Cause and View of Responsible Officials Although the Department has policies and procedures in place requiring the maintenance of required documentation, there was a lack of diligence in complying with the policies and procedures. Recommendation We recommend the Department be more diligent in following its existing policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the program requirements.
Condition During our audit, we noted the Department only partially obtained the required audited financial reports and did not conduct or contract an independent audit of the encounter and financial data submitted. Criteria Pursuant to 42 CFR 438.3(m), the Department must require managed care organizations (?MCO?), prepaid inpatient health plans (?PIHP?), and prepaid ambulatory health plans (?PAHP?) to submit audited financial reports, conducted in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and generally accepted auditing standards, specific to its Medicaid contract on an annual basis. Pursuant to 42 CFR 438.602(e), the Department must periodically, but no less frequently than once every three years, conduct, or contract for the conduct of, an independent audit of the accuracy, truthfulness, and completeness of the encounter and financial data submitted by, or on behalf of, each MCO, PIHP, or PAHP. Effect Failure to obtain the necessary financial audit reports represents an instance of noncompliance with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. Cause and View of Responsible Officials Although the Department has policies and procedures in place requiring the maintenance of required documentation, there was a lack of diligence in complying with the policies and procedures. Recommendation We recommend the Department be more diligent in following its existing policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the program requirements.
Condition During our audit, we selected a non statistical sample of 60 providers for testing out of a population of approximately 1,800 providers. The providers selected for testing represented approximately $21 million of payments out of a total payment population of $223 million. The results of our testing were as follows: ? Four providers where the DHS Form 1139 was not maintained. ? Eight providers where the DHS Form 1139 did not support revalidation within the most recent five year period. Criteria Pursuant to 42 CFR Part 455, subpart E, the Department?s MED Quest Division is required to screen and enroll providers and obtain certain disclosures in accordance with 42 CFR Part 455, subpart B. Pursuant to 42 CFR 455.414, the State Medicaid Agency must revalidate the enrollment of all providers regardless of provider type at least every five years. Pursuant to 42 CFR 455, subpart B, providers are to comply with the requirements of the State Plan, including the disclosure requirement. Effect Failure to follow the established policies and procedures in place over the provider eligibility determination process represents an instance of noncompliance with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200, resulting in questioned costs. Cause and View of Responsible Officials Although the Department has policies and procedures in place requiring the maintenance of required documentation, there was a lack of diligence in complying with the policies and procedures. Recommendation We recommend the Department be more diligent in following its existing policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the program requirements.
Condition During our audit, we noted the Department only partially obtained the required audited financial reports and did not conduct or contract an independent audit of the encounter and financial data submitted. Criteria Pursuant to 42 CFR 438.3(m), the Department must require managed care organizations (?MCO?), prepaid inpatient health plans (?PIHP?), and prepaid ambulatory health plans (?PAHP?) to submit audited financial reports, conducted in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and generally accepted auditing standards, specific to its Medicaid contract on an annual basis. Pursuant to 42 CFR 438.602(e), the Department must periodically, but no less frequently than once every three years, conduct, or contract for the conduct of, an independent audit of the accuracy, truthfulness, and completeness of the encounter and financial data submitted by, or on behalf of, each MCO, PIHP, or PAHP. Effect Failure to obtain the necessary financial audit reports represents an instance of noncompliance with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. Cause and View of Responsible Officials Although the Department has policies and procedures in place requiring the maintenance of required documentation, there was a lack of diligence in complying with the policies and procedures. Recommendation We recommend the Department be more diligent in following its existing policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the program requirements.
Condition During our audit, we selected a non statistical sample of 60 daily reconciliations for testing and noted 18 instances where variances were not investigated and there was no evidence that a review of the daily reconciliations was performed. The Department?s daily reconciliations identified variances which ranged up to approximately $9.6 million. Criteria Pursuant to 7 CFR 274.4, the Department is required to perform daily reconciliations of all SNAP transactions between the State?s Benefit Account, the US Treasury Department, and all the EBT contractors. Effect Failure to resolve the reconciling items resulted in non-compliance with the requirement. Cause and View of Responsible Officials There was a lack of diligence in following the Department?s established policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements. Recommendation We recommend that the Department develop procedures to ensure that identified variances are resolved and that the reconciliations are reviewed in a timely manner.
Condition During our audit, we selected a non statistical sample of 60 participant files which approximated $50,000 in monthly payments, out of a population of approximately 195,000 participant files which approximated $986 million in total annual benefit payments, for testing and noted exceptions in three case files as follows: ? One case file where manually entered unearned income and medical expense deduction amounts did not agree with the documentation retained in the participant?s case file. ? Two case files where manually entered income information did not agree with the documentation retained in the respective participant?s case files. Criteria Pursuant to 7 CFR 272.10(b)(1)(i), the SNAP system should be efficiently automated to determine eligibility and calculate benefits or validate the eligibility worker?s calculations by processing and storing all case file information necessary for the eligibility determination and benefit computation (including but not limited to all household members? names, addresses, dates of birth, social security numbers, individual household members? earned and unearned income by source, deductions, resources, and household size). Effect Participants did not receive the correct amount of benefits they were eligible for, resulting in questioned costs. Cause and View of Responsible Officials There was a lack of diligence in following the Department?s established policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements. Recommendation We recommend the Department emphasize the importance of diligently checking that any information entered manually agrees to the supporting documentation retained in the participant?s file. We also recommend the Department consider implementing a secondary review of participant files where information affecting the calculation of benefits is entered manually.
Condition During our audit, we selected a non statistical sample of four processing centers out of the Department?s 21 processing centers and noted that supervisor reviews performed over DHS Form 1494, Form 1495, and/or Form 1050 were not maintained at one processing center. Criteria Pursuant to 7 CFR 274.8(b)(3), the Department is required to ensure there are storage and control measures to control blank unissued electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards. To address this requirement, the Department has adopted a policy that requires (1) monthly or quarterly review of the DHS Form 1494, Bulk Inventory Control Log; (2) daily or weekly review of the DHS Form 1495, Hawaii EBT Card Daily Control Log; and (3) monthly review of the DHS Form 1050, EBT Card Destruction Control Log. Effect Documentation of supervisor approval of the review over the DHS Form 1494, Form 1495, and/or Form 1050 was not maintained at one processing center, increasing the risk of non-compliance with the requirement. Cause and View of Responsible Officials Although the Department has policies and procedures in place regarding reviews, the policies and procedures do not explicitly require a supervisor sign-off documenting their review resulting in the inconsistent application and documentation of supervisor reviews. Recommendation We recommend that program management ensure that program personnel are familiar with all grant requirements, including compliance with 2 CFR Part 200. Additionally, we recommend that the Department modify their policies and procedures to explicitly require supervisor signoffs documenting their review.
Condition During our audit, we selected a non statistical sample of 60 daily reconciliations for testing and noted 18 instances where variances were not investigated and there was no evidence that a review of the daily reconciliations was performed. The Department?s daily reconciliations identified variances which ranged up to approximately $9.6 million. Criteria Pursuant to 7 CFR 274.4, the Department is required to perform daily reconciliations of all SNAP transactions between the State?s Benefit Account, the US Treasury Department, and all the EBT contractors. Effect Failure to resolve the reconciling items resulted in non-compliance with the requirement. Cause and View of Responsible Officials There was a lack of diligence in following the Department?s established policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements. Recommendation We recommend that the Department develop procedures to ensure that identified variances are resolved and that the reconciliations are reviewed in a timely manner.
Condition During our audit, we selected a non statistical sample of 60 participant files which approximated $50,000 in monthly payments, out of a population of approximately 195,000 participant files which approximated $986 million in total annual benefit payments, for testing and noted exceptions in three case files as follows: ? One case file where manually entered unearned income and medical expense deduction amounts did not agree with the documentation retained in the participant?s case file. ? Two case files where manually entered income information did not agree with the documentation retained in the respective participant?s case files. Criteria Pursuant to 7 CFR 272.10(b)(1)(i), the SNAP system should be efficiently automated to determine eligibility and calculate benefits or validate the eligibility worker?s calculations by processing and storing all case file information necessary for the eligibility determination and benefit computation (including but not limited to all household members? names, addresses, dates of birth, social security numbers, individual household members? earned and unearned income by source, deductions, resources, and household size). Effect Participants did not receive the correct amount of benefits they were eligible for, resulting in questioned costs. Cause and View of Responsible Officials There was a lack of diligence in following the Department?s established policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements. Recommendation We recommend the Department emphasize the importance of diligently checking that any information entered manually agrees to the supporting documentation retained in the participant?s file. We also recommend the Department consider implementing a secondary review of participant files where information affecting the calculation of benefits is entered manually.
Condition During our audit, we selected a non statistical sample of four processing centers out of the Department?s 21 processing centers and noted that supervisor reviews performed over DHS Form 1494, Form 1495, and/or Form 1050 were not maintained at one processing center. Criteria Pursuant to 7 CFR 274.8(b)(3), the Department is required to ensure there are storage and control measures to control blank unissued electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards. To address this requirement, the Department has adopted a policy that requires (1) monthly or quarterly review of the DHS Form 1494, Bulk Inventory Control Log; (2) daily or weekly review of the DHS Form 1495, Hawaii EBT Card Daily Control Log; and (3) monthly review of the DHS Form 1050, EBT Card Destruction Control Log. Effect Documentation of supervisor approval of the review over the DHS Form 1494, Form 1495, and/or Form 1050 was not maintained at one processing center, increasing the risk of non-compliance with the requirement. Cause and View of Responsible Officials Although the Department has policies and procedures in place regarding reviews, the policies and procedures do not explicitly require a supervisor sign-off documenting their review resulting in the inconsistent application and documentation of supervisor reviews. Recommendation We recommend that program management ensure that program personnel are familiar with all grant requirements, including compliance with 2 CFR Part 200. Additionally, we recommend that the Department modify their policies and procedures to explicitly require supervisor signoffs documenting their review.
Condition During our audit, we selected a non statistical sample of 60 daily reconciliations for testing and noted 18 instances where variances were not investigated and there was no evidence that a review of the daily reconciliations was performed. The Department?s daily reconciliations identified variances which ranged up to approximately $9.6 million. Criteria Pursuant to 7 CFR 274.4, the Department is required to perform daily reconciliations of all SNAP transactions between the State?s Benefit Account, the US Treasury Department, and all the EBT contractors. Effect Failure to resolve the reconciling items resulted in non-compliance with the requirement. Cause and View of Responsible Officials There was a lack of diligence in following the Department?s established policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements. Recommendation We recommend that the Department develop procedures to ensure that identified variances are resolved and that the reconciliations are reviewed in a timely manner.
Condition During our audit, we selected a non statistical sample of 60 participant files which approximated $50,000 in monthly payments, out of a population of approximately 195,000 participant files which approximated $986 million in total annual benefit payments, for testing and noted exceptions in three case files as follows: ? One case file where manually entered unearned income and medical expense deduction amounts did not agree with the documentation retained in the participant?s case file. ? Two case files where manually entered income information did not agree with the documentation retained in the respective participant?s case files. Criteria Pursuant to 7 CFR 272.10(b)(1)(i), the SNAP system should be efficiently automated to determine eligibility and calculate benefits or validate the eligibility worker?s calculations by processing and storing all case file information necessary for the eligibility determination and benefit computation (including but not limited to all household members? names, addresses, dates of birth, social security numbers, individual household members? earned and unearned income by source, deductions, resources, and household size). Effect Participants did not receive the correct amount of benefits they were eligible for, resulting in questioned costs. Cause and View of Responsible Officials There was a lack of diligence in following the Department?s established policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements. Recommendation We recommend the Department emphasize the importance of diligently checking that any information entered manually agrees to the supporting documentation retained in the participant?s file. We also recommend the Department consider implementing a secondary review of participant files where information affecting the calculation of benefits is entered manually.
Condition During our audit, we selected a non statistical sample of four processing centers out of the Department?s 21 processing centers and noted that supervisor reviews performed over DHS Form 1494, Form 1495, and/or Form 1050 were not maintained at one processing center. Criteria Pursuant to 7 CFR 274.8(b)(3), the Department is required to ensure there are storage and control measures to control blank unissued electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards. To address this requirement, the Department has adopted a policy that requires (1) monthly or quarterly review of the DHS Form 1494, Bulk Inventory Control Log; (2) daily or weekly review of the DHS Form 1495, Hawaii EBT Card Daily Control Log; and (3) monthly review of the DHS Form 1050, EBT Card Destruction Control Log. Effect Documentation of supervisor approval of the review over the DHS Form 1494, Form 1495, and/or Form 1050 was not maintained at one processing center, increasing the risk of non-compliance with the requirement. Cause and View of Responsible Officials Although the Department has policies and procedures in place regarding reviews, the policies and procedures do not explicitly require a supervisor sign-off documenting their review resulting in the inconsistent application and documentation of supervisor reviews. Recommendation We recommend that program management ensure that program personnel are familiar with all grant requirements, including compliance with 2 CFR Part 200. Additionally, we recommend that the Department modify their policies and procedures to explicitly require supervisor signoffs documenting their review.
Condition We selected a non statistical sample of 40 case files which approximated $32,000 in monthly benefit payments, out of a population of approximately 981 case files which approximated $4.89 million in total annual benefit payments, for testing and noted exceptions in 13 case files as follows: ? Three case files where the Police Protective Custody form or Voluntary Foster Custody Agreement was missing and therefore did not support whether the child was removed as part of a voluntary placement agreement or judicial determination. ? Three case files where the State, FBI, and/or child abuse and neglect clearances were missing. ? Seven case files where the ?difficulty of care? determination was missing and therefore did not support the assistance amount paid. ? Two case files where the ?Certificate of Approval? was missing and therefore did not support whether the prospective foster parents were licensed. Criteria Pursuant to 42 USC 672(a)(2), the State must determine whether the removal and foster care placement of a child was in accordance with a voluntary placement agreement or judicial determination. Pursuant to 42 USC 675(4)(A), the foster care maintenance payments should cover the cost of (and the cost of providing) food, clothing, shelter, daily supervision, and a child?s personal incidentals. Pursuant to 42 USC 672(c)(1)(A), a foster family home means the home of an individual family that is licensed or approved by the State in which it is situated as a foster family home that meets the standards established for the licensing or approval. Pursuant to 42 USC 671(a)(20)(A), any prospective foster parent must satisfactorily have met a criminal records check, including a fingerprint-based check of national crime information databases, before the foster parent may be finally approved for placement of a child. Effect Failure to follow the established policies and procedures in place over the application process and determination of assistance amount represent instances of noncompliance with the requirements above, resulting in questioned costs. Cause and View of Responsible Officials Although the Department has established policies and procedures in place regarding the application process and determination of assistance amount, there was a lack of diligence in complying with the policies and procedures. Recommendation We recommend that program management ensure that program personnel are familiar with all grant requirements, including those specified under Criteria above. Additionally, we recommend that the Department diligently comply with its policies and procedures.
Condition We selected a non statistical sample of 40 case files which approximated $32,000 in monthly benefit payments, out of a population of approximately 981 case files which approximated $4.89 million in total annual benefit payments, for testing and noted exceptions in 13 case files as follows: ? Three case files where the Police Protective Custody form or Voluntary Foster Custody Agreement was missing and therefore did not support whether the child was removed as part of a voluntary placement agreement or judicial determination. ? Three case files where the State, FBI, and/or child abuse and neglect clearances were missing. ? Seven case files where the ?difficulty of care? determination was missing and therefore did not support the assistance amount paid. ? Two case files where the ?Certificate of Approval? was missing and therefore did not support whether the prospective foster parents were licensed. Criteria Pursuant to 42 USC 672(a)(2), the State must determine whether the removal and foster care placement of a child was in accordance with a voluntary placement agreement or judicial determination. Pursuant to 42 USC 675(4)(A), the foster care maintenance payments should cover the cost of (and the cost of providing) food, clothing, shelter, daily supervision, and a child?s personal incidentals. Pursuant to 42 USC 672(c)(1)(A), a foster family home means the home of an individual family that is licensed or approved by the State in which it is situated as a foster family home that meets the standards established for the licensing or approval. Pursuant to 42 USC 671(a)(20)(A), any prospective foster parent must satisfactorily have met a criminal records check, including a fingerprint-based check of national crime information databases, before the foster parent may be finally approved for placement of a child. Effect Failure to follow the established policies and procedures in place over the application process and determination of assistance amount represent instances of noncompliance with the requirements above, resulting in questioned costs. Cause and View of Responsible Officials Although the Department has established policies and procedures in place regarding the application process and determination of assistance amount, there was a lack of diligence in complying with the policies and procedures. Recommendation We recommend that program management ensure that program personnel are familiar with all grant requirements, including those specified under Criteria above. Additionally, we recommend that the Department diligently comply with its policies and procedures.
Condition We selected a non statistical sample of 60 case files which approximated $33,000 in monthly benefit payments, out of a population of approximately 2,500 case files which approximated $15.4 million in total annual benefit payments, for testing and noted exceptions in 38 case files as follows: ? 19 case files where the initial or modified adoption agreement was missing and therefore did not have any support for the amount of monthly assistance paid. ? 21 case files where the State, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and/or child abuse and neglect clearances were missing. ? Eight case files where the ?difficulty of care? determination was missing and therefore did not have any support for the assistance amount paid. ? Eight case files where documentation of a child?s special needs was missing. ? Eight case files where the supporting documentation regarding whether the State determined that the child cannot or should not be returned to the home of his or her parents was missing. ? One case file where documentation of monthly non-recurring expenses was missing. ? One case file where documentation regarding continuation of monthly subsidy payments after the child?s 18th birthday was missing. ? One case file where the final approval was granted to a household with an individual who was convicted of spousal abuse. ? Five case files where the adoption decree was missing from the case records. Criteria Pursuant to 42 USC 673(a)(3), the amount of the adoption assistance payments to be made shall be determined through agreement between the adoptive parents and the State or local agency administering the program, which shall take into consideration the circumstances of the adopting parents and the needs of the child being adopted, and may be readjusted periodically, with the concurrence of the adopting parents (which may be specified in the adoption assistance agreement), depending upon changes in such circumstances. Pursuant to 42 USC 671(a)(20)(A), the State must have procedures for criminal records checks, including a fingerprint-based check of national crime information databases (as defined in 28 USC 534(f)(3)(A)), for any prospective adoptive parent before the adoptive parent may be finally approved for placement of a child. Pursuant to 42 USC 671(a)(20)(B), the State shall check any child abuse and neglect registry maintained by the State for information on any prospective foster or adoptive parent and on any other adult living in the home of such a prospective parent. Pursuant to 42 USC 673(a)(2)(A), the State must determine the child to have special needs to be eligible for adoption assistance payments. Pursuant to 42 USC 673(c)(1), the State must determine whether the child cannot or should not be returned to the home of his or her parents. Pursuant to 45 CFR 1356.41(a), the amount of the payment made for nonrecurring expenses of adoption shall be determined though the agreement between the adopting parent(s) and the title IV E agency administering the program. The agreement must indicate the nature and amount of the nonrecurring expenses to be paid. Pursuant to 42 USC 673(a)(4)(A), a payment may not be made to a child who has attained 18 years of age, unless the individual is determined to be one with special needs. Pursuant to 42 USC 671(a)(20)(A)(i), in any case involving a child on whose behalf such payments are to be so made in which a record check reveals a felony conviction for spousal abuse, such final approval shall not be granted. Pursuant to 42 USC 675(3), the agreement for the adoption subsidy must be signed before the final decree of adoption and contains information concerning the nature of services. Effect Failure to follow the established policies and procedures in place over the application process and determination of assistance amount represents an instance of noncompliance with the requirements specified above, resulting in questioned costs. Cause and View of Responsible Officials Although the Department has established policies and procedures in place regarding the application process and determination of assistance amount, there was a lack of diligence in complying with the policies and procedures. Recommendation We recommend that program management ensure that program personnel are familiar with all grant requirements, including those specified under Criteria above. Additionally, we recommend that the Department diligently comply with its policies and procedures.
Condition We selected a non statistical sample of 60 case files which approximated $33,000 in monthly benefit payments, out of a population of approximately 2,500 case files which approximated $15.4 million in total annual benefit payments, for testing and noted exceptions in 38 case files as follows: ? 19 case files where the initial or modified adoption agreement was missing and therefore did not have any support for the amount of monthly assistance paid. ? 21 case files where the State, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and/or child abuse and neglect clearances were missing. ? Eight case files where the ?difficulty of care? determination was missing and therefore did not have any support for the assistance amount paid. ? Eight case files where documentation of a child?s special needs was missing. ? Eight case files where the supporting documentation regarding whether the State determined that the child cannot or should not be returned to the home of his or her parents was missing. ? One case file where documentation of monthly non-recurring expenses was missing. ? One case file where documentation regarding continuation of monthly subsidy payments after the child?s 18th birthday was missing. ? One case file where the final approval was granted to a household with an individual who was convicted of spousal abuse. ? Five case files where the adoption decree was missing from the case records. Criteria Pursuant to 42 USC 673(a)(3), the amount of the adoption assistance payments to be made shall be determined through agreement between the adoptive parents and the State or local agency administering the program, which shall take into consideration the circumstances of the adopting parents and the needs of the child being adopted, and may be readjusted periodically, with the concurrence of the adopting parents (which may be specified in the adoption assistance agreement), depending upon changes in such circumstances. Pursuant to 42 USC 671(a)(20)(A), the State must have procedures for criminal records checks, including a fingerprint-based check of national crime information databases (as defined in 28 USC 534(f)(3)(A)), for any prospective adoptive parent before the adoptive parent may be finally approved for placement of a child. Pursuant to 42 USC 671(a)(20)(B), the State shall check any child abuse and neglect registry maintained by the State for information on any prospective foster or adoptive parent and on any other adult living in the home of such a prospective parent. Pursuant to 42 USC 673(a)(2)(A), the State must determine the child to have special needs to be eligible for adoption assistance payments. Pursuant to 42 USC 673(c)(1), the State must determine whether the child cannot or should not be returned to the home of his or her parents. Pursuant to 45 CFR 1356.41(a), the amount of the payment made for nonrecurring expenses of adoption shall be determined though the agreement between the adopting parent(s) and the title IV E agency administering the program. The agreement must indicate the nature and amount of the nonrecurring expenses to be paid. Pursuant to 42 USC 673(a)(4)(A), a payment may not be made to a child who has attained 18 years of age, unless the individual is determined to be one with special needs. Pursuant to 42 USC 671(a)(20)(A)(i), in any case involving a child on whose behalf such payments are to be so made in which a record check reveals a felony conviction for spousal abuse, such final approval shall not be granted. Pursuant to 42 USC 675(3), the agreement for the adoption subsidy must be signed before the final decree of adoption and contains information concerning the nature of services. Effect Failure to follow the established policies and procedures in place over the application process and determination of assistance amount represents an instance of noncompliance with the requirements specified above, resulting in questioned costs. Cause and View of Responsible Officials Although the Department has established policies and procedures in place regarding the application process and determination of assistance amount, there was a lack of diligence in complying with the policies and procedures. Recommendation We recommend that program management ensure that program personnel are familiar with all grant requirements, including those specified under Criteria above. Additionally, we recommend that the Department diligently comply with its policies and procedures.
Condition We selected a non statistical sample of 60 case files which approximated $55,000 in monthly benefit payments, out of a population of approximately 380 case files which approximated $3.9 million in total annual benefit payments, for testing and noted exceptions in 17 case files as follows: ? Seven case files where the initial or modified guardianship/permanency assistance agreement was missing and therefore did not have any support for the amount of monthly assistance paid. ? Four case files where the ?difficulty of care? determination was missing and therefore did not have any support for the assistance amount paid. ? One case file where we were unable to determine if a child who attained the age of 14 was consulted regarding the kinship guardianship agreement. ? Three case files where the State, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and/or child abuse and neglect clearances were missing in the case files. ? Two case files where documentation regarding continuation of monthly subsidy payments after the child?s 18th birthday was missing. ? One case file where the supporting documentation regarding whether the State determined that the guardian/permanent custodian has a strong commitment to caring permanently for the child was missing. Criteria Pursuant to 42 USC 673(d)(1), an executed kinship guardianship assistance agreement with the prospective relative guardian must include the amount of and any adjustments based on the needs of the child. The "Guardianship/Permanency Assistance Agreement? (Agreement) is the agreement executed with the relative guardian. The Agreement outlines the terms and conditions for the participants and the Department and includes the total amount of assistance payments. The Agreement may be further supplemented due to difficulties in caring for a child as determined by a caseworker on an as needed basis and documented on the ?Difficulty of Care? (DOC) worksheet. In the event of an increase or decrease to the amount of the assistance payments, the caseworkers are required to execute a revised Agreement. Pursuant to 42 USC 673(d)(3)(A), a child is eligible when the state agency determines the following: a) With respect to a child who has attained 14 years of age, the child has been consulted regarding the kinship guardianship arrangement. b) Eligible for foster care maintenance payments under 42 USC 672 while residing for at least six consecutive months in the home of the prospective relative guardian. c) Removed from his or her home pursuant to a voluntary placement agreement or as a result of a judicial determination to the effect that continuation in the home would be contrary to the welfare of the child. Pursuant to 42 USC 673(a)(4)(A), assistance payments must stop for a child who has attained 18 years of age or greater or 21 years of age if the State determines that the child has a mental or physical handicap. Pursuant to 42 USC 671(a)(20)(c), any relative guardian must satisfactorily have met a criminal records check, including a fingerprint-based check of national crime information databases (as defined in 28 USC 534(e)(3)(A)), and for checks described in 42 USC 671(a)(20)(B) on any relative guardian and any other adult living in the home of any relative guardian, before the relative guardian may receive kinship guardianship assistance payments on behalf of the child. Pursuant to 42 USC 673(d)(3)(A)(iii), the Title IV-E agency must determine that the child demonstrates a strong attachment to the prospective relative guardian and the relative guardian has a strong commitment to caring permanently for the child. Effect Failure to follow the established policies and procedures in place over the application process and determination of assistance amount represents an instance of noncompliance with the requirements specified above, resulting in questioned costs. Cause and View of Responsible Officials Although the Department has established policies and procedures in place over the application process and determination of assistance amount, there was a lack of diligence in complying with the policies and procedures. Recommendation We recommend that program management ensure that program personnel are familiar with all grant requirements, including those specified under Criteria above. Additionally, we recommend that the Department diligently comply with its policies and procedures.
Condition We selected a non statistical sample of 60 case files which approximated $55,000 in monthly benefit payments, out of a population of approximately 380 case files which approximated $3.9 million in total annual benefit payments, for testing and noted exceptions in 17 case files as follows: ? Seven case files where the initial or modified guardianship/permanency assistance agreement was missing and therefore did not have any support for the amount of monthly assistance paid. ? Four case files where the ?difficulty of care? determination was missing and therefore did not have any support for the assistance amount paid. ? One case file where we were unable to determine if a child who attained the age of 14 was consulted regarding the kinship guardianship agreement. ? Three case files where the State, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and/or child abuse and neglect clearances were missing in the case files. ? Two case files where documentation regarding continuation of monthly subsidy payments after the child?s 18th birthday was missing. ? One case file where the supporting documentation regarding whether the State determined that the guardian/permanent custodian has a strong commitment to caring permanently for the child was missing. Criteria Pursuant to 42 USC 673(d)(1), an executed kinship guardianship assistance agreement with the prospective relative guardian must include the amount of and any adjustments based on the needs of the child. The "Guardianship/Permanency Assistance Agreement? (Agreement) is the agreement executed with the relative guardian. The Agreement outlines the terms and conditions for the participants and the Department and includes the total amount of assistance payments. The Agreement may be further supplemented due to difficulties in caring for a child as determined by a caseworker on an as needed basis and documented on the ?Difficulty of Care? (DOC) worksheet. In the event of an increase or decrease to the amount of the assistance payments, the caseworkers are required to execute a revised Agreement. Pursuant to 42 USC 673(d)(3)(A), a child is eligible when the state agency determines the following: a) With respect to a child who has attained 14 years of age, the child has been consulted regarding the kinship guardianship arrangement. b) Eligible for foster care maintenance payments under 42 USC 672 while residing for at least six consecutive months in the home of the prospective relative guardian. c) Removed from his or her home pursuant to a voluntary placement agreement or as a result of a judicial determination to the effect that continuation in the home would be contrary to the welfare of the child. Pursuant to 42 USC 673(a)(4)(A), assistance payments must stop for a child who has attained 18 years of age or greater or 21 years of age if the State determines that the child has a mental or physical handicap. Pursuant to 42 USC 671(a)(20)(c), any relative guardian must satisfactorily have met a criminal records check, including a fingerprint-based check of national crime information databases (as defined in 28 USC 534(e)(3)(A)), and for checks described in 42 USC 671(a)(20)(B) on any relative guardian and any other adult living in the home of any relative guardian, before the relative guardian may receive kinship guardianship assistance payments on behalf of the child. Pursuant to 42 USC 673(d)(3)(A)(iii), the Title IV-E agency must determine that the child demonstrates a strong attachment to the prospective relative guardian and the relative guardian has a strong commitment to caring permanently for the child. Effect Failure to follow the established policies and procedures in place over the application process and determination of assistance amount represents an instance of noncompliance with the requirements specified above, resulting in questioned costs. Cause and View of Responsible Officials Although the Department has established policies and procedures in place over the application process and determination of assistance amount, there was a lack of diligence in complying with the policies and procedures. Recommendation We recommend that program management ensure that program personnel are familiar with all grant requirements, including those specified under Criteria above. Additionally, we recommend that the Department diligently comply with its policies and procedures.
Condition During our audit, we selected a non statistical sample of 60 providers for testing out of a population of approximately 1,800 providers. The providers selected for testing represented approximately $240,000 of payments out of a total payment population of $7.2 million. The results of our testing were as follows: ? Four providers where the DHS Form 1139 was not maintained. ? Eight providers where the DHS Form 1139 did not support revalidation within the most recent five year period. Criteria Pursuant to 42 CFR Part 455, subpart E, the Department?s MED Quest Division is required to screen and enroll providers and obtain certain disclosure in accordance with 42 CFR Part 455, subpart B. Pursuant to 42 CFR 455.414, the State Medicaid Agency must revalidate the enrollment of all providers regardless of provider type at least every five years. Pursuant to 42 CFR 455, subpart B, Providers are to comply with the requirements of the State Plan, including the disclosure requirement. Effect Failure to follow the established policies and procedures in place over the provider eligibility determination process represents an instance of noncompliance with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200, resulting in questioned costs. Cause and View of Responsible Officials Although the Department has policies and procedures in place requiring the maintenance of required documentation, there was a lack of diligence in complying with the policies and procedures. Recommendation We recommend the Department be more diligent in following its existing policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the program requirements.
Condition During our audit, we noted the Department only partially obtained the required audited financial reports and did not conduct or contract an independent audit of the encounter and financial data submitted. Criteria Pursuant to 42 CFR 438.3(m), the Department must require MCOs, PIHPs, and PAHPs to submit audited financial reports, conducted in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and generally accepted auditing standards, specific to its Medicaid contract on an annual basis. Pursuant to 42 CFR 438.602(e), the Department must periodically, but no less frequently than once every three years, conduct, or contract for the conduct of, an independent audit of the accuracy, truthfulness, and completeness of the encounter and financial data submitted by, or on behalf of, each MCO, PIHP or PAHP. Effect Failure to obtain the necessary financial audit reports represents an instance of noncompliance with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. Cause and View of Responsible Officials Although the Department has policies and procedures in place requiring the maintenance of required documentation, there was a lack of diligence in complying with the policies and procedures. Recommendation We recommend the Department be more diligent in following its existing policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the program requirements.
Condition We selected a non statistical sample of 60 case files for testing and noted 11 instances where the Department?s records did not support the use of the income information obtained through Income Eligibility and Verification System (?IEVS?) to evaluate or re-evaluate the benefit calculation. Criteria Pursuant to 45 CFR 205.55, the Department is required to request through the IEVS, wage information, unemployment compensation, Social Security Administration, unearned income, and any other income information. Effect Failure to properly use IEVS information to evaluate benefit amounts resulted in potential over payment of benefits. Cause and View of Responsible Officials There was a lack of diligence in following the Department?s established policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements. Recommendation We recommend that program management ensure that program personnel are familiar with all grant requirements. Additionally, we recommend that the Department diligently comply with its policies and procedures.
Condition We selected a non statistical sample of 60 participant files, representing approximately $39,000 of benefit payments, out of a population of approximately 8,700 cases, representing approximately $17.8 million of benefit payments, for testing and noted exceptions in 17 case files as follows: ? Nine case files where eligibility redeterminations were not completed in the timeframe required by the State Plan. ? Seven case files where there was no evidence of a TANF case worker?s signature on the eligibility redetermination form. ? One case file where the interview process was not conducted within the forty-five (45) day timeframe required by the State Plan. Criteria The State of Hawaii Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (?TANF?) State Plan states that a review of all eligibility requirements is required every 12 months for all TANF households. The State Plan also states that for the Department to make a decision regarding an applicant?s eligibility, an interview must be conducted with the applicant no later than forty-five (45) days after the application is received. In addition, Administration for Children and Families (?ACF?) program instruction TANF-ACF-PI-2020-01 indicates that States may make program changes but must submit a plan amendment within 30 days of the program changes. The program instruction recommends that the State seek guidance from ACF on whether a particular action is allowable under program requirements. Effect Failure to follow the established procedures in place over the eligibility determination process and to submit the plan amendment or to seek guidance from ACF on whether a particular action is allowable under program requirements, resulted in non-compliance with the requirement and questioned costs. Cause and View of Responsible Officials Due to the COVID 19 pandemic, the Department elected to suspend all eligibility redeterminations until July 2021 and the interview process until July 2022. Although program changes are allowed, the Department was not able to submit the amendment to the State Plan until April 2022. Recommendation We recommend that the Department work with ACF to determine what remediation actions, if any, are required.
Condition We selected a non statistical sample of 14 participant files for testing out of a population of 138 participant files that were initially determined by the Title IV-D agency as not cooperating with the child support enforcement requirements. We noted 3 files did not contain any correspondence, notices, or documentation to indicate whether any follow up action, up to and including case closure and cessation of benefits, were performed. Criteria Pursuant to 45 CFR 264.30, the Title IV A agency is required to take appropriate action, as defined, if the Title IV D agency determines that an individual is not cooperating with the child support enforcement requirements. Effect Failure to retain documentation to support a determination that appropriate action was taken limits the Department?s ability to demonstrate compliance with the requirement and resulted in questioned costs. Cause and View of Responsible Officials There was a lack of diligence in following the Department?s established policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements. Recommendation We recommend that program management ensure that program personnel are familiar with all grant requirements. Additionally, we recommend that the Department diligently comply with its policies and procedures.
Condition During our audit, we tested a non statistical sample of six subawards and found no evidence that the reporting required by Section 2, Full Disclosure of Entities Receiving Federal Funding, of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (?FFATA?) was completed for one subaward and five instances of untimely submission. Criteria Section 2, Full Disclosure of Entities Receiving Federal Funding, of the FFATA requires an entity to report subcontracts made under federally-awarded contracts by the end of the month following the month in which the prime recipient awards any subgrant greater than or equal to $30,000. Effect Failure to file required reports reduced transparency on the use of program funds and represents an instance of noncompliance with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. Cause and View of Responsible Officials There was a lack of diligence in following the Department?s established policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements. Recommendation We recommend that program management ensure that program personnel are familiar with all award requirements, and that program personnel ensure that required FFATA reports are filed timely.
Condition During our audit, we selected a non statistical sample of 60 participants for testing out of a population of approximately 7,900 participants whose work participation activity was reported on the ACF-199. We noted one instance where a work eligible participant complied with their work participation plan, but the Department inaccurately reported the participant as noncompliant. Criteria Pursuant to 45 CFR 265.3(b)(1), on a quarterly basis, the Department is required to submit disaggregated information on families receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits, which includes demographic data such as work participation activities. Effect Failure to report accurate work participation information limits the Department?s ability to demonstrate compliance with the requirement and could result in non-compliance with the minimum work participation rate requirements. Cause and View of Responsible Officials There was a lack of diligence in following the Department?s established policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements. Recommendation We recommend that program management ensure that program personnel are familiar with all grant requirements. Additionally, we recommend that the Department diligently comply with its policies and procedures.
Condition The Department achieved a two-parent work participation rate of 12.4%, which is below the federally mandated rate of 15.7%, calculated by subtracting the caseload reduction credit of 74.3% from the base 90.0%. Criteria Pursuant to 45 CFR 261.23, a State must achieve a 90% minimum two-parent participation rate minus any caseload reduction credit to which it is entitled. Pursuant to 45 CFR 261.40(a)(2)(i), the minimum two-parent participation rate the State must meet decreases by the number of percentage points the prior-year two-parent caseload, including two-parent cases receiving assistance under a separate State program, fell in comparison to the FY 2005 two-parent caseload, including two-parent cases receiving assistance under a separate State program. Effect Failure to meet the minimum two-parent work participation rate may result in a reduction in the amount of State family assistance grants received. Cause and View of Responsible Officials There was a lack of diligence in following the Department?s established policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements. Recommendation We recommend that program management ensure that program personnel are familiar with all grant requirements. Additionally, we recommend that the Department diligently comply with its policies and procedures.
Condition We selected a non statistical sample of 60 case files for testing and noted 11 instances where the Department?s records did not support the use of the income information obtained through Income Eligibility and Verification System (?IEVS?) to evaluate or re-evaluate the benefit calculation. Criteria Pursuant to 45 CFR 205.55, the Department is required to request through the IEVS, wage information, unemployment compensation, Social Security Administration, unearned income, and any other income information. Effect Failure to properly use IEVS information to evaluate benefit amounts resulted in potential over payment of benefits. Cause and View of Responsible Officials There was a lack of diligence in following the Department?s established policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements. Recommendation We recommend that program management ensure that program personnel are familiar with all grant requirements. Additionally, we recommend that the Department diligently comply with its policies and procedures.
Condition We selected a non statistical sample of 60 participant files, representing approximately $39,000 of benefit payments, out of a population of approximately 8,700 cases, representing approximately $17.8 million of benefit payments, for testing and noted exceptions in 17 case files as follows: ? Nine case files where eligibility redeterminations were not completed in the timeframe required by the State Plan. ? Seven case files where there was no evidence of a TANF case worker?s signature on the eligibility redetermination form. ? One case file where the interview process was not conducted within the forty-five (45) day timeframe required by the State Plan. Criteria The State of Hawaii Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (?TANF?) State Plan states that a review of all eligibility requirements is required every 12 months for all TANF households. The State Plan also states that for the Department to make a decision regarding an applicant?s eligibility, an interview must be conducted with the applicant no later than forty-five (45) days after the application is received. In addition, Administration for Children and Families (?ACF?) program instruction TANF-ACF-PI-2020-01 indicates that States may make program changes but must submit a plan amendment within 30 days of the program changes. The program instruction recommends that the State seek guidance from ACF on whether a particular action is allowable under program requirements. Effect Failure to follow the established procedures in place over the eligibility determination process and to submit the plan amendment or to seek guidance from ACF on whether a particular action is allowable under program requirements, resulted in non-compliance with the requirement and questioned costs. Cause and View of Responsible Officials Due to the COVID 19 pandemic, the Department elected to suspend all eligibility redeterminations until July 2021 and the interview process until July 2022. Although program changes are allowed, the Department was not able to submit the amendment to the State Plan until April 2022. Recommendation We recommend that the Department work with ACF to determine what remediation actions, if any, are required.
Condition We selected a non statistical sample of 14 participant files for testing out of a population of 138 participant files that were initially determined by the Title IV-D agency as not cooperating with the child support enforcement requirements. We noted 3 files did not contain any correspondence, notices, or documentation to indicate whether any follow up action, up to and including case closure and cessation of benefits, were performed. Criteria Pursuant to 45 CFR 264.30, the Title IV A agency is required to take appropriate action, as defined, if the Title IV D agency determines that an individual is not cooperating with the child support enforcement requirements. Effect Failure to retain documentation to support a determination that appropriate action was taken limits the Department?s ability to demonstrate compliance with the requirement and resulted in questioned costs. Cause and View of Responsible Officials There was a lack of diligence in following the Department?s established policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements. Recommendation We recommend that program management ensure that program personnel are familiar with all grant requirements. Additionally, we recommend that the Department diligently comply with its policies and procedures.
Condition During our audit, we tested a non statistical sample of six subawards and found no evidence that the reporting required by Section 2, Full Disclosure of Entities Receiving Federal Funding, of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (?FFATA?) was completed for one subaward and five instances of untimely submission. Criteria Section 2, Full Disclosure of Entities Receiving Federal Funding, of the FFATA requires an entity to report subcontracts made under federally-awarded contracts by the end of the month following the month in which the prime recipient awards any subgrant greater than or equal to $30,000. Effect Failure to file required reports reduced transparency on the use of program funds and represents an instance of noncompliance with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. Cause and View of Responsible Officials There was a lack of diligence in following the Department?s established policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements. Recommendation We recommend that program management ensure that program personnel are familiar with all award requirements, and that program personnel ensure that required FFATA reports are filed timely.
Condition During our audit, we selected a non statistical sample of 60 participants for testing out of a population of approximately 7,900 participants whose work participation activity was reported on the ACF-199. We noted one instance where a work eligible participant complied with their work participation plan, but the Department inaccurately reported the participant as noncompliant. Criteria Pursuant to 45 CFR 265.3(b)(1), on a quarterly basis, the Department is required to submit disaggregated information on families receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits, which includes demographic data such as work participation activities. Effect Failure to report accurate work participation information limits the Department?s ability to demonstrate compliance with the requirement and could result in non-compliance with the minimum work participation rate requirements. Cause and View of Responsible Officials There was a lack of diligence in following the Department?s established policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements. Recommendation We recommend that program management ensure that program personnel are familiar with all grant requirements. Additionally, we recommend that the Department diligently comply with its policies and procedures.
Condition The Department achieved a two-parent work participation rate of 12.4%, which is below the federally mandated rate of 15.7%, calculated by subtracting the caseload reduction credit of 74.3% from the base 90.0%. Criteria Pursuant to 45 CFR 261.23, a State must achieve a 90% minimum two-parent participation rate minus any caseload reduction credit to which it is entitled. Pursuant to 45 CFR 261.40(a)(2)(i), the minimum two-parent participation rate the State must meet decreases by the number of percentage points the prior-year two-parent caseload, including two-parent cases receiving assistance under a separate State program, fell in comparison to the FY 2005 two-parent caseload, including two-parent cases receiving assistance under a separate State program. Effect Failure to meet the minimum two-parent work participation rate may result in a reduction in the amount of State family assistance grants received. Cause and View of Responsible Officials There was a lack of diligence in following the Department?s established policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements. Recommendation We recommend that program management ensure that program personnel are familiar with all grant requirements. Additionally, we recommend that the Department diligently comply with its policies and procedures.
Condition During our audit, we selected a non statistical sample of 60 providers for testing out of a population of approximately 1,800 providers. The providers selected for testing represented approximately $21 million of payments out of a total payment population of $223 million. The results of our testing were as follows: ? Four providers where the DHS Form 1139 was not maintained. ? Eight providers where the DHS Form 1139 did not support revalidation within the most recent five year period. Criteria Pursuant to 42 CFR Part 455, subpart E, the Department?s MED Quest Division is required to screen and enroll providers and obtain certain disclosures in accordance with 42 CFR Part 455, subpart B. Pursuant to 42 CFR 455.414, the State Medicaid Agency must revalidate the enrollment of all providers regardless of provider type at least every five years. Pursuant to 42 CFR 455, subpart B, providers are to comply with the requirements of the State Plan, including the disclosure requirement. Effect Failure to follow the established policies and procedures in place over the provider eligibility determination process represents an instance of noncompliance with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200, resulting in questioned costs. Cause and View of Responsible Officials Although the Department has policies and procedures in place requiring the maintenance of required documentation, there was a lack of diligence in complying with the policies and procedures. Recommendation We recommend the Department be more diligent in following its existing policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the program requirements.
Condition During our audit, we noted the Department only partially obtained the required audited financial reports and did not conduct or contract an independent audit of the encounter and financial data submitted. Criteria Pursuant to 42 CFR 438.3(m), the Department must require managed care organizations (?MCO?), prepaid inpatient health plans (?PIHP?), and prepaid ambulatory health plans (?PAHP?) to submit audited financial reports, conducted in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and generally accepted auditing standards, specific to its Medicaid contract on an annual basis. Pursuant to 42 CFR 438.602(e), the Department must periodically, but no less frequently than once every three years, conduct, or contract for the conduct of, an independent audit of the accuracy, truthfulness, and completeness of the encounter and financial data submitted by, or on behalf of, each MCO, PIHP, or PAHP. Effect Failure to obtain the necessary financial audit reports represents an instance of noncompliance with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. Cause and View of Responsible Officials Although the Department has policies and procedures in place requiring the maintenance of required documentation, there was a lack of diligence in complying with the policies and procedures. Recommendation We recommend the Department be more diligent in following its existing policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the program requirements.
Condition During our audit, we selected a non statistical sample of 60 providers for testing out of a population of approximately 1,800 providers. The providers selected for testing represented approximately $21 million of payments out of a total payment population of $223 million. The results of our testing were as follows: ? Four providers where the DHS Form 1139 was not maintained. ? Eight providers where the DHS Form 1139 did not support revalidation within the most recent five year period. Criteria Pursuant to 42 CFR Part 455, subpart E, the Department?s MED Quest Division is required to screen and enroll providers and obtain certain disclosures in accordance with 42 CFR Part 455, subpart B. Pursuant to 42 CFR 455.414, the State Medicaid Agency must revalidate the enrollment of all providers regardless of provider type at least every five years. Pursuant to 42 CFR 455, subpart B, providers are to comply with the requirements of the State Plan, including the disclosure requirement. Effect Failure to follow the established policies and procedures in place over the provider eligibility determination process represents an instance of noncompliance with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200, resulting in questioned costs. Cause and View of Responsible Officials Although the Department has policies and procedures in place requiring the maintenance of required documentation, there was a lack of diligence in complying with the policies and procedures. Recommendation We recommend the Department be more diligent in following its existing policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the program requirements.
Condition During our audit, we noted the Department only partially obtained the required audited financial reports and did not conduct or contract an independent audit of the encounter and financial data submitted. Criteria Pursuant to 42 CFR 438.3(m), the Department must require managed care organizations (?MCO?), prepaid inpatient health plans (?PIHP?), and prepaid ambulatory health plans (?PAHP?) to submit audited financial reports, conducted in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and generally accepted auditing standards, specific to its Medicaid contract on an annual basis. Pursuant to 42 CFR 438.602(e), the Department must periodically, but no less frequently than once every three years, conduct, or contract for the conduct of, an independent audit of the accuracy, truthfulness, and completeness of the encounter and financial data submitted by, or on behalf of, each MCO, PIHP, or PAHP. Effect Failure to obtain the necessary financial audit reports represents an instance of noncompliance with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. Cause and View of Responsible Officials Although the Department has policies and procedures in place requiring the maintenance of required documentation, there was a lack of diligence in complying with the policies and procedures. Recommendation We recommend the Department be more diligent in following its existing policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the program requirements.
Condition During our audit, we selected a non statistical sample of 60 providers for testing out of a population of approximately 1,800 providers. The providers selected for testing represented approximately $21 million of payments out of a total payment population of $223 million. The results of our testing were as follows: ? Four providers where the DHS Form 1139 was not maintained. ? Eight providers where the DHS Form 1139 did not support revalidation within the most recent five year period. Criteria Pursuant to 42 CFR Part 455, subpart E, the Department?s MED Quest Division is required to screen and enroll providers and obtain certain disclosures in accordance with 42 CFR Part 455, subpart B. Pursuant to 42 CFR 455.414, the State Medicaid Agency must revalidate the enrollment of all providers regardless of provider type at least every five years. Pursuant to 42 CFR 455, subpart B, providers are to comply with the requirements of the State Plan, including the disclosure requirement. Effect Failure to follow the established policies and procedures in place over the provider eligibility determination process represents an instance of noncompliance with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200, resulting in questioned costs. Cause and View of Responsible Officials Although the Department has policies and procedures in place requiring the maintenance of required documentation, there was a lack of diligence in complying with the policies and procedures. Recommendation We recommend the Department be more diligent in following its existing policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the program requirements.
Condition During our audit, we noted the Department only partially obtained the required audited financial reports and did not conduct or contract an independent audit of the encounter and financial data submitted. Criteria Pursuant to 42 CFR 438.3(m), the Department must require managed care organizations (?MCO?), prepaid inpatient health plans (?PIHP?), and prepaid ambulatory health plans (?PAHP?) to submit audited financial reports, conducted in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and generally accepted auditing standards, specific to its Medicaid contract on an annual basis. Pursuant to 42 CFR 438.602(e), the Department must periodically, but no less frequently than once every three years, conduct, or contract for the conduct of, an independent audit of the accuracy, truthfulness, and completeness of the encounter and financial data submitted by, or on behalf of, each MCO, PIHP, or PAHP. Effect Failure to obtain the necessary financial audit reports represents an instance of noncompliance with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. Cause and View of Responsible Officials Although the Department has policies and procedures in place requiring the maintenance of required documentation, there was a lack of diligence in complying with the policies and procedures. Recommendation We recommend the Department be more diligent in following its existing policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the program requirements.
Condition During our audit, we selected a non statistical sample of 60 daily reconciliations for testing and noted 18 instances where variances were not investigated and there was no evidence that a review of the daily reconciliations was performed. The Department?s daily reconciliations identified variances which ranged up to approximately $9.6 million. Criteria Pursuant to 7 CFR 274.4, the Department is required to perform daily reconciliations of all SNAP transactions between the State?s Benefit Account, the US Treasury Department, and all the EBT contractors. Effect Failure to resolve the reconciling items resulted in non-compliance with the requirement. Cause and View of Responsible Officials There was a lack of diligence in following the Department?s established policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements. Recommendation We recommend that the Department develop procedures to ensure that identified variances are resolved and that the reconciliations are reviewed in a timely manner.
Condition During our audit, we selected a non statistical sample of 60 participant files which approximated $50,000 in monthly payments, out of a population of approximately 195,000 participant files which approximated $986 million in total annual benefit payments, for testing and noted exceptions in three case files as follows: ? One case file where manually entered unearned income and medical expense deduction amounts did not agree with the documentation retained in the participant?s case file. ? Two case files where manually entered income information did not agree with the documentation retained in the respective participant?s case files. Criteria Pursuant to 7 CFR 272.10(b)(1)(i), the SNAP system should be efficiently automated to determine eligibility and calculate benefits or validate the eligibility worker?s calculations by processing and storing all case file information necessary for the eligibility determination and benefit computation (including but not limited to all household members? names, addresses, dates of birth, social security numbers, individual household members? earned and unearned income by source, deductions, resources, and household size). Effect Participants did not receive the correct amount of benefits they were eligible for, resulting in questioned costs. Cause and View of Responsible Officials There was a lack of diligence in following the Department?s established policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements. Recommendation We recommend the Department emphasize the importance of diligently checking that any information entered manually agrees to the supporting documentation retained in the participant?s file. We also recommend the Department consider implementing a secondary review of participant files where information affecting the calculation of benefits is entered manually.
Condition During our audit, we selected a non statistical sample of four processing centers out of the Department?s 21 processing centers and noted that supervisor reviews performed over DHS Form 1494, Form 1495, and/or Form 1050 were not maintained at one processing center. Criteria Pursuant to 7 CFR 274.8(b)(3), the Department is required to ensure there are storage and control measures to control blank unissued electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards. To address this requirement, the Department has adopted a policy that requires (1) monthly or quarterly review of the DHS Form 1494, Bulk Inventory Control Log; (2) daily or weekly review of the DHS Form 1495, Hawaii EBT Card Daily Control Log; and (3) monthly review of the DHS Form 1050, EBT Card Destruction Control Log. Effect Documentation of supervisor approval of the review over the DHS Form 1494, Form 1495, and/or Form 1050 was not maintained at one processing center, increasing the risk of non-compliance with the requirement. Cause and View of Responsible Officials Although the Department has policies and procedures in place regarding reviews, the policies and procedures do not explicitly require a supervisor sign-off documenting their review resulting in the inconsistent application and documentation of supervisor reviews. Recommendation We recommend that program management ensure that program personnel are familiar with all grant requirements, including compliance with 2 CFR Part 200. Additionally, we recommend that the Department modify their policies and procedures to explicitly require supervisor signoffs documenting their review.
Condition During our audit, we selected a non statistical sample of 60 daily reconciliations for testing and noted 18 instances where variances were not investigated and there was no evidence that a review of the daily reconciliations was performed. The Department?s daily reconciliations identified variances which ranged up to approximately $9.6 million. Criteria Pursuant to 7 CFR 274.4, the Department is required to perform daily reconciliations of all SNAP transactions between the State?s Benefit Account, the US Treasury Department, and all the EBT contractors. Effect Failure to resolve the reconciling items resulted in non-compliance with the requirement. Cause and View of Responsible Officials There was a lack of diligence in following the Department?s established policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements. Recommendation We recommend that the Department develop procedures to ensure that identified variances are resolved and that the reconciliations are reviewed in a timely manner.
Condition During our audit, we selected a non statistical sample of 60 participant files which approximated $50,000 in monthly payments, out of a population of approximately 195,000 participant files which approximated $986 million in total annual benefit payments, for testing and noted exceptions in three case files as follows: ? One case file where manually entered unearned income and medical expense deduction amounts did not agree with the documentation retained in the participant?s case file. ? Two case files where manually entered income information did not agree with the documentation retained in the respective participant?s case files. Criteria Pursuant to 7 CFR 272.10(b)(1)(i), the SNAP system should be efficiently automated to determine eligibility and calculate benefits or validate the eligibility worker?s calculations by processing and storing all case file information necessary for the eligibility determination and benefit computation (including but not limited to all household members? names, addresses, dates of birth, social security numbers, individual household members? earned and unearned income by source, deductions, resources, and household size). Effect Participants did not receive the correct amount of benefits they were eligible for, resulting in questioned costs. Cause and View of Responsible Officials There was a lack of diligence in following the Department?s established policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements. Recommendation We recommend the Department emphasize the importance of diligently checking that any information entered manually agrees to the supporting documentation retained in the participant?s file. We also recommend the Department consider implementing a secondary review of participant files where information affecting the calculation of benefits is entered manually.
Condition During our audit, we selected a non statistical sample of four processing centers out of the Department?s 21 processing centers and noted that supervisor reviews performed over DHS Form 1494, Form 1495, and/or Form 1050 were not maintained at one processing center. Criteria Pursuant to 7 CFR 274.8(b)(3), the Department is required to ensure there are storage and control measures to control blank unissued electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards. To address this requirement, the Department has adopted a policy that requires (1) monthly or quarterly review of the DHS Form 1494, Bulk Inventory Control Log; (2) daily or weekly review of the DHS Form 1495, Hawaii EBT Card Daily Control Log; and (3) monthly review of the DHS Form 1050, EBT Card Destruction Control Log. Effect Documentation of supervisor approval of the review over the DHS Form 1494, Form 1495, and/or Form 1050 was not maintained at one processing center, increasing the risk of non-compliance with the requirement. Cause and View of Responsible Officials Although the Department has policies and procedures in place regarding reviews, the policies and procedures do not explicitly require a supervisor sign-off documenting their review resulting in the inconsistent application and documentation of supervisor reviews. Recommendation We recommend that program management ensure that program personnel are familiar with all grant requirements, including compliance with 2 CFR Part 200. Additionally, we recommend that the Department modify their policies and procedures to explicitly require supervisor signoffs documenting their review.
Condition During our audit, we selected a non statistical sample of 60 daily reconciliations for testing and noted 18 instances where variances were not investigated and there was no evidence that a review of the daily reconciliations was performed. The Department?s daily reconciliations identified variances which ranged up to approximately $9.6 million. Criteria Pursuant to 7 CFR 274.4, the Department is required to perform daily reconciliations of all SNAP transactions between the State?s Benefit Account, the US Treasury Department, and all the EBT contractors. Effect Failure to resolve the reconciling items resulted in non-compliance with the requirement. Cause and View of Responsible Officials There was a lack of diligence in following the Department?s established policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements. Recommendation We recommend that the Department develop procedures to ensure that identified variances are resolved and that the reconciliations are reviewed in a timely manner.
Condition During our audit, we selected a non statistical sample of 60 participant files which approximated $50,000 in monthly payments, out of a population of approximately 195,000 participant files which approximated $986 million in total annual benefit payments, for testing and noted exceptions in three case files as follows: ? One case file where manually entered unearned income and medical expense deduction amounts did not agree with the documentation retained in the participant?s case file. ? Two case files where manually entered income information did not agree with the documentation retained in the respective participant?s case files. Criteria Pursuant to 7 CFR 272.10(b)(1)(i), the SNAP system should be efficiently automated to determine eligibility and calculate benefits or validate the eligibility worker?s calculations by processing and storing all case file information necessary for the eligibility determination and benefit computation (including but not limited to all household members? names, addresses, dates of birth, social security numbers, individual household members? earned and unearned income by source, deductions, resources, and household size). Effect Participants did not receive the correct amount of benefits they were eligible for, resulting in questioned costs. Cause and View of Responsible Officials There was a lack of diligence in following the Department?s established policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements. Recommendation We recommend the Department emphasize the importance of diligently checking that any information entered manually agrees to the supporting documentation retained in the participant?s file. We also recommend the Department consider implementing a secondary review of participant files where information affecting the calculation of benefits is entered manually.
Condition During our audit, we selected a non statistical sample of four processing centers out of the Department?s 21 processing centers and noted that supervisor reviews performed over DHS Form 1494, Form 1495, and/or Form 1050 were not maintained at one processing center. Criteria Pursuant to 7 CFR 274.8(b)(3), the Department is required to ensure there are storage and control measures to control blank unissued electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards. To address this requirement, the Department has adopted a policy that requires (1) monthly or quarterly review of the DHS Form 1494, Bulk Inventory Control Log; (2) daily or weekly review of the DHS Form 1495, Hawaii EBT Card Daily Control Log; and (3) monthly review of the DHS Form 1050, EBT Card Destruction Control Log. Effect Documentation of supervisor approval of the review over the DHS Form 1494, Form 1495, and/or Form 1050 was not maintained at one processing center, increasing the risk of non-compliance with the requirement. Cause and View of Responsible Officials Although the Department has policies and procedures in place regarding reviews, the policies and procedures do not explicitly require a supervisor sign-off documenting their review resulting in the inconsistent application and documentation of supervisor reviews. Recommendation We recommend that program management ensure that program personnel are familiar with all grant requirements, including compliance with 2 CFR Part 200. Additionally, we recommend that the Department modify their policies and procedures to explicitly require supervisor signoffs documenting their review.