Finding Number 2023-091 Subject Heading (Financial) or AL no. and program name (Federal) ALN: 21.019 Federal Program name: Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERA) Planned Corrective Action 1. Condition and Context: While documenting controls over Period of Performance for the ERA 1 grant, we noted payments made to subrecipients in the Statewide Accounting System were all put under one fund and were not distinguishable between ERA 1 and ERA 2. Therefore, OMES was unable to determine at a glance whether the funds distributed to subrecipients were attributable to ERA 1 or ERA 2. Further, we determined one of the subrecipients, Communities Foundation of Oklahoma (CFO), did not have sufficient internal controls over ERA 1 program spending to ensure all funds were expended by the end of the period of performance. • We disagree with SAI on the Statewide Accounting System separation of funds. The Statewide Accounting System did distinguish between ERA1 and ERA2. The Statewide Accounting System has funds 49400 and 49200 shows establishment of both federal funds in 2021. • We disagree with SAI on CFO’s internal controls. CFO did have internal controls in place to ensure funds were expended during the period of performance. Per ERA 1 Closeout Resource “The end date of the award period of performance is the last day for a grantee to obligate funds for ERA1 activities (September 30, 2022, for award funds received pursuant to the grantee’s initial allocation and December 29, 2022, for reallocated funds). Per documentation provided by SAI the general ledger shows a date before December 29, 2022. (Attachment 494,492, ERA Closeout Resource) 2. For eight of 30, or 26.67% of adjustments tested, the adjustment was to move expenses from ERA 2 to ERA 1 to meet ERA 1 spending requirements prior to closeout of the program. CFO comingled ERA 1 and ERA 2 funds and could not directly support each recharacterization with documentation for the specific transactions involved, but stated it was recharacterized to meet ERA 1 spending limits prior to the end of the period. In addition, CFO did not go back to revise any prior monthly or quarterly reports as required by Treasury. • We partially agree. We agree that funds cannot be moved from ERA 2 to ERA 1. • We disagree with SAI on comingling of funds. CFO did not comingle funds. CFO has 31 separate accounts within C-Suite their financial software. All accounts are listed and examples provided in the ERA Fund Open Report. • We disagree with SAI’s evaluation of the Treasury reporting requirement. CFO was not required to go back and revise prior monthly and quarterly reports per federal guidance. “As of December 2022, ERA1 grantees will only be able to edit their Final Report or as applicable, their Q4 2022 report. However, grantees may submit revisions to certain financial data submitted with their past quarterly reports, specifically, subrecipient/contractor/direct payee records; subaward/contract/direct payment records; and expenditure records when completing their Final Report or as applicable, their Q4 2022 Report. “While ERA1 grantees are no longer able to submit or revise any prior ERA1 quarterly reports, grantees may receive additional communications from Treasury’s compliance team to make corrections to past quarterly reports and as appropriate, the Final Report…” (Attachment ERA Closeout Resource pg 5) 3. For 11 of 30, or 36.67%, the adjustment was to move expenses between jurisdictions (City, State, County), which is unallowable per FAQ #42 and ERA reporting guidance. • We disagree with SAI’s unallowable cost. Due to a misunderstanding, CFO staff misstated that funds were moved between jurisdictions. Funds were not moved between jurisdictions. If a computer error occurred due to the large volume of checks that were being sent every week (approximately 1,600), not all errors were caught immediately. However, when further reviews were conducted and it was discovered a payment was issued incorrectly, the proper accounting procedures for correcting the errors were completed. (Attachment OneDrive_2025- 4-23(1)) • We disagree. FAQ 42 says nothing about jurisdictions. FAQ #42 states, “May a grantee provide ERA funds to another entity for the purpose of making payments more rapidly? To speed the delivery of assistance, grantees may enter into a written agreement with a nonprofit organization to establish a payment fund for the sole purpose of delivering assistance using ERA funds while a household’s application remains in process. A grantee may use such a process if: The process is reserved for situations in which an expedited payment could reasonably be viewed as necessary to prevent an eviction or loss of utility services that precludes employing the grantee’s standard application and payment procedures on a timely basis. The nonprofit organization has the requisite financial capacity to manage the ERA funds, such as being a certified community development financial institution. The nonprofit organization deposits and maintains the ERA funds in a separate account that is not commingled with other funds. The grantee receives all required application and eligibility documentation within six months. The nonprofit organization agrees in writing to return to the grantee any assistance that the household was ineligible for or for which the required documentation is not received within six months. Any funds not used by the nonprofit organization are ultimately returned to the grantee. If a payment made by the nonprofit organization is subsequently found to have been used for an ineligible household or an ineligible expense, or if the required application and eligibility documentation are not timely submitted, the payment will be considered an ineligible use of ERA funds by the grantee. Any administrative expenses attributable to a payment fund should be considered in accordance with FAQ 29.” (Attachment ERA FAQs) 4. When performing our testwork to determine whether ERA 1 expenditures met period of performance requirements (incurred on or before September 30, 2022), we noted 207 transactions occurred after September 30, 2022. Of the 207 transactions, we noted 40 that resulted in $10,711,668 (of this amount $2,313,435 is already questioned above) in questioned costs. • We disagree with SAI’s questioning of expenditures incurred after September 30, 2022. Per the ERA 1 Closeout Resource, “The end date of the award period of performance is the last day for a grantee to obligate funds for ERA1 activities (September 30, 2022, for award funds received pursuant to the grantee’s initial allocation and December 29, 2022, for reallocated funds). Per documentation provided by SAI, the general ledger shows a date before December 29, 2022. (Attachment ERA Closeout Resource pgs 1, 4) 5. For 13 of 207, or 6.28% of transactions tested, the adjustment was to move funds between funding jurisdictions (City, State, County), which is unallowable per FAQ #42 and ERA reporting guidance. (This resulted in $1,594,881 in questioned costs, of which $24,450 is questioned above) • We disagree with SAI’s questioned cost. Due to a misunderstanding CFO staff misstated that funds were moved between jurisdictions. Funds were not moved between jurisdictions. If a computer error occurred due to the large volume of checks that were being sent every week (approximately 1,600), not all errors were caught immediately. However, when further reviews were conducted and it was discovered a payment was issued incorrectly, the proper accounting procedures for correcting the errors were completed. (Attachment OneDrive_2025- 4-23(1)) • We disagree. FAQ #42 says nothing about jurisdictions. FAQ #42 states “May a grantee provide ERA funds to another entity for the purpose of making payments more rapidly? To speed the delivery of assistance, grantees may enter into a written agreement with a nonprofit organization to establish a payment fund for the sole purpose of delivering assistance using ERA funds while a household’s application remains in process. A grantee may use such a process if: The process is reserved for situations in which an expedited payment could reasonably be viewed as necessary to prevent an eviction or loss of utility services that precludes employing the grantee’s standard application and payment procedures on a timely basis. The nonprofit organization has the requisite financial capacity to manage the ERA funds, such as being a certified community development financial institution. The nonprofit organization deposits and maintains the ERA funds in a separate account that is not commingled with other funds. The grantee receives all required application and eligibility documentation within six months. The nonprofit organization agrees in writing to return to the grantee any assistance that the household was ineligible for or for which the required documentation is not received within six months. Any funds not used by the nonprofit organization are ultimately returned to the grantee. If a payment made by the nonprofit organization is subsequently found to have been used for an ineligible household or an ineligible expense, or if the required application and eligibility documentation are not timely submitted, the payment will be considered an ineligible use of ERA funds by the grantee. Any administrative expenses attributable to a payment fund should be considered in accordance with FAQ 29.” (Attachment ERA FAQs) 6. For 11 of 207, or 5.31%, the adjustment was to move funds between ERA 2 and ERA 1 and the adjustment was not directly supported with documentation for the specific transactions involved. It was noted as recharacterized to meet ERA 1 spending limits prior to the end of the period, and CFO did not go back to revise any prior monthly or quarterly reports as required by Treasury. (This resulted in $7,003,715 in questioned costs, of which $2,200,000 is questioned above) • Partially agree. • We agree that funds cannot be moved from ERA2 to ERA1 • We disagree with SAI’s evaluation of the Treasury reporting requirement. CFO was not required to go back and revise prior monthly and quarterly reports per federal guidance. “As of December 2022, ERA1 grantees will only be able to edit their Final Report or as applicable, their Q4 2022 report. However, grantees may submit revisions to certain financial data submitted with their past quarterly reports, specifically, subrecipient/contractor/direct payee records; subaward/contract/direct payment records; and expenditure records when completing their Final Report or as applicable, their Q4 2022 Report. “While ERA1 grantees are no longer able to submit or revise any prior ERA1 quarterly reports, grantees may receive additional communications from Treasury’s compliance team to make corrections to past quarterly reports and as appropriate, the Final Report…” (Attachment ERA Closeout Resource pg 5) 7. For 7 of 207, or 3.38% of transactions tested, the adjustment was to ‘correct accounts’ or ‘tie out accounts’; we determined these were not attributable to specific transactions but were ‘plug’ numbers to zero out the ERA 1 balance prior to the end of the period of performance to meet spend down requirements and were not supported by actual expenditures that can be determined to have been incurred on or before September 30, 2022. (This resulted in $1,837,072 in questioned costs, of which $88,985 is questioned above) • We partially agree. • We agree that funds cannot be moved from ERA 1 to ERA 2 • We disagree with SAI’s questioning of expenditures incurred after September 30, 2022. Per the ERA 1 Closeout Resource, “The end date of the award period of performance is the last day for a grantee to obligate funds for ERA1 activities (September 30, 2022, for award funds received pursuant to the grantee’s initial allocation and December 29, 2022, for reallocated funds). Per documentation provided by SAI, the general ledger shows a date before December 29, 2022. (Attachment ERA Closeout Resource pgs 1, 4) 8. For 7 of 207, or 3.38% of transactions tested, the adjustment was to CFO management fees. Management fees were retained on a percentage basis; therefore, the fee is not supported by actual expenditures that can be determined to have been incurred on or before September 30, 2022. (This resulted in $1,430,228 in questioned costs which were all questioned on finding 2023-028). We disagree with SAI’s questioning of expenditures incurred after September 30, 2022. Per the ERA 1 Closeout Resource, “The end date of the award period of performance is the last day for a grantee to obligate funds for ERA1 activities (September 30, 2022, for award funds received pursuant to the grantee’s initial allocation and December 29, 2022, for reallocated funds). Per documentation provided by SAI, the general ledger shows a date before December 29, 2022. (Attachment ERA Closeout Resource pgs 1, 9. We noted a total of $8,271,796 in management fees that were not expended for ERA 1 and therefore were not spent within the period of performance. Of this amount, $6,841,568 were management fees questioned in the SFY2021 and SFY2022 State of Oklahoma Single Audit reports and the remaining $1,430,228 is questioned on finding 2023-028. We disagree with SAI’s questioning of expenditures incurred after September 30, 2022. Per the ERA 1 Closeout Resource, “The end date of the award period of performance is the last day for a grantee to obligate funds for ERA1 activities (September 30, 2022, for award funds received pursuant to the grantee’s initial allocation and December 29, 2022, for reallocated funds). Per documentation provided by SAI, the general ledger shows a date before December 29, 2022. (Attachment ERA Closeout Resource pgs 1, 4) 10. For 2 of 207, or 0.97% of transactions tested, the payment was not supported by an itemized invoice to enable a determination that all the costs were incurred prior to September 30, 2022. (This resulted in $276,000 in questioned costs) • We disagree with SAI questioning cost and have provided supporting documentation in OneDrive - 2025-04-23(2) to show questioned expenditures. • We disagree with SAI’s questioning of expenditures incurred after September 30, 2022. Per the ERA 1 Closeout Resource, “The end date of the award period of performance is the last day for a grantee to obligate funds for ERA1 activities (September 30, 2022, for award funds received pursuant to the grantee’s initial allocation and December 29, 2022, for reallocated funds). Per documentation provided by SAI, the general ledger shows a date before December 29, 2022. (Attachment OneDrive -2025-04-23(2), ERA Closeout Resource pgs 1, 4 ) Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) acknowledges the Oklahoma State Auditor and Inspector Office’s (SAI) findings that OMES did not implement the proper internal controls and oversight of the ERA Program during FY2023. However, OMES has taken steps to correct these findings and follow the recommendations set forth by SAI. Beginning with FY2025, OMES has taken the following measures: • Oversight and management of the ERA program has been transferred to the OMES Grant Management Office (OMES-GMO) which has staff with several years of grant experience. OMES-GMO has recently hired additional staff, and the two staff members dedicated to the management of the ERA program have 20+ years of combined federal grant specific experience. To ensure that the subrecipient agreement includes all the required terms under the ERA Program and that the agreement does not expire, OMES-GMO and the Communities of Foundation of Oklahoma (CFO) have recently executed a Subrecipient Grant Agreement Amendment that details the responsibilities of OMES to monitor CFO and the duties and processes that CFO must follow in regard to ERA Program, including detailed cash management policies. See Attached – Grant Agreement Amendment. • OMES-GMO required the return of the remaining ERA2 Program funds from CFO to ensure proper oversight and review of ERA expenditures is performed. • OMES-GMO has a multi-level system of internal controls for grant management and oversight that includes routine monitoring, desk review, and site visits for all projects and associated project/administrative expenditures to ensure allowability, accuracy, and assist in the detection of fraud. For example, OMES-GMO’s process for disbursing funds to a subrecipient requires a written request from the subrecipient with supporting documentation, then OMES-GMO assigns a staff lead and secondary grant analyst to perform a primary and secondary review for compliance and to require additional supporting documentation if needed to approve the request. Once those reviews are completed and approved by the OMES-GMO staff, the Director of the OMES-GMO must approve the request before it is sent to the OMES Finance Division, who will then verify the calculated amount(s) before completing the disbursement to the subrecipient. These internal controls and policies have been implemented for the management and oversight of the ERA Program and provide a multilayer review that will prevent fraud and risk factors applicable to the ERA program. Additionally, the OMES-GMO staff assigned to the ERA program have the training and knowledge to ensure compliance with the Federal grant requirements. • Depending on the level of risk, OMES-GMO conducts monthly, bi-weekly or weekly meetings with each subrecipient to monitor the progress of projects and address any issues or changes that might impact the project. For the ERA Program, OMES-GMO conducts bi-weekly monitoring meetings with CFO and is currently reviewing documentation provided by CFO to ensure all current ERA projects are eligible under the ERA guidelines and that CFO is exercising the proper oversight over their subrecipients. • OMES-GMO will continue with their current ERA monitoring steps and internal controls and will work with CFO to ensure ERA program funds are spent in accordance with ERA program guidelines and state and federal regulations. Anticipated Completion Date Ongoing throughout the life of the grant Responsible Contact Person Brandy Manek