2024-002 – Indirect Costs (IDC) Federal Programs – Research and Development Cluster (Assistance Listing No. 98.001 and 93.855) Federal Agencies - U.S. Agency for International Development and Department of Health and Human Services Federal Award Year – July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024 Compliance Requirement – Activities Allowed/Unallowed and Allowable Costs Criteria Requirement: Indirect (facilities and administrative(F&A)) costs are those costs that are incurred for common or joint objectives and, therefore, cannot be identified readily and specifically with a particular sponsored project, an instructional activity, or any other institutional activity (2 CFR section 200.1). Per 2 CFR 200, Appendix III, paragraph C.2, indirect costs requires that the negotiated (or submitted) rate(s) are applied to the appropriate distribution base. Also, as described in 2 CFR section 200.403, costs must be consistently charged as either indirect or direct but may not be double charged or inconsistently charged as both. Condition Found: For four out of twelve samples, the indirect cost recorded was overstated due to miscalculations of IDC due to an ineffective control over the review and recalculation of indirect costs. • For three out of the twelve samples, the miscalculations were overstated due to a calculation error in the year end closing entry. However, the last draw request submitted for FY24 was on September 18, 2024, for expenses incurred/booked through June 30, 2024; and the indirect costs claimed on this draw request were calculated accurately, and did not include the overages. Therefore, these samples were not considered to be compliance findings as EVMS did not seek reimbursement for more than was allowable within the period of performance. As a result of the deficiency, the error resulted in questioned costs of approximately $66 on the SEFA. • For one out of twelve samples, the indirect cost calculation was performed using the incorrect cost base, resulting in an overstatement of indirect costs of $4,793.92, causing a partially overdrawn amount of $2,046.42, which resulted in noncompliance and questioned costs on the SEFA. Cause and Possible Asserted Effect: The institution’s control to review the indirect cost calculations did not operate consistently to ensure indirect costs were accurately recorded. Consequently, there were questioned costs and an overdrawn amount in FY24. Identification of Questioned Costs: The questioned costs associated with this finding are $4,859.92. Sampling: The sample was not intended to be and was not a statistically valid sample. Identification of Repeat Finding: This finding is not a repeat of a finding in the immediately prior year. Recommendation: Our recommendation is for management to reinforce and train those individuals in the compliance control ownership role to ensure controls are operating as designed in order to prevent, or detect and correct noncompliance on a timely basis. Specifically, strengthening its processes and controls around accuracy of the review over indirect costs calculation requirements. This will help ensure that controls are functioning as intended, thereby preventing or promptly identifying and rectifying instances of noncompliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the findings and recommendations. Through the merger with Old Dominion University, additional controls have been adopted around the processes and controls around the accuracy of the review over indirect cost calculation requirements.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 2 CFR 200.303 Internal controls, the non-Federal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. According to 2 CFR 200.1 Period of Performance is defined as the total estimated time interval between the start of an initial Federal award and the planned end date, which may include one or more funded portions, or budget periods. Condition and context: During our testing we noted three instances where the Organization allocated allowable expenses incurred outside of the period of performance dates. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in federal funds being used outside of the grant period. Questioned costs: $53,077 Cause: The Organization does not have internal controls in place to ensure compliance with Federal regulations or the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization update their method of allocating expenditures to federal awards based on invoice date to ensure the incurred date is within the proper period of performance. Views of responsible officials: The Organization will review grant requirements and make sure that allowable costs are incurred and allocated to the grant within the grant period.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 2 CFR 200.303 Internal controls, the non-Federal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. According to 2 CFR 200.1 Period of Performance is defined as the total estimated time interval between the start of an initial Federal award and the planned end date, which may include one or more funded portions, or budget periods. Condition and context: During our testing we noted three instances where the Organization allocated allowable expenses incurred outside of the period of performance dates. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in federal funds being used outside of the grant period. Questioned costs: $53,077 Cause: The Organization does not have internal controls in place to ensure compliance with Federal regulations or the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization update their method of allocating expenditures to federal awards based on invoice date to ensure the incurred date is within the proper period of performance. Views of responsible officials: The Organization will review grant requirements and make sure that allowable costs are incurred and allocated to the grant within the grant period.
2024-015 Oregon Department of Human Services/Oregon Health Authority Strengthen review over direct costs charged to the program Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Number and Name: 93.777, 93.778 Medicaid Cluster Federal Award Numbers and Years: 2305OR5MAP, 2023; 2305OR5ADM, 2023; 2405OR5MAP, 2024; 2405OR05ADM, 2024 Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency; Noncompliance Prior Year Findings: N/A Questioned Costs: $28,869 (known) Criteria: 2 CFR 200.1; 2 CFR 200.400(a); 42 CFR § 433.32(a) Federal regulations allow the Medicaid program to charge allowable and supported program expenditures for various program costs at the time of payment for services is provided. The Department of Human Services (department) and the Oregon Health Authority (authority) make payments to vendors other than providers through the state’s accounting system. We judgmentally selected payments to 28 vendors for our review. We identified the following errors that were not identified during the department’s and authority’s review process, which resulted in improper payments of Medicaid expenditures: • One department payment included interest related to past due amounts charged to the Medicaid program, resulting in known federally funded questioned costs of $3. The agency performed a review of all payments to the vendor and identified an additional $65 other known questioned costs. • One authority payment included cash incentives for surveys taken. Management was unable to provide allowability support, resulting in known federally funded questioned costs of $28,801. The above errors occurred due to human error and were not identified during review, leading to unallowed activities/costs being charged to the Medicaid program. We recommend department and authority management strengthen controls over review and ensure transactions are adequately supported. Additionally, we recommend the department reimburse the federal agency for unallowable costs.
2024-015 Oregon Department of Human Services/Oregon Health Authority Strengthen review over direct costs charged to the program Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Number and Name: 93.777, 93.778 Medicaid Cluster Federal Award Numbers and Years: 2305OR5MAP, 2023; 2305OR5ADM, 2023; 2405OR5MAP, 2024; 2405OR05ADM, 2024 Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency; Noncompliance Prior Year Findings: N/A Questioned Costs: $28,869 (known) Criteria: 2 CFR 200.1; 2 CFR 200.400(a); 42 CFR § 433.32(a) Federal regulations allow the Medicaid program to charge allowable and supported program expenditures for various program costs at the time of payment for services is provided. The Department of Human Services (department) and the Oregon Health Authority (authority) make payments to vendors other than providers through the state’s accounting system. We judgmentally selected payments to 28 vendors for our review. We identified the following errors that were not identified during the department’s and authority’s review process, which resulted in improper payments of Medicaid expenditures: • One department payment included interest related to past due amounts charged to the Medicaid program, resulting in known federally funded questioned costs of $3. The agency performed a review of all payments to the vendor and identified an additional $65 other known questioned costs. • One authority payment included cash incentives for surveys taken. Management was unable to provide allowability support, resulting in known federally funded questioned costs of $28,801. The above errors occurred due to human error and were not identified during review, leading to unallowed activities/costs being charged to the Medicaid program. We recommend department and authority management strengthen controls over review and ensure transactions are adequately supported. Additionally, we recommend the department reimburse the federal agency for unallowable costs.
2024-015 Oregon Department of Human Services/Oregon Health Authority Strengthen review over direct costs charged to the program Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Number and Name: 93.777, 93.778 Medicaid Cluster Federal Award Numbers and Years: 2305OR5MAP, 2023; 2305OR5ADM, 2023; 2405OR5MAP, 2024; 2405OR05ADM, 2024 Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency; Noncompliance Prior Year Findings: N/A Questioned Costs: $28,869 (known) Criteria: 2 CFR 200.1; 2 CFR 200.400(a); 42 CFR § 433.32(a) Federal regulations allow the Medicaid program to charge allowable and supported program expenditures for various program costs at the time of payment for services is provided. The Department of Human Services (department) and the Oregon Health Authority (authority) make payments to vendors other than providers through the state’s accounting system. We judgmentally selected payments to 28 vendors for our review. We identified the following errors that were not identified during the department’s and authority’s review process, which resulted in improper payments of Medicaid expenditures: • One department payment included interest related to past due amounts charged to the Medicaid program, resulting in known federally funded questioned costs of $3. The agency performed a review of all payments to the vendor and identified an additional $65 other known questioned costs. • One authority payment included cash incentives for surveys taken. Management was unable to provide allowability support, resulting in known federally funded questioned costs of $28,801. The above errors occurred due to human error and were not identified during review, leading to unallowed activities/costs being charged to the Medicaid program. We recommend department and authority management strengthen controls over review and ensure transactions are adequately supported. Additionally, we recommend the department reimburse the federal agency for unallowable costs.
2024-015 Oregon Department of Human Services/Oregon Health Authority Strengthen review over direct costs charged to the program Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Number and Name: 93.777, 93.778 Medicaid Cluster Federal Award Numbers and Years: 2305OR5MAP, 2023; 2305OR5ADM, 2023; 2405OR5MAP, 2024; 2405OR05ADM, 2024 Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency; Noncompliance Prior Year Findings: N/A Questioned Costs: $28,869 (known) Criteria: 2 CFR 200.1; 2 CFR 200.400(a); 42 CFR § 433.32(a) Federal regulations allow the Medicaid program to charge allowable and supported program expenditures for various program costs at the time of payment for services is provided. The Department of Human Services (department) and the Oregon Health Authority (authority) make payments to vendors other than providers through the state’s accounting system. We judgmentally selected payments to 28 vendors for our review. We identified the following errors that were not identified during the department’s and authority’s review process, which resulted in improper payments of Medicaid expenditures: • One department payment included interest related to past due amounts charged to the Medicaid program, resulting in known federally funded questioned costs of $3. The agency performed a review of all payments to the vendor and identified an additional $65 other known questioned costs. • One authority payment included cash incentives for surveys taken. Management was unable to provide allowability support, resulting in known federally funded questioned costs of $28,801. The above errors occurred due to human error and were not identified during review, leading to unallowed activities/costs being charged to the Medicaid program. We recommend department and authority management strengthen controls over review and ensure transactions are adequately supported. Additionally, we recommend the department reimburse the federal agency for unallowable costs.
2024-028 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the Education Stabilization Fund program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.425R COVID-19 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (CRRSA EANS) 84.425V COVID-19 American Rescue Plan – Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) program Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: S425D210015; S425R210012; S425U210015; S425V210012; S425W210049 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Components: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $47,322,280 Prior Year Audit Finding: No Background Beginning in March 2020, Congress set aside the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund to address the effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Several rounds of funding were distributed to states under the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) program with the intent to support public and nonpublic schools. The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF grants to the Office of Financial Management, which then dispersed funds to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to pass through to Local Education Agencies (LEAs). The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF program funds to grantees under multiple subprograms of the ESF. An alphabetic character at the end of the 84.425 Assistance Listing Number was used to delineate the specific subprogram. Each subprogram has its own funding requirements and compliance requirements. The objective of the CRRSA EANS (84.425R) and ARP EANS (84.425V) subprograms is to provide governors with a reservation of funds to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on nonpublic school students and teachers in the state. In fiscal year 2024, the state spent more than $600 million in ESFs federal funding. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the ESF program. After the Office distributed EANS funds to nonpublic schools, there was $47,322,281 in ESF program funds remaining that went unobligated. Those funds reverted to the Governor’s office as CRRSA-GEER funds. After the reversion of these funds, the legislature specifically directed the Office to use the resources to fund Transition to Kindergarten programs. During this process, the Office distributed funds to 149 public LEAs but did not issue subawards as required. As a result, it failed to clearly communicate these awards’ terms and conditions to the subrecipients, including the allowable uses of the funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office believed the information that was sent out through other means would cover the required elements it needed to communicate to the LEAs. The Office did not know the amount each LEA would receive as amounts were not predetermined, and the Office used an apportionment process to allocate funds to meet the legislative intent. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without issuing subawards to subrecipients to ensure proper accountability and compliance with federal requirements, the Office cannot ensure all funds were used for allowable activities and properly supported. In addition, without a subaward, the Office could not distribute funds to these subrecipients. Therefore, we are questioning the $47,322,280 that it distributed to these LEAs. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office: • Establish effective internal controls to ensure that all federal funds it grants to subrecipients are awarded through a subaward that meets federal requirements • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office’s Response We distributed these funds through the apportionment process instead of our grants system due to the nature of how the payments were calculated. Our grants system provides a grant award notification via e-mail when the grant is awarded that contains the federal elements required in CFR 200.332. While we did not provide a formal subaward that included all of these elements in one document, we provided most of them using other formal communication, such as through a Gov Delivery e-mail and the School District Accounting Manual. If we use the apportionment process to distribute funds in the future, we will include all of the required federal elements in a separate subaward. Additionally, our communication to school districts included the use of allowable activities for these funds. Therefore, we do not agree that the funds should be questioned as not being allowable or properly supported. Auditor’s Remarks The Office asserts the costs should not be questioned for not being allowable or properly supported. However, without a subaward the Office could not distribute federal funds to these subrecipients, therefore we are questioning the costs consistent with criteria established in 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance). We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Office’s corrective action during the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 34 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, Direct grant programs, section 702, Fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, states that a grantee shall use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds as required in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D—Post Federal Award Requirements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the federal identification elements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 CFR Part 200.403, Uniform Guidance, establishes the factors affecting the allowability of costs. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-028 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the Education Stabilization Fund program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.425R COVID-19 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (CRRSA EANS) 84.425V COVID-19 American Rescue Plan – Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) program Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: S425D210015; S425R210012; S425U210015; S425V210012; S425W210049 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Components: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $47,322,280 Prior Year Audit Finding: No Background Beginning in March 2020, Congress set aside the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund to address the effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Several rounds of funding were distributed to states under the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) program with the intent to support public and nonpublic schools. The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF grants to the Office of Financial Management, which then dispersed funds to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to pass through to Local Education Agencies (LEAs). The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF program funds to grantees under multiple subprograms of the ESF. An alphabetic character at the end of the 84.425 Assistance Listing Number was used to delineate the specific subprogram. Each subprogram has its own funding requirements and compliance requirements. The objective of the CRRSA EANS (84.425R) and ARP EANS (84.425V) subprograms is to provide governors with a reservation of funds to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on nonpublic school students and teachers in the state. In fiscal year 2024, the state spent more than $600 million in ESFs federal funding. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the ESF program. After the Office distributed EANS funds to nonpublic schools, there was $47,322,281 in ESF program funds remaining that went unobligated. Those funds reverted to the Governor’s office as CRRSA-GEER funds. After the reversion of these funds, the legislature specifically directed the Office to use the resources to fund Transition to Kindergarten programs. During this process, the Office distributed funds to 149 public LEAs but did not issue subawards as required. As a result, it failed to clearly communicate these awards’ terms and conditions to the subrecipients, including the allowable uses of the funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office believed the information that was sent out through other means would cover the required elements it needed to communicate to the LEAs. The Office did not know the amount each LEA would receive as amounts were not predetermined, and the Office used an apportionment process to allocate funds to meet the legislative intent. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without issuing subawards to subrecipients to ensure proper accountability and compliance with federal requirements, the Office cannot ensure all funds were used for allowable activities and properly supported. In addition, without a subaward, the Office could not distribute funds to these subrecipients. Therefore, we are questioning the $47,322,280 that it distributed to these LEAs. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office: • Establish effective internal controls to ensure that all federal funds it grants to subrecipients are awarded through a subaward that meets federal requirements • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office’s Response We distributed these funds through the apportionment process instead of our grants system due to the nature of how the payments were calculated. Our grants system provides a grant award notification via e-mail when the grant is awarded that contains the federal elements required in CFR 200.332. While we did not provide a formal subaward that included all of these elements in one document, we provided most of them using other formal communication, such as through a Gov Delivery e-mail and the School District Accounting Manual. If we use the apportionment process to distribute funds in the future, we will include all of the required federal elements in a separate subaward. Additionally, our communication to school districts included the use of allowable activities for these funds. Therefore, we do not agree that the funds should be questioned as not being allowable or properly supported. Auditor’s Remarks The Office asserts the costs should not be questioned for not being allowable or properly supported. However, without a subaward the Office could not distribute federal funds to these subrecipients, therefore we are questioning the costs consistent with criteria established in 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance). We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Office’s corrective action during the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 34 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, Direct grant programs, section 702, Fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, states that a grantee shall use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds as required in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D—Post Federal Award Requirements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the federal identification elements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 CFR Part 200.403, Uniform Guidance, establishes the factors affecting the allowability of costs. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-028 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the Education Stabilization Fund program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.425R COVID-19 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (CRRSA EANS) 84.425V COVID-19 American Rescue Plan – Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) program Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: S425D210015; S425R210012; S425U210015; S425V210012; S425W210049 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Components: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $47,322,280 Prior Year Audit Finding: No Background Beginning in March 2020, Congress set aside the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund to address the effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Several rounds of funding were distributed to states under the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) program with the intent to support public and nonpublic schools. The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF grants to the Office of Financial Management, which then dispersed funds to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to pass through to Local Education Agencies (LEAs). The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF program funds to grantees under multiple subprograms of the ESF. An alphabetic character at the end of the 84.425 Assistance Listing Number was used to delineate the specific subprogram. Each subprogram has its own funding requirements and compliance requirements. The objective of the CRRSA EANS (84.425R) and ARP EANS (84.425V) subprograms is to provide governors with a reservation of funds to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on nonpublic school students and teachers in the state. In fiscal year 2024, the state spent more than $600 million in ESFs federal funding. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the ESF program. After the Office distributed EANS funds to nonpublic schools, there was $47,322,281 in ESF program funds remaining that went unobligated. Those funds reverted to the Governor’s office as CRRSA-GEER funds. After the reversion of these funds, the legislature specifically directed the Office to use the resources to fund Transition to Kindergarten programs. During this process, the Office distributed funds to 149 public LEAs but did not issue subawards as required. As a result, it failed to clearly communicate these awards’ terms and conditions to the subrecipients, including the allowable uses of the funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office believed the information that was sent out through other means would cover the required elements it needed to communicate to the LEAs. The Office did not know the amount each LEA would receive as amounts were not predetermined, and the Office used an apportionment process to allocate funds to meet the legislative intent. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without issuing subawards to subrecipients to ensure proper accountability and compliance with federal requirements, the Office cannot ensure all funds were used for allowable activities and properly supported. In addition, without a subaward, the Office could not distribute funds to these subrecipients. Therefore, we are questioning the $47,322,280 that it distributed to these LEAs. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office: • Establish effective internal controls to ensure that all federal funds it grants to subrecipients are awarded through a subaward that meets federal requirements • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office’s Response We distributed these funds through the apportionment process instead of our grants system due to the nature of how the payments were calculated. Our grants system provides a grant award notification via e-mail when the grant is awarded that contains the federal elements required in CFR 200.332. While we did not provide a formal subaward that included all of these elements in one document, we provided most of them using other formal communication, such as through a Gov Delivery e-mail and the School District Accounting Manual. If we use the apportionment process to distribute funds in the future, we will include all of the required federal elements in a separate subaward. Additionally, our communication to school districts included the use of allowable activities for these funds. Therefore, we do not agree that the funds should be questioned as not being allowable or properly supported. Auditor’s Remarks The Office asserts the costs should not be questioned for not being allowable or properly supported. However, without a subaward the Office could not distribute federal funds to these subrecipients, therefore we are questioning the costs consistent with criteria established in 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance). We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Office’s corrective action during the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 34 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, Direct grant programs, section 702, Fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, states that a grantee shall use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds as required in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D—Post Federal Award Requirements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the federal identification elements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 CFR Part 200.403, Uniform Guidance, establishes the factors affecting the allowability of costs. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-028 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the Education Stabilization Fund program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.425R COVID-19 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (CRRSA EANS) 84.425V COVID-19 American Rescue Plan – Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) program Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: S425D210015; S425R210012; S425U210015; S425V210012; S425W210049 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Components: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $47,322,280 Prior Year Audit Finding: No Background Beginning in March 2020, Congress set aside the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund to address the effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Several rounds of funding were distributed to states under the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) program with the intent to support public and nonpublic schools. The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF grants to the Office of Financial Management, which then dispersed funds to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to pass through to Local Education Agencies (LEAs). The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF program funds to grantees under multiple subprograms of the ESF. An alphabetic character at the end of the 84.425 Assistance Listing Number was used to delineate the specific subprogram. Each subprogram has its own funding requirements and compliance requirements. The objective of the CRRSA EANS (84.425R) and ARP EANS (84.425V) subprograms is to provide governors with a reservation of funds to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on nonpublic school students and teachers in the state. In fiscal year 2024, the state spent more than $600 million in ESFs federal funding. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the ESF program. After the Office distributed EANS funds to nonpublic schools, there was $47,322,281 in ESF program funds remaining that went unobligated. Those funds reverted to the Governor’s office as CRRSA-GEER funds. After the reversion of these funds, the legislature specifically directed the Office to use the resources to fund Transition to Kindergarten programs. During this process, the Office distributed funds to 149 public LEAs but did not issue subawards as required. As a result, it failed to clearly communicate these awards’ terms and conditions to the subrecipients, including the allowable uses of the funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office believed the information that was sent out through other means would cover the required elements it needed to communicate to the LEAs. The Office did not know the amount each LEA would receive as amounts were not predetermined, and the Office used an apportionment process to allocate funds to meet the legislative intent. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without issuing subawards to subrecipients to ensure proper accountability and compliance with federal requirements, the Office cannot ensure all funds were used for allowable activities and properly supported. In addition, without a subaward, the Office could not distribute funds to these subrecipients. Therefore, we are questioning the $47,322,280 that it distributed to these LEAs. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office: • Establish effective internal controls to ensure that all federal funds it grants to subrecipients are awarded through a subaward that meets federal requirements • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office’s Response We distributed these funds through the apportionment process instead of our grants system due to the nature of how the payments were calculated. Our grants system provides a grant award notification via e-mail when the grant is awarded that contains the federal elements required in CFR 200.332. While we did not provide a formal subaward that included all of these elements in one document, we provided most of them using other formal communication, such as through a Gov Delivery e-mail and the School District Accounting Manual. If we use the apportionment process to distribute funds in the future, we will include all of the required federal elements in a separate subaward. Additionally, our communication to school districts included the use of allowable activities for these funds. Therefore, we do not agree that the funds should be questioned as not being allowable or properly supported. Auditor’s Remarks The Office asserts the costs should not be questioned for not being allowable or properly supported. However, without a subaward the Office could not distribute federal funds to these subrecipients, therefore we are questioning the costs consistent with criteria established in 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance). We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Office’s corrective action during the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 34 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, Direct grant programs, section 702, Fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, states that a grantee shall use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds as required in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D—Post Federal Award Requirements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the federal identification elements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 CFR Part 200.403, Uniform Guidance, establishes the factors affecting the allowability of costs. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-028 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the Education Stabilization Fund program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.425R COVID-19 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (CRRSA EANS) 84.425V COVID-19 American Rescue Plan – Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) program Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: S425D210015; S425R210012; S425U210015; S425V210012; S425W210049 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Components: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $47,322,280 Prior Year Audit Finding: No Background Beginning in March 2020, Congress set aside the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund to address the effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Several rounds of funding were distributed to states under the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) program with the intent to support public and nonpublic schools. The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF grants to the Office of Financial Management, which then dispersed funds to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to pass through to Local Education Agencies (LEAs). The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF program funds to grantees under multiple subprograms of the ESF. An alphabetic character at the end of the 84.425 Assistance Listing Number was used to delineate the specific subprogram. Each subprogram has its own funding requirements and compliance requirements. The objective of the CRRSA EANS (84.425R) and ARP EANS (84.425V) subprograms is to provide governors with a reservation of funds to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on nonpublic school students and teachers in the state. In fiscal year 2024, the state spent more than $600 million in ESFs federal funding. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the ESF program. After the Office distributed EANS funds to nonpublic schools, there was $47,322,281 in ESF program funds remaining that went unobligated. Those funds reverted to the Governor’s office as CRRSA-GEER funds. After the reversion of these funds, the legislature specifically directed the Office to use the resources to fund Transition to Kindergarten programs. During this process, the Office distributed funds to 149 public LEAs but did not issue subawards as required. As a result, it failed to clearly communicate these awards’ terms and conditions to the subrecipients, including the allowable uses of the funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office believed the information that was sent out through other means would cover the required elements it needed to communicate to the LEAs. The Office did not know the amount each LEA would receive as amounts were not predetermined, and the Office used an apportionment process to allocate funds to meet the legislative intent. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without issuing subawards to subrecipients to ensure proper accountability and compliance with federal requirements, the Office cannot ensure all funds were used for allowable activities and properly supported. In addition, without a subaward, the Office could not distribute funds to these subrecipients. Therefore, we are questioning the $47,322,280 that it distributed to these LEAs. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office: • Establish effective internal controls to ensure that all federal funds it grants to subrecipients are awarded through a subaward that meets federal requirements • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office’s Response We distributed these funds through the apportionment process instead of our grants system due to the nature of how the payments were calculated. Our grants system provides a grant award notification via e-mail when the grant is awarded that contains the federal elements required in CFR 200.332. While we did not provide a formal subaward that included all of these elements in one document, we provided most of them using other formal communication, such as through a Gov Delivery e-mail and the School District Accounting Manual. If we use the apportionment process to distribute funds in the future, we will include all of the required federal elements in a separate subaward. Additionally, our communication to school districts included the use of allowable activities for these funds. Therefore, we do not agree that the funds should be questioned as not being allowable or properly supported. Auditor’s Remarks The Office asserts the costs should not be questioned for not being allowable or properly supported. However, without a subaward the Office could not distribute federal funds to these subrecipients, therefore we are questioning the costs consistent with criteria established in 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance). We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Office’s corrective action during the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 34 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, Direct grant programs, section 702, Fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, states that a grantee shall use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds as required in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D—Post Federal Award Requirements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the federal identification elements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 CFR Part 200.403, Uniform Guidance, establishes the factors affecting the allowability of costs. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-028 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the Education Stabilization Fund program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.425R COVID-19 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (CRRSA EANS) 84.425V COVID-19 American Rescue Plan – Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) program Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: S425D210015; S425R210012; S425U210015; S425V210012; S425W210049 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Components: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $47,322,280 Prior Year Audit Finding: No Background Beginning in March 2020, Congress set aside the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund to address the effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Several rounds of funding were distributed to states under the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) program with the intent to support public and nonpublic schools. The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF grants to the Office of Financial Management, which then dispersed funds to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to pass through to Local Education Agencies (LEAs). The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF program funds to grantees under multiple subprograms of the ESF. An alphabetic character at the end of the 84.425 Assistance Listing Number was used to delineate the specific subprogram. Each subprogram has its own funding requirements and compliance requirements. The objective of the CRRSA EANS (84.425R) and ARP EANS (84.425V) subprograms is to provide governors with a reservation of funds to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on nonpublic school students and teachers in the state. In fiscal year 2024, the state spent more than $600 million in ESFs federal funding. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the ESF program. After the Office distributed EANS funds to nonpublic schools, there was $47,322,281 in ESF program funds remaining that went unobligated. Those funds reverted to the Governor’s office as CRRSA-GEER funds. After the reversion of these funds, the legislature specifically directed the Office to use the resources to fund Transition to Kindergarten programs. During this process, the Office distributed funds to 149 public LEAs but did not issue subawards as required. As a result, it failed to clearly communicate these awards’ terms and conditions to the subrecipients, including the allowable uses of the funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office believed the information that was sent out through other means would cover the required elements it needed to communicate to the LEAs. The Office did not know the amount each LEA would receive as amounts were not predetermined, and the Office used an apportionment process to allocate funds to meet the legislative intent. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without issuing subawards to subrecipients to ensure proper accountability and compliance with federal requirements, the Office cannot ensure all funds were used for allowable activities and properly supported. In addition, without a subaward, the Office could not distribute funds to these subrecipients. Therefore, we are questioning the $47,322,280 that it distributed to these LEAs. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office: • Establish effective internal controls to ensure that all federal funds it grants to subrecipients are awarded through a subaward that meets federal requirements • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office’s Response We distributed these funds through the apportionment process instead of our grants system due to the nature of how the payments were calculated. Our grants system provides a grant award notification via e-mail when the grant is awarded that contains the federal elements required in CFR 200.332. While we did not provide a formal subaward that included all of these elements in one document, we provided most of them using other formal communication, such as through a Gov Delivery e-mail and the School District Accounting Manual. If we use the apportionment process to distribute funds in the future, we will include all of the required federal elements in a separate subaward. Additionally, our communication to school districts included the use of allowable activities for these funds. Therefore, we do not agree that the funds should be questioned as not being allowable or properly supported. Auditor’s Remarks The Office asserts the costs should not be questioned for not being allowable or properly supported. However, without a subaward the Office could not distribute federal funds to these subrecipients, therefore we are questioning the costs consistent with criteria established in 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance). We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Office’s corrective action during the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 34 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, Direct grant programs, section 702, Fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, states that a grantee shall use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds as required in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D—Post Federal Award Requirements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the federal identification elements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 CFR Part 200.403, Uniform Guidance, establishes the factors affecting the allowability of costs. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-028 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the Education Stabilization Fund program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.425R COVID-19 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (CRRSA EANS) 84.425V COVID-19 American Rescue Plan – Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) program Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: S425D210015; S425R210012; S425U210015; S425V210012; S425W210049 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Components: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $47,322,280 Prior Year Audit Finding: No Background Beginning in March 2020, Congress set aside the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund to address the effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Several rounds of funding were distributed to states under the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) program with the intent to support public and nonpublic schools. The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF grants to the Office of Financial Management, which then dispersed funds to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to pass through to Local Education Agencies (LEAs). The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF program funds to grantees under multiple subprograms of the ESF. An alphabetic character at the end of the 84.425 Assistance Listing Number was used to delineate the specific subprogram. Each subprogram has its own funding requirements and compliance requirements. The objective of the CRRSA EANS (84.425R) and ARP EANS (84.425V) subprograms is to provide governors with a reservation of funds to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on nonpublic school students and teachers in the state. In fiscal year 2024, the state spent more than $600 million in ESFs federal funding. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the ESF program. After the Office distributed EANS funds to nonpublic schools, there was $47,322,281 in ESF program funds remaining that went unobligated. Those funds reverted to the Governor’s office as CRRSA-GEER funds. After the reversion of these funds, the legislature specifically directed the Office to use the resources to fund Transition to Kindergarten programs. During this process, the Office distributed funds to 149 public LEAs but did not issue subawards as required. As a result, it failed to clearly communicate these awards’ terms and conditions to the subrecipients, including the allowable uses of the funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office believed the information that was sent out through other means would cover the required elements it needed to communicate to the LEAs. The Office did not know the amount each LEA would receive as amounts were not predetermined, and the Office used an apportionment process to allocate funds to meet the legislative intent. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without issuing subawards to subrecipients to ensure proper accountability and compliance with federal requirements, the Office cannot ensure all funds were used for allowable activities and properly supported. In addition, without a subaward, the Office could not distribute funds to these subrecipients. Therefore, we are questioning the $47,322,280 that it distributed to these LEAs. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office: • Establish effective internal controls to ensure that all federal funds it grants to subrecipients are awarded through a subaward that meets federal requirements • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office’s Response We distributed these funds through the apportionment process instead of our grants system due to the nature of how the payments were calculated. Our grants system provides a grant award notification via e-mail when the grant is awarded that contains the federal elements required in CFR 200.332. While we did not provide a formal subaward that included all of these elements in one document, we provided most of them using other formal communication, such as through a Gov Delivery e-mail and the School District Accounting Manual. If we use the apportionment process to distribute funds in the future, we will include all of the required federal elements in a separate subaward. Additionally, our communication to school districts included the use of allowable activities for these funds. Therefore, we do not agree that the funds should be questioned as not being allowable or properly supported. Auditor’s Remarks The Office asserts the costs should not be questioned for not being allowable or properly supported. However, without a subaward the Office could not distribute federal funds to these subrecipients, therefore we are questioning the costs consistent with criteria established in 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance). We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Office’s corrective action during the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 34 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, Direct grant programs, section 702, Fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, states that a grantee shall use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds as required in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D—Post Federal Award Requirements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the federal identification elements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 CFR Part 200.403, Uniform Guidance, establishes the factors affecting the allowability of costs. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-028 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the Education Stabilization Fund program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.425R COVID-19 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (CRRSA EANS) 84.425V COVID-19 American Rescue Plan – Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) program Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: S425D210015; S425R210012; S425U210015; S425V210012; S425W210049 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Components: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $47,322,280 Prior Year Audit Finding: No Background Beginning in March 2020, Congress set aside the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund to address the effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Several rounds of funding were distributed to states under the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) program with the intent to support public and nonpublic schools. The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF grants to the Office of Financial Management, which then dispersed funds to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to pass through to Local Education Agencies (LEAs). The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF program funds to grantees under multiple subprograms of the ESF. An alphabetic character at the end of the 84.425 Assistance Listing Number was used to delineate the specific subprogram. Each subprogram has its own funding requirements and compliance requirements. The objective of the CRRSA EANS (84.425R) and ARP EANS (84.425V) subprograms is to provide governors with a reservation of funds to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on nonpublic school students and teachers in the state. In fiscal year 2024, the state spent more than $600 million in ESFs federal funding. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the ESF program. After the Office distributed EANS funds to nonpublic schools, there was $47,322,281 in ESF program funds remaining that went unobligated. Those funds reverted to the Governor’s office as CRRSA-GEER funds. After the reversion of these funds, the legislature specifically directed the Office to use the resources to fund Transition to Kindergarten programs. During this process, the Office distributed funds to 149 public LEAs but did not issue subawards as required. As a result, it failed to clearly communicate these awards’ terms and conditions to the subrecipients, including the allowable uses of the funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office believed the information that was sent out through other means would cover the required elements it needed to communicate to the LEAs. The Office did not know the amount each LEA would receive as amounts were not predetermined, and the Office used an apportionment process to allocate funds to meet the legislative intent. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without issuing subawards to subrecipients to ensure proper accountability and compliance with federal requirements, the Office cannot ensure all funds were used for allowable activities and properly supported. In addition, without a subaward, the Office could not distribute funds to these subrecipients. Therefore, we are questioning the $47,322,280 that it distributed to these LEAs. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office: • Establish effective internal controls to ensure that all federal funds it grants to subrecipients are awarded through a subaward that meets federal requirements • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office’s Response We distributed these funds through the apportionment process instead of our grants system due to the nature of how the payments were calculated. Our grants system provides a grant award notification via e-mail when the grant is awarded that contains the federal elements required in CFR 200.332. While we did not provide a formal subaward that included all of these elements in one document, we provided most of them using other formal communication, such as through a Gov Delivery e-mail and the School District Accounting Manual. If we use the apportionment process to distribute funds in the future, we will include all of the required federal elements in a separate subaward. Additionally, our communication to school districts included the use of allowable activities for these funds. Therefore, we do not agree that the funds should be questioned as not being allowable or properly supported. Auditor’s Remarks The Office asserts the costs should not be questioned for not being allowable or properly supported. However, without a subaward the Office could not distribute federal funds to these subrecipients, therefore we are questioning the costs consistent with criteria established in 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance). We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Office’s corrective action during the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 34 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, Direct grant programs, section 702, Fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, states that a grantee shall use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds as required in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D—Post Federal Award Requirements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the federal identification elements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 CFR Part 200.403, Uniform Guidance, establishes the factors affecting the allowability of costs. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-028 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the Education Stabilization Fund program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.425R COVID-19 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (CRRSA EANS) 84.425V COVID-19 American Rescue Plan – Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) program Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: S425D210015; S425R210012; S425U210015; S425V210012; S425W210049 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Components: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $47,322,280 Prior Year Audit Finding: No Background Beginning in March 2020, Congress set aside the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund to address the effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Several rounds of funding were distributed to states under the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) program with the intent to support public and nonpublic schools. The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF grants to the Office of Financial Management, which then dispersed funds to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to pass through to Local Education Agencies (LEAs). The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF program funds to grantees under multiple subprograms of the ESF. An alphabetic character at the end of the 84.425 Assistance Listing Number was used to delineate the specific subprogram. Each subprogram has its own funding requirements and compliance requirements. The objective of the CRRSA EANS (84.425R) and ARP EANS (84.425V) subprograms is to provide governors with a reservation of funds to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on nonpublic school students and teachers in the state. In fiscal year 2024, the state spent more than $600 million in ESFs federal funding. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the ESF program. After the Office distributed EANS funds to nonpublic schools, there was $47,322,281 in ESF program funds remaining that went unobligated. Those funds reverted to the Governor’s office as CRRSA-GEER funds. After the reversion of these funds, the legislature specifically directed the Office to use the resources to fund Transition to Kindergarten programs. During this process, the Office distributed funds to 149 public LEAs but did not issue subawards as required. As a result, it failed to clearly communicate these awards’ terms and conditions to the subrecipients, including the allowable uses of the funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office believed the information that was sent out through other means would cover the required elements it needed to communicate to the LEAs. The Office did not know the amount each LEA would receive as amounts were not predetermined, and the Office used an apportionment process to allocate funds to meet the legislative intent. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without issuing subawards to subrecipients to ensure proper accountability and compliance with federal requirements, the Office cannot ensure all funds were used for allowable activities and properly supported. In addition, without a subaward, the Office could not distribute funds to these subrecipients. Therefore, we are questioning the $47,322,280 that it distributed to these LEAs. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office: • Establish effective internal controls to ensure that all federal funds it grants to subrecipients are awarded through a subaward that meets federal requirements • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office’s Response We distributed these funds through the apportionment process instead of our grants system due to the nature of how the payments were calculated. Our grants system provides a grant award notification via e-mail when the grant is awarded that contains the federal elements required in CFR 200.332. While we did not provide a formal subaward that included all of these elements in one document, we provided most of them using other formal communication, such as through a Gov Delivery e-mail and the School District Accounting Manual. If we use the apportionment process to distribute funds in the future, we will include all of the required federal elements in a separate subaward. Additionally, our communication to school districts included the use of allowable activities for these funds. Therefore, we do not agree that the funds should be questioned as not being allowable or properly supported. Auditor’s Remarks The Office asserts the costs should not be questioned for not being allowable or properly supported. However, without a subaward the Office could not distribute federal funds to these subrecipients, therefore we are questioning the costs consistent with criteria established in 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance). We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Office’s corrective action during the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 34 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, Direct grant programs, section 702, Fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, states that a grantee shall use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds as required in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D—Post Federal Award Requirements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the federal identification elements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 CFR Part 200.403, Uniform Guidance, establishes the factors affecting the allowability of costs. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-028 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the Education Stabilization Fund program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.425R COVID-19 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (CRRSA EANS) 84.425V COVID-19 American Rescue Plan – Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) program Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: S425D210015; S425R210012; S425U210015; S425V210012; S425W210049 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Components: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $47,322,280 Prior Year Audit Finding: No Background Beginning in March 2020, Congress set aside the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund to address the effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Several rounds of funding were distributed to states under the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) program with the intent to support public and nonpublic schools. The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF grants to the Office of Financial Management, which then dispersed funds to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to pass through to Local Education Agencies (LEAs). The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF program funds to grantees under multiple subprograms of the ESF. An alphabetic character at the end of the 84.425 Assistance Listing Number was used to delineate the specific subprogram. Each subprogram has its own funding requirements and compliance requirements. The objective of the CRRSA EANS (84.425R) and ARP EANS (84.425V) subprograms is to provide governors with a reservation of funds to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on nonpublic school students and teachers in the state. In fiscal year 2024, the state spent more than $600 million in ESFs federal funding. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the ESF program. After the Office distributed EANS funds to nonpublic schools, there was $47,322,281 in ESF program funds remaining that went unobligated. Those funds reverted to the Governor’s office as CRRSA-GEER funds. After the reversion of these funds, the legislature specifically directed the Office to use the resources to fund Transition to Kindergarten programs. During this process, the Office distributed funds to 149 public LEAs but did not issue subawards as required. As a result, it failed to clearly communicate these awards’ terms and conditions to the subrecipients, including the allowable uses of the funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office believed the information that was sent out through other means would cover the required elements it needed to communicate to the LEAs. The Office did not know the amount each LEA would receive as amounts were not predetermined, and the Office used an apportionment process to allocate funds to meet the legislative intent. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without issuing subawards to subrecipients to ensure proper accountability and compliance with federal requirements, the Office cannot ensure all funds were used for allowable activities and properly supported. In addition, without a subaward, the Office could not distribute funds to these subrecipients. Therefore, we are questioning the $47,322,280 that it distributed to these LEAs. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office: • Establish effective internal controls to ensure that all federal funds it grants to subrecipients are awarded through a subaward that meets federal requirements • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office’s Response We distributed these funds through the apportionment process instead of our grants system due to the nature of how the payments were calculated. Our grants system provides a grant award notification via e-mail when the grant is awarded that contains the federal elements required in CFR 200.332. While we did not provide a formal subaward that included all of these elements in one document, we provided most of them using other formal communication, such as through a Gov Delivery e-mail and the School District Accounting Manual. If we use the apportionment process to distribute funds in the future, we will include all of the required federal elements in a separate subaward. Additionally, our communication to school districts included the use of allowable activities for these funds. Therefore, we do not agree that the funds should be questioned as not being allowable or properly supported. Auditor’s Remarks The Office asserts the costs should not be questioned for not being allowable or properly supported. However, without a subaward the Office could not distribute federal funds to these subrecipients, therefore we are questioning the costs consistent with criteria established in 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance). We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Office’s corrective action during the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 34 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, Direct grant programs, section 702, Fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, states that a grantee shall use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds as required in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D—Post Federal Award Requirements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the federal identification elements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 CFR Part 200.403, Uniform Guidance, establishes the factors affecting the allowability of costs. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-028 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the Education Stabilization Fund program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.425R COVID-19 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (CRRSA EANS) 84.425V COVID-19 American Rescue Plan – Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) program Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: S425D210015; S425R210012; S425U210015; S425V210012; S425W210049 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Components: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $47,322,280 Prior Year Audit Finding: No Background Beginning in March 2020, Congress set aside the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund to address the effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Several rounds of funding were distributed to states under the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) program with the intent to support public and nonpublic schools. The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF grants to the Office of Financial Management, which then dispersed funds to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to pass through to Local Education Agencies (LEAs). The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF program funds to grantees under multiple subprograms of the ESF. An alphabetic character at the end of the 84.425 Assistance Listing Number was used to delineate the specific subprogram. Each subprogram has its own funding requirements and compliance requirements. The objective of the CRRSA EANS (84.425R) and ARP EANS (84.425V) subprograms is to provide governors with a reservation of funds to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on nonpublic school students and teachers in the state. In fiscal year 2024, the state spent more than $600 million in ESFs federal funding. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the ESF program. After the Office distributed EANS funds to nonpublic schools, there was $47,322,281 in ESF program funds remaining that went unobligated. Those funds reverted to the Governor’s office as CRRSA-GEER funds. After the reversion of these funds, the legislature specifically directed the Office to use the resources to fund Transition to Kindergarten programs. During this process, the Office distributed funds to 149 public LEAs but did not issue subawards as required. As a result, it failed to clearly communicate these awards’ terms and conditions to the subrecipients, including the allowable uses of the funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office believed the information that was sent out through other means would cover the required elements it needed to communicate to the LEAs. The Office did not know the amount each LEA would receive as amounts were not predetermined, and the Office used an apportionment process to allocate funds to meet the legislative intent. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without issuing subawards to subrecipients to ensure proper accountability and compliance with federal requirements, the Office cannot ensure all funds were used for allowable activities and properly supported. In addition, without a subaward, the Office could not distribute funds to these subrecipients. Therefore, we are questioning the $47,322,280 that it distributed to these LEAs. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office: • Establish effective internal controls to ensure that all federal funds it grants to subrecipients are awarded through a subaward that meets federal requirements • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office’s Response We distributed these funds through the apportionment process instead of our grants system due to the nature of how the payments were calculated. Our grants system provides a grant award notification via e-mail when the grant is awarded that contains the federal elements required in CFR 200.332. While we did not provide a formal subaward that included all of these elements in one document, we provided most of them using other formal communication, such as through a Gov Delivery e-mail and the School District Accounting Manual. If we use the apportionment process to distribute funds in the future, we will include all of the required federal elements in a separate subaward. Additionally, our communication to school districts included the use of allowable activities for these funds. Therefore, we do not agree that the funds should be questioned as not being allowable or properly supported. Auditor’s Remarks The Office asserts the costs should not be questioned for not being allowable or properly supported. However, without a subaward the Office could not distribute federal funds to these subrecipients, therefore we are questioning the costs consistent with criteria established in 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance). We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Office’s corrective action during the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 34 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, Direct grant programs, section 702, Fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, states that a grantee shall use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds as required in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D—Post Federal Award Requirements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the federal identification elements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 CFR Part 200.403, Uniform Guidance, establishes the factors affecting the allowability of costs. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-028 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the Education Stabilization Fund program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.425R COVID-19 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (CRRSA EANS) 84.425V COVID-19 American Rescue Plan – Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) program Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: S425D210015; S425R210012; S425U210015; S425V210012; S425W210049 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Components: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $47,322,280 Prior Year Audit Finding: No Background Beginning in March 2020, Congress set aside the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund to address the effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Several rounds of funding were distributed to states under the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) program with the intent to support public and nonpublic schools. The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF grants to the Office of Financial Management, which then dispersed funds to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to pass through to Local Education Agencies (LEAs). The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF program funds to grantees under multiple subprograms of the ESF. An alphabetic character at the end of the 84.425 Assistance Listing Number was used to delineate the specific subprogram. Each subprogram has its own funding requirements and compliance requirements. The objective of the CRRSA EANS (84.425R) and ARP EANS (84.425V) subprograms is to provide governors with a reservation of funds to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on nonpublic school students and teachers in the state. In fiscal year 2024, the state spent more than $600 million in ESFs federal funding. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the ESF program. After the Office distributed EANS funds to nonpublic schools, there was $47,322,281 in ESF program funds remaining that went unobligated. Those funds reverted to the Governor’s office as CRRSA-GEER funds. After the reversion of these funds, the legislature specifically directed the Office to use the resources to fund Transition to Kindergarten programs. During this process, the Office distributed funds to 149 public LEAs but did not issue subawards as required. As a result, it failed to clearly communicate these awards’ terms and conditions to the subrecipients, including the allowable uses of the funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office believed the information that was sent out through other means would cover the required elements it needed to communicate to the LEAs. The Office did not know the amount each LEA would receive as amounts were not predetermined, and the Office used an apportionment process to allocate funds to meet the legislative intent. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without issuing subawards to subrecipients to ensure proper accountability and compliance with federal requirements, the Office cannot ensure all funds were used for allowable activities and properly supported. In addition, without a subaward, the Office could not distribute funds to these subrecipients. Therefore, we are questioning the $47,322,280 that it distributed to these LEAs. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office: • Establish effective internal controls to ensure that all federal funds it grants to subrecipients are awarded through a subaward that meets federal requirements • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office’s Response We distributed these funds through the apportionment process instead of our grants system due to the nature of how the payments were calculated. Our grants system provides a grant award notification via e-mail when the grant is awarded that contains the federal elements required in CFR 200.332. While we did not provide a formal subaward that included all of these elements in one document, we provided most of them using other formal communication, such as through a Gov Delivery e-mail and the School District Accounting Manual. If we use the apportionment process to distribute funds in the future, we will include all of the required federal elements in a separate subaward. Additionally, our communication to school districts included the use of allowable activities for these funds. Therefore, we do not agree that the funds should be questioned as not being allowable or properly supported. Auditor’s Remarks The Office asserts the costs should not be questioned for not being allowable or properly supported. However, without a subaward the Office could not distribute federal funds to these subrecipients, therefore we are questioning the costs consistent with criteria established in 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance). We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Office’s corrective action during the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 34 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, Direct grant programs, section 702, Fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, states that a grantee shall use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds as required in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D—Post Federal Award Requirements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the federal identification elements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 CFR Part 200.403, Uniform Guidance, establishes the factors affecting the allowability of costs. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-028 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the Education Stabilization Fund program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.425R COVID-19 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (CRRSA EANS) 84.425V COVID-19 American Rescue Plan – Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) program Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: S425D210015; S425R210012; S425U210015; S425V210012; S425W210049 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Components: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $47,322,280 Prior Year Audit Finding: No Background Beginning in March 2020, Congress set aside the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund to address the effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Several rounds of funding were distributed to states under the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) program with the intent to support public and nonpublic schools. The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF grants to the Office of Financial Management, which then dispersed funds to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to pass through to Local Education Agencies (LEAs). The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF program funds to grantees under multiple subprograms of the ESF. An alphabetic character at the end of the 84.425 Assistance Listing Number was used to delineate the specific subprogram. Each subprogram has its own funding requirements and compliance requirements. The objective of the CRRSA EANS (84.425R) and ARP EANS (84.425V) subprograms is to provide governors with a reservation of funds to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on nonpublic school students and teachers in the state. In fiscal year 2024, the state spent more than $600 million in ESFs federal funding. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the ESF program. After the Office distributed EANS funds to nonpublic schools, there was $47,322,281 in ESF program funds remaining that went unobligated. Those funds reverted to the Governor’s office as CRRSA-GEER funds. After the reversion of these funds, the legislature specifically directed the Office to use the resources to fund Transition to Kindergarten programs. During this process, the Office distributed funds to 149 public LEAs but did not issue subawards as required. As a result, it failed to clearly communicate these awards’ terms and conditions to the subrecipients, including the allowable uses of the funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office believed the information that was sent out through other means would cover the required elements it needed to communicate to the LEAs. The Office did not know the amount each LEA would receive as amounts were not predetermined, and the Office used an apportionment process to allocate funds to meet the legislative intent. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without issuing subawards to subrecipients to ensure proper accountability and compliance with federal requirements, the Office cannot ensure all funds were used for allowable activities and properly supported. In addition, without a subaward, the Office could not distribute funds to these subrecipients. Therefore, we are questioning the $47,322,280 that it distributed to these LEAs. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office: • Establish effective internal controls to ensure that all federal funds it grants to subrecipients are awarded through a subaward that meets federal requirements • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office’s Response We distributed these funds through the apportionment process instead of our grants system due to the nature of how the payments were calculated. Our grants system provides a grant award notification via e-mail when the grant is awarded that contains the federal elements required in CFR 200.332. While we did not provide a formal subaward that included all of these elements in one document, we provided most of them using other formal communication, such as through a Gov Delivery e-mail and the School District Accounting Manual. If we use the apportionment process to distribute funds in the future, we will include all of the required federal elements in a separate subaward. Additionally, our communication to school districts included the use of allowable activities for these funds. Therefore, we do not agree that the funds should be questioned as not being allowable or properly supported. Auditor’s Remarks The Office asserts the costs should not be questioned for not being allowable or properly supported. However, without a subaward the Office could not distribute federal funds to these subrecipients, therefore we are questioning the costs consistent with criteria established in 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance). We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Office’s corrective action during the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 34 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, Direct grant programs, section 702, Fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, states that a grantee shall use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds as required in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D—Post Federal Award Requirements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the federal identification elements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 CFR Part 200.403, Uniform Guidance, establishes the factors affecting the allowability of costs. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-028 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the Education Stabilization Fund program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.425R COVID-19 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (CRRSA EANS) 84.425V COVID-19 American Rescue Plan – Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) program Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: S425D210015; S425R210012; S425U210015; S425V210012; S425W210049 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Components: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $47,322,280 Prior Year Audit Finding: No Background Beginning in March 2020, Congress set aside the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund to address the effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Several rounds of funding were distributed to states under the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) program with the intent to support public and nonpublic schools. The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF grants to the Office of Financial Management, which then dispersed funds to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to pass through to Local Education Agencies (LEAs). The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF program funds to grantees under multiple subprograms of the ESF. An alphabetic character at the end of the 84.425 Assistance Listing Number was used to delineate the specific subprogram. Each subprogram has its own funding requirements and compliance requirements. The objective of the CRRSA EANS (84.425R) and ARP EANS (84.425V) subprograms is to provide governors with a reservation of funds to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on nonpublic school students and teachers in the state. In fiscal year 2024, the state spent more than $600 million in ESFs federal funding. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the ESF program. After the Office distributed EANS funds to nonpublic schools, there was $47,322,281 in ESF program funds remaining that went unobligated. Those funds reverted to the Governor’s office as CRRSA-GEER funds. After the reversion of these funds, the legislature specifically directed the Office to use the resources to fund Transition to Kindergarten programs. During this process, the Office distributed funds to 149 public LEAs but did not issue subawards as required. As a result, it failed to clearly communicate these awards’ terms and conditions to the subrecipients, including the allowable uses of the funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office believed the information that was sent out through other means would cover the required elements it needed to communicate to the LEAs. The Office did not know the amount each LEA would receive as amounts were not predetermined, and the Office used an apportionment process to allocate funds to meet the legislative intent. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without issuing subawards to subrecipients to ensure proper accountability and compliance with federal requirements, the Office cannot ensure all funds were used for allowable activities and properly supported. In addition, without a subaward, the Office could not distribute funds to these subrecipients. Therefore, we are questioning the $47,322,280 that it distributed to these LEAs. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office: • Establish effective internal controls to ensure that all federal funds it grants to subrecipients are awarded through a subaward that meets federal requirements • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office’s Response We distributed these funds through the apportionment process instead of our grants system due to the nature of how the payments were calculated. Our grants system provides a grant award notification via e-mail when the grant is awarded that contains the federal elements required in CFR 200.332. While we did not provide a formal subaward that included all of these elements in one document, we provided most of them using other formal communication, such as through a Gov Delivery e-mail and the School District Accounting Manual. If we use the apportionment process to distribute funds in the future, we will include all of the required federal elements in a separate subaward. Additionally, our communication to school districts included the use of allowable activities for these funds. Therefore, we do not agree that the funds should be questioned as not being allowable or properly supported. Auditor’s Remarks The Office asserts the costs should not be questioned for not being allowable or properly supported. However, without a subaward the Office could not distribute federal funds to these subrecipients, therefore we are questioning the costs consistent with criteria established in 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance). We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Office’s corrective action during the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 34 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, Direct grant programs, section 702, Fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, states that a grantee shall use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds as required in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D—Post Federal Award Requirements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the federal identification elements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 CFR Part 200.403, Uniform Guidance, establishes the factors affecting the allowability of costs. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-028 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the Education Stabilization Fund program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.425R COVID-19 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (CRRSA EANS) 84.425V COVID-19 American Rescue Plan – Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) program Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: S425D210015; S425R210012; S425U210015; S425V210012; S425W210049 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Components: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $47,322,280 Prior Year Audit Finding: No Background Beginning in March 2020, Congress set aside the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund to address the effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Several rounds of funding were distributed to states under the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) program with the intent to support public and nonpublic schools. The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF grants to the Office of Financial Management, which then dispersed funds to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to pass through to Local Education Agencies (LEAs). The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF program funds to grantees under multiple subprograms of the ESF. An alphabetic character at the end of the 84.425 Assistance Listing Number was used to delineate the specific subprogram. Each subprogram has its own funding requirements and compliance requirements. The objective of the CRRSA EANS (84.425R) and ARP EANS (84.425V) subprograms is to provide governors with a reservation of funds to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on nonpublic school students and teachers in the state. In fiscal year 2024, the state spent more than $600 million in ESFs federal funding. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the ESF program. After the Office distributed EANS funds to nonpublic schools, there was $47,322,281 in ESF program funds remaining that went unobligated. Those funds reverted to the Governor’s office as CRRSA-GEER funds. After the reversion of these funds, the legislature specifically directed the Office to use the resources to fund Transition to Kindergarten programs. During this process, the Office distributed funds to 149 public LEAs but did not issue subawards as required. As a result, it failed to clearly communicate these awards’ terms and conditions to the subrecipients, including the allowable uses of the funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office believed the information that was sent out through other means would cover the required elements it needed to communicate to the LEAs. The Office did not know the amount each LEA would receive as amounts were not predetermined, and the Office used an apportionment process to allocate funds to meet the legislative intent. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without issuing subawards to subrecipients to ensure proper accountability and compliance with federal requirements, the Office cannot ensure all funds were used for allowable activities and properly supported. In addition, without a subaward, the Office could not distribute funds to these subrecipients. Therefore, we are questioning the $47,322,280 that it distributed to these LEAs. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office: • Establish effective internal controls to ensure that all federal funds it grants to subrecipients are awarded through a subaward that meets federal requirements • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office’s Response We distributed these funds through the apportionment process instead of our grants system due to the nature of how the payments were calculated. Our grants system provides a grant award notification via e-mail when the grant is awarded that contains the federal elements required in CFR 200.332. While we did not provide a formal subaward that included all of these elements in one document, we provided most of them using other formal communication, such as through a Gov Delivery e-mail and the School District Accounting Manual. If we use the apportionment process to distribute funds in the future, we will include all of the required federal elements in a separate subaward. Additionally, our communication to school districts included the use of allowable activities for these funds. Therefore, we do not agree that the funds should be questioned as not being allowable or properly supported. Auditor’s Remarks The Office asserts the costs should not be questioned for not being allowable or properly supported. However, without a subaward the Office could not distribute federal funds to these subrecipients, therefore we are questioning the costs consistent with criteria established in 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance). We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Office’s corrective action during the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 34 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, Direct grant programs, section 702, Fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, states that a grantee shall use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds as required in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D—Post Federal Award Requirements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the federal identification elements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 CFR Part 200.403, Uniform Guidance, establishes the factors affecting the allowability of costs. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-028 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the Education Stabilization Fund program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.425R COVID-19 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (CRRSA EANS) 84.425V COVID-19 American Rescue Plan – Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) program Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: S425D210015; S425R210012; S425U210015; S425V210012; S425W210049 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Components: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $47,322,280 Prior Year Audit Finding: No Background Beginning in March 2020, Congress set aside the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund to address the effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Several rounds of funding were distributed to states under the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) program with the intent to support public and nonpublic schools. The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF grants to the Office of Financial Management, which then dispersed funds to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to pass through to Local Education Agencies (LEAs). The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF program funds to grantees under multiple subprograms of the ESF. An alphabetic character at the end of the 84.425 Assistance Listing Number was used to delineate the specific subprogram. Each subprogram has its own funding requirements and compliance requirements. The objective of the CRRSA EANS (84.425R) and ARP EANS (84.425V) subprograms is to provide governors with a reservation of funds to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on nonpublic school students and teachers in the state. In fiscal year 2024, the state spent more than $600 million in ESFs federal funding. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the ESF program. After the Office distributed EANS funds to nonpublic schools, there was $47,322,281 in ESF program funds remaining that went unobligated. Those funds reverted to the Governor’s office as CRRSA-GEER funds. After the reversion of these funds, the legislature specifically directed the Office to use the resources to fund Transition to Kindergarten programs. During this process, the Office distributed funds to 149 public LEAs but did not issue subawards as required. As a result, it failed to clearly communicate these awards’ terms and conditions to the subrecipients, including the allowable uses of the funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office believed the information that was sent out through other means would cover the required elements it needed to communicate to the LEAs. The Office did not know the amount each LEA would receive as amounts were not predetermined, and the Office used an apportionment process to allocate funds to meet the legislative intent. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without issuing subawards to subrecipients to ensure proper accountability and compliance with federal requirements, the Office cannot ensure all funds were used for allowable activities and properly supported. In addition, without a subaward, the Office could not distribute funds to these subrecipients. Therefore, we are questioning the $47,322,280 that it distributed to these LEAs. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office: • Establish effective internal controls to ensure that all federal funds it grants to subrecipients are awarded through a subaward that meets federal requirements • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office’s Response We distributed these funds through the apportionment process instead of our grants system due to the nature of how the payments were calculated. Our grants system provides a grant award notification via e-mail when the grant is awarded that contains the federal elements required in CFR 200.332. While we did not provide a formal subaward that included all of these elements in one document, we provided most of them using other formal communication, such as through a Gov Delivery e-mail and the School District Accounting Manual. If we use the apportionment process to distribute funds in the future, we will include all of the required federal elements in a separate subaward. Additionally, our communication to school districts included the use of allowable activities for these funds. Therefore, we do not agree that the funds should be questioned as not being allowable or properly supported. Auditor’s Remarks The Office asserts the costs should not be questioned for not being allowable or properly supported. However, without a subaward the Office could not distribute federal funds to these subrecipients, therefore we are questioning the costs consistent with criteria established in 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance). We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Office’s corrective action during the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 34 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, Direct grant programs, section 702, Fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, states that a grantee shall use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds as required in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D—Post Federal Award Requirements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the federal identification elements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 CFR Part 200.403, Uniform Guidance, establishes the factors affecting the allowability of costs. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-028 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the Education Stabilization Fund program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.425R COVID-19 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (CRRSA EANS) 84.425V COVID-19 American Rescue Plan – Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) program Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: S425D210015; S425R210012; S425U210015; S425V210012; S425W210049 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Components: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $47,322,280 Prior Year Audit Finding: No Background Beginning in March 2020, Congress set aside the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund to address the effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Several rounds of funding were distributed to states under the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) program with the intent to support public and nonpublic schools. The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF grants to the Office of Financial Management, which then dispersed funds to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to pass through to Local Education Agencies (LEAs). The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF program funds to grantees under multiple subprograms of the ESF. An alphabetic character at the end of the 84.425 Assistance Listing Number was used to delineate the specific subprogram. Each subprogram has its own funding requirements and compliance requirements. The objective of the CRRSA EANS (84.425R) and ARP EANS (84.425V) subprograms is to provide governors with a reservation of funds to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on nonpublic school students and teachers in the state. In fiscal year 2024, the state spent more than $600 million in ESFs federal funding. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the ESF program. After the Office distributed EANS funds to nonpublic schools, there was $47,322,281 in ESF program funds remaining that went unobligated. Those funds reverted to the Governor’s office as CRRSA-GEER funds. After the reversion of these funds, the legislature specifically directed the Office to use the resources to fund Transition to Kindergarten programs. During this process, the Office distributed funds to 149 public LEAs but did not issue subawards as required. As a result, it failed to clearly communicate these awards’ terms and conditions to the subrecipients, including the allowable uses of the funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office believed the information that was sent out through other means would cover the required elements it needed to communicate to the LEAs. The Office did not know the amount each LEA would receive as amounts were not predetermined, and the Office used an apportionment process to allocate funds to meet the legislative intent. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without issuing subawards to subrecipients to ensure proper accountability and compliance with federal requirements, the Office cannot ensure all funds were used for allowable activities and properly supported. In addition, without a subaward, the Office could not distribute funds to these subrecipients. Therefore, we are questioning the $47,322,280 that it distributed to these LEAs. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office: • Establish effective internal controls to ensure that all federal funds it grants to subrecipients are awarded through a subaward that meets federal requirements • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office’s Response We distributed these funds through the apportionment process instead of our grants system due to the nature of how the payments were calculated. Our grants system provides a grant award notification via e-mail when the grant is awarded that contains the federal elements required in CFR 200.332. While we did not provide a formal subaward that included all of these elements in one document, we provided most of them using other formal communication, such as through a Gov Delivery e-mail and the School District Accounting Manual. If we use the apportionment process to distribute funds in the future, we will include all of the required federal elements in a separate subaward. Additionally, our communication to school districts included the use of allowable activities for these funds. Therefore, we do not agree that the funds should be questioned as not being allowable or properly supported. Auditor’s Remarks The Office asserts the costs should not be questioned for not being allowable or properly supported. However, without a subaward the Office could not distribute federal funds to these subrecipients, therefore we are questioning the costs consistent with criteria established in 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance). We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Office’s corrective action during the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 34 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, Direct grant programs, section 702, Fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, states that a grantee shall use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds as required in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D—Post Federal Award Requirements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the federal identification elements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 CFR Part 200.403, Uniform Guidance, establishes the factors affecting the allowability of costs. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-028 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the Education Stabilization Fund program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.425R COVID-19 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (CRRSA EANS) 84.425V COVID-19 American Rescue Plan – Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) program Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: S425D210015; S425R210012; S425U210015; S425V210012; S425W210049 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Components: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $47,322,280 Prior Year Audit Finding: No Background Beginning in March 2020, Congress set aside the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund to address the effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Several rounds of funding were distributed to states under the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) program with the intent to support public and nonpublic schools. The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF grants to the Office of Financial Management, which then dispersed funds to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to pass through to Local Education Agencies (LEAs). The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF program funds to grantees under multiple subprograms of the ESF. An alphabetic character at the end of the 84.425 Assistance Listing Number was used to delineate the specific subprogram. Each subprogram has its own funding requirements and compliance requirements. The objective of the CRRSA EANS (84.425R) and ARP EANS (84.425V) subprograms is to provide governors with a reservation of funds to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on nonpublic school students and teachers in the state. In fiscal year 2024, the state spent more than $600 million in ESFs federal funding. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the ESF program. After the Office distributed EANS funds to nonpublic schools, there was $47,322,281 in ESF program funds remaining that went unobligated. Those funds reverted to the Governor’s office as CRRSA-GEER funds. After the reversion of these funds, the legislature specifically directed the Office to use the resources to fund Transition to Kindergarten programs. During this process, the Office distributed funds to 149 public LEAs but did not issue subawards as required. As a result, it failed to clearly communicate these awards’ terms and conditions to the subrecipients, including the allowable uses of the funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office believed the information that was sent out through other means would cover the required elements it needed to communicate to the LEAs. The Office did not know the amount each LEA would receive as amounts were not predetermined, and the Office used an apportionment process to allocate funds to meet the legislative intent. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without issuing subawards to subrecipients to ensure proper accountability and compliance with federal requirements, the Office cannot ensure all funds were used for allowable activities and properly supported. In addition, without a subaward, the Office could not distribute funds to these subrecipients. Therefore, we are questioning the $47,322,280 that it distributed to these LEAs. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office: • Establish effective internal controls to ensure that all federal funds it grants to subrecipients are awarded through a subaward that meets federal requirements • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office’s Response We distributed these funds through the apportionment process instead of our grants system due to the nature of how the payments were calculated. Our grants system provides a grant award notification via e-mail when the grant is awarded that contains the federal elements required in CFR 200.332. While we did not provide a formal subaward that included all of these elements in one document, we provided most of them using other formal communication, such as through a Gov Delivery e-mail and the School District Accounting Manual. If we use the apportionment process to distribute funds in the future, we will include all of the required federal elements in a separate subaward. Additionally, our communication to school districts included the use of allowable activities for these funds. Therefore, we do not agree that the funds should be questioned as not being allowable or properly supported. Auditor’s Remarks The Office asserts the costs should not be questioned for not being allowable or properly supported. However, without a subaward the Office could not distribute federal funds to these subrecipients, therefore we are questioning the costs consistent with criteria established in 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance). We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Office’s corrective action during the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 34 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, Direct grant programs, section 702, Fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, states that a grantee shall use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds as required in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D—Post Federal Award Requirements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the federal identification elements. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 CFR Part 200.403, Uniform Guidance, establishes the factors affecting the allowability of costs. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-050 The Department of Commerce did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with period of performance requirements for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 93.568 Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program 93.568 COVID-19 Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program Federal Grantor Name: Department of Health and Human Services Federal Award/Contract Number: 2101WALIEA, 2101WAE5C6, 2101WALWC6, 2101WALWC5, 2201WALIEI, 2201WALIEA, 2201WALIE4 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Period of Performance Known Questioned Cost Amount: $4,409,760 Prior Year Audit Finding: N/A Background The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, through the Office of Community Services at the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), administers the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). The agency distributes LIHEAP block grant funds by formula to states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. In Washington, the Department of Commerce administers LIHEAP, which provides financial assistance to low-income households to meet their home energy needs. The Department administers and awards LIHEAP funds under two programs: the energy assistance program and the weatherization program. Subawards are issued to community-based organizations to provide this assistance. In fiscal year 2024, the Department spent more than $96 million in federal funds, about $89.5 million of which it paid to subrecipients. Federal regulations require the Department to obligate at least 90% of the LIHEAP block grant funds in the first federal fiscal year in which they are awarded. If funds are left over after the end of the first federal fiscal year, the Department must either return those funds or report to the grantor the amount it intends to carry over and reallot. The Department may carry over up to 10% of the funds payable for obligation no later than the end of the following federal fiscal year. Funds not obligated by the end of the second fiscal year of the award must be returned to ACF. The limits on the period for the expenditure of funds are communicated to award recipients. LIHEAP awards typically have a two-year project period when the Department may obligate funds to subrecipients through subawards and incur administrative costs to execute the award. The subawards define the period of performance for subrecipients to spend these funds. Departmental administrative costs are considered obligated when the expenditure activity occurs. As such, the period of performance for administrative costs aligns with the project period start and end date. If the Department requires more than one year from the project period end date to liquidate allowable costs, it is required to notify the Grantor. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Department did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with period of performance requirements for LIHEAP. Obligations During state fiscal year 2024, the Department was required to obligate 90% of funds for the federal fiscal year 2023 award. This amount is reported on the Carryover and Reallotment Report. The Department was unable to provide documentation to support the amount of funds it obligated in the first year of the award. This issue is referenced in finding 2024-051. Expenditures During state fiscal year 2024, there were five awards with project end dates. We judgmentally selected and examined 21 expenditures charged to these awards. We found: • Four (19%) expenditures for which the Department did not provide any documentation to support that the cost occurred during the period of performance • Three (14%) expenditures for which the documentation the Department provided did not support that the costs occurred during the period of performance The total costs associated with these seven expenditures are $1,010,249. In addition, we analyzed expenditures charged to the awards in the accounting system and identified $1,346,137 of administrative activities that occurred after the period of performance. Liquidations There were two awards with liquidation periods ending during state fiscal year 2024. We judgmentally selected and examined eight expenditures the Department charged to grants that were liquidating funds during the audit period. We found: • Three (38%) expenditures for which the Department did not provide any documentation to support that the cost occurred during the period of performance • Two (25%) expenditures for which the documentation the Department provided did not support that the costs occurred during the period of performance The total costs associated with these five expenditures are $1,916,227 In addition, we analyzed expenditures charged to the awards and identified $137,148 of administrative activities that occurred after the period of performance. We consider these internal control deficiencies to be a material weakness, which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Department misinterpreted the federal regulations, which led management to believe it was compliant with period of performance requirements. Further, the Department did not provide us with all the documentation to demonstrate that the Department incurred the charges we examined during the period of performance. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without establishing adequate internal controls, the Department cannot reasonably ensure it uses federal funds within the period of performance. We identified $1,483,285 in known questioned costs for expenditures that occurred outside of the period of performance. We also identified $2,926,476 in known questioned costs for expenditures that did not have adequate support to determine if they were within the period of performance. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the Department: • Design and implement internal controls to ensure it complies with period of performance requirements • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Department’s Response The Department agrees with the internal control weaknesses identified in the report. However, for the contract periods included in this audit we were operating off of guidance received by the United State Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in 2022. Directly following notification of this deficiency for this audit, we reached out to HHS to clarify the closeout year requirements. In December 2024 we received updated guidance on how to apply the closeout year to current awards. Beginning with the 2024 program year (October 1, 2023), all subrecipient contracts were issued with a two-year period of performance, which will eliminate new expenses being added to the closeout year. This ensures that all LIHEAP awards will be managed within a consistent two-year period of performance, which aligns with the updated HHS guidance. All future LIHEAP awards will follow the same period of performance principle. The Department will engage with the HHS to determine the appropriate next steps on how to handle the questioned costs. The Department is committed to addressing the internal control weaknesses identified in the audit and will continue to strengthen its processes to ensure ongoing compliance with period of performance requirements. Auditor’s Remarks We thank the Department for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the Department's corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 45 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, section 303, Internal Controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. Title 45 CFR Part 75, section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 45 CFR Part 96, section 81, Carryover and reallotment, establishes the procedures relating to carryover and reallotment of regular LIHEAP block grant funds ACF Supplemental Terms and Conditions, LIHEAP, effective October 1, 2021, states in part: 9. Obligation Deadline: a. The two-year funding (project) period for this award is concurrent with the obligation period: from the first day of the FFY for which these funds were awarded through the last day of the following FFY. (i.e., October 1, FFY 1 through September 30, FFY 2.) A maximum of 10 percent of the federal funds awarded under this grant may be held available for obligation in the FFY 2 of the project period. If more than 10 percent of a recipient's federal funds remains unobligated at the end of the FFY in which they were allotted, those excess funds must be returned to HHS and are subject to reallotment among all recipients in the next fiscal year. Any federal funds not obligated by the end of the two-year obligation period will be recouped by the Department. b. Federal funds awarded under this grant must be expended for the purposes for which they were awarded and in payment for obligations made within the time period allotted. 10. Liquidation: All properly obligated federal funds awarded under this grant must be liquidated in accordance with the recipient’s own fiscal control and funds control procedures. If the recipient requires more than 1 year from the project period end date to liquidate allowable costs, it shall notify the Grants Management Officer identified on its latest Notice of Award. The notification shall include the reason for the delay and the anticipated timeframe for liquidation. Any federal funds from this award not liquidated by the date required under the recipient’s own fiscal control procedures, which may not exceed five years following the fiscal year of award, will be recouped by this Department. ACF-OCS-LIHEAP-IM-2024-04 LIHEAP Obligations, Expenditures, and Refunds, states in part: Federal appropriations accounting law at 31 U.S.C. § 1502(a) states that the balance of an appropriation or fund limited for obligation to a definite period is available only for payment of expenses properly incurred during the period of availability or to complete contracts properly made within that period of availability. Grant recipients may not incur new expenditures beyond the period of performance unless necessary to liquidate obligations made during the period of performance under active agreements or subawards with partnering agencies. Grant recipients must liquidate obligations according to the same rules, including the timeframe, required of its own non-federal funding. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-050 The Department of Commerce did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with period of performance requirements for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 93.568 Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program 93.568 COVID-19 Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program Federal Grantor Name: Department of Health and Human Services Federal Award/Contract Number: 2101WALIEA, 2101WAE5C6, 2101WALWC6, 2101WALWC5, 2201WALIEI, 2201WALIEA, 2201WALIE4 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Period of Performance Known Questioned Cost Amount: $4,409,760 Prior Year Audit Finding: N/A Background The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, through the Office of Community Services at the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), administers the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). The agency distributes LIHEAP block grant funds by formula to states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. In Washington, the Department of Commerce administers LIHEAP, which provides financial assistance to low-income households to meet their home energy needs. The Department administers and awards LIHEAP funds under two programs: the energy assistance program and the weatherization program. Subawards are issued to community-based organizations to provide this assistance. In fiscal year 2024, the Department spent more than $96 million in federal funds, about $89.5 million of which it paid to subrecipients. Federal regulations require the Department to obligate at least 90% of the LIHEAP block grant funds in the first federal fiscal year in which they are awarded. If funds are left over after the end of the first federal fiscal year, the Department must either return those funds or report to the grantor the amount it intends to carry over and reallot. The Department may carry over up to 10% of the funds payable for obligation no later than the end of the following federal fiscal year. Funds not obligated by the end of the second fiscal year of the award must be returned to ACF. The limits on the period for the expenditure of funds are communicated to award recipients. LIHEAP awards typically have a two-year project period when the Department may obligate funds to subrecipients through subawards and incur administrative costs to execute the award. The subawards define the period of performance for subrecipients to spend these funds. Departmental administrative costs are considered obligated when the expenditure activity occurs. As such, the period of performance for administrative costs aligns with the project period start and end date. If the Department requires more than one year from the project period end date to liquidate allowable costs, it is required to notify the Grantor. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Department did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with period of performance requirements for LIHEAP. Obligations During state fiscal year 2024, the Department was required to obligate 90% of funds for the federal fiscal year 2023 award. This amount is reported on the Carryover and Reallotment Report. The Department was unable to provide documentation to support the amount of funds it obligated in the first year of the award. This issue is referenced in finding 2024-051. Expenditures During state fiscal year 2024, there were five awards with project end dates. We judgmentally selected and examined 21 expenditures charged to these awards. We found: • Four (19%) expenditures for which the Department did not provide any documentation to support that the cost occurred during the period of performance • Three (14%) expenditures for which the documentation the Department provided did not support that the costs occurred during the period of performance The total costs associated with these seven expenditures are $1,010,249. In addition, we analyzed expenditures charged to the awards in the accounting system and identified $1,346,137 of administrative activities that occurred after the period of performance. Liquidations There were two awards with liquidation periods ending during state fiscal year 2024. We judgmentally selected and examined eight expenditures the Department charged to grants that were liquidating funds during the audit period. We found: • Three (38%) expenditures for which the Department did not provide any documentation to support that the cost occurred during the period of performance • Two (25%) expenditures for which the documentation the Department provided did not support that the costs occurred during the period of performance The total costs associated with these five expenditures are $1,916,227 In addition, we analyzed expenditures charged to the awards and identified $137,148 of administrative activities that occurred after the period of performance. We consider these internal control deficiencies to be a material weakness, which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Department misinterpreted the federal regulations, which led management to believe it was compliant with period of performance requirements. Further, the Department did not provide us with all the documentation to demonstrate that the Department incurred the charges we examined during the period of performance. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without establishing adequate internal controls, the Department cannot reasonably ensure it uses federal funds within the period of performance. We identified $1,483,285 in known questioned costs for expenditures that occurred outside of the period of performance. We also identified $2,926,476 in known questioned costs for expenditures that did not have adequate support to determine if they were within the period of performance. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the Department: • Design and implement internal controls to ensure it complies with period of performance requirements • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Department’s Response The Department agrees with the internal control weaknesses identified in the report. However, for the contract periods included in this audit we were operating off of guidance received by the United State Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in 2022. Directly following notification of this deficiency for this audit, we reached out to HHS to clarify the closeout year requirements. In December 2024 we received updated guidance on how to apply the closeout year to current awards. Beginning with the 2024 program year (October 1, 2023), all subrecipient contracts were issued with a two-year period of performance, which will eliminate new expenses being added to the closeout year. This ensures that all LIHEAP awards will be managed within a consistent two-year period of performance, which aligns with the updated HHS guidance. All future LIHEAP awards will follow the same period of performance principle. The Department will engage with the HHS to determine the appropriate next steps on how to handle the questioned costs. The Department is committed to addressing the internal control weaknesses identified in the audit and will continue to strengthen its processes to ensure ongoing compliance with period of performance requirements. Auditor’s Remarks We thank the Department for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the Department's corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 45 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, section 303, Internal Controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. Title 45 CFR Part 75, section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 45 CFR Part 96, section 81, Carryover and reallotment, establishes the procedures relating to carryover and reallotment of regular LIHEAP block grant funds ACF Supplemental Terms and Conditions, LIHEAP, effective October 1, 2021, states in part: 9. Obligation Deadline: a. The two-year funding (project) period for this award is concurrent with the obligation period: from the first day of the FFY for which these funds were awarded through the last day of the following FFY. (i.e., October 1, FFY 1 through September 30, FFY 2.) A maximum of 10 percent of the federal funds awarded under this grant may be held available for obligation in the FFY 2 of the project period. If more than 10 percent of a recipient's federal funds remains unobligated at the end of the FFY in which they were allotted, those excess funds must be returned to HHS and are subject to reallotment among all recipients in the next fiscal year. Any federal funds not obligated by the end of the two-year obligation period will be recouped by the Department. b. Federal funds awarded under this grant must be expended for the purposes for which they were awarded and in payment for obligations made within the time period allotted. 10. Liquidation: All properly obligated federal funds awarded under this grant must be liquidated in accordance with the recipient’s own fiscal control and funds control procedures. If the recipient requires more than 1 year from the project period end date to liquidate allowable costs, it shall notify the Grants Management Officer identified on its latest Notice of Award. The notification shall include the reason for the delay and the anticipated timeframe for liquidation. Any federal funds from this award not liquidated by the date required under the recipient’s own fiscal control procedures, which may not exceed five years following the fiscal year of award, will be recouped by this Department. ACF-OCS-LIHEAP-IM-2024-04 LIHEAP Obligations, Expenditures, and Refunds, states in part: Federal appropriations accounting law at 31 U.S.C. § 1502(a) states that the balance of an appropriation or fund limited for obligation to a definite period is available only for payment of expenses properly incurred during the period of availability or to complete contracts properly made within that period of availability. Grant recipients may not incur new expenditures beyond the period of performance unless necessary to liquidate obligations made during the period of performance under active agreements or subawards with partnering agencies. Grant recipients must liquidate obligations according to the same rules, including the timeframe, required of its own non-federal funding. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-024 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction improperly charged $5,139 to the Special Education program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.027 Special Education Grants to Staes (IDEA, Part B) 84.027 COVID-19 Special Education Grants to Staes (IDEA, Part B) 84.173 Special Education Preschool Grants (IDEA Preschool) 84.173 COVID-19 Special Education Preschool Grants (IDEA Preschool) Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: H027A210074-21A; H027A220074; H027A230074-23A; H027X210074; H173A210074; H173A220074; H173A230074; H173X210074 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Period of Performance Known Questioned Cost Amount: $5,139 Prior Year Audit Finding: None Background The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s (IDEA) Special Education Grants to States program (IDEA, Part B) provides grants to states, and through them to local education agencies (LEAs), to help provide special education and related services to eligible children with disabilities. IDEA’s Special Education Preschool Grants program (IDEA Preschool), also known as the “619 program,” provides grants to states, and through them to LEAs, to assist with providing special education and related services to children with disabilities ages 3 through 5 and, at a state’s discretion, to 2-year-old children with disabilities who will turn 3 during the school year. The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction administers the Special Education program in Washington, which serves about 143,000 eligible students. The program provides specially designed instruction to address students’ unique needs. The Office offers the program at no cost to parents, and it includes the related services students need to access their educational program. The Office spent about $251 million in federal IDEA grant funds during fiscal year 2024 and passed about $243 million of that funding through to LEAs and educational service districts. The grantor identified that obligations charged to the fiscal year 2022 IDEA grant funds must be obligated or incurred prior to September 30, 2023. Description of Condition The Office improperly charged $5,139 to the program. We found the Office had adequate internal controls to ensure it materially complied with period of performance requirements. We used a nonstatistical sampling method to randomly select and examine 13 payments of a total of 68 that the Office made close to the end of the obligation period to ensure they were allowable and obligated within the proper period. During our testing, we found three charges totaling $5,139 that were obligated after the obligation period ended. Federal regulations require the auditor to issue a finding when the known or estimated questioned costs identified in a single audit exceed $25,000. We are issuing this finding because, as stated in the Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs section of this finding, the estimated questioned costs exceed that threshold. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition Office staff made accounting adjustments to the fiscal year 2023 IDEA part B grant. These payments were initially charged to an allowable grant, but staff made adjustments and moved them to the fiscal year 2022 IDEA part B grant. Therefore, the payments were then noncompliant with period of performance requirements. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs We identified $5,139 in questioned costs that were obligated outside the obligation date. Projection to population Known Questioned Costs Likely Questioned Costs Federal expenditures $5,139 $26,883 We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid. Office’s Response The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) concurs with this finding. To ensure that expenditures occurring outside of a grant’s period of performance are not shifted to the grant during its liquidation period, OSPI has established internal controls to address accounting adjustments made during liquidation periods. Journal vouchers (corrections) will be verified by budget staff prior to submission to ensure expenditures occurred within the grant period of performance. OSPI will communicate the corrective action plan with internal stakeholders to ensure compliance with updated process/procedures. Internal Control Details: • Monitor expenditures (through reconciliation of monthly reports) to ensure the agency stays within the allowable set-aside threshold and grant maximum. • Verify that all expenditures corrected with journal vouchers during the grant liquidation period have occurred during the grant period of performance. • Complete expenditure corrections within the grant liquidation period. • Liquidation is done on the last business day of January (or 120 days after the budget period ends). Auditor’s Remarks We thank the Office for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the Office's corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Fiscal Year 2022 Special Education Grant Award, Grant Award Notification, establishes the federal funding period for award numbers H137A210074 and H027A210074 as July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2023. Tile 20 United States Code 1225(b), General Education Provisions Act, establishes that any funds that are not obligated at the end of the federal funding period shall remain available for obligation for an additional period of 12 months.
2024-024 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction improperly charged $5,139 to the Special Education program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.027 Special Education Grants to Staes (IDEA, Part B) 84.027 COVID-19 Special Education Grants to Staes (IDEA, Part B) 84.173 Special Education Preschool Grants (IDEA Preschool) 84.173 COVID-19 Special Education Preschool Grants (IDEA Preschool) Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: H027A210074-21A; H027A220074; H027A230074-23A; H027X210074; H173A210074; H173A220074; H173A230074; H173X210074 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Period of Performance Known Questioned Cost Amount: $5,139 Prior Year Audit Finding: None Background The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s (IDEA) Special Education Grants to States program (IDEA, Part B) provides grants to states, and through them to local education agencies (LEAs), to help provide special education and related services to eligible children with disabilities. IDEA’s Special Education Preschool Grants program (IDEA Preschool), also known as the “619 program,” provides grants to states, and through them to LEAs, to assist with providing special education and related services to children with disabilities ages 3 through 5 and, at a state’s discretion, to 2-year-old children with disabilities who will turn 3 during the school year. The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction administers the Special Education program in Washington, which serves about 143,000 eligible students. The program provides specially designed instruction to address students’ unique needs. The Office offers the program at no cost to parents, and it includes the related services students need to access their educational program. The Office spent about $251 million in federal IDEA grant funds during fiscal year 2024 and passed about $243 million of that funding through to LEAs and educational service districts. The grantor identified that obligations charged to the fiscal year 2022 IDEA grant funds must be obligated or incurred prior to September 30, 2023. Description of Condition The Office improperly charged $5,139 to the program. We found the Office had adequate internal controls to ensure it materially complied with period of performance requirements. We used a nonstatistical sampling method to randomly select and examine 13 payments of a total of 68 that the Office made close to the end of the obligation period to ensure they were allowable and obligated within the proper period. During our testing, we found three charges totaling $5,139 that were obligated after the obligation period ended. Federal regulations require the auditor to issue a finding when the known or estimated questioned costs identified in a single audit exceed $25,000. We are issuing this finding because, as stated in the Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs section of this finding, the estimated questioned costs exceed that threshold. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition Office staff made accounting adjustments to the fiscal year 2023 IDEA part B grant. These payments were initially charged to an allowable grant, but staff made adjustments and moved them to the fiscal year 2022 IDEA part B grant. Therefore, the payments were then noncompliant with period of performance requirements. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs We identified $5,139 in questioned costs that were obligated outside the obligation date. Projection to population Known Questioned Costs Likely Questioned Costs Federal expenditures $5,139 $26,883 We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid. Office’s Response The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) concurs with this finding. To ensure that expenditures occurring outside of a grant’s period of performance are not shifted to the grant during its liquidation period, OSPI has established internal controls to address accounting adjustments made during liquidation periods. Journal vouchers (corrections) will be verified by budget staff prior to submission to ensure expenditures occurred within the grant period of performance. OSPI will communicate the corrective action plan with internal stakeholders to ensure compliance with updated process/procedures. Internal Control Details: • Monitor expenditures (through reconciliation of monthly reports) to ensure the agency stays within the allowable set-aside threshold and grant maximum. • Verify that all expenditures corrected with journal vouchers during the grant liquidation period have occurred during the grant period of performance. • Complete expenditure corrections within the grant liquidation period. • Liquidation is done on the last business day of January (or 120 days after the budget period ends). Auditor’s Remarks We thank the Office for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the Office's corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Fiscal Year 2022 Special Education Grant Award, Grant Award Notification, establishes the federal funding period for award numbers H137A210074 and H027A210074 as July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2023. Tile 20 United States Code 1225(b), General Education Provisions Act, establishes that any funds that are not obligated at the end of the federal funding period shall remain available for obligation for an additional period of 12 months.
2024-024 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction improperly charged $5,139 to the Special Education program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.027 Special Education Grants to Staes (IDEA, Part B) 84.027 COVID-19 Special Education Grants to Staes (IDEA, Part B) 84.173 Special Education Preschool Grants (IDEA Preschool) 84.173 COVID-19 Special Education Preschool Grants (IDEA Preschool) Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: H027A210074-21A; H027A220074; H027A230074-23A; H027X210074; H173A210074; H173A220074; H173A230074; H173X210074 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Period of Performance Known Questioned Cost Amount: $5,139 Prior Year Audit Finding: None Background The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s (IDEA) Special Education Grants to States program (IDEA, Part B) provides grants to states, and through them to local education agencies (LEAs), to help provide special education and related services to eligible children with disabilities. IDEA’s Special Education Preschool Grants program (IDEA Preschool), also known as the “619 program,” provides grants to states, and through them to LEAs, to assist with providing special education and related services to children with disabilities ages 3 through 5 and, at a state’s discretion, to 2-year-old children with disabilities who will turn 3 during the school year. The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction administers the Special Education program in Washington, which serves about 143,000 eligible students. The program provides specially designed instruction to address students’ unique needs. The Office offers the program at no cost to parents, and it includes the related services students need to access their educational program. The Office spent about $251 million in federal IDEA grant funds during fiscal year 2024 and passed about $243 million of that funding through to LEAs and educational service districts. The grantor identified that obligations charged to the fiscal year 2022 IDEA grant funds must be obligated or incurred prior to September 30, 2023. Description of Condition The Office improperly charged $5,139 to the program. We found the Office had adequate internal controls to ensure it materially complied with period of performance requirements. We used a nonstatistical sampling method to randomly select and examine 13 payments of a total of 68 that the Office made close to the end of the obligation period to ensure they were allowable and obligated within the proper period. During our testing, we found three charges totaling $5,139 that were obligated after the obligation period ended. Federal regulations require the auditor to issue a finding when the known or estimated questioned costs identified in a single audit exceed $25,000. We are issuing this finding because, as stated in the Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs section of this finding, the estimated questioned costs exceed that threshold. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition Office staff made accounting adjustments to the fiscal year 2023 IDEA part B grant. These payments were initially charged to an allowable grant, but staff made adjustments and moved them to the fiscal year 2022 IDEA part B grant. Therefore, the payments were then noncompliant with period of performance requirements. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs We identified $5,139 in questioned costs that were obligated outside the obligation date. Projection to population Known Questioned Costs Likely Questioned Costs Federal expenditures $5,139 $26,883 We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid. Office’s Response The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) concurs with this finding. To ensure that expenditures occurring outside of a grant’s period of performance are not shifted to the grant during its liquidation period, OSPI has established internal controls to address accounting adjustments made during liquidation periods. Journal vouchers (corrections) will be verified by budget staff prior to submission to ensure expenditures occurred within the grant period of performance. OSPI will communicate the corrective action plan with internal stakeholders to ensure compliance with updated process/procedures. Internal Control Details: • Monitor expenditures (through reconciliation of monthly reports) to ensure the agency stays within the allowable set-aside threshold and grant maximum. • Verify that all expenditures corrected with journal vouchers during the grant liquidation period have occurred during the grant period of performance. • Complete expenditure corrections within the grant liquidation period. • Liquidation is done on the last business day of January (or 120 days after the budget period ends). Auditor’s Remarks We thank the Office for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the Office's corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Fiscal Year 2022 Special Education Grant Award, Grant Award Notification, establishes the federal funding period for award numbers H137A210074 and H027A210074 as July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2023. Tile 20 United States Code 1225(b), General Education Provisions Act, establishes that any funds that are not obligated at the end of the federal funding period shall remain available for obligation for an additional period of 12 months.
2024-024 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction improperly charged $5,139 to the Special Education program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.027 Special Education Grants to Staes (IDEA, Part B) 84.027 COVID-19 Special Education Grants to Staes (IDEA, Part B) 84.173 Special Education Preschool Grants (IDEA Preschool) 84.173 COVID-19 Special Education Preschool Grants (IDEA Preschool) Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: H027A210074-21A; H027A220074; H027A230074-23A; H027X210074; H173A210074; H173A220074; H173A230074; H173X210074 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Period of Performance Known Questioned Cost Amount: $5,139 Prior Year Audit Finding: None Background The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s (IDEA) Special Education Grants to States program (IDEA, Part B) provides grants to states, and through them to local education agencies (LEAs), to help provide special education and related services to eligible children with disabilities. IDEA’s Special Education Preschool Grants program (IDEA Preschool), also known as the “619 program,” provides grants to states, and through them to LEAs, to assist with providing special education and related services to children with disabilities ages 3 through 5 and, at a state’s discretion, to 2-year-old children with disabilities who will turn 3 during the school year. The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction administers the Special Education program in Washington, which serves about 143,000 eligible students. The program provides specially designed instruction to address students’ unique needs. The Office offers the program at no cost to parents, and it includes the related services students need to access their educational program. The Office spent about $251 million in federal IDEA grant funds during fiscal year 2024 and passed about $243 million of that funding through to LEAs and educational service districts. The grantor identified that obligations charged to the fiscal year 2022 IDEA grant funds must be obligated or incurred prior to September 30, 2023. Description of Condition The Office improperly charged $5,139 to the program. We found the Office had adequate internal controls to ensure it materially complied with period of performance requirements. We used a nonstatistical sampling method to randomly select and examine 13 payments of a total of 68 that the Office made close to the end of the obligation period to ensure they were allowable and obligated within the proper period. During our testing, we found three charges totaling $5,139 that were obligated after the obligation period ended. Federal regulations require the auditor to issue a finding when the known or estimated questioned costs identified in a single audit exceed $25,000. We are issuing this finding because, as stated in the Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs section of this finding, the estimated questioned costs exceed that threshold. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition Office staff made accounting adjustments to the fiscal year 2023 IDEA part B grant. These payments were initially charged to an allowable grant, but staff made adjustments and moved them to the fiscal year 2022 IDEA part B grant. Therefore, the payments were then noncompliant with period of performance requirements. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs We identified $5,139 in questioned costs that were obligated outside the obligation date. Projection to population Known Questioned Costs Likely Questioned Costs Federal expenditures $5,139 $26,883 We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid. Office’s Response The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) concurs with this finding. To ensure that expenditures occurring outside of a grant’s period of performance are not shifted to the grant during its liquidation period, OSPI has established internal controls to address accounting adjustments made during liquidation periods. Journal vouchers (corrections) will be verified by budget staff prior to submission to ensure expenditures occurred within the grant period of performance. OSPI will communicate the corrective action plan with internal stakeholders to ensure compliance with updated process/procedures. Internal Control Details: • Monitor expenditures (through reconciliation of monthly reports) to ensure the agency stays within the allowable set-aside threshold and grant maximum. • Verify that all expenditures corrected with journal vouchers during the grant liquidation period have occurred during the grant period of performance. • Complete expenditure corrections within the grant liquidation period. • Liquidation is done on the last business day of January (or 120 days after the budget period ends). Auditor’s Remarks We thank the Office for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the Office's corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Fiscal Year 2022 Special Education Grant Award, Grant Award Notification, establishes the federal funding period for award numbers H137A210074 and H027A210074 as July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2023. Tile 20 United States Code 1225(b), General Education Provisions Act, establishes that any funds that are not obligated at the end of the federal funding period shall remain available for obligation for an additional period of 12 months.
2024-002 U.S. Department of the Treasury COVID-19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds – ALN 21.027 Significant Deficiency in Internal Controls Over Compliance and Other Matter Criteria: The compliance supplement identifies four Key Line Items required to be reported to the federal awarding agency which include (1) current period obligation, (2) cumulative obligation, (3) current period expenditure and (4) cumulative expenditure. Per 2 CFR 200.1, an obligation is an order placed for property and services, contracts and subawards made, and similar transactions that require payment. Condition: Obligations and expenditures were overstated by $93,955 on the March 31, 2024 Project and Expenditure report. Cause: The Town did not have a clear understanding of the reporting requirements and included amounts approved but not obligated as obligated and expended. Effect: The Town is not in compliance with grant reporting requirements. Questioned Costs: None Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: The Town should implement procedures to only report obligations and expenditures on the Project and Expenditure reporting for items that meet the federal criteria for reporting as an obligation and expenditure. Views of Responsible Official: Management agrees with the finding.
Federal Program: ALN 93.600 Head Start Category: Compliance/internal control significant deficiency Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Condition: BGCPR real and personal property records are not complete and did not follow the program requirements. Additionally, prior approval from the Head Start program was not requested for some acquisitions. Criteria: 2 CFR §200.313 (d) establishes that in the management requirements of equipment that regardless of whether equipment is acquired in part or its entirety under the Federal award, the recipient or subrecipient must manage equipment (including replacement equipment) utilizing procedures that meet the following requirements: (1) Property records must include a description of the property, a serial number or another identification number, the source of funding for the property (including the Federal Award Identification Number), the title holder, the acquisition date, the cost of the property, the percentage of the Federal agency contribution towards the original purchase, the location, use and condition of the property, and any disposition data including the date of disposal and sale price of the property. The recipient and subrecipient are responsible for maintaining and updating property records when there is a change in the status of the property. 2 CFR §200.1 defines equipment as a tangible personal property (including information technology systems) having a useful life of more than one year and a per-unit acquisition cost which equals or exceeds the lesser of the capitalization level established by the non-Federal entity for financial statement purposes, or $5,000.Under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), the acquisition cost of capital equipment includes all expenses necessary to acquire the asset and prepare it for its intended use. This encompasses the purchase price, import duties, freight and handling charges, installation and assembly costs, site preparation expenses, and professional fees. As per established on BGCPR’s policy of Property and Equipment, the BGCPR will capitalize all items that have a unit cost greater than five thousand dollars ($5,000). Cause: BGCPR did not maintain essential details, such as acquisition costs, funding sources, or the Federal Award Identification Numbers, nor did it obtain the necessary prior approvals from the Head Start program for these acquisitions. Effect or potential effect: Failure to capitalize property and equipment and obtain the necessary approvals to comply with the federal regulations. Questioned Costs: Amount is below the threshold to be considered a questioned cost. Context: Upon reviewing 32 instances, two errors were found where BGCPR failed to properly account for equipment acquisitions exceeding $5,000. Recommendation: BGCPR must identify all properties acquired with Federal funds and maintain adequate accounting records in accordance with Federal regulations. The program must maintain an automated accounting and record keeping system adequate for effective oversight. Additionally, establish a robust internal control system to ensure all equipment purchases exceeding $5,000 are properly capitalized and that prior approvals are obtained. Views of responsible officials: BGCPR recognizes that it must keep and improve the asset capitalization processes and policies, particularly within the accounting system of record. It acknowledges the need to strengthen these processes to ensure accurate and compliant management of equipment acquisitions. To address this, BGCPR will implement a system capable of recording, classifying, and monitoring all capital assets in alignment with the criteria established under federal regulation 2 CFR §200. This improvement is essential to ensure that all asset capitalization activities meet regulatory standards and support greater financial transparency and accountability. As a corrective measure, BGCPR will take the following actions and will anticipate completing on June 30, 2025: a. Implement and maintain an automated accounting and financial records system to enable real-time oversight of the asset capitalization policy. b. Establish a robust internal control framework including pre-approvals for equipment purchases and cross-validations of financial data. c. Periodic internal monitoring’s to ensure compliance and documentation.d. Update BGCPR’s fiscal management guidance to include a formal provision requiring the capitalization policy to be reviewed every three (3) years in compliance with the ensure compliance with federal regulation 2 CFR §200 regarding asset capitalization criteria. e. Conduct a training program for accounting and financial personnel.
Finding No. 2024-004 Procurement Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Program Name: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listing Number: 21.027 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: SLFRFP4547 – 2021 Award Period: 3/3/21 – 12/31/24 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters Criteria or Specific Requirement: The Town must comply with procurement standards set out at 2 CFR sections 200.303 and 200.318 through 200.326 within Uniform Guidance. Control: Per 2 CFR section 200.303(a), a non-Federal entity must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). UG §200.318 General procurement standards. (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: Rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. §200.320 states that the non-Federal entity must use one of the prescribed methods of procurement. (a) Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in §200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: (1) Micro-purchases. Procurement by micro-purchase is the acquisition of supplies or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold (See the definition of micro-purchase in §200.1). To the maximum extent practicable, the non-Federal entity should distribute micro-purchases equitably among qualified suppliers. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price or rate quotations if the non-Federal entity considers the price to be reasonable based on research, experience, purchase history or other information and documents it files accordingly. Purchase cards can be used for micropurchases if procedures are documented and approved by the non-Federal entity. (2) Small purchase. Procurement by small purchase is the acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. (b) Formal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal financial assistance award exceeds the SAT, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are required. Formal procurement methods require following documented procedures. Formal procurement methods also require public advertising unless a noncompetitive procurement can be used in accordance with §200.319 or paragraph (c) of this section. The following formal methods of procurement are used for procurement of property or services above the simplified acquisition threshold or a value below the simplified acquisition threshold the non-Federal entity determines to be appropriate: (1) Sealed bids. Bids are publicly solicited, and a firm fixed-price contract (lump sum or unit price) is awarded to the responsible bidder whose bid, conforming with all the material terms and conditions of the invitation for bids, is the lowest in price. (2) Proposals. Either a fixed price or cost-reimbursement type contract is awarded. Proposals are generally used when conditions are not appropriate for the use of sealed bids. (c) Noncompetitive procurement. There are specific circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. Noncompetitive procurement can only be awarded if one or more of the allowed circumstances apply. Condition: The Town purchasing policy does not include all elements as outlined in 2 CFR sections 200.303 and 200.318 through 200.326 noted above. Questioned Costs: None Context: Although the Town’s purchasing policies do not include all elements as outlined in 2 CFR sections 200.303 and 200.318 through 200.326, we did not identify transactions where contracts were awarded without proper justification in 7 of 7 procurement transactions tested. Cause: Management was not aware of the procurement standards set out at 2 CFR sections 200.303 and 200.318 through 200.326 within Uniform Guidance. Effect: The Town is at risk for noncompliance with Federal grants as it relates to procurement. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that the Town update its procurement policies to include all elements identified in 2 CFR sections 200.303 and 200.318 through 200.326. Views of Responsible Officials: Management is working with our current auditors to update the Town’s procurement policies to be in compliance with the Uniform Guidance.
Finding No. 2024-038 Federal Awarding Agency: USDHS Impact: Noncompliance AL Number and Title: 97.036 Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) 97.036 Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) – COVID-19 Federal Award Number: 4094DRAKP00000001, 4413DRAKP00000001, 4533DRAKP00000001 Applicable Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Condition: DMVA management did not issue a management decision for a finding relating to one subrecipient's single audit. Context: Under federal regulations, pass-through entities are responsible for issuing a management decision for audit findings relating to federal awards provided to subrecipients. The management decisions must clearly state whether or not the audit finding is substantiated, the reason for the decision, and the adequacy of the recipient’s proposed corrective actions to address the finding. If the subrecipient has not completed corrective action, a timetable for follow-up should be given. One Disaster Grants subrecipient’s single audit contained a finding and DMVA management did not issue a management decision to the subrecipient. The finding related to the subrecipient not submitting a single audit to the federal audit clearinghouse within nine months after the end of the subrecipient’s fiscal year as required by federal regulations. Cause: DMVA has controls to ensure a management decision is issued on a subrecipient’s single audit finding. However, due to staff not following procedures, the management decision was not issued. Criteria: Title 2 CFR 200.521 states the pass-through entity must be responsible for issuing a management decision for audit findings that relate to Federal awards it makes to subrecipients. Furthermore, Title 2 CFR 200.1 defines a management decision as a pass-through entity’s written determination, provided to the auditee, of the adequacy of the auditee’s proposed corrective actions to address the findings, based on its evaluation of the audit findings and proposed corrective actions. Effect: The lack of management decisions may result in the subrecipient not taking appropriate corrective action on findings. Noncompliance with federal regulations may result in the federal awarding agency imposing additional conditions or taking corrective action, including additional reporting requirements or withholding/terminating funding. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: DMVA’s finance officer should ensure procedures are followed and a management decision is issued for all subrecipient single audit findings within six months of a subrecipient audit report’s acceptance by the federal audit clearinghouse. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding.
Finding No. 2024-038 Federal Awarding Agency: USDHS Impact: Noncompliance AL Number and Title: 97.036 Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) 97.036 Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) – COVID-19 Federal Award Number: 4094DRAKP00000001, 4413DRAKP00000001, 4533DRAKP00000001 Applicable Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Condition: DMVA management did not issue a management decision for a finding relating to one subrecipient's single audit. Context: Under federal regulations, pass-through entities are responsible for issuing a management decision for audit findings relating to federal awards provided to subrecipients. The management decisions must clearly state whether or not the audit finding is substantiated, the reason for the decision, and the adequacy of the recipient’s proposed corrective actions to address the finding. If the subrecipient has not completed corrective action, a timetable for follow-up should be given. One Disaster Grants subrecipient’s single audit contained a finding and DMVA management did not issue a management decision to the subrecipient. The finding related to the subrecipient not submitting a single audit to the federal audit clearinghouse within nine months after the end of the subrecipient’s fiscal year as required by federal regulations. Cause: DMVA has controls to ensure a management decision is issued on a subrecipient’s single audit finding. However, due to staff not following procedures, the management decision was not issued. Criteria: Title 2 CFR 200.521 states the pass-through entity must be responsible for issuing a management decision for audit findings that relate to Federal awards it makes to subrecipients. Furthermore, Title 2 CFR 200.1 defines a management decision as a pass-through entity’s written determination, provided to the auditee, of the adequacy of the auditee’s proposed corrective actions to address the findings, based on its evaluation of the audit findings and proposed corrective actions. Effect: The lack of management decisions may result in the subrecipient not taking appropriate corrective action on findings. Noncompliance with federal regulations may result in the federal awarding agency imposing additional conditions or taking corrective action, including additional reporting requirements or withholding/terminating funding. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: DMVA’s finance officer should ensure procedures are followed and a management decision is issued for all subrecipient single audit findings within six months of a subrecipient audit report’s acceptance by the federal audit clearinghouse. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding.
Condition - The Municipality’s staff was unable to provide officially prepared and certified reports supporting compliance with the filing and submission requirements for reports and financial information, as established by federal award and regulatory agreements. Similarly, reconciliations were not provided between the information used to prepare the required and submitted reports and the formal data recorded in the Municipality’s official accounting system. Due to these conditions, compliance with the reporting requirements established by the federal grantor and effectiveness of related internal controls could not be verified. Based on an analysis prepared by the Municipality of the bank accounts and certain records and subsidiary ledgers designated for managing Community Development Block Grant / Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds, including transactions during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024, and subsequent disbursements, a total of $850,079 was either expended or transferred to the General Fund to cover eligible expenditures under the terms permitted by the CDBG-DR program. Criteria - Per the Compliance and Reporting Guidance – Part I: General Guidance – Section D: Uniform Administrative Requirements – Section 10: Reporting: establishes that: All recipients of federal funds must complete financial, performance, and compliance reporting as required and outlined in Part 2 of this guidance. Expenditures may be reported on a cash or accrual basis, as long as the methodology is disclosed and consistently applied. Reporting must be consistent with the definition of expenditures pursuant to 2 CFR 200.1. Recipients should appropriately maintain accounting records for compiling and reporting accurate, compliant financial data, in accordance with appropriate accounting standards and principles. In addition, where appropriate, recipients need to establish controls to ensure completion and timely submission of all mandatory performance and/or compliance reporting. Also, as established in the 2 CFR Section 200.302 (a) of the Uniform Guidance, the non-Federal entity’s financial management systems, including records documenting compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award, must be sufficient to permit the preparation of reports required by general and program-specific terms and conditions; and the tracing of funds to a level of expenditures adequate to establish that such funds have been used according to the Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. In addition, 2 CFR Section 200.403 states that otherwise authorized by statue, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity and be adequately documented. Cause - There is a lack of adequate knowledge and training among personnel assigned to the management and preparation of reports required by this federal award. Additionally, the Municipality did not demonstrate, nor did it provide evidence, that it has designed and implemented an adequate system of procedures and internal controls to monitor the activity, filing, and custody of reports, as required by the federal award and the pass-through entity. These deficiencies limit the Municipality’s ability to document and support compliance with the reporting requirements. Effect - These conditions expose the program to noncompliance with the reporting requirements established in the grant agreement. Furthermore, the Municipality may be at risk of the grantor questioning the allowability and use of federal funds. Recommendation - We recommend that the responsible personnel or department identify, compile, and retain all reports required under the grant agreement, including reconciliations with the Municipality’s official accounting records and subsidiary ledgers. Additionally, it is essential for the Municipality to develop, document, and implement a comprehensive training program, along with written guidelines and procedures, for all personnel involved, directly or indirectly, in the management of these federal funds. Questioned Costs - None
Condition - The Municipality’s staff was unable to provide officially prepared and certified reports supporting compliance with the filing and submission requirements for reports and financial information, as established by federal award and regulatory agreements. Similarly, reconciliations were not provided between the information used to prepare the required and submitted reports and the formal data recorded in the Municipality’s official accounting system. Due to these conditions, compliance with the reporting requirements established by the federal grantor and effectiveness of related internal controls could not be verified. Based on an analysis prepared by the Municipality of the bank accounts and certain records and subsidiary ledgers designated for managing Community Development Block Grant / Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds, including transactions during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024, and subsequent disbursements, a total of $850,079 was either expended or transferred to the General Fund to cover eligible expenditures under the terms permitted by the CDBG-DR program. Criteria - Per the Compliance and Reporting Guidance – Part I: General Guidance – Section D: Uniform Administrative Requirements – Section 10: Reporting: establishes that: All recipients of federal funds must complete financial, performance, and compliance reporting as required and outlined in Part 2 of this guidance. Expenditures may be reported on a cash or accrual basis, as long as the methodology is disclosed and consistently applied. Reporting must be consistent with the definition of expenditures pursuant to 2 CFR 200.1. Recipients should appropriately maintain accounting records for compiling and reporting accurate, compliant financial data, in accordance with appropriate accounting standards and principles. In addition, where appropriate, recipients need to establish controls to ensure completion and timely submission of all mandatory performance and/or compliance reporting. Also, as established in the 2 CFR Section 200.302 (a) of the Uniform Guidance, the non-Federal entity’s financial management systems, including records documenting compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award, must be sufficient to permit the preparation of reports required by general and program-specific terms and conditions; and the tracing of funds to a level of expenditures adequate to establish that such funds have been used according to the Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. In addition, 2 CFR Section 200.403 states that otherwise authorized by statue, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity and be adequately documented. Cause - There is a lack of adequate knowledge and training among personnel assigned to the management and preparation of reports required by this federal award. Additionally, the Municipality did not demonstrate, nor did it provide evidence, that it has designed and implemented an adequate system of procedures and internal controls to monitor the activity, filing, and custody of reports, as required by the federal award and the pass-through entity. These deficiencies limit the Municipality’s ability to document and support compliance with the reporting requirements. Effect - These conditions expose the program to noncompliance with the reporting requirements established in the grant agreement. Furthermore, the Municipality may be at risk of the grantor questioning the allowability and use of federal funds. Recommendation - We recommend that the responsible personnel or department identify, compile, and retain all reports required under the grant agreement, including reconciliations with the Municipality’s official accounting records and subsidiary ledgers. Additionally, it is essential for the Municipality to develop, document, and implement a comprehensive training program, along with written guidelines and procedures, for all personnel involved, directly or indirectly, in the management of these federal funds. Questioned Costs - None
Condition - The Municipality’s staff was unable to provide officially prepared and certified reports supporting compliance with the filing and submission requirements for reports and financial information, as established by federal award and regulatory agreements. Similarly, reconciliations were not provided between the information used to prepare the required and submitted reports and the formal data recorded in the Municipality’s official accounting system. Due to these conditions, compliance with the reporting requirements established by the federal grantor and effectiveness of related internal controls could not be verified. Based on an analysis prepared by the Municipality of the bank account and certain records and subsidiary ledgers designated for managing Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) funds, including transactions during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024, and subsequent disbursements, a total of $768,525 was either expended or transferred to the General Fund to cover eligible expenditures under the terms permitted by the CSLFRF programs. Criteria - Per the Compliance and Reporting Guidance – Part I: General Guidance – Section D: Uniform Administrative Requirements – Section 10: Reporting: establishes that: All recipients of federal funds must complete financial, performance, and compliance reporting as required and outlined in Part 2 of this guidance. Expenditures may be reported on a cash or accrual basis, as long as the methodology is disclosed and consistently applied. Reporting must be consistent with the definition of expenditures pursuant to 2 CFR 200.1. Recipients should appropriately maintain accounting records for compiling and reporting accurate, compliant financial data, in accordance with appropriate accounting standards and principles. In addition, where appropriate, recipients need to establish controls to ensure completion and timely submission of all mandatory performance and/or compliance reporting. Also, as established in the 2 CFR Section 200.302 (a) of the Uniform Guidance, the non-Federal entity’s financial management systems, including records documenting compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award, must be sufficient to permit the preparation of reports required by general and program-specific terms and conditions; and the tracing of funds to a level of expenditures adequate to establish that such funds have been used according to the Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. In addition, 2 CFR Section 200.403, states that otherwise authorized by statue, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity and be adequately documented. Cause - There is a lack of adequate knowledge and training among personnel assigned to the management and preparation of reports required by this federal award. Additionally, the Municipality did not demonstrate, nor did it provide evidence, that it has designed and implemented an adequate system of procedures and internal controls to monitor the activity, filing, and custody of reports, as required by the federal award and the pass-through entity. These deficiencies limit the Municipality’s ability to document and support compliance with the reporting requirements. Effect -These conditions expose the program to noncompliance with the reporting requirements established in the grant agreement. Furthermore, the Municipality may be at risk of the grantor questioning the allowability and use of federal funds. Recommendation - We recommend that the responsible personnel or department identify, compile, and retain all reports required under the grant agreement, including reconciliations with the Municipality’s official accounting records and subsidiary ledgers. Additionally, it is essential for the Municipality to develop, document, and implement a comprehensive training program, along with written guidelines and procedures, for all personnel involved, directly or indirectly, in the management of these federal funds. Questioned Costs – None
Condition - The Municipality’s staff was unable to provide officially prepared and certified reports supporting compliance with the filing and submission requirements for reports and financial information, as established by federal award and regulatory agreements. Similarly, reconciliations were not provided between the information used to prepare the required and submitted reports and the formal data recorded in the Municipality’s official accounting system. Due to these conditions, compliance with the reporting requirements established by the federal grantor and effectiveness of related internal controls could not be verified. Based on an analysis prepared by the Municipality of the bank account and certain records and subsidiary ledgers designated for managing Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) funds, including transactions during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024, and subsequent disbursements, a total of $768,525 was either expended or transferred to the General Fund to cover eligible expenditures under the terms permitted by the CSLFRF programs. Criteria - Per the Compliance and Reporting Guidance – Part I: General Guidance – Section D: Uniform Administrative Requirements – Section 10: Reporting: establishes that: All recipients of federal funds must complete financial, performance, and compliance reporting as required and outlined in Part 2 of this guidance. Expenditures may be reported on a cash or accrual basis, as long as the methodology is disclosed and consistently applied. Reporting must be consistent with the definition of expenditures pursuant to 2 CFR 200.1. Recipients should appropriately maintain accounting records for compiling and reporting accurate, compliant financial data, in accordance with appropriate accounting standards and principles. In addition, where appropriate, recipients need to establish controls to ensure completion and timely submission of all mandatory performance and/or compliance reporting. Also, as established in the 2 CFR Section 200.302 (a) of the Uniform Guidance, the non-Federal entity’s financial management systems, including records documenting compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award, must be sufficient to permit the preparation of reports required by general and program-specific terms and conditions; and the tracing of funds to a level of expenditures adequate to establish that such funds have been used according to the Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. In addition, 2 CFR Section 200.403, states that otherwise authorized by statue, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity and be adequately documented. Cause - There is a lack of adequate knowledge and training among personnel assigned to the management and preparation of reports required by this federal award. Additionally, the Municipality did not demonstrate, nor did it provide evidence, that it has designed and implemented an adequate system of procedures and internal controls to monitor the activity, filing, and custody of reports, as required by the federal award and the pass-through entity. These deficiencies limit the Municipality’s ability to document and support compliance with the reporting requirements. Effect -These conditions expose the program to noncompliance with the reporting requirements established in the grant agreement. Furthermore, the Municipality may be at risk of the grantor questioning the allowability and use of federal funds. Recommendation - We recommend that the responsible personnel or department identify, compile, and retain all reports required under the grant agreement, including reconciliations with the Municipality’s official accounting records and subsidiary ledgers. Additionally, it is essential for the Municipality to develop, document, and implement a comprehensive training program, along with written guidelines and procedures, for all personnel involved, directly or indirectly, in the management of these federal funds. Questioned Costs – None
Program: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) ALN #: 14.218 Pass-through Entity: N/A- Direct Award Federal Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Award Year: July 1, 2023–June 30, 2024 Compliance Requirement: Performance Reporting Type of finding: Material weakness and noncompliance Criteria Special Reporting for Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Under the requirements of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) (Pub. L. No.109-282), as amended by Section 6202 of Public Law 110-252, herein referred to as the “Transparency Act” that are codified in 2 CFR Part 170, recipients (i.e., direct recipients) of grants or cooperative agreements are required to report first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more to the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Subaward Reporting System (FSRS). Aspects of the Transparency Act that relate to subaward reporting (1) under grants and cooperative agreements were implemented in OMB in 2 CFR Part 170 and (2) under contracts, by the regulatory agencies responsible for the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR at 5 FR 39414 et seq., July 8, 2010). The requirements pertain to recipients (i.e., direct recipients) of grants or cooperative agreements who make first-tier subawards and contractors (i.e., prime contractors) that award first-tier subcontracts. Title 2 US Code of Federal Regulations Part 200 (2 CFR 200), Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, section 200.1 defines subaward as an award provided by a pass-through entity to a subrecipient for the subrecipient to carry out part of a federal award received by the pass through entity. It does not include payments to a contractor or payments to an individual that is a beneficiary of a federal program. A subaward may be provided through any form of legal agreement, including an agreement that the pass-through entity considers a contract. Further, 2 CFR 200.1 defines subrecipient as a nonfederal entity that receives a subaward from a passthrough entity to carry out part of a federal program but does not include an individual that is a beneficiary of such program. A subrecipient may also be a recipient of other federal awards directly from a federal awarding agency. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303(a) states, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework,” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Condition The City’s Community Development Department (CDBG) did not report awards granted to subrecipients for the CDBG program by the end of the month following the month in which the City awarded the subrecipient award. FFATA requires the City to report certain identifying information related to awards made to subrecipients in amounts greater than or equal to $30,000. Of the information to be reported, the following key data elements are required to be audited: 1. Subawardee name 2. Subawardee DUNS/UEI number 3. Amount of subaward 4. Subaward obligation/action date 5. Date of report submission 6. Subaward number 7. Subaward project description 8. Subawardee names and compensation of highly compensated officers During our testing, we noted that the City did not establish control procedures to submit FFATA reports for all subawards as required by federal regulations. Cause The condition found was due to the City not reporting amounts passed through to subrecipients for the period from July 2023 to June 2024, as the City typically reports these on a one-year lag due to the timing of when the contract starts and its final execution. Proper perspective During our testing of the three selected subawards, we noted reporting exceptions as subawards were not reported within the one month following the month that the City awarded the subrecipient contract. Additionally, there was a control exception to ensure that the data submitted is complete and accurate. Possible asserted effect Failure to submit subaward amounts passed through to subrecipients and subcontractors under subawards as defined by 2 CFR 200.1 in the City’s FFATA reporting could result in the City reporting inaccurate and incomplete amounts to the federal government. Questioned costs None noted Statistical sampling The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Repeat finding A similar finding was not reported in the prior year. Recommendation We recommend that the City review and enhance its policies, procedures, and internal controls to ensure that all amounts passed through to subrecipients under subawards, as defined in 2 CFR 200.1 are reported in accordance with the FFATA federal regulations. In addition, we recommend that the City use obligation date for FFATA reporting. Views of responsible officials and corrective actions The City has taken several steps to strengthen its FFATA compliance. Historically, FFATA reporting posed challenges for many recipients, including the City, due to legacy reporting systems that did not fully align with the requirements of SAM.gov. As part of its compliance improvement efforts, the City has transitioned to directly reporting subaward data in SAM.gov. This shift necessitated a thorough review of internal processes, particularly because many of the City's subrecipient contracts are designed to begin on July 1 of each fiscal year but are not fully executed until months later, after the HUD-signed grant agreement is received, which generally occurs between late September and November. These timing discrepancies previously made it difficult to consistently identify and use the correct obligation date for FFATA reporting. The Federal Grants team initially used a manual Excel-based system to compile FFATA data from fully executed contracts. Each contract contains the essential elements required for FFATA reporting, including the Assistance Listing (CFDA) number, the City's and subrecipient's UEI numbers, agency name and address, award amount, and a brief program description. This spreadsheet served as the foundation for reporting subawards in SAM.gov. To address these issues, the City has established an updated standardized data collection and tracking mechanism. In response to this audit finding, the City has implemented the following corrective actions: 1.Standardized Data Collection: An updated subrecipient data collection form has been developed to ensure consistent and complete capture of all required FFATA elements prior to contract execution. 2.Formal Tracking System: The City created a FFATA Tracking Spreadsheet to systematically document and monitor all required reporting elements, including the correct obligation date, which is now tied to the legal execution date of the subaward. 3.Policy and Procedure Development: FFATA reporting policy and procedures have been developed to codify roles, timelines, and compliance responsibilities. This includes guidance on identifying the proper obligation date, data verification steps, and the timeline for submission to SAM.gov (within 30 days of obligation). 4.Staff Training and Oversight: Relevant staff will be trained on FFATA compliance requirements, and the Grants Management Division will conduct quarterly spot checks to ensure accuracy and timeliness of reporting. These corrective actions reflect the City's commitment to strengthening its federal grant oversight and ensuring full compliance with FFATA regulations.
Finding Number: 2024-004 Program: Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) ALN #: 14.241 Pass-through Entity: N/A- Direct Award Federal Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Award Year: July 1, 2023–June 30, 2024 Compliance Requirement: Reporting Type of finding: Material weakness and noncompliance Criteria Special Reporting for Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Under the requirements of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) (Pub. L. No.109-282), as amended by Section 6202 of Public Law 110-252, herein referred to as the “Transparency Act” that are codified in 2 CFR Part 170, recipients (i.e., direct recipients) of grants or cooperative agreements are required to report first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more to the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Subaward Reporting System (FSRS). Aspects of the Transparency Act that relate to subaward reporting (1) under grants and cooperative agreements were implemented in OMB in 2 CFR Part 170 and (2) under contracts, by the regulatory agencies responsible for the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR at 5 FR 39414 et seq., July 8, 2010). The requirements pertain to recipients (i.e., direct recipients) of grants or cooperative agreements who make first-tier subawards and contractors (i.e., prime contractors) that award first-tier subcontracts. Title 2 US Code of Federal Regulations Part 200 (2 CFR 200), Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, section 200.1 defines subaward as an award provided by a pass-through entity to a subrecipient for the subrecipient to carry out part of a federal award received by the pass-through entity. It does not include payments to a contractor or payments to an individual that is a beneficiary of a federal program. A subaward may be provided through any form of legal agreement, including an agreement that the pass-through entity considers a contract. Further, 2 CFR 200.1 defines subrecipient as a nonfederal entity that receives a subaward from a passthrough entity to carry out part of a federal program but does not include an individual that is a beneficiary of such program. A subrecipient may also be a recipient of other federal awards directly from a federal awarding agency. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303(a) states, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework,” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Condition The City’s Community Development Department did not report awards granted to subrecipients for the HOPWA program by the end of the month following the month in which the City awarded the subrecipient award. FFATA requires the City to report certain identifying information related to awards made to subrecipients in amounts greater than or equal to $30,000. Of the information to be reported, the following key data elements are required to be audited: 1. Subawardee name 2. Subawardee DUNS/UEI number 3. Amount of subaward 4. Subaward obligation/action date 5. Date of report submission 6. Subaward number 7. Subaward project description 8. Subawardee names and compensation of highly compensated officers During our testing, we noted that the City did not establish control procedures to submit FFATA reports for all subawards as required by federal regulations. Cause The condition found was due to the City not reporting amounts passed through to subrecipients for the period from July 2023 to June 2024, as the City typically reports these on a one-year lag due to the timing of when the contract starts and its final execution. Proper perspective During our testing of four selected subawards, we noted reporting exceptions as subawards were not reported within the one month following the month that the City awarded the subrecipient contract. Additionally, there was a control exception to ensure that the data submitted is complete and accurate. Possible asserted effect Failure to submit subaward amounts passed through to subrecipients and subcontractors under subawards as defined by 2 CFR 200.1 in the City’s FFATA reporting could result in the City reporting inaccurate and incomplete amounts to the federal government. Questioned costs None Statistical sampling The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Repeat finding Yes, 2023-006 Recommendation We recommend that the City review and enhance its policies, procedures, and internal controls to ensure that all amounts passed through to subrecipients under subawards, as defined in 2 CFR 200.1 are reported in accordance with the FFATA federal regulations. In addition, we recommend that the City use obligation date for FFATA reporting. Views of responsible officials and corrective actions The City has taken several steps to strengthen its FFATA compliance. Historically, FFATA reporting posed challenges for many recipients, including the City, due to legacy reporting systems that did not fully align with the requirements of SAM.gov. As part of its compliance improvement efforts, the City has transitioned to directly reporting subaward data in SAM.gov. This shift necessitated a thorough review of internal processes, particularly because many of the City's subrecipient contracts are designed to begin on July 1 of each fiscal year but are not fully executed until months later, after the HUD-signed grant agreement is received, which generally occurs between late September and November. These timing discrepancies previously made it difficult to consistently identify and use the correct obligation date for FFATA reporting. The Federal Grants team initially used a manual Excel-based system to compile FFATA data from fully executed contracts. Each contract contains the essential elements required for FFATA reporting, including the Assistance Listing (CFDA) number, the City's and subrecipient's UEI numbers, agency name and address, award amount, and a brief program description. This spreadsheet served as the foundation for reporting subawards in SAM.gov. In response to this audit finding, the City has implemented the following corrective actions: 1.Standardized Data Collection: A subrecipient data collection form has been developed to ensure consistent and complete capture of all required FFATA elements prior to contract execution. 2.Formal Tracking System: The City created a FFATA Tracking Spreadsheet to systematically document and monitor all required reporting elements, including the correct obligation date, which is now tied to the legal execution date of the subaward.
Condition: During the test of 100 % of projects, sixteen (16) projects, for the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, the following noncompliance with the Reporting compliance requirement was noted: • The third quarter report was not submitted. • The fourth quarter report was not timely submitted. • Four (4) projects were coded as revenue loss and should have been coded to an administrative expense code. • Four (4) projects were coded as revenue loss and should have been coded as a subrecipient. • Two (2) projects were coded as a subrecipient and were not a subrecipient relationship. After the review of the quarterly reports, the following exceptions were noted: • The second quarter report was understated by $257,160. • Health Department reported cumulative total of $1,090,483 in expenditures; however, disbursements totaled $1,089,725. • Emergency Management reported cumulative total of $276,279 in expenditures; however, disbursements totaled $333,169. • Rogers County Sheriff reported cumulative total of $300,000 in expenditures; however, disbursements totaled $233,344. • The consultant hired by the county to administer the grant reported cumulative total of $251,427 in expenditures; however, disbursements totaled was $287,346. Jail Remodel had expenditures of $231,765; however, it was no expenditures were listed on the report. Cause of Condition: Policies and procedures have not been designed and implemented to ensure federal expenditures are properly reported in accordance with federal compliance requirements. Effect of Condition: This condition resulted in noncompliance with federal grant guidelines. Recommendation: OSAI recommends the County gain an understanding of the requirements for this program and implement internal controls to ensure compliance with these requirements Management Response: Board of County Commissioners: The Board of County Commissioners is responsible for the overall fiscal concerns of the county. See OKLA. STAT. Title 19, § 345. The Board of County Commissioners, with the cooperation and participation of all elected officials, reviews, develops and implements policies and procedures to create a strong internal control environment. The Board of County Commissioners will work with all elected officials, the third-party administrator, and federal, state and local partners to develop policies, procedures, and internal controls designed to accurately track grants, including the application process, verification, oversight, and reporting of grant requirements. These policies and procedures will be designed to identify requirements for recipients and sub-recipients of grants, ensure accurate equipment and real property management, procurement, recipient and subrecipient monitoring and reporting. Further, policies will ensure a proper understanding of all grant requirements and compliance of the same. To assist in this process, the Board of County Commissioners engaged a third-party administrator to oversee the grant process, including application, eligibility, review, requirements, contracting, recipient tracking and oversight, and documentation and reporting. The Board of County Commissioners will work with the third-party administrator to ensure proper grant administration. Criteria: Accountability and stewardship should be overall goals in management’s accounting of federal funds. Internal controls should be designed to monitor compliance with laws and regulations pertaining to grant contracts. Title 2 CFR § 200.303(a) Internal Controls, reads as follows: The non-federal entity must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework, “issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Compliance and Reporting Guidance, State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (10. Reporting) reads as follows: All recipients of federal funds must complete financial, performance, and compliance reporting as required and outlines in Part 2 of this guidance. Expenditures may be reported on a cash of accrual basis, as long as the methodology is disclosed and consistently applied. Reporting must be consistent with the definition of expenditures pursuant to 2 CFR 200.1. Your organization should appropriately maintain accounting records for compiling and reporting accurate, compliant financial data, in accordance with appropriate accounting standards and principles. In addition, where appropriate, your organization needs to establish internal controls to ensure completion and timely submission of all mandatory performance and/or compliance reporting. Further, 2 CFR 200.329-Monitoring and reporting Program Performance (c)(1) reads as follows: (c)(1) The non-Federal entity must submit performance reports at the interval required by the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity to best inform improvements in program outcomes and productivity. Intervals must be no less frequent than annually nor more frequent than quarterly except in unusual circumstances, for example where more frequent reporting is necessary for the effective monitoring of the Federal award or could significantly affect program outcomes. Reports submitted annually by the non-Federal entity and/or pass-through entity must be due no later than 90 calendar days after the reporting period. Reports submitted quarterly or semiannually must be due no later than 30 calendar days after the reporting period. Alternatively, the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may require annual reports before the anniversary dates of multiple year Federal awards. The final performance report submitted by the non-Federal entity and/or pass-through entity must be due no later than 120 calendar gays after the period of performance end date. A subrecipient must submit to the pass-through entity, no later than 90 calendar days after the period of performance end date, all final performance reports as required by the terms and conditions of the Federal award. See also §200.344. If a justified request is submitted by a non-Federal entity, the Federal agency may extend the due date for any performance report.
Criteria or specific requirement: 2 CFR 200.414(f) states that recipients may elect to charge a de minimis rate of up to 10 percent of modified total direct costs (MTDC). 2 CFR 200.1 “Modified Total Direct Cost (MTDC)” excludes equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs, and the portion of each subaward in excess of $50,000. Condition: During testing of indirect costs, 4 of the 4 samples tested erroneously included rental costs in the calculation of Modified Total Direct Costs, resulting in an overcharge of indirect costs to the program. Questioned costs: None. Context: For allowable costs (indirect), a sample of 4 was made from a population of 12 reimbursement requests for the major program. Of the 4 sampled, all rental costs included in the calculation of Modified Total Direct Costs, resulting in a slightly higher indirect cost calculation. Cause: There is a misunderstanding of which costs should be excluded from the MTDC for this specific contract. Occupancy / Space Rental costs are identified but are not removed during the calculation of indirect costs. Effect: Inadequate allocation of indirect costs to federal programs may result in noncompliance with grant regulations, which could result in penalties or repayment obligations. Repeat Finding: 2023-002 Recommendation: CLA recommends that CCS work with the USCCB to update the Reimbursement Request form to include a section that removes items of selected cost from the calculation of indirect costs. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: 2 CFR 200.414(f) states that recipients may elect to charge a de minimis rate of up to 10 percent of modified total direct costs (MTDC). 2 CFR 200.1 “Modified Total Direct Cost (MTDC)” excludes equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs, and the portion of each subaward in excess of $50,000. Condition: During testing of indirect costs, 4 of the 4 samples tested erroneously included rental costs in the calculation of Modified Total Direct Costs, resulting in an overcharge of indirect costs to the program. Questioned costs: None. Context: For allowable costs (indirect), a sample of 4 was made from a population of 12 reimbursement requests for the major program. Of the 4 sampled, all rental costs included in the calculation of Modified Total Direct Costs, resulting in a slightly higher indirect cost calculation. Cause: There is a misunderstanding of which costs should be excluded from the MTDC for this specific contract. Occupancy / Space Rental costs are identified but are not removed during the calculation of indirect costs. Effect: Inadequate allocation of indirect costs to federal programs may result in noncompliance with grant regulations, which could result in penalties or repayment obligations. Repeat Finding: 2023-002 Recommendation: CLA recommends that CCS work with the USCCB to update the Reimbursement Request form to include a section that removes items of selected cost from the calculation of indirect costs. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Condition: Expenditures for federal programs were not adequately reported on the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) Compliance Reports. Federal expenditures were understated by $1,227,550. The actual expenditures to vendors were $1,272,002, the County reported $44,452. Cause of Condition: Policies and procedures have not been designed and implemented to ensure compliance with reporting compliance requirements. Effect of Condition: This condition could result in noncompliance to grant requirements and could result in unrecorded transactions, undetected errors, and misappropriation of assets and funds.Recommendation: OSAI recommends the County gain an understanding of the grant requirements for this program and implement internal controls to ensure compliance with these grant requirements. Management Response: Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners: I plan to communicate with the Budget Board regarding this finding and have already introduced to the Budget Board, a form guideline called “Payne County Grant Administration Plan” to aid in proper documentation, reporting and proper spending of all grant awards. I plan to discuss all findings with the Budget Board throughout the year during our Budget Board meetings to get updates on how the findings are actively being addressed by each department and get input on how to best combat future findings. I request that responses by the various departments be forwarded to me to ensure action is taken and for discussion during the meetings. Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.303 Internal Controls (a) reads as follows: The non-Federal entity must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Compliance and Reporting Guidance, State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (10. Reporting.) reads as follows: All recipients of federal funds must complete financial, performance, and compliance reporting as required and outlined in Part 2 of this guidance. Expenditures may be reported on a cash or accrual basis, as long as the methodology is disclosed and consistently applied. Reporting must be consistent with the definition of expenditures pursuant to 2 CFR 200.1. Your organization should appropriately maintain accounting records for compiling and reporting accurate, compliant financial data, in accordance with appropriate accounting standards and principles. In addition, where appropriate, you organization needs to establish controls to ensure completion and timely submission of all mandatory performance and/or compliance reporting. Further, 2 CFR § 200.329 Monitoring and Reporting Program Performance (c)(1) reads as follows: The non-Federal entity must submit performance reports at the interval required by the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity to best inform improvements in program outcomes and productivity. Intervals must be no less frequent than annually nor more frequent than quarterly except in unusual circumstances, for example where more frequent reporting is necessary for the effective monitoring of the Federal award or could significantly affect program outcomes. Reports submitted annually by the non-Federal entity and/or pass-through entity must be due no later than 90 calendar days after the reporting period. Reports submitted quarterly or semiannually must be due no later than 30 calendar days after the reporting period. Alternatively, the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may require annual reports before the anniversary dates of multiple year Federal awards. The final performance report submitted by the non-Federal entity and/or pass-through entity must be due no later than 120 calendar days after the period of performance end date. A subrecipient must submit to the pass-through entity, no later than 90 calendar days after the period of performance end date, all final performance reports as required by the terms and conditions of the Federal award. See also § 200.344. If a justified request is submitted by a non-Federal entity, the Federal agency may extend the due date for any performance report.
Finding - Due to District control deficiencies, the District made a duplicate payment totaling $120,918 for construction services from ES Fund proceeds, resulting in questioned costs of that amount. Criteria -The ES Fund provides funding to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the District must comply with the Uniform Guidance in Title 2, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 200 in their operation of the program. Title 2, Section 200.1, CFR, defines improper payments as a payment that should not have been made or that was made in an incorrect amount under statutory, contractual, administrative, or other legally applicable requirements, including any duplicate payment. Condition - During our audit of construction services discussed in Finding No. 2024-005, we identified a duplicate payment of $120,918 charged to the ES Fund. Our audit procedures determined that both the original payment of $120,918, made in January 2024 and the subsequent duplicate payment made in March 2024 were based on the same invoice for construction services. Since the latter payment was improper, $120,918 represents questioned costs to the program. Although we requested, District records were not provided to demonstrate that the District was aware of the duplicate payment, any District efforts to obtain reimbursement for the duplicate payment, or that the vendor had contacted the District about the duplicate payment. Cause - District personnel indicated that turnover and reassignments of duties during the year contributed to inadvertently processing two accounts payable checks for the same invoice. Also, District controls had not been established to require knowledgeable staff to independently review and approve invoices for payment of ES Fund expenditures to ensure payments are reasonable and necessary. Further, District controls were not sufficient to detect duplicate payments. Effect - The duplicate payment of $120,918 resulted in an unnecessary expenditure of ES Fund moneys and the District did not comply with Federal regulations that require all Federal expenditures to represent reasonable and necessary charges. Consequently, the ES Fund incurred questioned costs totaling $120,918. We expanded our audit procedures to determine whether other significant duplicate payments occurred from ES Fund resources and did not identify similar payments. Recommendation - District procedures should be enhanced to prevent duplicate payments from Federal programs. Such procedures should require knowledgeable staff to independently review and approve invoices for payment of ES Fund expenditures to ensure payments are reasonable and necessary. District procedures should also be enhanced to detect and promptly resolve duplicate payments when they do occur. In addition, the District should seek reimbursement of the duplicate payment from the construction service provider and consult with the grantor agency to remedy the questioned costs of $120,918. District Response - The District is in the process of reviewing and updating controls to ensure payments for construction services are made timely and consistently. The District is requesting a refund from the vendor.
Finding 2024-014 – Noncompliance with Reporting Requirements Over Federal Grant – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (Repeat Finding – 2022-0014, 2023-0014) PASS THROUGH GRANTOR: Direct Grant FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. Department of Treasury ASSISTANCE LISTING: 21.027 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2021 CONTROL CATEGORY: Reporting QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Condition: In the review of forty-seven (47) expenditures for federal programs, eleven (11) instances were noted where the expenditures were not correctly reported on the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds compliance reports. The expenditures were not reported in the correct quarter. Cause of Condition: Policies and procedures have not been designed and implemented to ensure federal expenditures are properly reported in accordance with federal compliance requirements. Effect of Condition: This condition resulted in noncompliance with grant requirements. Recommendation: OSAI recommends the County design and implement a system of internal controls to ensure the accuracy and completeness of information submitted. Management Response: Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners: The Board of County Commissioners have hired a grant administrator to assist with the reporting process. We will ensure that the reports are accurate and reported in the proper period. Criteria: GAO Standards – Section 2 – Establishing an Effective Internal Control System – OV2.23 states in part: Objectives of an Entity – Compliance Objectives Management conducts activities in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. As part of specifying compliance objectives, the entity determines which laws and regulations apply to the entity. Management is expected to set objectives that incorporate these requirements. 2 CFR § 200.303(a) Internal Controls reads as follows: The non-Federal entity must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Additionally, Compliance and Reporting Guidance, State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (10. Reporting.) reads as follows: 10. Reporting. All recipients of federal funds must complete financial, performance, and compliance reporting as required and outlined in Part 2 of this guidance. Expenditures may be reported on a cash or accrual basis, as long as the methodology is disclosed and consistently applied. Reporting must be consistent with the definition of expenditures pursuant to 2 CFR 200.1. Your organization should appropriately maintain accounting records for compiling and reporting accurate, compliant financial data, in accordance with appropriate accounting standards and principles. In addition, where appropriate, you organization needs to establish controls to ensure completion and timely submission of all mandatory performance and/or compliance reporting. Further, 2 CFR § 200.329 Monitoring and Reporting Program Performance (c)(1) reads as follows: The non-Federal entity must submit performance reports at the interval required by the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity to best inform improvements in program outcomes and productivity. Intervals must be no less frequent than annually nor more frequent than quarterly except in unusual circumstances, for example where more frequent reporting is necessary for the effective monitoring of the Federal award or could significantly affect program outcomes. Reports submitted annually by the non-Federal entity and/or pass-through entity must be due no later than 90 calendar days after the reporting period. Reports submitted quarterly or semiannually must be due no later than 30 calendar days after the reporting period. Alternatively, the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may require annual reports before the anniversary dates of multiple year Federal awards. The final performance report submitted by the non-Federal entity and/or pass-through entity must be due no later than 120 calendar days after the period of performance end date. A subrecipient must submit to the pass-through entity, no later than 90 calendar days after the period of performance end date, all final performance reports as required by the terms and conditions of the Federal award. See also § 200.344. If a justified request is submitted by a non-Federal entity, the Federal agency may extend the due date for any performance report.
FINDING REFERENCE NUMBER 2024-004 FEDERAL PROGRAMS (ALN – 84.027) SPECIAL EDUCATION – GRANTS TO STATES (IDEA, PART B) (ALN – 84.196A) EDUCATION FOR HOMELESS CHILDREN AND YOUTH (ALN – 84.425D) COVID-19 EDUCATION STABILIZATION FUND: ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL EMERGENCY RELIEF FUND (ALN – 84.425R) COVID-19 EDUCATION STABILIZATION FUND: CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE AND RELIEF SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2021 – EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE TO NON-PUBLIC SCHOOLS (CRRSA EANS) (ALN – 84.425U) COVID-19 EDUCATION STABILIZATION FUND: AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN – ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL EMERGENCY RELIEF (ARP ESSER) (ALN – 84.425V) COVID-19 EDUCATION STABILIZATION FUND: AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN – EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE FOR NON-PUBLIC SCHOOLS (ARP EANS) (ALN – 84.425W) COVID-19 EDUCATION STABILIZATION FUND: AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN – ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL EMERGENCY RELIEF – HOMELESS CHILDREN AND YOUTH (ARP HCY) (ALN – 84.938A) HURRICANE EDUCATION RECOVERY – INMMEDIATE AID TO RESTART SCHOOL OPERATIONS (RESTART) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AWARD NUMBERS H027A220003 (0701/2022 – 09/30/2023); S196A220040 (0701/2022 – 09/30/2023); S196A230040 (0701/2023 – 09/30/2024); S425D210029 (01/05/2021 – 03/31/2025); S425R210053 (06/28/2021 – 03/31/2025); S425U210029 (03/24/2021 – 03/28/2026); S425V210053 (09/24/2021 – 03/28/2026); S425W210040 (04/23/2021 – 03/28/2026); S938A180002 (04/26/2018 – 09/30/2025); S938A180009 (09/29/2022 – 04/30/2026); CONSOLIDATED FUNDS COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT ALLOWABLE COSTS/COSTS PRINCIPLES TYPE OF FINDING MATERIAL NONCOMPLIANCE AND MATERIAL WEAKNESS CRITERIA Part 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards Subpart E establish the requirements for Cost Principles – Allowable Costs under Federal awards. This Section at § 200.403 discloses factors affecting allowability of costs – states that costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles; and (g) Be adequately documented. Section § 200.404 Reasonable costs add: A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost including (c) Market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area. Also, § 200.405 Allocable Costs include that: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received; including (2) Benefits both the Federal award and other work of the non-Federal entity and can be distributed in proportions that may be approximated using reasonable methods. STATEMENT OF CONDITION During our internal control and compliance tests of disbursements for Federal programs, we selected four (4) payments of professional services of Third-Party Fiduciary Agent Services ("TPFA") as part of our samples of the different Federal major programs. During our tests, we noted the following conditions: 1. Reasonableness of costs: The payment made to the vendor is a "flat fee" monthly payment agreed to in the professional service contract. Although the vendor invoice includes a detail of hours of service and expense summary, this information is solely for "information purposes" and not to be taken into account for the actual invoice payment process. The monthly payment amount only consideration is the agreed upon "flat fee". In the invoices evaluated (see detail below), the vendor includes a total hours incurred for each invoice with a price per hour range from $195 to $695. Also, the invoices include an expense summary for the period. When we compared the actual payment to the hours incurred and related expenditures, we noted an unreasonable charge to the PRDE and its Federal funds based upon the payment being made versus the actual service hours/expenses included on the invoice; when it is compared to price estimates made during the RFP process when the per hour price ranges were from $65 to $352. VOUCHER NUMBER VOUCHER DATE VOUCHER AMOUNT INVOICE NUMBER INVOICE DATE SERVICE PERIOD TOTAL HOURS INVOICED INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL RELATED EXPENSES AVERAGE HOURLY RATE CALCULATED 24AP7166 8/14/2023 $ 2,333,333.33 830311-2023-27 7/5/2023 June 2023 7,335.00 $ 2,333,333.33 $ 699,296.00 $ 222.77 01180123 9/6/2023 2,333,333.33 830311-2023-28 8/1/2023 July 2023 6,756.00 2,333,333.33 127,620.42 326.48 01184263 9/19/2023 2,333,333.33 830311-2023-29 9/1/2023 August 2023 7,633.30 2,333,333.33 104,084.01 292.04 01188131 10/19/2023 2,333,333.33 830311-2023-30 10/1/2023 September 2023 6,884.00 2,333,333.33 103,238.55 323.95 01195137 11/28/2023 2,333,333.33 830311-2023-31 11/1/2023 October 2023 6,929.00 2,333,333.33 137,665.35 316.88 01201906 1/10/2024 2,333,333.33 830311-2023-32 12/1/2023 November 2023 5,913.00 2,333,333.33 91,491.21 379.14 01210539 1/30/2024 476,208.71 830311-2023-33A 1/1/2024 December 2023 1,130.00 476,208.71 - 421.42 01210542 2/6/2024 1,857,124.62 830311-2023-33B 1/1/2024 December 2023 4,408.00 1,857,124.62 73,628.57 404.60 01221775 3/12/2024 2,333,333.33 830311-2024-34 2/1/2024 January 2024 6,018.00 2,333,333.33 86,982.26 373.27 01226705 4/9/2024 2,333,333.33 830311-2024-35 3/1/2024 February 2024 5,725.00 2,333,333.33 75,861.61 394.32 01235153 4/16/2024 2,333,333.33 830311-2024-36 4/1/2024 March 2024 6,200.00 2,333,333.33 109,583.33 358.67 01251041 5/23/2024 2,500,000.00 830311-2024-37 5/8/2024 April 2024 6,420.00 2,500,000.00 302,908.85 - 01261194 6/24/2024 53,700.00 830311-2024-38A 6/1/2024 May 2024 126.74 53,700.00 - 423.70 01261196 6/24/2024 1,678,208.00 830311-2024-38B 6/1/2024 May 2024 4,245.79 1,678,208.00 180,197.40 352.82 01261198 6/24/2024 768,092.00 830311-2024-38C 6/1/2024 May 2024 1,964.47 768,092.00 - 390.99 $ 28,333,333.30 $ 28,333,333.30 $ 2,092,557.56 2. Allocability – the payment made was distributed among several Federal programs and state funds as follows: CONSOLIDATED FUNDS (SEA/LEA) ALN 84.027 NON-MAJOR ALN 84.196A ALN 84.425D ALN 84.425R ALN 84.425U ALN 84.425V ALN 84.425W ALN 84.938A TOTAL ALLOCATED AMOUNT $ - $ 2,333,333.33 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,333,333.33 - 2,333,333.33 - - - - - - - - 2,333,333.33 - 2,233,379.03 - 24,483.39 - - - - 75,470.91 - 2,333,333.33 2,333,333.33 - - - - - - - - - 2,333,333.33 2,333,333.33 - - - - - - - - - 2,333,333.33 - - 35,000.00 19,542.04 300,000.00 100,000.00 1,523,791.29 55,000.00 - 300,000.00 2,333,333.33 - - - - - - 476,208.71 - - - 476,208.71 1,857,124.62 - - - - - - - - - 1,857,124.62 2,333,333.33 - - - - - - - - - 2,333,333.33 2,333,333.33 - - - - - - - - - 2,333,333.33 2,333,333.33 - - - - - - - - - 2,333,333.33 2,500,000.00 - - - - - - - - - 2,500,000.00 53,700.00 - - - - - - - - - 53,700.00 1,678,208.00 - - - - - - - - - 1,678,208.00 - 65,031.74 - 63,309.25 - - 500,000.00 - 139,751.01 - 768,092.00 $ 17,755,699.27 $ 6,965,077.43 $ 35,000.00 $ 107,334.68 $ 300,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 2,500,000.00 $ 55,000.00 $ 215,221.92 $ 300,000.00 $ 28,333,333.30 62.67% 24.58% 0.12% 0.38% 1.06% 0.35% 8.82% 0.19% 0.76% 1.06% Based on the payment documentation of the evaluated invoices, the allocations were made based on available budget of administrative allocation of Federal awards, the invoices didn't include any basis for the allocation of costs between Federal and non-Federal funds. For example, on invoice number 830311-2023-32 the amount of $1,978,791 (85% of total invoice amount) was charged to several programs of ALN 84.425, although the services described in the invoice were not related only to these programs; therefore, the cost objective is not chargeable in accordance with the relative benefit received. In addition, several invoices for a total amount for the year of $6,965,077 or 24.58% of total payments were charged to Consolidated Funds which includes several Federal programs that could be incurred in unallowed costs. QUESTIONED COSTS Based on the Criterias established on Part II, § 200.403 and § 200.404 for Cost Principles – Allowable Costs under Federal awards, the based used for the costs distribution without specific services rendered to Federal Programs, as described in the Statement of Condition, we estimate as minimum the amount of $3,612,556.60 (including $107,334.68 on a Non-Major Program ALN 84.196A) as questioned costs for not supported documentation. This amount should increase if an evaluation of costs charged to Federal Programs included in Consolidated Funds. See also Perspective Information for more support. PERSPECTIVE INFORMATION The total contract amount awarded for the services over the two-year period is $79,675,000, with a flat fee of $3,143,750 for the first twelve months, and $3,495,833 for the next twelve months. In the fiscal year 2023 there were 3 amendments to the original contract where it was agreed to pay a total fee of $2,995,833 for the months of April and May 2023 and the total amount of $23,333,333 for 10 additional months or $2,333,333 monthly from June 2023 to March 2024. During fiscal year 2024 there were two (2) amendments to the original contract where it was agreed to pay a total monthly fee of $2,500,000 for the months of April 2024 to March 2025, and a total monthly fee of $2,375,000 for the months of April 2025 to October 2025. From the first year of the contract up to the last amendment the total contract amount is approximately $155,625,000. Based on the inconsistent cost allocation method and the lack of a requirement for the payments being made for actual works performed, we considered this a systematic problem in the contract management and payment. Based on the information provided and evaluated the allocation between Federal and non-Federal funds is not applied consistently, other eleven (11) invoices for a total amount of $17,755,699 were paid from non-Federal funds, during the fiscal year. In accordance with the documentation provided the allocation used is based on the budget amounts available from state and Federal funds; during this fiscal year the total amount paid to the supplier was $28,333,333. Of this amount 62.67% were covered with state funds, 24.58% with consolidated activities funds, and 12.75% with Federal programs funds. STATEMENT OF CAUSE The PRDE did not include on the RFP process and the contract negotiation a clause that requires that the payment of services will be made upon actual hours incurred or that a final reconciliation process will be made during the contract period of performance based on actual service hours and expense incurred. The PRDE agreed upon a "flat fee" contract based on an estimate / budget of hours presented by the vendor on its proposal without considering the requirement of adjusting the payment for actual workhours incurred as part of its contract negotiation. The PRDE staff could not provide the basis used to distribute the cost between the different programs and state funds in accordance with the benefit obtained from the costs incurred. There is no consistent treatment or basis for the allocation of the payment costs between Federal programs and state funds. The contract includes the accounting codes that can be charged for the contract costs; however, no amounts, limitations, or basis for the cost’s distributions were included on the contract or in the payment documentation. POSSIBLE ASSERTED EFFECT Unreasonable costs may be charged to the PRDE's Federal programs that may result in questionable or unallowable costs by the Federal grantors. IDENTIFICATION OF REPEAT FINDING This is a repeat finding (Finding Reference Numbers 2021-006; 2022-008; and 2023-004). RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend to the PRDE to establish an adequate and consistent allocation method of each invoice amount that reflects the relative benefits that the Federal program received from the services provided by the supplier during the invoice period, so the Federal program can be charged for the costs of that period. In addition, we recommend that the PRDE revised the contract terms to include a reconciliation of total hours and rates to adjust the payments made to the vendor before the contract expiration. Also, we recommend that the PRDE should request that adequate supporting evidence from the vendors be presented for any expenses to be reimbursed by the PRDE. VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS The PRDE does not agree with the Recommendation to establish an allocation method for TPFA invoices because TPFA services are overhead costs paid from administrative funds and are not tied to any specific federal grant. In addition, the PRDE does not agree that contract terms should be revised before the contract expiration to require a reconciliation of total hours and rates because again, payments to the TPFA are overhead costs not directly tied to any specific program. Finally, the PRDE does not agree with the recommendation that the TPFA submit supporting evidence for the reimbursement of expenses because (i) the TPFA contract is a fixed fee that is inclusive of all professional service fees and expenses and (ii) the TPFA provides an explanation of major expenses incurred within each monthly invoice. Auditor Comment on Management Response for Finding No. 2024-004 As stated in CONDITION 2., “…on invoice 830311-2023-32 the amount of $1,978,791 (85% of total invoice amount) was charged to several programs of ALN 84.425, although the services described in the invoice were not related only to these programs; therefore, the cost objective is not chargeable in accordance with the relative benefit received.” Further, the 2 CFR 200.1, establishes that: “Indirect [facilities & administrative (F&A)] costs mean those costs incurred for a common or joint purpose benefitting more than one cost objective, and not readily assignable to the cost objectives specifically benefitted, without effort disproportionate to the results achieved. To facilitate equitable distribution of indirect expenses to the cost objectives served, it may be necessary to establish a number of pools of indirect (F&A) costs. Indirect (F&A) cost pools must be distributed to benefitted cost objectives on bases that will produce an equitable result in consideration of relative benefits derived.” This information was not provided for our evaluation. Also, we made reference to the Program Determination Email for ALNs. 84.938 and 84.425 dated September 18, 2024 (Audit Control Number 02-21-39634), received from Ms. Catherine Miers of the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education of the US Department of Education (USDE), in which they required that the PRDE provide documentation for the following corrective actions: “revised the contract terms to include a reconciliation of total hours and rates to adjust the payments made to the vendor before the contract expiration; requested that adequate supporting evidence from the vendors be presented for any expenses to be reimbursed by the PRDE; and develop an adequate review of the vendors invoice to properly identify the actual hours of services that benefited the Federal programs so a correct allocation of the costs incurred can be made within Federal programs and state funds”. IMPLEMENTATION DATE None RESPONSIBLE PERSON Jullymar Octtaviani Vega Sub-Secretary of Administration María de los Angeles Lizardi Valdés Office of Federal Affairs Director
FINDING REFERENCE NUMBER 2024-005 FEDERAL PROGRAMS (ALN – 10.553) SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM (SBP) – CHILD NUTRITION CLUSTER (ALN – 10.555) NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM (NSLP) – CHILD NUTRITION CLUSTER (ALN – 10.559) SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM FOR CHILDREN (SFSP) – CHILD NUTRITION CLUSTER (ALN – 10.582) FRESH FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PROGRAM (FFVP) – CHILD NUTRITION CLUSTER (ALN – 10.558) CHILD AND ADULT CARE FOOD PROGRAM (CACFP) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (ALN – 84.010A) TITLE I GRANTS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES (TITLE I, PART A OF THE ESSEA) (ALN – 84.027) SPECIAL EDUCATION – GRANTS TO STATES (IDEA, PART B) (ALN – 84.048A) CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION – BASIC GRANTS TO STATES (PERKINS V) (ALN – 84.367A) SUPPORTING EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION STATE GRANTS (formerly IMPROVING TEACHER QUALITY STATE GRANTS) (ALN – 84.425D) COVID-19 EDUCATION STABILIZATION FUND: ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL EMERGENCY RELIEF FUND (ALN – 84.425U) COVID-19 EDUCATION STABILIZATION FUND: AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN – ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL EMERGENCY RELIEF (ARP ESSER) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AWARD NUMBERS 1PRAEA18SCESUBA (10/01/2018 – 09/30/2019); 1PRAEA19SCESUBA (10/01/2019 – 09/30/2020); 1PRAEA20SCESUBA (10/01/2020 – 09/30/2021); 1PRAEA21SCESUBA (10/01/2021 – 09/30/2022); 1PRAEA22SCESUBA (10/01/2022 – 09/30/2023); 221PR300336E_A (10/01/2022 – 10/30/2024); S010A130052 (07/01/2013 – 09/30/2014); S010A140052 (07/01/2014 – 09/30/2015); S010A160052 (07/01/2015 – 09/30/2016); S010A160052 (07/01/2016 – 09/30/2017); H027A12003 (07/01/2012 – 09/30/2013); H027A14003 (07/01/2014 – 09/30/2015); H027A15003 (07/01/2015 – 09/30/2016); H027A18003 (07/01/2018 – 09/30/2019); H027A19003 (07/01/2019 – 09/30/2020); H027A20003 (07/01/2020 – 09/30/2021); H027A21003 (07/01/2021 – 09/30/2022); V048A180052 (07/01/2018 – 09/30/2019); S367A160052E (07/01/2016 – 09/30/2017); S425D200029 (06/16/2020 – 09/30/2021); S425D210029 (01/05/2021 – 03/31/2025); S425U210029 (03/24/2021 – 03/28/2026) COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT ALLOWABLE COSTS/COSTS PRINCIPLES TYPE OF FINDING MATERIAL NONCOMPLIANCE AND MATERIAL WEAKNESS CRITERIA 2 CFR Section 200.403 (g) establishes that except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be adequately documented in order to be allowable under Federal awards. In addition 2 CFR Section 200.1, defines improper payments as a payment that should not have been made or that was made in an incorrect amount under statutory, contractual, administrative, or other legally applicable requirements. The term improper payment includes any payment to an ineligible recipient, any payment for ineligible goods or service, any duplicate payment, any payment for a good or service not received (except for those payments where authorized by law), any payment that is not authorized by law, and any payment that does not account for credit for applicable discounts. STATEMENT OF CONDITION As part of our audit procedures and interviews over financial reporting, we obtained a detail of accounts receivable related to duplicate or incorrect payments made for payroll transactions in the amount of $4,659,739. Invoices issued during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024, balance, were distributed as federal and state, as follows: ALN Number Transaction Balance 10.553/ 10.555/ 10.559/ 10.582 $ 167,694 10.558 1,240 84.010A 64,517 84.027A 228,284 84.041 546 84.048A 4,802 84.367A 1,027 84.425D 35,165 84.425U 27,501 Not Determined 2,357,671 Not Determined 25,907 Not Applicable 1,745,385 $ 4,659,739 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies (Title I, Part A of the ESEA) Special Education - Grants to States (IDEA, Part B) Impact Aid (Title VII of ESEA) Program Description Child Nutrition Cluster Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (formerly Improving Teacher Quality State Grants) COVID-19 Education Stabilizatiopn Fund: Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER) Total Invoices Issued Balance at 06/30/2024 Career and Technical Education - Basic Grants to States (Perkins V) Schoolwide Program (State and Federal Funds) Consolidated Funds (State and Federal Funds) State Funds COVID-19 Education Stabilizatiopn Fund: American Rescue Plan – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency (ARP ESSER) QUESTIONED COSTS Identified questioned costs are $530,776, which were identified as employees that didn't work for the Federal program. Other amount may be unallowed, if the PRDE can identify the portion of Federal funding incurred in Schoolwide and Consolidated activities. PERSPECTIVE INFORMATION The amount of $4,659,739, corresponds to incorrect payroll payments made from current and prior years, for which during fiscal year 2023-2024, the PRDE determined that an invoice for excess payroll payments proceeds. The PRDE was unable to indicate which amount of Schoolwide or Consolidated funds corresponds to Federal funding, because these funds close at year end. STATEMENT OF CAUSE The PRDE sends the Treasury Department of Puerto Rico a balance of the payroll, before the end of the fortnight, to speed up the payment process. By sending this information without balancing the hours worked, it causes errors in the payroll computations. POSSIBLE ASSERTED EFFECT The PRDE incurred payments to employees for hours not worked, and for which specific grants were received. IDENTIFICATION OF REPEAT FINDING This is a repeat finding (Finding Reference Number 2023-005). RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend PRDE design and implement adequate internal controls and payroll processes that will identify in real – time or sooner any incorrect payroll payment made. FINDING REFERENCE NUMBER 2024-005 – continuation VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS Management agrees with the audit finding and has implemented a comprehensive corrective action plan to address payroll processing errors, strengthen internal controls, and ensure accurate and timely payments. As part of PRDE’s Fiscal Plan of 2020–2021, the Department launched the official integration project between the Time, Attendance, and Leave (TAL) system and the Payroll (RHUM) system. This integration ensures that payroll disbursements are made only after the employee’s attendance has been validated through the TAL system. Employees are required to record their attendance using biometric verification or have an authorized leave properly documented and approved by their supervisor before receiving payment. If attendance is not validated, the system automatically issues a notification and applies the necessary adjustment. This project, initiated in November 2020 with the collaboration of the Puerto Rico Fiscal Oversight and Management Board (FOMB), MS Consulting, the Department of the Treasury (Hacienda), the Financial Advisory Authority (AAFAF), and the Puerto Rico Innovation and Technology Service (PRITS), was fully integrated by February 2021. As a result, PRDE has significantly reduced overpayments, duplicate payments, and other payroll inconsistencies. To reinforce this effort, PRDE issued a new Time and Attendance Policy on December 7, 2021, later updated on April 11, 2022, which clearly defines employee responsibilities, authorized leaves, disciplinary procedures, and supervisor accountability. Under this policy, employees and supervisors are required to follow strict timekeeping procedures, and noncompliance triggers automatic system notifications and salary adjustments. The PRDE’s Time and Attendance staff continues to monitor and maintain compliance through: i. Ongoing training sessions for PRDE personnel; ii. System dashboards tracking attendance behaviors; iii. Issuance of notifications and payroll adjustments as required; and iv. Regular follow-up and evaluation activities. Additionally, PRDE’s Finance Office implemented a reconciliation process that integrates data from TAL, RHUM, and SIFDE, ensuring that payroll expenditures align with validated attendance records. The system now performs cross-checks before submission to the Treasury Department, preventing disbursements for unverified time. These combined measures—technological integration, policy enforcement, staff training, and reconciliation controls—have strengthened payroll accuracy, reduced the risk of overpayments, and improved financial accountability across the Department. IMPLEMENTATION DATE Done RESPONSIBLE PERSON Evelyn Rodríguez Cardé Finance Office Director Jullymar Octtaviani Vega Sub-Secretary of Administration