Information on the federal program: Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster, Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY2024, FY2025 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Finding: Material Weakness, Qualified Opinion Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards 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)...." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (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. . . .” 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: “The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (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: . . . (2) Small purchases — (i) Small purchase procedures. 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. . . . “ 2 CFR 180.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Condition: The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure compliance with the procurement and suspension and debarment requirements. The School Corporation had not designed or implemented adequate policies or procedures to ensure that proper procurement procedures for small purchase and simplified acquisition procurement thresholds were followed. Cause: Although the School Corporation has adopted a procurement policy that establishes purchasing requirements based on defined dollar thresholds and requires verification of vendor suspension and debarment status, the policy was not fully adhered to. Required procurement methods were not utilized for certain purchases that exceeded applicable thresholds and the required suspension and debarment verifications were not consistently performed. This condition resulted from insufficient oversight and monitoring to ensure compliance with all aspects of the School Corporation’s procurement policy. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, procurement procedures for goods and services were not adhered to and vendors to whom payments equal to or in excess of $25,000 were not verified to be not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: Procurement Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is set at $250,000 unless a lower, more restrictive threshold is set by a non-Federal entity. As Indiana Code has set a more restrictive threshold of $150,000, informal procurement methods are permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds. Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micropurchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. The School Corporation did not review procurements done by the food service management company to ensure that proper procurement policies were followed. The School Corporation did not ensure that the food service management company did not use suspended or debarred vendors. During the audit period, we noted two small purchases for which the School Corporation did not have evidence of obtaining multiple quotes or documented rationale for selecting the vendor. Only the final invoice, purchase order, and quote from the selected vendor were available. During fiscal year 2024, we noted that for one of the three vendors tested, the correct procurement method was not followed. Purchases from the vendor were in excess of $150,000 during the fiscal year, requiring the simplified acquisition procurement process; however, the School Corporation applied the small purchase procurement process. The purchase was for equipment at two different buildings. The School Corporation issued two requests for quotes, one for each school, and treated them as separate procurements. However, as the purchases were similar in nature, the requests for quotes were dated the same day and sent to the same vendor, this should have been treated as one procurement in aggregate. The School Corporation did not have support for public advertisement, requests for formal sealed bids, or formal documentation for the basis of award. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. “Covered transactions” include but are not limited to contracts for goods and services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the SAMs exclusions, collecting a certification from that vendor, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that vendor. During the audit period, we noted two vendors out of three that were sampled, over the $25,000 suspension and debarment threshold for which the School Corporation did not have evidence of a suspension and debarment check. Identification as a repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that the School Corporation strengthen its system of internal control by establishing and implementing policies and procedures to ensure that procurement activities for goods and services comply with applicable requirements and that contractors and subrecipients are verified as not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded prior to entering into contracts or subawards. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2025-002 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY 2023-2024, FY 2024-2025 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context The School Corporation had not properly designed and implemented a system of internal controls, which would include appropriate segregation of duties, that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance related to the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 15 NORTH HARRISON COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Procurement Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for goods or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is customarily set at $250,000. However, Indiana Code 5-22-8 has a more restrictive threshold of $150,000 or less for when small purchase procedures may be used. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds. Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micro-purchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. If it is determined a single source provider can be used for a small purchase, documentation must be retained supporting the determination. Two vendors were tested that exceeded the small purchase threshold during the audit period. For one vendor no quotes were obtained. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. "Covered transactions" include, but are not limited to, contracts for goods and services awarded under a nonprocurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the SAMs exclusions, collecting a certification from that vendor, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that vendor. The School Corporation entered into four covered transactions during the audit period and were unable to provide evidence they followed its policy for one of those transactions. The total purchases made from that vendor totaled $29,091. The lack of internal controls was a systemic issue throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) 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). . . ." 2 CFR 200.318(i) states: "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." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 16 NORTH HARRISON COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 2 CFR 200.320 states: The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (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: . . . (2) Small purchases— (i) Small purchase procedures. 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. . . ." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . ." 2 CFR 180.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not implemented by management of the School Corporation, which would include segregation of key functions. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 17 NORTH HARRISON COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that provide segregation of duties and additional oversight as needed, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, adequate documentation was not retained for procurements that fell within the small purchase threshold. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation design and implement a proper system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that would provide segregation of duties to ensure appropriate reviews, approvals, and oversight are taking place. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2025-002 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY24, FY25 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2023-005. Condition and Context Procurement When the value of goods or services exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold, the proper purchasing method would be the bidding process, unless the purchase meets certain other qualifications. Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for goods or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is customarily set at $250,000. However, Indiana Code 5-22-8 has a more restrictive threshold of $150,000 or less for when small purchase procedures may be used. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds: micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micropurchase threshold but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. If it is determined a single source provider can be used for a small purchase, documentation must be retained supporting the determination. The School Corporation procured goods totaling $149,426 from five vendors that fell under the small purchase threshold during the audit period. Price or rate quotes were not obtained for any of the vendors nor was there any documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 16 DELPHI COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions, recipients are required to verify that contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. "Covered transactions" include, but are not limited to, contracts for goods and services awarded under a nonprocurement transaction (e.g., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000 and all subawards. The verification is to be done by checking the SAM exclusions list, collection of a certification from that person or entity, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person or entity. There were four covered transactions over $25,000 identified during the audit period totaling $130,448. All four were selected for testing; however, the School Corporation did not verify that two of the four vendors totaling $70,411 were not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded from participation in federal assistance programs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) 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). . . ." 2 CFR 200.318(a) states: "The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non- Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327." 2 CFR 200.318(i) states: "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." Indiana Code 5-22-8-3(d) states: "If the purchasing agent receives a satisfactory quote, the purchasing agent shall award a contract to the lowest responsible and responsive offeror for each line or class of supplies required." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 17 DELPHI COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must have and use document procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (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: . . . (2) Small purchases— (i) Small purchase procedures. 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. . . ." 2 CFR 180.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Cause Management had not designed or implemented a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Effect Material noncompliance with the grant agreement and compliance requirements could cause federal expenditures to be unallowable which the funding agency could potentially recover. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a proper system of internal controls to ensure compliance with requirements related to procurement and suspension and debarment. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 18 DELPHI COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2025-005 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, COVID-19 Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.027X, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 22611-151-PN01, 23611-151-PN01, 24611-151-PN01, 22611-151-ARP, 23619-151-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context Procurement When the value of goods or services exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold, the proper purchasing method would be the bidding process, unless the purchase meets certain other qualifications. Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for goods or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is customarily set at $250,000. However, Indiana Code 5-22-8 has a more restrictive threshold of $150,000 or less for when small purchase procedures may be used. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds: micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micropurchase threshold but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. If it is determined a single source provider can be used for a small purchase, documentation must be retained supporting the determination. The School Corporation procured goods totaling $60,002 from four vendors that fell under the small purchase threshold during the audit period. The School Corporation did not provide adequate documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used, for all four vendors. Price or rate quotes were not obtained for three of the vendors as required. The School Corporation obtained three quotes for one vendor; however, the highest quote was selected without a documented reason. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions, recipients are required to verify that contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. "Covered transactions" include, but are not limited to, contracts for goods and services awarded under a nonprocurement transaction (e.g., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000 and all subawards. The verification is to be done by checking the SAM exclusions list, collection of a certification from that person or entity, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person or entity. There was one covered transaction over $25,000 identified during the audit period which was selected for testing. The School Corporation did not verify that the vendor was not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded from participation in federal assistance programs. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 DELPHI COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) 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). . . ." 2 CFR 200.318(a) states: "The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327." 2 CFR 200.318(i) states: "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." Indiana Code 5-22-8-3(d) states: "If the purchasing agent receives a satisfactory quote, the purchasing agent shall award a contract to the lowest responsible and responsive offeror for each line or class of supplies required." 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must have and use document procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (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: . . . (2) Small purchases— INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 DELPHI COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (i) Small purchase procedures. 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. . . ." 2 CFR 180.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Cause Management had not designed or implemented a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Effect Material noncompliance with the grant agreement and compliance requirements could cause federal expenditures to be unallowable which the funding agency could potentially recover. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a proper system of internal controls to ensure compliance with requirements related to procurement and suspension and debarment. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2025-005 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA)- Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, COVID-19 - Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants, COVID-19 - Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.027X, 84.173, 84.173X Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 22611-148-PN01, 23611-148-PN01, 24611-148-PN01, 25611-148-PN01, 22611-148-ARP, 22619-148-PN01, 23619-148-PN01, 24619-148-PN01, 25619-148-PN01, 22619-148-ARP Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 28 GRIFFITH PUBLIC SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Condition and Context The School Corporation had not properly designed or implemented a system of internal controls, which would include appropriate segregation of duties, that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance related to the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Procurement - Micro-Purchases Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold, which is set at $10,000. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. Three vendors determined to fall under the micro-purchase threshold were selected for testing. One claim from one of the vendors selected for testing did not have proper supporting documentation maintained by the School Corporation to determine if the proper procurement method was followed. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. "Covered transactions" include, but are not limited to, contracts for goods and services awarded under a nonprocurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the SAM exclusions, collecting a certification from that vendor, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that vendor. One vendor provided contracted services paid with special education grant funds during the audit period totaling $269,948. Upon inquiry of the School Corporation, it was determined that the School Corporation did not verify that the contractor was not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded. The lack of effective internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) 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). . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 29 GRIFFITH PUBLIC SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (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. . . ." 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (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 — (i) Distribution. 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. (ii) Micro-purchase awards. 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. (iii) Micro-purchase thresholds. The non-Federal entity is responsible for determining and documenting an appropriate micro-purchase threshold based on internal controls, an evaluation of risk, and its documented procurement procedures. The micropurchase threshold used by the non-Federal entity must be authorized or not prohibited under State, local, or tribal laws or regulations. Non-Federal entities may establish a threshold higher than the Federal threshold established in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) in accordance with paragraphs (a)(1)(iv) and (v) of this section. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 30 GRIFFITH PUBLIC SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (iv) Non-Federal entity increase to the micro-purchase threshold up to $50,000. Non-Federal entities may establish a threshold higher than the micro-purchase threshold identified in the FAR in accordance with the requirements of this section. The non-Federal entity may self-certify a threshold up to $50,000 on an annual basis and must maintain documentation to be made available to the Federal awarding agency and auditors in accordance with § 200.334. The self-certification must include a justification, clear identification of the threshold, and supporting documentation of any of the following: (A) A qualification as a low-risk auditee, in accordance with the criteria in § 200.520 for the most recent audit; (B) An annual internal institutional risk assessment to identify, mitigate, and manage financial risks; or, (C) For public institutions, a higher threshold consistent with State law. . . ." 2 CFR 180.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation, which would include segregation of key functions. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to affect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, procurement procedures for goods and services were not adhered to, and vendors to whom payments equal to, or in excess of $25,000, were not verified to not be suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 31 GRIFFITH PUBLIC SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure there are appropriate procurement procedures for goods and services and contractors and subrecipients, as appropriate, are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded prior to entering into any contracts or subawards. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2025-006 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Period of Performance Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, COVID-19 - Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants, COVID-19 - Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.027X, 84.173, 84.173X Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 22611-148-PN01, 22611-148-ARP, 22619-148-PN01, 22619-148-ARP Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Period of Performance Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation had not properly designed or implemented a system of internal controls to ensure transactions made with the special education grant funding occurred within the appropriate period of performance. Claims for the special education programs were paid without an appropriate level of review or oversight to ensure the expenditures charged to each grant were within the allowed time frame. Although the reimbursement requests submitted to the Indiana Department of Education were prepared and approved by two different employees, the School Corporation was unable to provide evidence of this review and approval process, which may have included a review of the costs included on each request to verify they were within the correct period of performance. Reimbursement requests lacked supporting documentation of the disbursements for the Special Education Grant. Detailed reports were not retained by the School Corporation to verify the vendor, payroll, and payroll benefits occurred during the period of performance. Due to comingling of funds, a total of $176,037 of disbursements charged to the 5200 IDEA Special Education Grant fund could not be directly tied to grant awards (22611-148-PN01, 22611-148-ARP, 22619-148-PN01, and 22619-148-ARP) to determine if these disbursements were in the allowed period of performance of each grant award. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was a systemic issue throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 32 GRIFFITH PUBLIC SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (a) 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). . . ." 2 CFR 200.1 states in part: ". . . Financial obligations, when referencing a recipient's or subrecipient's use of funds under a Federal award, means orders placed for property and services, contracts and subawards made, and similar transactions that require payment. . . . Period of performance means 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. Identification of the period of performance in the Federal award per § 200.211(b)(5) does not commit the awarding agency to fund the award beyond the currently approved budget period. . . . Unliquidated financial obligations means, for financial reports prepared on a cash basis, financial obligations incurred by the non-Federal entity that have not been paid (liquidated). . . ." 2 CFR 200.309 states: "If a Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity approves an extension, or if a recipient extends under § 200.308(e)(2), the Period of Performance will be amended to end at the completion of the extension. If termination occurs, the Period of Performance will be amended to end upon the effective date of termination. If a renewal award is issued, a distinct Period of Performance will begin." Cause Due to turnover of staffing in both the Special Education personnel and the School Corporation's administrative office, the School Corporation's management had not developed nor implemented a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the grant agreements and the Period of Performance compliance requirement. The School Corporation had not filed reimbursement requests in a timely manner. Effect The failure to establish an effective system of internal controls placed the School Corporation at risk of noncompliance with the grant agreement and the Period of Performance compliance requirement. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs We identified $176,037 in known questioned costs as noted above in the Condition and Context. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 33 GRIFFITH PUBLIC SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a system of internal controls, which includes ensuring grant expenditures are obligated and liquidated timely to ensure compliance with the grant agreement and the Period of Performance compliance requirement. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2025-004 Subject: Special Education Cluster - Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 - Special Education Grants to States Assistance Listings Number: 84.027X Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): 22611-019-ARP Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Significant Deficiency, Other Matters Condition and Context Procurement Small purchases, procurements between $50,000 and $150,000, require three quotes to be obtained and a contract awarded. There was one disbursement tested for $52,598 for small purchase procurement, and, while the appropriate number of quotes were obtained, a contract was not awarded for the transaction as required by Indiana Code 5-22-8-3. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with the Special Education Cluster (IDEA) award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. "Covered transactions" include, but are not limited to, contracts for goods and services awarded under a nonprocurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the System for Award Management (SAM) Excluded Parties List System (EPLS), collecting a certification from that person or entity, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person or entity. It was determined that the School Corporation had a process in place to verify that vendors were not suspended or debarred, but the process was not operating effectively. For the one vendor tested also related to the transaction noted above, documentation of the SAM.gov search could not be provided. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 20 OAK HILL UNITED SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the transaction and award number noted above. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) 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). . . ." 2 CFR 200.214 states: "Non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. The regulations in 2 CFR part 180 restrict awards, subawards, and contracts with certain parties that are debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in Federal assistance programs or activities." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (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. . . ." 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (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: . . . INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 OAK HILL UNITED SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (2) Small purchases— (i) Small purchase procedures. 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. . . ." Indiana Code 5-22-8-3 states: "(a) This section applies only if the purchasing agent expects the purchase to be: (1) at least fifty thousand dollars ($50,000); and (2) not more than one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000). (b) A purchasing agent may purchase supplies under this section by inviting quotes from at least three (3) persons known to deal in the lines or classes of supplies to be purchased. (c) The purchasing agent shall mail an invitation to quote to the persons described in subsection (b) at least seven (7) days before the time fixed for receiving quotes. (d) If the purchasing agent receives a satisfactory quote, the purchasing agent shall award a contract to the lowest responsible and responsive offeror for each line or class of supplies required. (e) The purchasing agent may reject all quotes. (f) If the purchasing agent does not receive a quote from a responsible and responsive offeror, the purchasing agent may purchase the supplies under IC 5-22-10-10." 31 CFR 19.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the EPLS, or (b) Collecting a certification from that person if allowed by this rule, or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Cause The School Corporation was not aware of the Indiana Code requirement to enter into a contract for the equipment purchase. The School Corporation was aware of the requirements to check for suspension and debarment, but due to newer personnel at the School Corporation they were not able to locate the records or verify that the suspension and debarment verification was performed. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 OAK HILL UNITED SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Effect The failure to design and implement an effective internal control system enabled noncompliance to remain undetected. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the reduction of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation amend its procurement policy and system of internal controls to ensure that procurement requirements meet the stricter federal and/or state requirements. Additionally, the internal control system effectiveness should be improved to ensure all contractors that are paid $25,000 or more, all or in part with federal funds, are not suspended or debarred from participating in federal programs before entering into contracts. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
Criteria or specific requirement: Per the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA), prime (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). Reports must be filed in FSRS by the end of the month following the month in which the prime recipient awards any sub-grant greater than or equal to $30,000. If the initial award is below $30,000 but subsequent grant modifications result in a total award equal to or over $30,000, the award will be subject to the reporting requirements as of the date the award exceeds $30,000. If the initial award equals or exceeds $30,000 but funding is subsequently de-obligated such that the total award amount falls below $30,000, the award continues to be subject to FFATA reporting requirements. Per 2 CFR Part 170, “subaward” has the meaning given in 2 CFR 200.1 and means 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. The following key data elements must be reported: Subawardee Name and Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number; Amount of Subaward (inclusive of modifications); Subaward Obligation/Action Date; Date of Report Submission; Subaward Number; Project Description; and Names and Compensation of Highly Compensated Officers. (Names and Compensation of Highly Compensated Officers must only be reported when the entity in the preceding fiscal year received 80 percent or more of its annual gross revenues in Federal awards; and $25,000,000 or more in annual gross revenues from Federal awards; and the public does not have access to this information about the compensation of the senior executives of the entity through periodic reports filed under section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §§ 78m(a), 78o(d)) or section 6104 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.) 2 CFR 200.303 requires that non-federal entities receiving federal awards 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 comply 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: During testing of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) report, it was noted that the Kansas Division of Emergency Management (KDEM) did not timely report certain subawards to FSRS for the fiscal year. Questioned costs: None. Context: Twenty-eight subawards were selected for testing, totaling $39,668,267. Eighteen of the twenty-eight subawards (64%), totaling $39,594,211, were not submitted timely and reviewed timely prior to being submitted to FSRS as summarized below. While the reports were not filed timely, the supporting documentation that was needed to file the reports was gathered by KDEM and the filing was completed before SFYE 6/30/2025. Transactions Tested Report not timely 28 18 Dollar Amount of Tested Transactions Report not timely $39,668,267 $39,594,211 Cause: KDEM was understaffed during the current and prior fiscal years and had not fully implemented its corrective action plan from the prior year audit during SFY 2025 to ensure that the subawards were reported timely and reviewed timely prior to submitted to FSRS. Effect: Management is not in compliance with FFATA reporting requirements. Repeat Finding: Yes, Finding 2024-010. Recommendation: We recommend that KDEM continue to implement its corrective action plan from the prior year. Management should continue to enhance its procedures and internal controls to ensure that subawards are accurate, reported timely and reviewed timely to FSRS. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: Per the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA), prime (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). Reports must be filed in FSRS by the end of the month following the month in which the prime recipient awards any sub-grant greater than or equal to $30,000. If the initial award is below $30,000 but subsequent grant modifications result in a total award equal to or over $30,000, the award will be subject to the reporting requirements as of the date the award exceeds $30,000. If the initial award equals or exceeds $30,000 but funding is subsequently de-obligated such that the total award amount falls below $30,000, the award continues to be subject to FFATA reporting requirements. Per 2 CFR Part 170, “subaward” has the meaning given in 2 CFR 200.1 and means 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. The following key data elements must be reported: Subawardee Name and Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number; Amount of Subaward (inclusive of modifications); Subaward Obligation/Action Date; Date of Report Submission; Subaward Number; Project Description; and Names and Compensation of Highly Compensated Officers. (Names and Compensation of Highly Compensated Officers must only be reported when the entity in the preceding fiscal year received 80 percent or more of its annual gross revenues in Federal awards; and $25,000,000 or more in annual gross revenues from Federal awards; and the public does not have access to this information about the compensation of the senior executives of the entity through periodic reports filed under section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §§ 78m(a), 78o(d)) or section 6104 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.) Per 2 CFR 200.303, requires that non-federal entities receiving federal awards 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 comply 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: During the audit period, the entity did not submit required FFATA reports for certain first‑tier subawards subject to FFATA reporting requirements. As a result, required information was not reported in SAM.gov by the last day of the month following the month in which the subaward obligation occurred. Questioned costs: None. Context: Fourteen of the fourteen new subawards tested during the current year were not reported to the FSRS to comply with the Federal Funding and Accountability Act (FFATA). Transactions Tested Subaward not reported Report not timely Subaward amount incorrect Subaward missing key elements 14 14 14 14 14 Dollar Amount of Tested Transactions Subaward not reported Report not timely Subaward amount incorrect Subaward missing key elements $ 651,008 $651,008 $651,008 $651,008 $651,008 Cause: The noncompliance occurred because the entity did not have adequate internal controls in place to identify federal awards and subawards subject to FFATA reporting requirements. Specifically, management did not maintain a formal process to track FFATA‑reportable awards, monitor reporting deadlines, or ensure staff responsible for grant administration were sufficiently trained on FFATA reporting requirements. Effect: As a result of this noncompliance, required FFATA information related to federal subawards was not publicly reported in a timely and complete manner, reducing transparency over the use of federal funds. Failure to comply with FFATA reporting requirements may result in increased oversight by federal awarding agencies and could impact the entity’s ability to receive future federal funding. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that management implement policies and procedures to ensure compliance with FFATA reporting requirements. This should include identifying all federal awards and subawards subject to FFATA, establishing a process to track reporting deadlines, and providing training to personnel responsible for grant administration to ensure FFATA reports are submitted timely and accurately in SAM.gov. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: Per the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA), prime (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). Reports must be filed in FSRS by the end of the month following the month in which the prime recipient awards any sub-grant greater than or equal to $30,000. If the initial award is below $30,000 but subsequent grant modifications result in a total award equal to or over $30,000, the award will be subject to the reporting requirements as of the date the award exceeds $30,000. If the initial award equals or exceeds $30,000 but funding is subsequently de-obligated such that the total award amount falls below $30,000, the award continues to be subject to FFATA reporting requirements. Per 2 CFR Part 170, “subaward” has the meaning given in 2 CFR 200.1 and means 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. The following key data elements must be reported: Subawardee Name and Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number; Amount of Subaward (inclusive of modifications); Subaward Obligation/Action Date; Date of Report Submission; Subaward Number; Project Description; and Names and Compensation of Highly Compensated Officers. (Names and Compensation of Highly Compensated Officers must only be reported when the entity in the preceding fiscal year received 80 percent or more of its annual gross revenues in Federal awards; and $25,000,000 or more in annual gross revenues from Federal awards; and the public does not have access to this information about the compensation of the senior executives of the entity through periodic reports filed under section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §§ 78m(a), 78o(d)) or section 6104 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.) Per 2 CFR 200.303, requires that non-federal entities receiving federal awards 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 comply 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: Kansas Department of Children and Families (Department) was unable to provide FFATA reports for various subawards. Questioned costs: None. Context: During Reporting – FFATA testing the Department was unable to provide submitted FFATA reports for four of the 12 subaward transactions tested. Transactions Tested Subaward not reported Report not timely Subaward amount incorrect Subaward missing key elements 12 4 4 4 4 Dollar Amount of Tested Transactions Subaward not reported Report not timely Subaward amount incorrect Subaward missing key elements $ 377,770 $377,770 $377,770 $377,770 $377,770 Cause: The Kansas Department of Children and Families (DCF) passed a portion of the award to the Kansas Department of Education (KSDE). The Kansas Department of Education (KSDE) passed the awards to other subrecipients located outside of the State of Kansas. At the time these subawards were issued, DCF was not aware that the subawards were subject to the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) reporting requirements. As a result, DCF did not submit the required FFATA reports for the subawards passed through to these subrecipients. Effect: As a result of not submitting the required FFATA reports for subawards passed through to the Kansas Department of Education and other subrecipients located outside of the State of Kansas, the federal awarding agency did not receive complete and timely information regarding the use of federal funds. This resulted in noncompliance with FFATA reporting requirements and reduced transparency over federal subaward activity, which could limit federal oversight and monitoring of the program. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that the Kansas Department of Children and Families implement procedures to identify all subawards subject to Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) reporting requirements, including subawards passed through to both in‑state and out‑of‑state subrecipients. DCF should provide training to relevant staff on FFATA requirements and establish a review process to ensure required FFATA reports are submitted accurately and timely for all applicable subaward. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
FINDING 2025-004 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY 2023-2024, FY 2024-2025 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2023-004. Condition and Context An effective internal control system was not designed or implemented at the School Corporation to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Procurement When the value of goods or services exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold, the proper purchasing method would be the bidding process, unless the purchase meets certain other qualifications. Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for goods or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is customarily set at $250,000. However, Indiana Code 5-22-8 has a more restrictive threshold of $150,000 or less for when small purchase procedures may be used. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds. Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micropurchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. If it is determined a single source provider can be used for a small purchase, documentation must be retained supporting the determination. The School Corporation procured goods and services totaling $5,967,079 from three vendors that exceeded the simplified acquisition threshold during the audit period. The School Corporation did not follow procurement requirements for one of the three vendors. Multiple quotes were obtained for the purchase of cafeteria equipment totaling $361,575; however, the procurement method used should have been the bidding process. Additionally, the School Corporation did not obtain a contract for the purchase. The School Corporation made three small purchases totaling $35,045 that were selected for testing. The School Corporation did not obtain price or rate quotes as required. Documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used, was not available for audit. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 25 SCHOOL CITY OF EAST CHICAGO SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions, recipients are required to verify that contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. "Covered transactions" include, but are not limited to, contracts for goods and services awarded under a nonprocurement transaction (e.g., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000 and all subawards. The verification is to be done by checking the SAM exclusions list, collection of a certification from that person or entity, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person or entity. There were three covered transactions over $25,000 during the audit period, which totaled $5,967,079. The School Corporation did not verify that one of the three covered transactions, totaling $361,575, was not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded from participation in federal assistance programs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) 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). . . ." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (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. . . ." Indiana Code 5-22-8-3(d) states: "If the purchasing agent receives a satisfactory quote, the purchasing agent shall award a contract to the lowest responsible and responsive offeror for each line or class of supplies required." 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must have and use document procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 26 SCHOOL CITY OF EAST CHICAGO SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (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: . . . (2) Small purchases— (i) Small purchase procedures. 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 non-competitive 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. A procurement method in which 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. The sealed bids method is the preferred method for procuring construction. . . ." 2 CFR 180.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Cause Management had not designed or implemented a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Effect Material noncompliance with the grant agreement and compliance requirements could cause federal expenditures to be unallowable which the funding agency could potentially recover. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 27 SCHOOL CITY OF EAST CHICAGO SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a proper system of internal controls to ensure compliance with requirements related to procurement and suspension and debarment. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2025-008 Subject: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund - Condition of Records Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.425D, 84.425U, 84.425W Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425D210013, S425U210013, S425W210015 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles; Equipment and Real Property Management; Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking; Special Tests and Provisions - Wage Rate Requirements Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding numbers were 2023-007 and 2023-009 over the compliance requirements Equipment and Real Property Management and Special Tests and Provisions - Wage Rate Requirements, respectively. Condition and Context The School Corporation received reimbursements totaling $30,316,384 from the COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) federal awards during the audit period. The reimbursements were associated with three separate federal awards, each of which was required to be accounted for in a separate fund within the School Corporation's financial management system. Expenditures were to be made in accordance with the approved grant applications and budgets, with reimbursement requests subsequently submitted to the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE). The School Corporation was responsible for maintaining detailed disbursement ledgers for each grant fund to support the amounts claimed for reimbursement. As is typical with reimbursement-based grants, the ending cash and investment balances of each grant fund were expected to reflect overdrawn balances until the subsequent reimbursements were received from the IDOE. The $30,316,384 received in ESF funds during the audit period was based on 28 reimbursement requests for expenditures incurred between June 1, 2023 through December 13, 2024. Based on our review of grant fund records and inquiry with management, we identified the following deficiencies: The detailed disbursement ledger for the period of June 1, 2023 through December 13, 2024, excluding June 2024 for Grant #S425U210013 as no reimbursement request was submitted, reflected total expenditures of $23,051,334. This resulted in $7,265,050 in reimbursements that were not adequately supported by detailed records. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 33 SCHOOL CITY OF EAST CHICAGO SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) A review of the submitted reimbursement requests indicated that $1,069,865 was reimbursed for indirect costs; however, a disbursement from the grant funds to other operating funds was not recorded within the School Corporations records. Of the 28 reimbursement requests submitted, only 5 were supported by detailed disbursement ledgers that agreed with the dates and amounts claimed. The remaining 23 reimbursement requests could not be directly reconciled to the supporting documentation provided. Upon further inquiry with management, additional records were provided; however, these records lacked sufficient detail, such as fund number, fund name, check numbers, dates, and vendor names to be useable. Reimbursements received were not posted to each grant fund properly. This resulted in the ARP EESER III fund receipts to be understated by $4,297,935 and the ESSER II and GEER PD funds receipts to be overstated by $4,174,376 and $123,560, respectively. Since this is a reimbursement-based grant, the ending cash and investment balances of each grant fund should either be zero or overdrawn while awaiting reimbursement. However, as of June 30, 2025, the ESSER II and Geer PD funds reported positive cash and investment balances of $5,047,932 and $404,653, respectively. Due to the deficiencies noted above, the School Corporation was unable to provide sufficient appropriate evidence for us to determine populations, and, therefore, audit and base an opinion on the compliance requirements subject to audit that were determined to have a direct and material effect on the program. As a result, the $30,316,384 in reimbursements received during the audit period were considered questioned costs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were material and systemic throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) 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). . . ." 2 CFR 200.302 states in part: "(a) . . . the other 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. See also § 200.450. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 34 SCHOOL CITY OF EAST CHICAGO SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (b) The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following (see §§ 200.334, 200.335, 200.336, and 200.337): (1) Identification, in its accounts, of all Federal awards received and expended and the Federal programs under which they were received. Federal program and Federal award identification must include, as applicable, the Assistance Listings title and number, Federal award identification number and year, name of the Federal agency, and name of the pass-through entity, if any. (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements in §§ 200.328 and 200.329. . . . (3) Records that identify adequately the source and application of funds for federallyfunded activities. These records must contain information pertaining to Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, assets, expenditures, income, and interest and be supported by source documentation. (4) Effective control over, and accountability, for all funds, property, and assets. The non- Federal entity must adequately safeguard all assets and ensure that they are used solely for authorized purposes. See § 200.303. (5) Comparison of expenditures with budget amounts for each Federal award. (6) Written procedures to implement the requirements of § 200.305. (7) Written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the Federal award." 2 CFR 200.1 states in part: ". . . Questioned cost means a cost that is questioned by the auditor because of an audit finding: (1) Which resulted from a violation or possible violation of a statute, regulation, or the terms and conditions of a Federal award, including for funds used to match Federal funds; (2) Where the costs, at the time of the audit, are not supported by adequate documentation; or (3) Where the costs incurred appear unreasonable and do not reflect the actions a prudent person would take in the circumstances. (4) Questioned costs are not an improper payment until reviewed and confirmed to be improper as defined in OMB Circular A-123 appendix C. (See also the definition of Improper payment in this section)." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, 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. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 35 SCHOOL CITY OF EAST CHICAGO SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.313(d) states in part: ". . . (1) Property records must be maintained that include a description of the property, a serial number or other identification number, the source of funding for the property (including the FAIN), who holds title, the acquisition date, and cost of the property, percentage of Federal participation in the project costs for the Federal award under which the property was acquired, the location, use and condition of the property, and any ultimate disposition data including the date of disposal and sale price of the property. (2) A physical inventory of the property must be taken and the results reconciled with the property records at least once every two years. (3) A control system must be developed to ensure adequate safeguards to prevent loss, damage, or theft of the property. Any loss, damage, or theft must be investigated. (4) Adequate maintenance procedures must be developed to keep the property in good condition. . . ." 29 CFR 5.5 states in part: "(a) Required contract clauses. The Agency head will cause or require the contracting officer to require the contracting officer to [sic] insert in full, or (for contracts covered by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR chapter 1)) by reference, in any contract in excess of $2,000 which is entered into for the actual construction, alteration and/or repair, including painting and decorating, of a public building or public work, or building or work financed in whole or in part from Federal funds or in accordance with guarantees of a Federal agency or financed from funds obtained by pledge of any contract of a Federal agency to make a loan, grant or annual contribution (except where a different meaning is expressly indicated), and which is subject to the labor standards provisions of any of the laws referenced by § 5.1, the following clauses . . . (1) Minimum wages— (i) Wage rates and fringe benefits. All laborers and mechanics employed or working upon the site of the work (or otherwise working in construction or development of the project under a development statute), will be paid unconditionally and not less often than once a week, and without subsequent deduction or rebate on any account (except such payroll deductions as are permitted by regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor under the Copeland Act (29 CFR part 3)), the full amount of basic hourly wages and bona fide fringe benefits (or cash equivalents thereof) due at time of payment computed at rates not less than those contained in the wage determination of the Secretary of Labor which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, regardless of any contractual relationship which may be alleged to exist between the contractor and such laborers and mechanics. . . . (3) Records and certified payrolls— (ii) Certified payroll requirements— INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 36 SCHOOL CITY OF EAST CHICAGO SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (A) Frequency and method of submission. The contractor or subcontractor must submit weekly, for each week in which any DBA- or Related Acts-covered work is performed, certified payrolls to the [write in name of appropriate Federal agency] if the agency is a party to the contract, but if the agency is not such a party, the contractor will submit the certified payrolls to the applicant, sponsor, owner, or other entity, as the case may be, that maintains such records, for transmission to the [write in name of agency]. . . ." 2 CFR 200 Appendix II to Part 200 states in part: "In addition to other provisions required by the Federal agency or non-Federal entity; all contracts made by the non-Federal entity under the Federal award must contain provisions covering the following, as applicable. . . . (D) Davis-Bacon Act, as amended (40 U.S.C. 3141-3148). When required by Federal program legislation, all prime construction contracts in excess of $2,000 awarded by non- Federal entities must include a provision for compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 3141-3144, and 3146-3148) as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR Part 5, 'Labor Standards Provisions Applicable to Contracts Covering Federally Financed and Assisted Construction'). In accordance with the statute, contractors must be required to pay wages to laborers and mechanics at a rate not less than the prevailing wages specified in a wage determination made by the Secretary of Labor. In addition, contractors must be required to pay wages not less than once a week. . . ." Cause The School Corporation experienced turnover in key personnel over the federal program, which contributed to the lack of appropriate supporting records. A proper system of internal controls was not designed to ensure continuity of policies, procedures, and records when personnel transitions occurred. Effect Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirements could result in the repayment of federal funds. Questioned Costs We identified $30,316,384 in known questioned costs as noted in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management develop policies and procedures to ensure continuity of school records during a personnel change and that all reimbursement requests are properly supported by detail records. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2025-002 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): FY2024 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2023-004. Condition and Context The School Corporation did not have effective internal controls in place to ensure compliance with the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. The School Corporation did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the requirements for small purchases were met for each applicable procured good or service or to ensure that vendors were not suspended or debarred prior to entering into a covered transaction. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 17 WABASH CITY SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Procurement Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is set at $250,000 unless a lower, more restrictive threshold is set by a nonfederal entity. As Indiana Code has set a more restrictive threshold of $150,000, informal procurement methods are permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds: micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micro-purchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. For the audit period, the School Corporation self-certified a micro-purchase threshold of $50,000. Any purchase above this threshold but below the $150,000 simplified acquisition threshold would be considered a small purchase. During fiscal year 2023-2024 , the School Corporation had one vendor with disbursements totaling $60,757, which exceeded the School Corporation established small purchase threshold of $50,000. The School Corporation did not provide supporting documentation that an adequate number of price or rate quotes were obtained from qualified sources for the purchases. The lack of effective internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the one vendor noted above. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. "Covered transactions" include, but are not limited to, contracts for goods and services awarded under a nonprocurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the SAMs exclusions, collecting a certification from that vendor, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that vendor. Upon inquiry of the School Corporation and inspection of supporting documentation in order to review the procedures in place for verifying that a vendor with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded, it was identified that the School Corporation did not have policies or procedures in place to verify if vendors were suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participation in federal awards. In 2023-2024, for one covered transaction totaling $60,757, there was no evidence provided that the School Corporation verified the vendor's suspension and debarment status prior to payment. The lack of effective internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the one vendor noted above. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 18 WABASH CITY SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (a) 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). . . ." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (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. . . ." 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (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: . . . (2) Small purchases — (i) Small purchase procedures. 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. . . ." 2 CFR 180.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 WABASH CITY SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Cause An effective system of internal controls was not designed and implemented by management of the School Corporation. The School Corporation had outlined a process for handling small purchase vendor related transactions, but that process was not followed, nor was supporting evidence maintained for the items described in the Condition and Context. Also, the School Corporation had designed a process for determining whether a vendor is suspended or debarred, but that process was not completed. Effect As a result of not designing and implementing an effective system of internal controls and following the School Corporation's policies and procedures, goods that fell within the small purchase threshold were not properly procured, and vendors to whom payments equal to or in excess of $25,000 were made were not verified to be not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation design and implement an effective internal control system and follow through with the policies and procedures related to small purchase vendor procurement and suspension and debarment compliance requirements that they designed through an action plan to correct the prior audit period finding. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE – IMPROPER PAYMENTS Finding Number: 2025-011 State Agency Number: JFS-01 Assistance Listing Number and Title: 17.225 – Unemployment Insurance Federal Award Identification Numbers / Years: UI-37243-22-55-A-39 / 2022 UI-39342-23-55-A-39 / 2023 24-A-55-UI000039 / 2024 25-A-55-UI000070 / 2025 Federal Agency: Department of Labor Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Costs Principles, Eligibility Repeat Finding from Prior Audit? No QUESTIONED COSTS 2 C.F.R. § 2900.4 gives regulatory effect to the Department of Labor (DOL) for 2 C.F.R. § 200.1 which states, in part: Improper payment means 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 an ineligible good 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. . . . Ohio Rev. Code (ORC) § 4141.28 states, in part: . . . (B) APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF BENEFIT RIGHTS . . . An individual filing an application for determination of benefit rights shall furnish proof of identity at the time of filing in the manner prescribed by the director. . . . ORC § 4141.29 states, in part: . . . (A) No individual is entitled to a waiting period or benefits for any week unless the individual: . . . (4)(a)(i) Is able to work and available for suitable work and, except as provided in division (A)(4)(a)(ii) or (iii) of this section, is actively seeking suitable work either in a locality in which the individual has earned wages subject to this chapter during the individual's base period, or if the individual leaves that locality, then in a locality where suitable work normally is performed. . . . ORC § 4141.30 states, in part: . . . (B) With the exceptions in division (B)(4) of this section, benefits are payable to each eligible and qualified individual on account of each week of involuntary total unemployment after the specified waiting period at the weekly benefit amount determined by: (1) Computing the individual's average weekly wage as defined in division (O)(2) of section 4141.01 of the Revised Code; (2) Determining the individual's dependency class under division (E) of this section; (3) Computing the individual's weekly benefit amount to be fifty percent of the individual's average weekly wage except, that the individual's weekly benefit amount shall not exceed the maximum amount shown for the individual's dependency class... . . . The federal government established rules, regulations, and requirements related to eligibility, benefit amounts and timing, monitoring responsibilities, etc. regarding Unemployment benefits. It is management’s responsibility to implement controls, processes, and procedures to provide reasonable assurance over the reliability of financial reporting, effectiveness and efficiency of operations, and compliance with these rules, regulations, and requirements. During state fiscal year 2025, the Department disbursed approximately $950.9 million in unemployment benefits through the Ohio Job Insurance (OJI) benefit system. Eligibility for unemployment benefits was determined within OJI based upon requirements outlined in state and/or federal laws. Weekly, claimants confirmed their unemployment status and completed the required work search activities. If the claimant’s benefit payment was flagged, an adjudicator performed an additional review and requested fact-finding information for either monetary or nonmonetary issues. The claimant continued to receive weekly benefit payments until the adjudicator investigated the issue and confirmed the claimant’s status. If an issue was suspected of fraud, the issue was routed to the Department’s Benefit Payment Control section to be investigated, adjudicated and, if applicable, an overpayment flag was created in OJI. The Department’s policy, which is based on U.S. Department of Labor guidance, is to adjudicate possible fraud cases within 21 days or 90 days, depending on the circumstances of the case. Although the Department had various controls in place over regular unemployment benefit payments, the OJI system requires the Adjudicators to manually enter a significant amount of data into the system. To pay an unemployment benefit claim, the Adjudicators may have to clear multiple issues identified in the system before the claim can be paid. Furthermore, there are no alerts indicating when a pending issue prevents a claim from being paid which can result in significant delays in the payments to the claimants. Additionally, these controls did not prevent or detect the following noncompliance errors, resulting in known questioned costs totaling $3,274. The likely questioned costs would be in excess of $25,000 and therefore required to be reported under 2 C.F.R. § 200.516: • For two of 25 (8%) regular unemployment benefit claims identified in an OJI system data match as potential unemployment claims processed more than 30 days after the claimant’s benefit year end, the claimant was not eligible to receive benefits for the weeks claimed, was overpaid, or was underpaid, as follows: • One claimant did not provide the necessary documents to prove their identity. The Claims Examiner cleared the identity verification issue in OJI; however, there is no documentation showing the claimant verified their identity. As a result, the claimant was overpaid benefits of $2,988 during the audit period. • Due to an OJI system issue at the time the claim was filed, the claimant’s dependency class designated did not agree with the information provided on the application. This resulted in an underpayment of $143. • For one of 25 (4%) regular unemployment benefit claims identified in an OJI system data match as potentially exceeding the maximum allowable amount, the claimant stated in the application a qualifying dependent. However, the Department denied the dependent without mailing an Eligibility notice to allow the claimant to prove the identity of the dependent. This resulted in the claimant potentially being underpaid $124 for the week reviewed. • For one of 60 (1.77%) regular unemployment benefit claims selected for testing, the claimant was not eligible to receive benefits for the week claimed per ORC 4141.29(A)(4)(a)(i). The claimant did not provide the necessary documents evidencing clearance to work, therefore, the claimant was ineligible for unemployment benefits. This resulted in an overpayment of $286 to the claimant. Without effective internal controls for the eligibility determination and benefit payment processes, including manual data entry or the lack of alerts indicating when a pending issue prevents a claim from being paid, there is an increased risk benefit payments will be inaccurate, unallowable, or eligibility determinations not being made in a timely manner. Overpayments to ineligible claimants may subject the Department to penalties or sanctions which may jeopardize future funding and limit its ability to fulfill program requirements to provide benefits to those in need. Based on discussions with management, these errors were due to oversight and system design flaws within OJI. We recommend Department management: • Evaluate and strengthen current internal control procedures over the Unemployment Insurance program to ensure claimants are eligible, receive the correct weekly benefits and system design flaws such as limiting manual data entry and developing alerts for pending issues that impact claims being paid timely. This should include evaluating the cause of the errors identified above and updating controls as necessary. • Periodically monitor the established controls to determine if they are working effectively and as intended. • Perform periodic reviews of the claimant files to reasonably ensure the information is properly maintained and accurately entered into the related systems. • Evaluate underpayments, overpayments and/or payments to ineligible claimants and offset future benefits or seek reimbursement, where necessary.
Equipment Property Management Federal Program: Congressional Directives (ALN 93.493) Federal Agency: Department of Health and Human Services Federal Award Number: 1CE1HS52890-01-00 Federal Award Year: September 30, 2023 through June 30, 2026 Criteria or Requirement Per 2 CFR section 200.313, property records must be maintained that include a description of the property, a serial number or other identification number, the source of funding for the property (including the federal award identification number), who holds title, the acquisition date, cost of the property, percentage of federal participation in the project costs for the federal award under which the property was acquired, the location, use and condition of the property, and any ultimate disposition data including the date of disposal and sales price of the property. Per 2 CFR 200.303, 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. Condition and Context For 2 out of 9 purchase transactions, equipment exceeding the capitalization threshold per 2 CFR section 200.1 was not capitalized. Therefore, a property record did not exist for federally funded equipment purchased in the amount of $937,768. The total program expenditures were $2,112,657 for which $1,640,656 were capital equipment purchases and $472,001 were non-capital purchases. Further, $67,919 of the $702,888 that was capitalized, the property record did not properly identify the asset’s federal award program. Cause and Potential Effect The University's internal controls for determining and documenting whether an equipment acquisition was a capital asset for which a property record should be created in the system with the required information was not operating effectively. Accordingly, the University acquired federally funded equipment, and a property record was not created. Questioned Cost There were no questioned costs associated with the finding. Statistically Valid Sample The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Identification of Whether the Audit Finding is a Repeat of a Finding in the Immediately Prior Audit Yes – prior year finding 2024-003. Recommendation We recommend the University enhances the precision of the controls over equipment purchases to ensure that a property record is created within the system containing the required information, inclusive of the federal award, for all federally funded equipment. View of Responsible Officials Management of the University takes no exception to this reported finding. We have implemented the remedial actions as outlined in our Corrective Action Plan.
2025-011 IMPROPER PAYMENTS TO ADOPTIVE PARENTS– REPEATED & MODIFIED Funding agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Title and ALN Number: 93.659 Title IV-E Adoptions Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency, Other Non-compliance Compliance Area: Allowable Cost and Cost Principles, Eligibility Award Year: Title IV-E Adoptions 23 Assistance (7/1/2022 – 12/31/2023) Title IV-E Adoptions 24 Assistance (1/1/2024 – 9/30/2024) Question Costs: $205 (less than 5% of federal expenditures) Condition The Department made improper payments to adoptive parents as follows: Adoptions Subsidy Payments Testing • One (1) where payments were made on behalf of a child over 18 years old without extended subsidy agreements in place, resulting in total of $205 in payments that were improper. Update for FY25: The Department has made significant progress in this area, by reducing the instances of non-compliance in this area. Criteria 2 CFR § 200.1. An improper payment is 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 an ineligible good 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. 42 U.S. Code § 673 (a)(3) and (a)(4). The amount of the payments to be made shall be determined through agreement between the adoptive parents and the State or local agency administering the program. In no case may the amount of the adoption assistance payment made exceed the foster care maintenance payment which would have been paid during the period if the child with respect to whom the adoption assistance payment is made had been in a foster family home. A payment may not be made pursuant to this section to parents or relative guardians with respect to a child (i)who has attained— (I) 18 years of age, or such greater age as the State may elect under section 675(8)(B)(iii) of this title; or (II) 21 years of age, if the State determines that the child has a mental or physical handicap which warrants the continuation of assistance; (ii) who has not attained 18 years of age, if the State determines that the parents or relative guardians, as the case may be, are no longer legally responsible for the support of the child; (iii) if the State determines that the child is no longer receiving any support from the parents or relative guardians, as the case may be. Effect This oversight in handling subsidy payments increases the risk of non-compliance with federal grant requirements and may expose the Department to potential financial liability or the need to recover funds. It also highlights a weakness in the internal controls surrounding the administration of adoption subsidies. Cause The adoption cases were scheduled for consideration by Fostering Connections for eligibility for extended subsidies. However, a disconnect in cooperation between the adoptive parents and the Title IV-E team resulted in delays in finalizing the extended subsidy agreements.
Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Finding Number: 2025-002 Assistance Listing Number and Title: AL # 84.027 Special Education Cluster Federal Award Identification Number / Year: 2025 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Pass-Through Entity: Ohio Department of Education and Workforce Repeat Finding from Prior Audit? No Noncompliance and Material Weakness 2 CFR § 3474.1 gives regulatory effect to the Department of Education for 2 CFR § 200.320(a) through 2 CFR § 200.320(c) which describes three types of procurement methods: informal procurement methods (for micro-purchases and simplified acquisitions); formal procurement methods (through sealed bids or proposals); and noncompetitive procurement methods. • Informal procurement methods for small purchases. These procurement methods expedite the completion of transactions, minimize administrative burdens, and reduce costs. Informal procurement methods may be used when the value of the procurement transaction under the Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold as defined in § 200.1. Recipients and subrecipients may also establish a lower threshold. • Formal procurement methods. Formal procurement methods are required when the value of the procurement transaction under a Federal award exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold of the recipient or subrecipient. Formal procurement methods are competitive and require public notice. • Noncompetitive procurement. There are specific circumstances in which the recipient or subrecipient may use a noncompetitive procurement method. The noncompetitive procurement method may only be used if one of the following circumstances applies: (1) The aggregate amount of the procurement transaction does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold (see paragraph (a)(1) of this section); (2) The procurement transaction can only be fulfilled by a single source; (3) The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from providing public notice of a competitive solicitation; (4) The recipient or subrecipient requests in writing to use a noncompetitive procurement method, and the Federal agency or pass-through entity provides written approval; or (5) After soliciting several sources, competition is determined inadequate. Additionally, District Policy: PROCUREMENT - FEDERAL GRANTS/FUNDS, describes both formal and informal procurement methods, including noncompetitive procurement. The District did not have the proper internal controls in place to identify and select the proper procurement method for two out of two procurements (100%) entered into by the District using Special Education Cluster (IDEA) funds. The District erroneously identified two procurements totaling $24,000 as single source, a type of noncompetitive procurement. Given the facts and circumstances surrounding these procurements, small purchase procurement method should have been utilized. Due to the deficient internal control structure, the appropriate procurement method was not utilized for two procurements in the Special Education Cluster (IDEA) program during fiscal year 2025. Failing to have the appropriate controls in place may result in noncompliance with federal requirements. Prior to entering into covered transactions, the District should follow its policies and procedures to ensure the correct procurement method is used.
Section III – Major Federal Award Program Findings and Questioned Costs Finding Reference 2025-002 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Pass-through Agency: Puerto Rico Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority Program: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (Assistance Listing No. 21.027) Compliance Requirement: Reporting (L) Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Controls (SD), Instance of Noncompliance (NC) Statement of Condition During the fiscal year, the Municipality administered funds from the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, this allocation was granted directly from the Federal government and through Puerto Rico Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority, respectively. In our Reporting Test, we evaluated the annual Project and Expenditure Report submitted to the U.S. Department of Treasury, six (6) bimonthly reports related to the Service of Excellence to Citizens Program and three (3) monthly reports related to the Municipal Strengthening Funds Program, submitted to the Puerto Rico Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority. We found that one (1) out of six (6) Service of Excellence to Citizens Reports was submitted late and expenditures were submitted before they were incurred. Also, two (2) out of three (3) Municipal Strengthening Funds Reports were submitted late and expenditures were not reported in the period that was incurred. Criteria 31 CFR 35.4(c) – Reservation of authority, reporting states that during the period of performance, recipients shall provide to the Secretary or her delegate, as applicable, periodic reports providing detailed accounting of the uses of funds. 31 CFR 35.5(b) – Use of funds states that a cost shall be considered to have been incurred for purposes of the general use of Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds described in 31 CFR 35.5(a) if the recipient has incurred an obligation with respect to such cost by December 31, 2024. The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - Compliance and Reporting Guidance, Part I, Section 10 (d), states 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 expenditure pursuant to 2 CFR 200.1. Appropriate accounting records must be maintained for compiling and reporting accurate, compliant financial data, in accordance with appropriate accounting standards and principles. In addition, where appropriate, controls need to be established to ensure the completion and timely submission of all mandatory performance and/or compliance reporting. Table 4: Annual Project and Expenditure Report in Part 2 of the Guidance establishes that the deadline of the annual reports are thirty days after the end of the period, on April 30th for the reports ended on March 31st. Municipal Strengthening Fund Transfer Agreement, Clause 5.1, states that the Transferee shall submit reports as the Transferor determines are needed to verify use of the funds and compliance with conditions that are imposed on the Transfer, and such reports shall be in such form, with such content, as specified by the Transferor in the Transfer Plan and future program instructions directed to all Recipients. The Transfer Plan, on Exhibit A, establishes that starting on the 15th day of the month following receipt of the funds, and by the 15th day of each month, the Transferee will submit a Use of Funds Report for the prior month’s expenses. Also, on the Municipal Strengthening Fund Program Guidelines, the Puerto Rico Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority specified in the Reporting Requirements Section that the recipients are required to submit monthly financial reports using the reporting template provided by the program. The instructions of the Service of Excellence to Citizens Reports, provided by the Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority, establish that the report must be updated and submitted before the first and third Friday of each month (bimonthly), starting at the date of the agreement. Cause of Condition There is a lack of knowledge and training for the personnel assigned. Additionally, the Municipality does not have adequate monitoring for the activity and the reports. Effect of Condition The program is not in compliance with the Reporting Requirements as established in the contract agreements and guidelines. Recommendation We recommend training for the authorized personnel who administer the program, to better understand the reporting requirements and develop complete and accurate reports. The Municipality should establish a monitoring system to ensure compliance with requirements established by U.S. Department of the Treasury and the pass-through agency such as: (1) submitting the reports on a timely basis and (2) reporting accurate, compliant financial data, in accordance with appropriate accounting standards and principles. Also, the Municipality should establish a process to validate that the amounts reported agree with the accounting records of the corresponding period reported to strengthen the internal controls of the program. Questioned Cost None. Prior Year Finding This finding is similar to prior year finding 2024-003, 2023-002 and 2022-002. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action We concur with the finding. Objective of the plan: The objective of this Corrective Action Plan is to address the observations identified in the audit and establish preventive measures to avoid future recurrences. Corrective Actions: 1. Schedule restructuring: • Create a detailed calendar with clear dates to define intermediate delivery deadlines to avoid delays (collection of information, analysis, writing, review, and submission) 2. Implementation of alerts and reminders: • Set up automatic alerts and email reminders for key dates (for example, 3 days before each deadline) 3. Review and Quality Control: • Establish an internal review of reports before final submission to ensure that the information reported is accurate and complete. The revision includes compliance with the requirements established by the agency. Compliance Monitoring: • Biweekly meetings: The team will have biweekly meetings to have updates regarding the progress and achievement of the deadlines. • Email notifications: Emails will be sent to document the timely submission of reports and when needed, waivers will be requested explaining situations that may have delayed the process to prepare accurate and complete reports on time. Evaluation: • Monthly evaluations will be performed to measure the compliance of the submission of the reports on the timeframe established by the agency. • Adjustments to the processes according to the response of the team. Implementation Date: Fiscal Year 2025-2026. Responsible persons: • Person responsible for the implementation: Mr. Carlos Flores, Federal Program’s Subdirector • Person responsible for the supervision: Mrs. Yolanda Maldonado, Federal Program’s Director
2025-001 U.S. Department of the Treasury Direct Award and Passed through Bristol County, Massachusetts COVID-19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds – ALN 21.027 Significant Deficiency in Internal Controls over Compliance and Compliance Finding 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: Expenditures were not reconciled to the general ledger for reporting submitted to the U.S. Department of the Treasury and Bristol County, Massachusetts. Cause: The Town did not have procedures in place to perform reconciliations of required grant reporting. Effect: The Town potentially overstated expenditures by approximately $528,000 and $127,000 in reporting submitted to the U.S. Department of the Treasury and Bristol County, Massachusetts, respectively. Questioned Costs: None Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: The Town should implement procedures to reconcile all federal reporting to the general ledger. Views of Responsible Official: Management agrees with the finding.
2025-001 U.S. Department of the Treasury Direct Award and Passed through Bristol County, Massachusetts COVID-19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds – ALN 21.027 Significant Deficiency in Internal Controls over Compliance and Compliance Finding 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: Expenditures were not reconciled to the general ledger for reporting submitted to the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Cause: The Town did not have procedures in place to perform reconciliations of required grant reporting. Effect: The Town potentially overstated expenditures by approximately $336,000 in reporting submitted to the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Questioned Costs: None Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: The Town should implement procedures to reconcile all federal reporting to the general ledger. Views of Responsible Official: Management agrees with the finding.
Equipment means 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 (2 CFR 200.1_Equipment). Title to equipment acquired by a non-Federal entity under grants and cooperative agreements vests in the non-Federal entity subject to certain obligations and conditions (2 CFR 200.313(a)). Non-Federal Entities Other than States Non-Federal entities other than States must follow 2 CFR 200.313(c) through (e) which require that: 1. Equipment, including replacement equipment, be used in the program or project for which it was acquired as long as needed, whether or not the project or program continues to be supported by the Federal award or, when appropriate, under other Federal awards; however, the non-Federal entity must not encumber the equipment without prior approval of the Federal awarding agency (2 CFR 200.313(c) and (e)). 2. Property records must be maintained that include a description of the property, a serial number or other identification number, the source of funding for the property (including the Federal award identification number), who holds title, the acquisition date, cost of the property, percentage of Federal participation in the project costs for the Federal award under which the property was acquired, the location, use and condition of the property, and any ultimate disposition data including the date of disposal and sales price of the property (2 CFR 200.313(d)(1)). 3. A physical inventory of the property must be taken and the results reconciled with the property records at least once every 2 years (2 CFR 200.313(d)(2)). 4. A control system must be developed to ensure adequate safeguards to prevent loss, damage, or theft of the property. Any loss, damage, or theft must be investigated (2 CFR 200.313(d)(3)). 5. Adequate maintenance procedures must be developed to keep the property in good condition (2 CFR 200.313(d)(4)). 6. If the non-Federal entity is authorized or required to sell the property, proper sales procedures must be established to ensure the highest possible return (2 CFR 200.313(d)(5)). 7. When original or replacement equipment acquired under a Federal award is no longer needed for a Federal program (whether the original project or program or other activities currently or previously supported by the Federal government), the non-Federal entity must request disposition instructions from the Federal awarding agency if required by the terms and conditions of the award. Items of equipment with a current per-unit fair market value of $5,000 or less may be retained, sold, or otherwise disposed of with no further obligation to the Federal awarding agency. If the Federal awarding agency fails to provide requested disposition instructions within 120 days, items of equipment with a current per-unit fair market value in excess of $5,000 may be retained or sold. The Federal awarding agency is entitled to the Federal interest in the equipment, which is the amount calculated by multiplying the current market value or sale proceeds by the Federal agency’s participation in total project costs (2 CFR 200.313(e)). While testing equipment acquisitions acquired using ESSER funds, one instance was noted in which equipment purchased was not fully added to the District records. Without proper controls over equipment requirements, there is an increased risk that the District is not in compliance with applicable federal regulations. Additionally, noncompliance could result in federal funding being reduced or taken away, or other sanctions imposed by the federal grantor agency. The District should establish (or perform existing) controls to include the required clauses of 2 CFR 200.313 to ensure equipment is being properly safeguarded and tracked.
Finding Number: 2025-001 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, 2024–June 30, 2025 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 2024 to June 2025 within the required time after the award is granted to the subrecipient. 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 Yes, 2024-002 Recommendation We recommend that the City continue to review and enhance their 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 will continue strengthening its policies, procedures, and internal controls to ensure all subawards are reported in full compliance with FFATA. The City reported subawards using the subaward obligation date, which is the date the agreement is fully executed, rather than the July 1 performance start date. As a result, obligation dates varied depending on when each agreement is signed.
Finding Number: 2025-003 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, 2024–June 30, 2025 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 2024 to June 2025 within the required time after the award is granted to the subrecipient. 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, 2024-004 Recommendation We recommend that the City continue to review and enhance their 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 will continue strengthening its policies, procedures, and internal controls to ensure all subawards are reported in full compliance with FFATA. The City reported subawards using the subaward obligation date, which is the date the agreement is fully executed, rather than the July 1 performance start date. As a result, obligation dates var depending on when each agreement is signed.
Finding No. 2025-047 Prior Year Finding: 2024-053 Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Impact: Material Weakness, Material Noncompliance AL Number and Title: 10.551, 10.561 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Cluster Federal Award Number: 25AK35050292301, 24AK35050292301 Applicable Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Special Tests and Provisions Condition: The amount of FY 25 SNAP benefits reported to USDA as issued by the State’s Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) contractor, Fidelity National Information Services (FIS), was $1,235,577 more than the amount of authorized benefits reported in data from the Division of Public Assistance’s (DPA) Eligibility Information System (EIS). Furthermore, FIS could not provide a reliable audit trail of issuances. Context: DPA relies on its legacy eligibility system, EIS, to determine eligibility for SNAP and calculate monthly benefit amounts. Benefit amounts are calculated based on household size, income, and other financial resources of all qualifying members of a household, less specific allowable deductions. Each day EIS transmits an issuance batch file, including authorized beneficiaries and benefit amounts, to the State’s EBT contractor, FIS, which maintains accounts for each beneficiary. When an EBT card is utilized by a beneficiary, FIS functions as the intermediary between the State’s U.S. Treasury benefit account and the retailers by settling SNAP benefit transactions with retailers before drawing down federal reimbursement. The State is required to ensure its automated data processing systems accurately and completely process and store all case file information for eligibility determinations and benefit calculations, and provide the data necessary to meet federal issuance and reconciliation reporting requirements. A reconciliation of FIS issuance records with EIS authorized beneficiaries and benefit amounts demonstrates the completeness and accuracy of the EBT process. In FY 25, the EIS benefit data provided by DPA could not be reconciled to the amount of SNAP benefits issued per FIS data or the issuance amounts reported by DPA to USDA. Furthermore, FIS could not provide a detailed list of issuances to support the monthly amounts reconciled by DPA staff and reported to USDA. Cause: DPA management and FIS staff could not identify the cause of the variances. DPA’s outdated legacy eligibility system and the lack of daily reconciliations (see Finding No. 2025-049) contributed to the deficiencies. Criteria: Title 7 CFR 274.1(h) requires that the State agency create and maintain a master issuance file that consolidates records of all certified SNAP households, record participation activity for each household, and supply all information necessary to fulfill the reporting requirements outlined in Title 7 CFR 274.4. Title 7 CFR 274.4(a) requires the State to reconcile benefits posted to household accounts on the central computer against benefits on the issuance authorization file. Title 2 CFR 200.303(a) requires the State to establish and maintain effective internal controls over federal awards that provide reasonable assurance that the State is managing federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the grant awards. Effect: Significant discrepancies between EIS benefit data and the EBT contractor’s issuance records undermine confidence in the eligibility system and may be indicative of significant unidentified processing errors. Inadequate system controls increase the risk of incorrect or ineligible benefits. Questioned Costs: AL 10.551: $1,235,577 Recommendation: DPA’s director should identify the cause of the discrepancies between EBT contractor issuance data and the State’s eligibility system and take action necessary to ensure SNAP benefit payments are supported by eligibility and benefit data. Views of Responsible Officials: The department agrees with the finding but does not concur with the questioned costs. The Division of Public Assistance completes reconciliations between FIS daily transaction records and EBT Account Management Agent (AMA) data to ensure issuance accuracy. Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: Management concurs with the finding, but not the questioned costs. Questioned costs are defined by Title 2 CFR 200.1, which states: Questioned cost means a cost that is questioned by the auditor because of an audit finding: Which resulted from a violation or possible violation of a statute, regulation, or the terms and conditions of a federal award, including for funds used to match federal funds; Where the costs, at the time of the audit, are not supported by adequate documentation; or Where the costs incurred appear unreasonable and do not reflect the actions a prudent person would take in the circumstances. Based on Uniform Guidance, the SNAP benefits issued that were not supported by eligibility determinations were reported as questioned costs.
Finding No. 2025-032 Prior Audit Finding: 2024-038 Federal Awarding Agency: USDHS Impact: Material Weakness, Material Noncompliance AL Number and Title: 97.036 Disaster Grants Federal Award Number: 4413DRAKP00000001 Applicable Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Condition: DMVA management did not issue a management decision for a finding relating to one Disaster Grants 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 findings. If the subrecipient has not completed corrective action, a timetable for follow-up should be given. One Disaster Grants subrecipients single audit contained a finding and DMVA management did not issue a management decision. The finding related to a subrecipient lacking evidence that a secondary review was conducted by an individual other than the preparer for required reports. Cause: DMVA had controls to ensure a management decision was issued on a subrecipient's single audit finding. However, DMVA’s procedures were insufficient to identify subrecipient’s findings requiring follow-up. DMVA staff stated that information reported on the Summary of Items for Follow-up document, provided by the Department of Administration, Division of Finance, did not specify that DMVA should follow up on the finding; therefore, no management decision was issued. However, the audit determined DMVA misinterpreted the information provided by the Division of Finance. Criteria: Title 2 CFR 200.521 requires the State to issue a management decision for audit findings that affect subawards it issues to subrecipients under a federal award. 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. Title 2 CFR 200.303(a) requires the State to establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the State is managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the grant awards. Effect: The lack of a management decision may result in a 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 DAS director should strengthen procedures to ensure findings requiring follow-up are identified and management decisions are issued 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: During our test of the annual expenditure report filed by the County for compliance with grant reporting requirements, it was noted that the report listed inaccurate information regarding the actual expenditures. The annual report listed the expenditures totaling $2,680,335; however, the confirmed amount on the financial statement and SEFA indicated the actual expenditures were $2,813,954 resulting in an understatement of $133,619. Cause of Condition: Policies and procedures have not been designed and implemented to ensure compliance with federal grant requirements. Effect of Condition: This condition resulted in noncompliance with federal grant requirements for this program and could result in loss of federal funds to the County. Recommendation: OSAI recommends the County gain an understanding of the compliance requirements for federal programs to ensure compliance with the grant requirements and filing accurate quarterly reports. Management Response: Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and County Clerk: The Creek County Clerk's Office will work with the SEFA preparer to ensure that the correct paid dates are being used when reporting. This should eliminate the actual expenditures differences. We will work to educate all offices involved in the reporting process on financial statement and SEFA. Criteria: Title 2 CFR § 200.303(a) Internal Controls reads (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 Controls 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, your organization needs to establish controls to ensure completion and timely submission of all mandatory performance and/or compliance reporting.
Finding 2025-013 – Noncompliance with Reporting Over Major Federal Program - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (Repeat Finding – 2023-013, 2024-013) 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: During the test of 100% of expenditures for the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, totaling $5,176,520, thirty (32) expenditures totaling $2,780,668, were not accurately reported in the proper period on the quarterly reports, and two expenditures to subrecipients totaling $121,362, were improperly classified as “Revenue Replacement” expense instead of using the “Infrastructure” expense category as required by the Reporting compliance requirement. Cause of Condition: Policies and procedures have not been designed and implemented to ensure federal expenditures are made 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 reports and to ensure compliance with federal requirements. Management Response: Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners: The Board of County Commissioners will take measures to ensure future compliance with all requirements of federal grants. 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 (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 Controls 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, your 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 2025-014 – Noncompliance with Reporting Over Major Federal Program – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (Repeat Finding – 2022-014, 2023-014, 2024-014) 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: During the test of sixty-five (65) expenditures for the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, totaling $4,254,839, seventeen (17) expenditures, totaling $1,280,024, were not accurately reported in the proper period on the quarterly reports as required by the program. 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 reports and to ensure compliance with federal requirements. 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. Title 2 CFR § 200.303(a) Internal Controls reads (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). 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, your organization needs to establish controls to ensure completion and timely submission of all mandatory performance and/or compliance reporting. See Part 2 of this guidance for a full overview of recipient reporting responsibilities. 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 2025-003 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Special Education Grants to States Assistance Listings Number: 84.027 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other identifying Numbers): 22611-133-PN01, 23611-133-PN01, 24611-133-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 LEWIS CASS SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Condition and Context The internal control system in place at the School Corporation was not effective in ensuring compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Procurement - Small Purchases Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is set at $250,000 unless a lower, more restrictive threshold is set by a nonfederal entity. As Indiana Code has set a more restrictive threshold of $150,000, the informal procurement method is permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds: micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micro-purchase threshold but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. A total of two vendors were determined to require small purchase procedures, totaling $123,078. For the two vendors tested, the School Corporation did not obtain price or rate quotations. Additionally, documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used, was absent for those two vendors. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. "Covered transactions" include, but are not limited to, contracts for goods and services awarded under a nonprocurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the System for Award Management (SAM) Excluded Parties List System (EPLS), collecting a certification from that person or entity, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person or entity. A population of two covered transactions for goods or services totaling $123,078, both of which equaled or exceeded the $25,000 threshold paid from the special education funds during the audit period, were identified and selected for testing. For both transactions, the School Corporation did not verify that the vendor was not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded from or eligible for participation in federal assistance programs or activities prior to issuing payment. The lack of effective internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 20 LEWIS CASS SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards 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). . . ." 2 CFR 200.214 states: "Non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. The regulations in 2 CFR part 180 restrict awards, subawards, and contracts with certain parties that are debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in Federal assistance programs or activities." 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (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: . . . (2) Small purchases— (i) Small purchase procedures. 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. . . ." Cause The School Corporation did not have adequate internal controls to ensure compliance with procurement and suspension and debarment requirements. Effect The lack of an effective internal control system enabled material noncompliance to occur and remain undetected. Noncompliance with the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement could enable small purchases made by the School Corporation to be uncompetitive and could lead to contracting with vendors who are suspended or debarred from receiving federal grant funding. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 LEWIS CASS SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the management of the School Corporation develop policies and procedures to ensure there are appropriate procurement procedures for goods and services and contractors and subrecipients, as appropriate, are verified to not be suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded prior to entering into any contracts or subawards. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING REFERENCE NUMBER 2025-004 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 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 – 84.425D) 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 (10/01/2017 – 09/30/2018); 1PRAEA19SCESUBA (10/01/2018 – 09/30/2019); 1PRAEA20SCESUBA (10/01/2019 – 09/30/2020); 1PRAEA21SCESUBA (10/01/2020 – 09/30/2021); 1PRAEA22SCESUBA (10/01/2021 – 09/30/2022); 1PRAEA23SCESUBA (10/01/2022 – 09/30/2023); 1PRAEA24SCESUBA (10/01/2023 – 09/30/2024); 1PRAEA25SCESUBA (10/01/2024 – 09/30/2025); H027A1200003 (07/01/2020 – 09/30/2021); H027A2200003 (07/01/2022 – 09/30/2023); H027A2300003 (07/01/2023 – 09/30/2024); H027A2400003 (07/01/2024 – 09/30/2025); V048A180052 (07/01/2018 – 09/30/2019); S425D200029 (06/16/2020 – 09/30/2021); S425D210029 (01/05/2021 – 09/30/2022); S425U210029 (03/24/2021 – 09/30/2023) COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT ACTIVITIES ALLOWED OR UNALLOWED // ALLOWABLE COSTS/COSTS PRINCIPLES TYPE OF FINDING INTERNAL CONTROL AND COMPLIANCE – MATERIAL WEAKNESS AND MATERIAL NONCOMPLIANCE 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 $3,756,580. Invoices issued during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025, balance, were distributed as federal and state, as follows: Assistance Listing Number Program Description Transaction Balance 10.553/ 10.555/ 10.559/ 10.582 Child Nutrition Program Cluster $ 94,915 84.010A Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies (Title I, Part A of the ESEA) 13,665 84.027 Special Education – Grants to States (IDEA, Part B) 33,798 84.425D COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund: Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund 43,252 84.425U COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund: American Rescue Plan – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ARP ESSER) 55,837 Subtotal 241,467 Not Determined Schoolwide Program (State and Federal Funds) 2,106,827 Not Determined Consolidated Funds (State and Federal Funds) 32,730 Not Applicable State Funds 1,375,556 Total Invoices Issued Balance at 06/30/2025 $ 3,756,580 QUESTIONED COSTS Identified questioned costs are $241,467, 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 This is a systemic deficiency. The amount of $3,756,580, corresponds to incorrect payroll payments made from current and prior years, for which during fiscal year 2024-2025, 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 2024-005). 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 2025-015 – Noncompliance with Reporting Over Major Federal Program – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds 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: During the test of 100% of expenditures for the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds totaling $10,706,312, reflected five (5) expenditures totaling $10,182,497, were not accurately reported in the proper period on the quarterly reports as required by the Reporting compliance requirement. 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 reports and to ensure compliance with federal requirements. Management Response: Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners: The BOCC 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 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). Additionally, 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, your 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 No. SA 2025-004 – Inaccurate and Unreconciled Reporting of Project and Expenditure Reports Federal Assistance Listing Number: 21.027 Federal Program Title: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Treasury Award Period: Fiscal year 2025 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance Criteria: Pursuant to 2 CFR §200.1, internal controls for non Federal entities are defined as processes designed and implemented to provide reasonable assurance regarding the achievement of objectives in the following categories: (1) effectiveness and efficiency of operations, (2) reliability of reporting for internal and external use, and (3) compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The Accounting Manager is responsible for reviewing the completeness and accuracy of the quarterly Project and Expenditure Reports (PERs) submitted to the U.S. Department of the Treasury and ensuring that reported amounts agree with the City’s financial records, including the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA). Condition: During our review of the quarterly reports, we identified unreconciled differences totaling $1,865 between amounts reported on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) and the quarterly Project and Expenditure Reports submitted to the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Cause: Incorrect adjustments were recorded during the preparation of the quarterly reports, and reconciliation procedures were not sufficient to identify and resolve these differences prior to submission. Effect: The Project and Expenditure Reports submitted to the U.S. Department of the Treasury were not fully accurate or complete. Inaccurate reporting may result in noncompliance with federal requirements and could lead to fines, penalties, or the suspension or termination of federal awards. Questioned Costs: $1,865 Repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that the City enhance review and reconciliation procedures over the preparation of Project and Expenditure Reports to ensure amounts reported are accurate, complete, and fully reconciled to the City’s financial records, including the SEFA, prior to submission. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective actions: The Finance Staff will perform quarterly reconciliations of expenditures to ensure accurate reporting of amounts. Personnel responsible for implementation: Carmen Tsui, Grant Accountant Completion Date: June 30, 2026
Reporting Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Federal Program Title: Child Care and Development Block Grant/Child Care Mandatory and Matching Funds of the Child Care and Development Fund State Administering Department: California Department of Social Services (CDSS) ALN: 93.575, 93.596 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Number and Period: 2101CACDC6; October 1, 2020 – September 30, 2024 2334CACCDD; October 1, 2022 – September 30, 2025 2334CACCDF; October 1, 2022 – September 30, 2025 2334CACCDM; October 1, 2022 – September 30, 2025 2434CACCDD; October 1, 2023 – September 30, 2026 2434CACCDF; October 1, 2023 – September 30, 2026 2434CACCDM; October 1, 2023 – September 30, 2025 2534CACCDD; October 1, 2024 – September 30, 2027 2534CACCDF; October 1, 2024 – September 30, 2027 2534CACCDM; October 1, 2024 – September 30, 2026 2534CACCDY; December 21, 2024 – September 30, 2028 Statistically Valid Sample: No, and not intended to be a statistically valid sample Type of Finding: Material Weakness in Internal Control over Complianceand Material Noncompliance Criteria or specific requirement: Title 2 – Federal Financial Assistance Subtitle A – Office of Management and Budget Guidance for Grants and Agreements. Chapter II – Office of Management and Budget Guidance. Part 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. Subpart D – Post Federal Award Requirements. § 200.303 - Internal controls (2 CFR 200.303): The recipient and subrecipient must: (a) 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). § 200.302 – Financial management (b) The recipient's and subrecipient's financial management system must provide for the following: (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements in §§ 200.328 and 200.329. (3) Maintaining records that sufficiently identify the amount, source, and expenditure of Federal funds for Federal awards. These records must contain information necessary to identify Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, as well as assets, expenditures, income, and interest. All records must be supported by source documentation. §200.328 Financial reporting (c) The recipient or subrecipient must submit financial reports as required by the Federal award. Reports submitted annually by the recipient or subrecipient 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. (d) The final financial report submitted by the recipient must be due no later than 120 calendar days after the conclusion of the period of performance. A subrecipient must submit a final financial report to a pass-through entity no later than 90 calendar days after the conclusion of the period of performance. § 200.329 Monitoring and reporting program performance (a) Monitoring by the recipient and subrecipient The recipient and subrecipient are responsible for the oversight of the Federal award. The recipient and subrecipient must monitor their activities under Federal awards to ensure they are compliant with all requirements and meeting performance expectations. Monitoring by the recipient and subrecipient must cover each program, function, or activity. See also § 200.332. Title 45 – Public Welfare Subtitle A – Department of Health and Human Services Subchapter A – General Administration Part 98 – Child Care and Development Fund Subpart G – Financial Management § 98.60 – Availability of funds (d) The following obligation and liquidation provisions apply to States and Territories: (1) Discretionary Fund allotments shall be obligated in the fiscal year in which funds are awarded or in the succeeding fiscal year. Unliquidated obligations as of the end of the succeeding fiscal year shall be liquidated within one year. (2)(i) Mandatory Funds for States requesting Matching Funds per § 98.55 shall be obligated in the fiscal year in which the funds are granted and are available until expended. (4) Both the Federal and non-Federal share of the Matching Fund shall be obligated in the fiscal year in which the funds are granted and liquidated no later than the end of the succeeding fiscal year. (5) Determination of whether funds have been obligated and liquidated will be based on State or local law or, if there is no applicable State or local law, the regulation at 2 CFR 200.1, Expenditures and Obligations. § 98.65 Audits and financial reporting (a) Each Lead Agency shall have an audit conducted after the close of each program period in accordance with 2 CFR part 200, subpart F, and the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996. (b) Lead Agencies are responsible for ensuring that subgrantees are audited in accordance with appropriate audit requirements. (c) Not later than 30 days after the completion of the audit, Lead Agencies shall submit a copy of their audit report to the legislature of the State or, if applicable, to the Tribal Council(s). Lead Agencies shall also submit a copy of their audit report to the HHS Inspector General for Audit Services, as well as to their cognizant agency, if applicable. (d) Any amounts determined through an audit not to have been expended in accordance with these statutory or regulatory provisions, or with the Plan, and that are subsequently disallowed by the Department shall be repaid to the Federal government, or the Secretary will offset such amounts against any other CCDF funds to which the Lead Agency is or may be entitled. (e) Lead Agencies shall provide access to appropriate books, documents, papers and records to allow the Secretary to verify that CCDF funds have been expended in accordance with the statutory and regulatory requirements of the program, and with the Plan. (f) The audit required in paragraph (a) of this section shall be conducted by an agency that is independent of the State, Territory or Tribe as defined by generally accepted government auditing standards issued by the Comptroller General, or a public accountant who meets such independent standards. (g) Lead Agencies shall submit financial reports, in a manner specified by ACF, quarterly for each fiscal year until funds are expended. (h) At a minimum, a State or territorial Lead Agency's quarterly report shall include the following information on expenditures under CCDF grant funds, including Discretionary (which includes realloted funding and any funds transferred from the TANF block grant), Mandatory, and Matching Funds (which includes redistributed funding); and State Matching and Maintenance-of- Effort (MOE) Funds: (1) Child care administration; (2) Quality activities, including any sub-categories of quality activities as required by ACF; (3) Direct services for both grant or contracted slots and certificates; (4) Non-direct services, including: (i) Establishment and maintenance of computerized child care information systems; (ii) Certificate program cost/eligibility determination; (iii) All other non-direct services; and (5) Such other information as specified by the Secretary. § 98.67 – Fiscal requirements (c) Fiscal control and accounting procedures shall be sufficient to permit: (1) Preparation of reports required by the Secretary under this subpart and under subpart H; and (2) The tracing of funds to a level of expenditure adequate to establish that such funds have not been used in violation of the provisions of this part. Condition: Audit procedures included a review of the entire population of ACF-696 financial reports submitted for the CCDF Cluster. Our testing identified that certain reported amounts did not agree or reconcile to the underlying general ledger, resulting in a total variance of $491,119,535. Additionally, audit procedures identified that internal controls over reporting were not operating effectively to ensure the accurate submission of reports. Specifically, certain reports contained inaccuracies at the time of submission, and controls were not performed with sufficient precision to verify that reported information was complete and accurate in accordance with federal reporting requirements. Questioned costs: None Context: See “Condition.” Cause: The controls over the preparation and review of ACF-696 reports were not performed with sufficient precision to identify and resolve discrepancies between reported amounts and the underlying general ledger. Specifically, controls were not designed or operating at a level precise enough to ensure that reported data was accurate, reconciled, and submitted in a timely manner in accordance with federal requirements. As a result, variances and reporting errors were not detected or corrected prior to submission. Effect: Without a documented reconciliation between the ACF-696 reports and the general ledger, the Department cannot demonstrate that reported expenditures were accurate, complete, and supported by accounting records. This increases the risk that expenditures, obligations, liquidations, unobligated balances, or expenditure categories reported to ACF may be misstated. Inaccurate ACF-696 reporting may affect ACF’s ability to monitor compliance with CCDF spending, obligation, liquidation, and availability requirements. Repeat finding: Yes – 2024-015 Recommendation: Management should establish a formal reconciliation process to ensure that ACF-696 expense reports align with the general ledger. This process should include assigning responsibility to a designated finance team member for performing and documenting reconciliations, implementing a monthly reconciliation schedule, and promptly investigating and resolving any variances with documented approvals. Additionally, financial reporting policies should be updated to incorporate reconciliation requirements, and staff should receive training on compliance and reconciliation procedures to strengthen internal controls and reduce the risk of reporting inaccuracies. Views of responsible officials: Management’s response is reported in “Management’s Response and Corrective Action Plan” included in a separate section at the end of this report. Response to views of responsible officials: We acknowledge management's explanation that variances between the ACF-696 reports and the general ledger resulted from timing differences associated with subsequent cost allocations, accruals, and other adjustments. However, the issue identified during the audit was not the existence of timing differences, but that the reconciliation process did not adequately identify, explain, and support significant variances. Audit testing identified unreconciled variances totaling $491,119,535 between the ACF-696 reports and the general ledger. Although management indicated that adjustments were reported in subsequent quarters, documentation supporting a complete and accurate reconciliation was not available at the time of report preparation and submission. As a result, controls did not operate with sufficient precision to ensure reported amounts were accurate, complete, and supported by the Department's accounting records. Accordingly, we continue to conclude that the finding is valid as presented. We appreciate management's planned corrective actions to formalize the reconciliation process and strengthen oversight of ACF-696 reporting.
Finding 2025-005 Late Reporting and Noncompliance with Reporting Requirements Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Commerce Federal Program: Economic Development Cluster ALN: 11.307 Award Numbers: ED23SEA0G0012 Award Year: 2025 Type of Finding: Significant deficiency and noncompliance. Criteria: 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. The nonfederal 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 as outlined in 2 CFR 200.329. Condition and context: The City did not adhere to the program requirement of submitting the financial and performance report by the deadlines set forth in the grant award. Cause: The City was not able to provide the necessary reporting documents in the required time frames set forth in the grant award. Effect: The City is not in compliance with reporting requirements. Questioned Costs: None noted. Repeat finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: The City needs to improve processes for preparing and submitting financial information timely. Management’s Response: Management concurs with the finding. See Corrective Action Plan.
Federal Program: ALN 93.600 Head Start Category: Compliance/internal control significant deficiency Compliance Requirement: Equipment and real property management 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. As established by BGCPR's capitalization policy, all items with a unit cost exceeding $5,000 must be capitalized. As per 2 CFR §200.1 equipment means tangible personal property (including information technology systems) having a useful life of more than one year and a per-unit acquisition cost that equals or exceeds the lesser of the capitalization level established by the recipient or subrecipient for financial statement purposes, or $5,000 on June 30, 2025. Condition: BGCPR real and personal property records are not complete and did not follow the program requirements. BGCPR’s fixed asset records include assets acquired using multiple funding sources (federal, state, and private). However, the BGCPR has not implemented a mechanism to clearly identify and distinguish equipment acquired with federal funds within the fixed asset system. As a result, property records for federally funded equipment are incomplete and do not include all data elements required under 2 CFR §200.313(d)(1), including Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN), percentage of federal participation, and information related to location, use, condition, and disposition. In addition, certain equipment acquisitions that exceeded BGCPR’s capitalization threshold were not capitalized in the fixed asset records. Cause: BGCPR did not maintain essential details, such as acquisition costs, funding sources, or the federal award identification numbers. In addition, management did not consistently apply its capitalization policy. Effect or potential effect: As a result of this condition, BGCPR: • Is not in compliance with 2 CFR §200.313(d)(1); • May incur questioned or disallowed costs related to federally funded equipment • Cannot readily identify federally funded equipment for monitoring, reporting, or physical inventory purposes • Is exposed to an increased risk of loss, misuse, or inaccurate reporting of federally funded equipment, which may affect current and future federal funding. Questioned costs: Amount is below the threshold to be considered a questioned cost. Context: Upon testing a sample of twenty one (21) assets, we noted that two (2) equipment acquisitions exceeding the capitalization threshold were not capitalized, four assets lacked an Asset ID identification or tag number, and one asset lacked a serial number. Identification as a repeat finding: As of June 30, 2024, finding 2024-007 was identified under this condition. This finding is still valid for the year ended June 30, 2025. 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. Management should strengthen its fixed asset tracking system to ensure compliance with 2 CFR §200.313(d)(1) by: • Implementing a method to clearly identify and track equipment acquired with federal funds within the fixed asset register; • Updating property records to include all required data elements (e.g., FAIN, percentage of federal participation, location, condition, and disposition data) for federally funded equipment; • Establishing formal policies and procedures for recording, monitoring, and disposing of equipment acquired with federal funds; • Performing periodic reviews and physical inventories to ensure completeness and accuracy of federally funded equipment records. Views of officials responsible: 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, during fiscal year 2025-26, BGCPR implemented 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: a. A property and inventory coordinator was hired and is responsible for overseeing all aspects of property control and asset management. b. Full Implementation Property software to accurately all property of by BGCPR. The system includes information such as asset identification number, acquisition date, funding source, cost, useful life, depreciation, location, and other relevant details, serving as a support tool for the property records maintained in the accounting system. c. Prepare an updated Property Control Manual, which is pending final approval by senior management. Implement procedures for timely recording of acquisitions, transfers, disposals, and impairments to ensure that asset records remain current and accurate. d. Perfom and complete physical inventory for all Units and Central Office. e. All inventory counts have been entered into the system. f. All property acquired have been recorded in the property software. g. Currently we are in the process of valuation of the physical inventory to reconcile with the accounting records by December 31, 2026. h. Training was provided to personnel involved in asset management and inventory activities to ensure consistent application of established procedures. i. Perform periodic monitoring reviews by finance, compliance, or internal audits to validate adherence to property control policies and inventory requirements. Anticipated Completion Date: December 31, 2026
2025-002 U.S. Department of Treasury COVID-19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds – ALN 21.027 Material Weakness in Internal Controls over Compliance and Compliance Finding 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: Expenditures were not reconciled to the general ledger for reporting submitted to the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Cause: The Town did not have procedures in place to perform reconciliations of required grant reporting. Effect: It was determined that the Town recorded overstated expenditures by $427,507 in reporting submitted to the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Questioned Costs: None Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: The Town should implement procedures to reconcile all federal reporting to the general ledger. Views of Responsible Official: Management agrees with the finding.
FINDING 2025-003 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): BREAKFAST SY 24-25, LUNCH FY24-25, SUPPLY CHAIN SY 24-25, ADMIN 24-25, OPER FY 24-25, FY 2024-2025 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context The School Corporation entered into a cost reimbursement contract with a food service management company (FSMC) during the audit period. Per the contract with the FSMC, detailed cost documentation must be submitted monthly to support what the School Corporation was charged for each cost, charge, or expense. An oversight or review process was not in place to ensure the FSMC expenditures were supported by proper detail documentation, were allowable, and only for the operation of the food service program. One expenditure tested was paid for 'end of the year awards' for employees of the FSMC and should not have been paid by the School Corporation. Another expenditure was for a monthly IT billing. Per our review of the contract, this should not be charged to the School Corporation but assumed as an expense of the FSMC under their "Administrative Fee". The billing selected as part of the sample was one month, but further review of the ledger indicated the School Corporation was charged this billing each month in the audit period. These expenditures were considered questioned costs totaling $1,299. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 24 SOUTH BEND COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) 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). . . ." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, 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. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.1 states in part: "Questioned cost means a cost that is questioned by the auditor because of an audit finding: (1) Which resulted from a violation or possible violation of a statute, regulation, or the terms and conditions of a Federal award, including for funds used to match Federal funds; (2) Where the costs, at the time of the audit, are not supported by adequate documentation; or (3) Where the costs incurred appear unreasonable and do not reflect the actions a prudent person would take in the circumstances. (4) Questioned costs are not an improper payment until reviewed and confirmed to be improper as defined in OMB Circular A-123 appendix C. (See also the definition of Improper payment in this section)." Cause Management had not developed an adequate system of internal controls to ensure costs charged to the program were allowable and necessary for the operation of the program. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 25 SOUTH BEND COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Effect Without an effective review of the detailed records, federal expenditures were unallowable, which the funding agency could potentially recover. Questioned Costs Questioned costs in the amount of $1,299 were identified as described in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a proper system of internal controls to ensure costs that are charged to the program are allowable and necessary. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2025-004 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): BREAKFAST SY 24-25, LUNCH FY24-25, SUPPLY CHAIN SY 24-25, ADMIN 24-25, OPER FY 24-25, FY 2024-2025 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context Internal controls were not effective in ensuring that supporting documentation of pay rates were retained for payroll expenditures. Six payroll expenditures paid from the School Lunch fund were tested, and documentation supporting the pay rates for these expenditures was not provided for audit. As a result, these expenditures were considered questioned costs totaling $12,697. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 26 SOUTH BEND COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (a) 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). . . ." 2 CFR 200.334 states in part: "Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, from the date of the submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient. . . ." 2 CFR 200.1 states in part: "Questioned cost means a cost that is questioned by the auditor because of an audit finding: (1) Which resulted from a violation or possible violation of a statute, regulation, or the terms and conditions of a Federal award, including for funds used to match Federal funds; (2) Where the costs, at the time of the audit, are not supported by adequate documentation; or (3) Where the costs incurred appear unreasonable and do not reflect the actions a prudent person would take in the circumstances. (4) Questioned costs are not an improper payment until reviewed and confirmed to be improper as defined in OMB Circular A-123 appendix C. (See also the definition of Improper payment in this section)." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, 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. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 27 SOUTH BEND COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 2 CFR 200.430(i) states in part: "Standards for Documentation of Personnel Expenses (1) Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non-Federal entity, not exceeding 100% of compensated activities (for IHE, this per the IHE's definition of IBS); . . . (vii) Support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. . . ." Cause Management had not developed an adequate system of internal controls to ensure costs charged to the program were allowable and necessary for the operation of the program. Effect Without an effective review of the detailed records, federal expenditures were unallowable, which the funding agency could potentially recover. Questioned Costs Questioned costs in the amount of $12,697 were identified as described in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a proper system of internal controls to ensure costs that are charged to the program are allowable and necessary. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2025-005 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Condition of Records Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, COVID-19 - Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants, COVID-19 - Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.027X, 84.173, 84.173X Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 23611-051-PN01,24611-051-PN01, 22611-051-ARP, 23619-051-PN01, 25619-051-PN01, 22619-051-ARP Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles; Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking; Period of Performance; Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation received reimbursements totaling $12,668,761 from the Special Education Cluster (IDEA) federal awards during the audit period. The reimbursements were associated with six separate federal awards, each of which was required to be accounted for in a separate fund within the School Corporation's financial management system. Expenditures were to be made in accordance with the approved grant applications and budgets, with reimbursement requests subsequently submitted to the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE). The School Corporation was responsible for maintaining detailed disbursement ledgers for each grant fund to support the amounts claimed for reimbursement. As is typical with reimbursement-based grants, the ending cash and investment balances of each grant fund were expected to reflect overdrawn balances until the subsequent reimbursements were received from the IDOE. The $12,668,761 received in the Special Education Cluster (IDEA) funds during the audit period was based on 23 reimbursement requests for expenditures incurred. Based on our review of grant fund records and inquiry with management, we identified the following deficiencies: The reimbursement requests for the reimbursements received during the audit period included dates of July 1, 2021 to March 31, 2025. It was not easily determined what was requested for reimbursement for the earlier dates due to the School Corporation including in the "Dates Included in this Request" section descriptions such as "Entire Grant Period" and "Start to March 21, 2025". The supporting documentation with the reimbursement requests did not always have detail or specifically state which disbursements were included in the amount for the request. Several had documentation that showed detail for a period of time then a calculation was done to subtract what was previously requested for reimbursement. The total received in reimbursements was $12,668,761. The total detailed disbursement ledgers for the population that could be determined reflected total expenditures of $15,894,839. This resulted in $3,226,078 in disbursements in excess of what the School Corporation requested for reimbursement. Of the six federal awards reported on the Schedule Expenditures of Awards, four reached the award's performance end date, and of those four, three reported a Grant Balance After Reimbursement on the last Reimbursement Form. o Grant 23619-051-PN01 reported a Grant Balance After Reimbursement of $1,367 on February 26, 2024. The dates included in this final request were "01/01/24 - 01/31/24." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 29 SOUTH BEND COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) o Grant 22611-051-ARP reported a Grant Balance After Reimbursement of $55,581 on December 15, 2023. The dates included in this final request were "06/01/23 - 09/30/23." o Grant 22619-051-ARP reported a Grant Balance After Reimbursement of $82,677 on December 13, 2023. The dates included in this final request were "Entire Grant Period." Of the 23 reimbursement requests submitted, only 10 were supported by detailed disbursement ledgers that agreed with the dates and amounts claimed. The remaining 13 reimbursement requests could not be directly reconciled to the supporting documentation provided. Upon further inquiry with management, additional information was provided; however, these records lacked sufficient detail, such as transactions, reasons for overspending, and which transactions were not requested for reimbursement due to overspending. Due to the deficiencies noted above, the School Corporation was unable to provide sufficient appropriate evidence for us to determine populations, and, therefore, audit and base an opinion on the compliance requirements subject to audit that were determined to have a direct and material effect on the program. As a result, the $12,668,761 in reimbursements received during the audit period were considered questioned costs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were material and systemic throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) 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). . . ." 2 CFR 200.302 states in part: "(a) . . . the other 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. See also § 200.450. (b) The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following (see §§ 200.334, 200.335, 200.336, and 200.337): INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 30 SOUTH BEND COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (1) Identification, in its accounts, of all Federal awards received and expended and the Federal programs under which they were received. Federal program and Federal award identification must include, as applicable, the Assistance Listings title and number, Federal award identification number and year, name of the Federal agency, and name of the pass-through entity, if any. (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in §§ 200.328 and 200.329. . . . (3) Records that identify adequately the source and application of funds for federallyfunded activities. These records must contain information pertaining to Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, assets, expenditures, income, and interest and be supported by source documentation. (4) Effective control over, and accountability, for all funds, property, and assets. The non- Federal entity must adequately safeguard all assets and ensure that they are used solely for authorized purposes. See § 200.303. (5) Comparison of expenditures with budget amounts for each Federal award. (6) Written procedures to implement the requirements of § 200.305. (7) Written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the Federal award." 2 CFR 200.1 states in part: "Questioned cost means a cost that is questioned by the auditor because of an audit finding: (1) Which resulted from a violation or possible violation of a statute, regulation, or the terms and conditions of a Federal award, including for funds used to match Federal funds; (2) Where the costs, at the time of the audit, are not supported by adequate documentation; or (3) Where the costs incurred appear unreasonable and do not reflect the actions a prudent person would take in the circumstances. (4) Questioned costs are not an improper payment until reviewed and confirmed to be improper as defined in OMB Circular A-123 appendix C. (See also the definition of Improper payment in this section)." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, 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. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 31 SOUTH BEND COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.1 states in part: ". . . Financial obligations, when referencing a recipient's or subrecipient's use of funds under a Federal award, means orders placed for property and services, contracts and subawards made, and similar transactions that require payment. Period of performance means 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. Identification of the period of performance in the Federal award per § 200.211(b)(5) does not commit the awarding agency to fund the award beyond the currently approved budget period. Unliquidated financial obligations means, for financial reports prepared on a cash basis, financial obligations incurred by the non-Federal entity that have not been paid (liquidated). . . ." 2 CFR 200.309 states: "If a Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity approves an extension, or if a recipient extends under § 200.308(e)(2), the Period of Performance will be amended to end at the completion of the extension. If termination occurs, the Period of Performance will be amended to end upon the effective date of termination. If a renewal award is issued, a distinct Period of Performance will begin." 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. . . ." 2 CFR 180.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 32 SOUTH BEND COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 511 IAC 7-34-7(b) states: "The public agency, in providing special education and related services to students in nonpublic schools must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Cause The School Corporation experienced turnover in key personnel over the federal program which contributed to the lack of appropriate supporting records. A proper system of internal controls was not designed to ensure continuity of policies, procedures, and records when personnel transitions occurred. Effect Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirements could result in the repayment of federal funds. Questioned Costs We identified $12,668,761 in questioned costs as noted in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management develop policies and procedures to ensure continuity of school records during a personnel change, and that all reimbursement requests are properly supported by detailed records. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2025-007 Subject: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies Assistance Listings Number: 84.010 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S010A210014, S010A220014, S010A230014, S010A240014 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Repeat Findings This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2023-004. Condition and Context Costs charged to grant funds must be adequately documented. To adequately document payroll expenses charged to the grant fund, contracts or other documentation supporting the employees' approved rates of pay are necessary. The School Corporation utilized a financial software system that has two different sides, an employee portal side and an administrator side. Employee contracts are approved by the employee, the Superintendent of Schools, and the President of the School Board within the system on the employee portal side. Once approved, the data in the employee portal side is fed into a process in the administrator side. The School Corporation could not provide a contract or approved payroll rate for 4 of 24 employees tested. As such, we could not verify the employee was paid their correct rates for hours spent working on grant-related activities. This resulted in known questioned costs of $103,640. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 35 SOUTH BEND COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (a) 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). . . ." 2 CFR 200.334 states in part: "Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, from the date of the submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient. . . ." 2 CFR 200.1 states in part: "Questioned cost means a cost that is questioned by the auditor because of an audit finding: (1) Which resulted from a violation or possible violation of a statute, regulation, or the terms and conditions of a Federal award, including for funds used to match Federal funds; (2) Where the costs, at the time of the audit, are not supported by adequate documentation; or (3) Where the costs incurred appear unreasonable and do not reflect the actions a prudent person would take in the circumstances. (4) Questioned costs are not an improper payment until reviewed and confirmed to be improper as defined in OMB Circular A-123 appendix C. (See also the definition of Improper payment in this section)." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, 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. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.430(i) states in part: "Standards for Documentation of Personnel Expenses INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 36 SOUTH BEND COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (1) Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non-Federal entity, not exceeding 100% of compensated activities (for IHE, this per the IHE's definition of IBS); . . . (vii) Support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. . . ." Cause The School Corporation did not maintain or provide adequate documentation to support payroll expenses charged to the grant fund. While employee contracts are approved within the financial software system, the process lacked sufficient oversight and record retention practices to ensure that approved pay rates were accessible and verifiable. Effect Without access to approved contracts or documentation verifying payroll rates for 4 of the 24 employees tested, the School Corporation could not demonstrate that payroll costs charged to the grant were accurate and allowable. This lack of documentation resulted in known questioned costs totaling $103,640. Additionally, the absence of reliable records increases the risk of noncompliance with federal grant requirements and necessitates expanded audit procedures, which will likely lead to higher audit costs. Questioned Costs Questioned costs in the amount of $103,640 were identified as described in the Condition and Context. Recommendation The School Corporation should establish and enforce documentation procedures to verify payroll rates for all employees whose compensation is charged to federal grants. This includes maintaining approved contracts, salary schedules, and supporting records that clearly demonstrate the accuracy and allowability of payroll costs. A review and approval process by a second knowledgeable party should be implemented to ensure compliance prior to submission. Additionally, the School Corporation should provide necessary support and resources for staff involved in payroll and grant management to strengthen recordkeeping practices. These measures will reduce the risk of noncompliance, minimize questioned costs, and help control future audit expenses. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2025-012 Subject: Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs - Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs Assistance Listings Number: 84.334 Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): P334A210080 Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context Costs charged to grant funds must be adequately documented. To adequately document payroll expenses charged to the grant fund, contracts or other documentation supporting the employees' approved rates of pay are necessary. The School Corporation utilized a financial software system that has two different sides, an employee portal side and an administrator side. Employee contracts are approved by the employee, the Superintendent of Schools, and the President of the School Board within the system on the employee portal side. Once approved, the data in the employee portal side is fed into a process in the administrator side. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 44 SOUTH BEND COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The School Corporation provided approved payroll rate documentation that did not agree with the amount paid for eight of nine employees tested. As such, we could not verify the employee was paid the correct rate for hours spent working on grant-related activities. Seven of the employees were overpaid, and one of the employees was underpaid based on the approved payroll rate documentation that was provided. This resulted in known questioned costs of $2,981. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) 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). . . ." 2 CFR 200.334 states in part: "Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, from the date of the submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient. . . ." 2 CFR 200.1 states in part: "Questioned cost means a cost that is questioned by the auditor because of an audit finding: (1) Which resulted from a violation or possible violation of a statute, regulation, or the terms and conditions of a Federal award, including for funds used to match Federal funds; (2) Where the costs, at the time of the audit, are not supported by adequate documentation; or (3) Where the costs incurred appear unreasonable and do not reflect the actions a prudent person would take in the circumstances. (4) Questioned costs are not an improper payment until reviewed and confirmed to be improper as defined in OMB Circular A-123 appendix C. (See also the definition of Improper payment in this section)." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 45 SOUTH BEND COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (c) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (d) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.430(i) states in part: "Standards for Documentation of Personnel Expenses (1) Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non-Federal entity, not exceeding 100% of compensated activities (for IHE, this per the IHE's definition of IBS); . . . (vii) Support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. . . ." Cause The School Corporation did not maintain or provide adequate documentation to support payroll expenses charged to the grant fund. While employee contracts were approved within the financial software system, the process lacked sufficient oversight and record retention practices to ensure that approved rates of pay were accessible and verifiable. Effect Without access to accurate approved contracts or documentation verifying payroll rates for 8 of the 9 employees tested, the School Corporation could not demonstrate that payroll costs charged to the grant were accurate and allowable. This lack of accurate documentation resulted in known questioned costs totaling $2,981. Additionally, the absence of reliable records increases the risk of noncompliance with federal grant requirements and necessitates expanded audit procedures, which will likely lead to higher audit costs. Questioned Costs Questioned costs in the amount of $2,981 were identified as described in the Condition and Context. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 46 SOUTH BEND COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation management establish and implement an internal control system over payroll processes to ensure compliance with federal grant requirements. This includes developing formal procedures for documenting payroll charges to federal programs, review and approval processes by a second knowledgeable individual, and maintaining records to support all payroll expenditures. Staff involved in payroll and grant management should receive necessary support and resources regarding federal documentation standards and allowable cost principles. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2025-013 Subject: Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs - Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs Assistance Listings Number: 84.334 Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): P334A210080 Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is set at $250,000 unless a lower, more restrictive threshold is set by a non-Federal entity. As Indiana Code has set a more restrictive threshold of $150,000, informal procurement methods are permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds. Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micropurchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. When the value of the procurement for property or services exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold, formal procurement methods are required. Formal procurement methods require adherence to documented procedures and formal methods such as sealed bids or proposals. The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure it complied with the procurement compliance requirement for small purchase and simplified acquisition procurement methods. During the audit period, the School Corporation paid 40 vendors from the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) that fell into the small purchase threshold. Of those 40 vendors 3 vendors were tested. All 3 vendors did not have any rate quotes from qualified sources. The total dollar amount paid to these three vendors was $156,175. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 47 SOUTH BEND COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The School Corporation had two vendors during the audit period, which exceeded the simplified acquisition threshold that were paid from the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP). Both vendors were tested and it was determined that the School Corporation did not follow the formal procurement method of sealed bids or competitive proposals, nor was a circumstance documented that would have allowed for noncompetitive procurement for the purchases. The total dollar amount paid to these vendors was $724,290. In addition, the School Corporation did not follow its own purchasing policy #6325, in which the School Corporation had set a threshold of $3,500 for small purchases. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) 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). . . ." 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (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: . . . (2) Small purchases— (i) Small purchase procedures. 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. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 48 SOUTH BEND COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (ii) Simplified acquisition thresholds. The non-Federal entity is responsible for determining an appropriate simplified acquisition threshold based on internal controls, an evaluation of risk and its documented procurement procedures which must not exceed the threshold established in the FAR. When applicable, a lower simplified acquisition threshold used by the non-Federal entity must be authorized or not prohibited under State, local, or tribal laws or regulations. (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 non-competitive 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. A procurement method in which 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. The sealed bids method is the preferred method for procuring construction, if the conditions. . . . (2) Proposals. A procurement method in which either a fixed price or costreimbursement type contract is awarded. Proposals are generally used when conditions are not appropriate for the use of sealed bids. . . ." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not implemented by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to affect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper design or implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, procurement procedures for goods and services were not adhered to for vendors that fell within the small purchase and the exceeded simplified acquisition thresholds. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish and implement an effective internal control system over small purchases and purchases exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold to ensure compliance with federal grant requirements. Appropriate documentation should be maintained to ensure the procurement methods are being followed. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 49 SOUTH BEND COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2025-016 Subject: Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants (formerly the Teacher Incentive Fund) - Activities Allowed or Unallowed Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants (formerly the Teacher Incentive Fund) Assistance Listings Number: 84.374 Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): S374A200039 Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 53 SOUTH BEND COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Condition and Context An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Activities Allowed or Unallowed compliance requirement. A sample of 60 expenditures paid from the Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants (formerly the Teacher Incentive Fund) funds (TSL) were tested. In that sample, we determined 7 were not allowed, which included advertising expenditures, other unallowed expenditures, and reimbursements for alcohol. This resulted in known questioned costs of $43,574. There were multiple Directors over the TSL during the audit period. At the time the audit was conducted, no previous Directors were employed with the School Corporation and there were no current employees that were knowledgeable of the grant and its requirements. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) 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). . . ." 2 CFR 200.1 states in part: "Questioned cost means a cost that is questioned by the auditor because of an audit finding: (1) Which resulted from a violation or possible violation of a statute, regulation, or the terms and conditions of a Federal award, including for funds used to match Federal funds; (2) Where the costs, at the time of the audit, are not supported by adequate documentation; or (3) Where the costs incurred appear unreasonable and do not reflect the actions a prudent person would take in the circumstances. (4) Questioned costs are not an improper payment until reviewed and confirmed to be improper as defined in OMB Circular A-123 appendix C. (See also the definition of Improper payment in this section)." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 54 SOUTH BEND COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." Cause Management had not developed an adequate system of internal controls to ensure costs charged to the program were allowable and necessary for the operation of the program. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance. As a result, weaknesses in the internal control environment allowed instances of noncompliance to occur and remain undetected during the audit period resulting in $43,574 of questioned costs. Questioned Costs Questioned costs in the amount of $43,574 were identified as described in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management develop policies and procedures to ensure continuity of school records during a personnel change. We also recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a system of internal controls, including segregation of duties, to ensure compliance with the grant agreement and the Activities Allowed or Unallowed compliance requirement. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2025-017 Subject: Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants (formerly the Teacher Incentive Fund) - Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants (formerly the Teacher Incentive Fund) Assistance Listings Number: 84.374 Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): S374A200039 Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 55 SOUTH BEND COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Condition and Context An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirement. There were multiple Directors over the Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants (formerly the Teacher Incentive Fund) (TSL) during the audit period. At the time the audit was conducted, no previous Directors were employed with the School Corporation and there were no current employees that were knowledgeable of the grant and its requirements. A sample of 60 expenditures paid from the TSL were tested. In that sample, we determined the following noncompliance: There were 7 vendor expenditures that were not allowable, which included advertising expenditures, other unallowable costs, and reimbursements for alcohol. This resulted in known questioned costs of $43,574. There were 12 stipends that could not be verified as the School Corporation was unable to provide documentation confirming School Board approval. This resulted in known questioned costs of $14,028. The combined vendor and stipend issues resulted in known questioned costs of $57,602. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) 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). . . ." 2 CFR 200.1 states in part: "Questioned cost means a cost that is questioned by the auditor because of an audit finding: (1) Which resulted from a violation or possible violation of a statute, regulation, or the terms and conditions of a Federal award, including for funds used to match Federal funds; (2) Where the costs, at the time of the audit, are not supported by adequate documentation; or (3) Where the costs incurred appear unreasonable and do not reflect the actions a prudent person would take in the circumstances. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 56 SOUTH BEND COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (4) Questioned costs are not an improper payment until reviewed and confirmed to be improper as defined in OMB Circular A-123 appendix C. (See also the definition of Improper payment in this section)." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, 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. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." Cause Management had not developed an adequate system of internal controls to ensure costs charged to the program were allowable and necessary for the operation of the program. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance. As a result, weaknesses in the internal control environment allowed instances of noncompliance to occur and remain undetected during the audit period resulting in $57,602 of questioned costs. Questioned Costs Questioned costs in the amount of $57,602 were identified as described in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management develop policies and procedures to ensure continuity of school records during a personnel change. We also recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a system of internal controls, including segregation of duties, to ensure compliance with the grant agreement and the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirement. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2025-018 Subject: Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants (formerly the Teacher Incentive Fund) - Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants (formerly the Teacher Incentive Fund) Assistance Listings Number: 84.374 Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): S374A200039 Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context Procurement Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is set at $250,000 unless a lower, more restrictive threshold is set by a non-Federal entity. As Indiana Code has set a more restrictive threshold of $150,000, informal procurement methods are permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds. Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micro-purchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. When the value of the procurement for property or services exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold, formal procurement methods are required. Formal procurement methods require adherence to documented procedures and formal methods such as sealed bids or proposals. The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure it complied with the procurement requirement for small purchase and simplified acquisition procurement methods. During the audit period, the School Corporation paid 22 vendors with Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants (formerly the Teacher Incentive Fund) that fell into the small purchase threshold. There were 4 vendors were tested. For all 4 vendors tested, the School Corporation could not provide the procurement history or the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of vendors, and basis for price. The total dollar amount paid to these four vendors was $206,756. The School Corporation had 1 vendor during the audit period which exceeded the simplified acquisition threshold that was paid from Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants (formerly the Teacher Incentive Fund). This vendor was tested and it was determined that formal procurement methods were not followed. The total amount paid to this vendor was $305,034. In addition, the School Corporation did not follow their own purchasing policy #6325, in which the School Corporation had set a threshold of $3,500 for small purchases. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 58 SOUTH BEND COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. "Covered transactions" include, but are not limited to, contracts for goods and services awarded under a nonprocurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the SAMs exclusions, collecting a certification from that vendor, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that vendor. We identified 11 transactions during the audit period that equaled or exceeded $25,000 and were therefore determined to be covered transactions. Of the 11 transactions, 4 were selected for testing. The School Corporation was unable to provide current documentation that the vendor's suspension and debarment status was verified for 2 of these transactions. The total dollar amount spent with these 2 vendors was $82,105. There were multiple Directors over the Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants (formerly the Teacher Incentive Fund) during the audit period. At the time the audit was performed, no previous Directors were employed with the School Corporation and there were no current employees that were knowledgeable of the grant and its requirements. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) 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). . . ." 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (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: . . . INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 59 SOUTH BEND COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (2) Small purchases— (i) Small purchase procedures. 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. (ii) Simplified acquisition thresholds. The non-Federal entity is responsible for determining an appropriate simplified acquisition threshold based on internal controls, an evaluation of risk and its documented procurement procedures which must not exceed the threshold established in the FAR. When applicable, a lower simplified acquisition threshold used by the non-Federal entity must be authorized or not prohibited under State, local, or tribal laws or regulations. (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 non-competitive 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. A procurement method in which 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. The sealed bids method is the preferred method for procuring construction, if the conditions. . . . (2) Proposals. A procurement method in which either a fixed price or costreimbursement type contract is awarded. Proposals are generally used when conditions are not appropriate for the use of sealed bids. . . ." 2 CFR 180.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 60 SOUTH BEND COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Cause A proper system of internal controls was not implemented by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to affect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance. As a result, the School Corporation did not comply with the simplified acquisition or small purchase procurement requirements or the suspension and debarment requirements of the federal award. By not properly completing the procurement process, the School Corporation could have overpaid for the goods or services that were procured. Additionally, the School Corporation could have made payment to a vendor that was suspended or debarred. Payments to such vendors are unallowable. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management develop policies and procedures to ensure continuity of school records during a personnel change. We also recommend that the School Corporation establish and implement an effective internal control system over procurement and suspension and debarment to ensure compliance with federal grant requirements. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2025-020 Subject: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund - Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.425D, 84.425U, 84.425W Federal Award Numbers (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425D200013, S425D210013, S425U210013, S425W210015 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2023-009. Condition and Context The COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) established by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, and further funded by the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (CRSSA) and the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act, was for the purpose of preventing, preparing for, or responding to the novel coronavirus. An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation over payroll costs charged to grant funds. Payroll distribution reports were provided to the director responsible for the ESF grant compliance; however, documentation was not presented for audit as evidence of a review. Additionally, the following issues were detected: Vendor Disbursements The School Corporation was unable to provide supporting documentation for one vendor tested: LTIA, Inc. Although Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) were initiated by the Treasurer, no evidence was provided to demonstrate that the MOUs were reviewed or approved by the School Board at the time of execution. Information provided was based on documentation generated by the School Corporation, including purchase orders, handwritten vendor claim forms, and copies of check payments. However, no itemized vendor invoices were submitted to substantiate the services provided or the payments made, nor to detail the nature of the services rendered. In addition, the School Corporation was unable to provide supporting documentation to verify student participation or substantiate any of the reported metrics associated with MOU agreements. This resulted in known questioned costs of $12,000. Payroll Records Out of 20 payroll transactions tested, the following errors were detected: INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 63 SOUTH BEND COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) One employee's authorized pay rate was $30 per hour; however, the issued paycheck reflected $40 per hour. One employee's authorized stipend was $5,000; however, the issued paycheck reflected a payment of $5,500. Pay rates for three employees could not be verified as the School Corporation was unable to provide documentation of a School Board-approved pay rate. Eight stipends could not be verified as the School Corporation was unable to provide documentation confirming the School Board approval. These issues combined resulted in known questioned costs of $50,845. The combined vendor and payroll issues resulted in known questioned costs of $62,845. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) 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). . . ." 2 CFR 200.334 states in part: "Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, from the date of the submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient. . . ." 2 CFR 200.1 states in part: "Questioned cost means a cost that is questioned by the auditor because of an audit finding: (1) Which resulted from a violation or possible violation of a statute, regulation, or the terms and conditions of a Federal award, including for funds used to match Federal funds; (2) Where the costs, at the time of the audit, are not supported by adequate documentation; or INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 64 SOUTH BEND COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (3) Where the costs incurred appear unreasonable and do not reflect the actions a prudent person would take in the circumstances. (4) Questioned costs are not an improper payment until reviewed and confirmed to be improper as defined in OMB Circular A-123 appendix C. (See also the definition of Improper payment in this section)." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, 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. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.430(i) states in part: "Standards for Documentation of Personnel Expenses (1) Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non-Federal entity, not exceeding 100% of compensated activities (for IHE, this per the IHE's definition of IBS); . . . (vii) Support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. . . ." Cause The School Corporation demonstrated weaknesses in documentation and compliance practices. Vendor contracts and payments lacked adequate supporting records, including evidence of the School Board approval for MOUs and itemized invoices. In addition, payroll records were incomplete, with missing documentation of the School Board approved pay rates limiting the ability to verify the accuracy and appropriateness of expenditures. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 65 SOUTH BEND COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Effect Without proper documentation, the allowability of grant expenditures cannot be substantiated, creating a risk that unallowable costs may be charged to the federal grant. In addition, incomplete payroll records prevent verification of compensation, heightening the risk of inaccurate payments, unsupported variances, and potential misuse of federal funds. Questioned Costs Questioned costs in the amount of $62,845 were identified as described in the Condition and Context. Recommendation To address these deficiencies, the School Corporation should strengthen documentation practices by ensuring all vendor contracts, MOUs, and invoices are properly reviewed, approved by the School Board, and retained. Payroll internal controls should be improved by reconciling authorized salary ordinances to actual pay rates, documenting hours worked, and retaining evidence of the School Board approval for all compensation. In addition, periodic monitoring and internal reviews should be implemented to verify adherence to federal grant requirements and School Corporation policies, thereby reducing the risk of noncompliance and enhancing accountability. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
Finding 2025-012 – Noncompliance with Reporting Over Major Federal Program – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (Repeat Finding – 2024-012) 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: 2025 CONTROL CATEGORY: ReportingQUESTIONED COSTS: $-0- Condition: During the review of the annual report for calendar year 2024, consisting of seventeen (17) projects for the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, it was noted that the annual report was not submitted before the April 30th deadline. Additionally, the annual report submitted incorrectly reported obligations and expenditures as noted below: Current Period Obligations Cumulative Obligations Current Period Expenditure Cumulative Expenditure As Reported $1,672,657 $6,377,231 $591,072 $5,608,334 Correct $0 $6,398,069 $556,145 $5,115,562 Variance $1,672,657 ($20,838) $34,927 $492,772 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 design and implement internal controls to ensure compliance with these requirements. Management Response: Chairman Board of County Commissioners: The BOCC acknowledges the finding and I will improve reconciliation and review procedures used in preparing federal reports. County officials involved in grant reporting will work together to ensure repotted obligations and expenditures are reconciled to supporting records before submission. County Clerk: The County Clerk will work with the Board of County Commissioners to adopt policies and procedures for federal awards. County Treasurer: The County Treasurer acknowledges the finding. The Treasurer's Office will continue maintaining accurate accounting records and providing financial information used in federal reporting. The Treasurer's Office will work with county officials and reporting personnel to encourage additional review and reconciliation procedures prior to submission of federal reports. 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 federalaward. 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 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.
Federal Agency: United States Department of Education Federal Program: Rehabilitation Services – Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States (84.126) Federal Award Numbers: H126A220047 (SED), H126A230047(SED), H126A240047 (SED), H126A250047 (SED) Federal Award Years: 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025 State Agency: State Education Department Reference: 2025-003 Criteria Period of Performance Under section 111(a)(1) of the Rehabilitation Act, the Department pays to each state each federal fiscal year an amount equal to the federal share of the cost of providing VR services and administering the VR program. Consistent with the definition of “period of performance” at 2 CFR section 200.1 and the requirements governing information that must be contained in a Grant Award Notification (GAN) at 2 CFR section 200.211, the VR GAN specifies the beginning and end dates for each VR grant award. Therefore, state VR agencies may incur obligations or make expenditures under a grant award if they are incurred during the period of performance for that award. Any obligations or expenditures incurred outside of that period of performance would need to be paid with funds available from a different VR grant award. Internal Controls 2 CFR 200.303(a) states 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). Condition The State Education Department (SED) did not maintain complete data along with the supporting documentation for the period of performance. A sample of 60 transactions was selected from SED records. For each case, an invoice, pay period, and/or manual journal entries were tested to verify the data reported in the NYGR0302 report. It was also checked to ensure that the disbursement was properly reviewed, approved, and that the selected amount met the requirement of an allowable activity incurred during the period of performance and liquidated within the required time period. During our review of fiscal year 2025 transactions, we identified that 4 out of the 60 sampled transactions occurred outside the designated period of performance. The grant award period ended on September 30, 2024, with a liquidation period extending 120 days beyond that date, until January 28, 2025. Specifically, for grant number H126A230047, these four services were incurred in either October or November 2024, which is after the designated period of performance. This indicates a significant lapse in the controls governing the timing of obligations and expenditures related to VR grant funds. Cause The condition related to a deficiency in the operation of the review process not occurring at a precision necessary to identify missing information during the review that is required to be in compliance with the grant’s period of performance. Possible Asserted Effect The identified issue of a transaction occurring outside the period of performance and being liquidated beyond the required liquidation period could have significant implications for SED. This non compliance with federal regulations may result in financial penalties, reduced future funding, and potential repayment of misused funds. Questioned Costs $23,190 (representing the 4 transactions found to have occurred outside the specified period of performance. The population amounted to $117,470,987, of which sixty, totaling $2,948,245, were selected for test work.) Statistical Sampling The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Repeat Finding A similar finding was identified in the 2024 Single Audit Report as finding number 2024-003 at pages 23-24. Recommendation We recommend SED implement a new control mechanism for reviewing funds before distribution. This control should include a pre distribution review process with a dedicated team or staff verifying the period of performance for each VR grant award, ensuring all obligations and expenditures fall within the specified dates. Additionally, an automated system or manual control is recommended to be developed or enhanced to flag any transactions outside the period of performance or liquidation period. View of Responsible Officials Recommendation accepted. Please refer to corrective action plan.
Finding 2024-005 -Material Weakness: Cash Management Identification of federal program: Assistance Listing No. 93-493 - Congressional Directives Criteria or specific requirement: Per the OMB Compliance Supplement, "For grants and cooperative agreements to non-federal entities that are funded on a reimbursement basis, determine that expenditures, as defined by 2 CFR 200.1, were incurred prior to date of the reimbursement request." Condition: We noted two instances of request for reimbursement prior to the expenditures being incurred. Cause: Drawdown on reimbursement requests were submitted to the grantor prior to the System incurring qualifyig expenditures. Effect or potential effect: This resulted in material non-compliance with the cash management requirement for the grant program. Questioned cost: $92,130 known. The 2024 Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards has been corrected for this finding. Context: The finding is considered systemic in nature. Recommendation: We recommend that the System personnel administering the grant program comply with the System's established process, whereby qualifying expenditured are incurred prior to requesting reimbursement from the grantor. Views of responsible officials: The System concur wuth this finding. See page 57 for corrective action plan.
2024-001 Research and Development Cluster – Education Innovation and Research (formerly Investing in Innovation (i3) Fund – Validation Grants) Assistance Listing No. 84.411A Criteria: 2 CFR 200.332 notes, “All pass-through entities must: (a) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the following information at the time of the subaward and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward. Required information includes: (1) Federal award identification. (i) Subrecipient name (which must match the name associated with its unique entity identifier); (ii) Subrecipient's unique entity identifier; (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date (see the definition of Federal award date in § 200.1 of this part) of award to the recipient by the Federal agency; (v) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; (vi) Subaward Budget Period Start and End Date; (vii) Amount of Federal Funds Obligated by this action by the pass-through entity to the subrecipient; (viii) Total Amount of Federal Funds Obligated to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity including the current financial obligation; (ix) Total Amount of the Federal Award committed to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity; (x) Federal award project description, as required to be responsive to the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA); (xi) Name of Federal awarding agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the Pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings number and Title; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at time of disbursement; (xiii) Identification of whether the award is R&D; and (xiv) Indirect cost rate for the Federal award (including if the de minimis rate is charged) per § 200.414. (2) All requirements imposed by the pass-through entity on the subrecipient so that the Federal award is used in accordance with Federal statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of the Federal award; …” Condition: For both subawards selected for testing, the identification of the contact information for the awarding agency was incorrect. The contact information was Education Analytics, Inc., the Organization’s grantor, but should have been Future Forward, Inc. Further, one of the two subawards selected for testing had information missing from the subaward including all requirements for the award to be used in accordance with Federal statutes, regulations and terms and conditions of the Federal award. We consider this condition to be an instance of noncompliance relating to the Subrecipient Monitoring compliance requirement. Statistical sampling was not used in making sample selections. Questioned Costs: N/A Cause and Effect: Without communication of the required information, subrecipients may overspend award amounts or incur unallowable expenses towards the grant as well as report the incorrect grantor on their schedule of expenditures of federal awards. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization evaluates policies and procedures to ensure all required information is communicated with the subrecipient. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this Single Audit Finding and response is included in the Corrective Action Plan.