FINDING 2024-001 Subject: Highway Planning and Construction - Procurement Federal Agency: Department of Transportation Federal Program: Highway Planning and Construction Assistance Listings Number: 20.205 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): DES. Nos. 1600968, 1702753, 1802927, 1802929, 1902066, 2301613 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Transportation Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context Recipients may use award funds to procure engineering and design-related services from consultants necessary to implement one or more eligible purposes outlined for the Highway Planning and Construction award funds. Subrecipients may adopt written policies and procedures prescribed by the awarding state DOT or prepare their own written policies and procedures approved by the Indiana Department of Transportation. The County did not have documented procurement procedures or policies used to procure engineering and design services. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 23 CFR 175 states in part: ". . . (b) Subrecipient responsibilities. Subrecipients shall develop and sustain organizational capacity and provide the resources necessary for the procurement, management, and administration of engineering and design related consultant services, reimbursed in whole or in part with FAHP funding as specified in 23 U.S.C. 106(g)(4)(A). Responsibilities shall include the following: (1) Adopting written policies and procedures prescribed by the awarding STA or other recipient for the procurement, management, and administration of engineering and design related consultant services in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations; or when not prescribed, shall include: (i) Preparing and maintaining its own written policies and procedures in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section; or (ii) Submitting documentation associated with each procurement and subsequent contract to the awarding STA or other grantee for review to assess compliance with applicable Federal and State laws, regulations, and the requirements of this part; (2) Procuring, managing, and administering engineering and design related consultant services in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws, regulations, and approved policies and procedures, as specified in 23 CFR 1.9(a). INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 14 RUSH COUNTY SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (c) Written policies and procedures. The contracting agency shall prepare and maintain written policies and procedures for the procurement, management, and administration of engineering and design related consultant services. The FHWA shall approve the written policies and procedures, including all revisions to such policies and procedures, of the STA or recipient to assess compliance with applicable requirements. The STA or other recipient shall approve the written policies and procedures, including all revisions to such policies and procedures, of a subrecipient to assess compliance with applicable requirements. These policies and procedures shall address, as appropriate for each method of procurement a contracting agency proposes to use, the following items to ensure compliance with Federal and State laws, regulations, and the requirements of this part: (1) Preparing a scope of work and evaluation factors for the ranking/selection of a consultant; (2) Soliciting interests, qualifications, or proposals from prospective consultants; (3) Preventing, identifying, and mitigating conflicts of interest for employees of both the contracting agency and consultants and promptly disclosing in writing any potential conflict to the STA and FHWA, as specified in 2 CFR 200.112 and 23 CFR 1.33, and the requirements of this part. (4) Verifying suspension and debarment actions and eligibility of consultants, as specified in 2 CFR part 1200 and 2 CFR part 180; (5) Evaluating interests, qualifications, or proposals and the ranking/selection of a consultant; (6) Determining, based upon State procedures and the size and complexity of a project, the need for additional discussions following RFP submission and evaluation; (7) Preparing an independent agency estimate for use in negotiation with the selected consultant; (8) Selecting appropriate contract type, payment method, and terms and incorporating required contract provisions, assurances, and certifications in accordance with § 172.9; (9) Negotiating a contract with the selected consultant including instructions for proper disposal of concealed cost proposals of unsuccessful bidders; (10) Establishing elements of contract costs, accepting indirect cost rate(s) for application to contracts, and assuring consultant compliance with the Federal cost principles in accordance with § 172.11; (11) Ensuring consultant costs billed are allowable in accordance with the Federal cost principles and consistent with the contract terms as well as the acceptability and progress of the consultant's work; (12) Monitoring the consultant's work and compliance with the terms, conditions, and specifications of the contract; (13) Preparing a consultant's performance evaluation when services are completed and using such performance data in future evaluation and ranking of consultant to provide similar services; INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 15 RUSH COUNTY SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (14) Closing-out a contract; (15) Retaining supporting programmatic and contract records, as specified in 2 CFR 200.333 and the requirements of this part; (16) Determining the extent to which the consultant, which is responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy, and coordination of services, may be reasonably liable for costs resulting from errors and omissions in the work furnished under its contract; (17) Assessing administrative, contractual, or legal remedies in instances where consultants violate or breach contract terms and conditions, and providing for such sanctions and penalties as may be appropriate; and (18) Resolving disputes in the procurement, management, and administration of engineering and design related consultant services. (d) A contracting agency may formally adopt, by statute or within approved written policies and procedures as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, any direct Federal Government or other contracting regulation, standard, or procedure provided its application does not conflict with the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 112, the requirements of this part, and other laws and regulations applicable to the FAHP. (e) Notwithstanding paragraph (d) of this section, a contracting agency shall have a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 12 months from the effective date of this rule unless an extension is granted for unique or extenuating circumstances, to issue or update current written policies and procedures for review and approval in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section and consistent with the requirements of this part." 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). . . ." Cause The County's management was not aware of the compliance requirement relating to the written procurement policy. Effect The failure to establish a written policy for Federal Procurement placed the County in noncompliance with the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the repayment of federal funds. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 16 RUSH COUNTY SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the County's management establish written policies and procedures for the procurement of engineering and design services. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that part of this report.
2024-001 – Fiscal Policies and Procedures Not Fully Aligned with Uniform Guidance Federal Program: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Family Violence Prevention Services Act, ARP Supplemental and ARP Covid-19 Federal Assistance Listing Number: 93.558 and 93.671 Pass-Through Agency: Texas Health and Human Services Commission Pass-Through Grantor Number: HHS000380000040 Criteria: Non-federal entities are required under 2 CFR §200.303 to establish and maintain effective internal controls over federal awards that provide reasonable assurance of compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the award. Adequate written policies and procedures are a critical component of an effective internal control system. Condition: During our review of the Center’s fiscal policies and procedures, we noted that several key elements required for compliance with 2 CFR Part 200 were either missing or lacked sufficient detail. Specifically, the following areas were underdeveloped: Conflict of interest policies were not clearly defined or aligned with 2 CFR § 200.112. Procedures for determining allowable costs under 2 CFR §200.403–§200.405 were not well documented. Subrecipient monitoring procedures required by 2 CFR §200.331 were not adequately addressed. Record retention and access policies under 2 CFR §200.333–§200.338 were not clearly outlined. While some general policies were in place, they do not currently meet the level of specificity and comprehensiveness required under the Uniform Guidance. Cause: The Center is in the process of updating its financial policies and procedures to comply with Uniform Guidance requirements. A consultant has been engaged to assist with this process, and updates are expected to be finalized and approved by the Board of Directors in August 2025. Effect: The lack of complete and detailed policies increases the risk of noncompliance with federal requirements, especially in areas such as cost allowability, subrecipient oversight, and recordkeeping. It also creates challenges in ensuring consistent and compliant financial practices across the Center. Questioned Costs: $0 – No noncompliant expenditures were identified; however, the absence of sufficient policies represents a control deficiency. Recommendation: We recommend for the Center to prioritize the completion and formal adoption of revised fiscal policies and procedures, ensuring they fully align with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. These should include detailed written policies on conflict of interest, allowable costs, subrecipient monitoring, and record retention. Finalizing and implementing these policies ahead of the new fiscal year, as planned, will strengthen internal controls and help ensure compliance moving forward. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan: Management agrees with the finding. The Center is currently in the process of updating its fiscal policies and procedures to align with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. The Finance Committee is leading this effort and is reviewing each policy area identified, including conflict of interest, allowable costs, subrecipient monitoring, and record retention. Updated policies and procedures will be finalized and presented for Board approval by August 30, 2025. Once approved, the Center will ensure implementation across all departments and provide internal guidance to promote consistent application. Anticipated Completion Date: August 30, 2025 Responsible Party: Finance Committee, with support from Executive Director, Nichole Henry.
2024-001 – Fiscal Policies and Procedures Not Fully Aligned with Uniform Guidance Federal Program: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Family Violence Prevention Services Act, ARP Supplemental and ARP Covid-19 Federal Assistance Listing Number: 93.558 and 93.671 Pass-Through Agency: Texas Health and Human Services Commission Pass-Through Grantor Number: HHS000380000040 Criteria: Non-federal entities are required under 2 CFR §200.303 to establish and maintain effective internal controls over federal awards that provide reasonable assurance of compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the award. Adequate written policies and procedures are a critical component of an effective internal control system. Condition: During our review of the Center’s fiscal policies and procedures, we noted that several key elements required for compliance with 2 CFR Part 200 were either missing or lacked sufficient detail. Specifically, the following areas were underdeveloped: Conflict of interest policies were not clearly defined or aligned with 2 CFR § 200.112. Procedures for determining allowable costs under 2 CFR §200.403–§200.405 were not well documented. Subrecipient monitoring procedures required by 2 CFR §200.331 were not adequately addressed. Record retention and access policies under 2 CFR §200.333–§200.338 were not clearly outlined. While some general policies were in place, they do not currently meet the level of specificity and comprehensiveness required under the Uniform Guidance. Cause: The Center is in the process of updating its financial policies and procedures to comply with Uniform Guidance requirements. A consultant has been engaged to assist with this process, and updates are expected to be finalized and approved by the Board of Directors in August 2025. Effect: The lack of complete and detailed policies increases the risk of noncompliance with federal requirements, especially in areas such as cost allowability, subrecipient oversight, and recordkeeping. It also creates challenges in ensuring consistent and compliant financial practices across the Center. Questioned Costs: $0 – No noncompliant expenditures were identified; however, the absence of sufficient policies represents a control deficiency. Recommendation: We recommend for the Center to prioritize the completion and formal adoption of revised fiscal policies and procedures, ensuring they fully align with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. These should include detailed written policies on conflict of interest, allowable costs, subrecipient monitoring, and record retention. Finalizing and implementing these policies ahead of the new fiscal year, as planned, will strengthen internal controls and help ensure compliance moving forward. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan: Management agrees with the finding. The Center is currently in the process of updating its fiscal policies and procedures to align with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. The Finance Committee is leading this effort and is reviewing each policy area identified, including conflict of interest, allowable costs, subrecipient monitoring, and record retention. Updated policies and procedures will be finalized and presented for Board approval by August 30, 2025. Once approved, the Center will ensure implementation across all departments and provide internal guidance to promote consistent application. Anticipated Completion Date: August 30, 2025 Responsible Party: Finance Committee, with support from Executive Director, Nichole Henry.
2024-001 – Fiscal Policies and Procedures Not Fully Aligned with Uniform Guidance Federal Program: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Family Violence Prevention Services Act, ARP Supplemental and ARP Covid-19 Federal Assistance Listing Number: 93.558 and 93.671 Pass-Through Agency: Texas Health and Human Services Commission Pass-Through Grantor Number: HHS000380000040 Criteria: Non-federal entities are required under 2 CFR §200.303 to establish and maintain effective internal controls over federal awards that provide reasonable assurance of compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the award. Adequate written policies and procedures are a critical component of an effective internal control system. Condition: During our review of the Center’s fiscal policies and procedures, we noted that several key elements required for compliance with 2 CFR Part 200 were either missing or lacked sufficient detail. Specifically, the following areas were underdeveloped: Conflict of interest policies were not clearly defined or aligned with 2 CFR § 200.112. Procedures for determining allowable costs under 2 CFR §200.403–§200.405 were not well documented. Subrecipient monitoring procedures required by 2 CFR §200.331 were not adequately addressed. Record retention and access policies under 2 CFR §200.333–§200.338 were not clearly outlined. While some general policies were in place, they do not currently meet the level of specificity and comprehensiveness required under the Uniform Guidance. Cause: The Center is in the process of updating its financial policies and procedures to comply with Uniform Guidance requirements. A consultant has been engaged to assist with this process, and updates are expected to be finalized and approved by the Board of Directors in August 2025. Effect: The lack of complete and detailed policies increases the risk of noncompliance with federal requirements, especially in areas such as cost allowability, subrecipient oversight, and recordkeeping. It also creates challenges in ensuring consistent and compliant financial practices across the Center. Questioned Costs: $0 – No noncompliant expenditures were identified; however, the absence of sufficient policies represents a control deficiency. Recommendation: We recommend for the Center to prioritize the completion and formal adoption of revised fiscal policies and procedures, ensuring they fully align with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. These should include detailed written policies on conflict of interest, allowable costs, subrecipient monitoring, and record retention. Finalizing and implementing these policies ahead of the new fiscal year, as planned, will strengthen internal controls and help ensure compliance moving forward. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan: Management agrees with the finding. The Center is currently in the process of updating its fiscal policies and procedures to align with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. The Finance Committee is leading this effort and is reviewing each policy area identified, including conflict of interest, allowable costs, subrecipient monitoring, and record retention. Updated policies and procedures will be finalized and presented for Board approval by August 30, 2025. Once approved, the Center will ensure implementation across all departments and provide internal guidance to promote consistent application. Anticipated Completion Date: August 30, 2025 Responsible Party: Finance Committee, with support from Executive Director, Nichole Henry.
2024-001 – Fiscal Policies and Procedures Not Fully Aligned with Uniform Guidance Federal Program: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Family Violence Prevention Services Act, ARP Supplemental and ARP Covid-19 Federal Assistance Listing Number: 93.558 and 93.671 Pass-Through Agency: Texas Health and Human Services Commission Pass-Through Grantor Number: HHS000380000040 Criteria: Non-federal entities are required under 2 CFR §200.303 to establish and maintain effective internal controls over federal awards that provide reasonable assurance of compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the award. Adequate written policies and procedures are a critical component of an effective internal control system. Condition: During our review of the Center’s fiscal policies and procedures, we noted that several key elements required for compliance with 2 CFR Part 200 were either missing or lacked sufficient detail. Specifically, the following areas were underdeveloped: Conflict of interest policies were not clearly defined or aligned with 2 CFR § 200.112. Procedures for determining allowable costs under 2 CFR §200.403–§200.405 were not well documented. Subrecipient monitoring procedures required by 2 CFR §200.331 were not adequately addressed. Record retention and access policies under 2 CFR §200.333–§200.338 were not clearly outlined. While some general policies were in place, they do not currently meet the level of specificity and comprehensiveness required under the Uniform Guidance. Cause: The Center is in the process of updating its financial policies and procedures to comply with Uniform Guidance requirements. A consultant has been engaged to assist with this process, and updates are expected to be finalized and approved by the Board of Directors in August 2025. Effect: The lack of complete and detailed policies increases the risk of noncompliance with federal requirements, especially in areas such as cost allowability, subrecipient oversight, and recordkeeping. It also creates challenges in ensuring consistent and compliant financial practices across the Center. Questioned Costs: $0 – No noncompliant expenditures were identified; however, the absence of sufficient policies represents a control deficiency. Recommendation: We recommend for the Center to prioritize the completion and formal adoption of revised fiscal policies and procedures, ensuring they fully align with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. These should include detailed written policies on conflict of interest, allowable costs, subrecipient monitoring, and record retention. Finalizing and implementing these policies ahead of the new fiscal year, as planned, will strengthen internal controls and help ensure compliance moving forward. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan: Management agrees with the finding. The Center is currently in the process of updating its fiscal policies and procedures to align with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. The Finance Committee is leading this effort and is reviewing each policy area identified, including conflict of interest, allowable costs, subrecipient monitoring, and record retention. Updated policies and procedures will be finalized and presented for Board approval by August 30, 2025. Once approved, the Center will ensure implementation across all departments and provide internal guidance to promote consistent application. Anticipated Completion Date: August 30, 2025 Responsible Party: Finance Committee, with support from Executive Director, Nichole Henry.
FINDING 2024-001 Subject: Highway Planning and Construction - Procurement Federal Agency: Department of Transportation Federal Program: Highway Planning and Construction Assistance Listings Number: 20.205 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): DES. Nos. 1600968, 1702753, 1802927, 1802929, 1902066, 2301613 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Transportation Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context Recipients may use award funds to procure engineering and design-related services from consultants necessary to implement one or more eligible purposes outlined for the Highway Planning and Construction award funds. Subrecipients may adopt written policies and procedures prescribed by the awarding state DOT or prepare their own written policies and procedures approved by the Indiana Department of Transportation. The County did not have documented procurement procedures or policies used to procure engineering and design services. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 23 CFR 175 states in part: ". . . (b) Subrecipient responsibilities. Subrecipients shall develop and sustain organizational capacity and provide the resources necessary for the procurement, management, and administration of engineering and design related consultant services, reimbursed in whole or in part with FAHP funding as specified in 23 U.S.C. 106(g)(4)(A). Responsibilities shall include the following: (1) Adopting written policies and procedures prescribed by the awarding STA or other recipient for the procurement, management, and administration of engineering and design related consultant services in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations; or when not prescribed, shall include: (i) Preparing and maintaining its own written policies and procedures in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section; or (ii) Submitting documentation associated with each procurement and subsequent contract to the awarding STA or other grantee for review to assess compliance with applicable Federal and State laws, regulations, and the requirements of this part; (2) Procuring, managing, and administering engineering and design related consultant services in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws, regulations, and approved policies and procedures, as specified in 23 CFR 1.9(a). INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 14 RUSH COUNTY SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (c) Written policies and procedures. The contracting agency shall prepare and maintain written policies and procedures for the procurement, management, and administration of engineering and design related consultant services. The FHWA shall approve the written policies and procedures, including all revisions to such policies and procedures, of the STA or recipient to assess compliance with applicable requirements. The STA or other recipient shall approve the written policies and procedures, including all revisions to such policies and procedures, of a subrecipient to assess compliance with applicable requirements. These policies and procedures shall address, as appropriate for each method of procurement a contracting agency proposes to use, the following items to ensure compliance with Federal and State laws, regulations, and the requirements of this part: (1) Preparing a scope of work and evaluation factors for the ranking/selection of a consultant; (2) Soliciting interests, qualifications, or proposals from prospective consultants; (3) Preventing, identifying, and mitigating conflicts of interest for employees of both the contracting agency and consultants and promptly disclosing in writing any potential conflict to the STA and FHWA, as specified in 2 CFR 200.112 and 23 CFR 1.33, and the requirements of this part. (4) Verifying suspension and debarment actions and eligibility of consultants, as specified in 2 CFR part 1200 and 2 CFR part 180; (5) Evaluating interests, qualifications, or proposals and the ranking/selection of a consultant; (6) Determining, based upon State procedures and the size and complexity of a project, the need for additional discussions following RFP submission and evaluation; (7) Preparing an independent agency estimate for use in negotiation with the selected consultant; (8) Selecting appropriate contract type, payment method, and terms and incorporating required contract provisions, assurances, and certifications in accordance with § 172.9; (9) Negotiating a contract with the selected consultant including instructions for proper disposal of concealed cost proposals of unsuccessful bidders; (10) Establishing elements of contract costs, accepting indirect cost rate(s) for application to contracts, and assuring consultant compliance with the Federal cost principles in accordance with § 172.11; (11) Ensuring consultant costs billed are allowable in accordance with the Federal cost principles and consistent with the contract terms as well as the acceptability and progress of the consultant's work; (12) Monitoring the consultant's work and compliance with the terms, conditions, and specifications of the contract; (13) Preparing a consultant's performance evaluation when services are completed and using such performance data in future evaluation and ranking of consultant to provide similar services; INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 15 RUSH COUNTY SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (14) Closing-out a contract; (15) Retaining supporting programmatic and contract records, as specified in 2 CFR 200.333 and the requirements of this part; (16) Determining the extent to which the consultant, which is responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy, and coordination of services, may be reasonably liable for costs resulting from errors and omissions in the work furnished under its contract; (17) Assessing administrative, contractual, or legal remedies in instances where consultants violate or breach contract terms and conditions, and providing for such sanctions and penalties as may be appropriate; and (18) Resolving disputes in the procurement, management, and administration of engineering and design related consultant services. (d) A contracting agency may formally adopt, by statute or within approved written policies and procedures as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, any direct Federal Government or other contracting regulation, standard, or procedure provided its application does not conflict with the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 112, the requirements of this part, and other laws and regulations applicable to the FAHP. (e) Notwithstanding paragraph (d) of this section, a contracting agency shall have a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 12 months from the effective date of this rule unless an extension is granted for unique or extenuating circumstances, to issue or update current written policies and procedures for review and approval in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section and consistent with the requirements of this part." 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). . . ." Cause The County's management was not aware of the compliance requirement relating to the written procurement policy. Effect The failure to establish a written policy for Federal Procurement placed the County in noncompliance with the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the repayment of federal funds. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 16 RUSH COUNTY SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the County's management establish written policies and procedures for the procurement of engineering and design services. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that part of this report.
2024-001 – Fiscal Policies and Procedures Not Fully Aligned with Uniform Guidance Federal Program: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Family Violence Prevention Services Act, ARP Supplemental and ARP Covid-19 Federal Assistance Listing Number: 93.558 and 93.671 Pass-Through Agency: Texas Health and Human Services Commission Pass-Through Grantor Number: HHS000380000040 Criteria: Non-federal entities are required under 2 CFR §200.303 to establish and maintain effective internal controls over federal awards that provide reasonable assurance of compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the award. Adequate written policies and procedures are a critical component of an effective internal control system. Condition: During our review of the Center’s fiscal policies and procedures, we noted that several key elements required for compliance with 2 CFR Part 200 were either missing or lacked sufficient detail. Specifically, the following areas were underdeveloped: Conflict of interest policies were not clearly defined or aligned with 2 CFR § 200.112. Procedures for determining allowable costs under 2 CFR §200.403–§200.405 were not well documented. Subrecipient monitoring procedures required by 2 CFR §200.331 were not adequately addressed. Record retention and access policies under 2 CFR §200.333–§200.338 were not clearly outlined. While some general policies were in place, they do not currently meet the level of specificity and comprehensiveness required under the Uniform Guidance. Cause: The Center is in the process of updating its financial policies and procedures to comply with Uniform Guidance requirements. A consultant has been engaged to assist with this process, and updates are expected to be finalized and approved by the Board of Directors in August 2025. Effect: The lack of complete and detailed policies increases the risk of noncompliance with federal requirements, especially in areas such as cost allowability, subrecipient oversight, and recordkeeping. It also creates challenges in ensuring consistent and compliant financial practices across the Center. Questioned Costs: $0 – No noncompliant expenditures were identified; however, the absence of sufficient policies represents a control deficiency. Recommendation: We recommend for the Center to prioritize the completion and formal adoption of revised fiscal policies and procedures, ensuring they fully align with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. These should include detailed written policies on conflict of interest, allowable costs, subrecipient monitoring, and record retention. Finalizing and implementing these policies ahead of the new fiscal year, as planned, will strengthen internal controls and help ensure compliance moving forward. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan: Management agrees with the finding. The Center is currently in the process of updating its fiscal policies and procedures to align with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. The Finance Committee is leading this effort and is reviewing each policy area identified, including conflict of interest, allowable costs, subrecipient monitoring, and record retention. Updated policies and procedures will be finalized and presented for Board approval by August 30, 2025. Once approved, the Center will ensure implementation across all departments and provide internal guidance to promote consistent application. Anticipated Completion Date: August 30, 2025 Responsible Party: Finance Committee, with support from Executive Director, Nichole Henry.
2024-001 – Fiscal Policies and Procedures Not Fully Aligned with Uniform Guidance Federal Program: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Family Violence Prevention Services Act, ARP Supplemental and ARP Covid-19 Federal Assistance Listing Number: 93.558 and 93.671 Pass-Through Agency: Texas Health and Human Services Commission Pass-Through Grantor Number: HHS000380000040 Criteria: Non-federal entities are required under 2 CFR §200.303 to establish and maintain effective internal controls over federal awards that provide reasonable assurance of compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the award. Adequate written policies and procedures are a critical component of an effective internal control system. Condition: During our review of the Center’s fiscal policies and procedures, we noted that several key elements required for compliance with 2 CFR Part 200 were either missing or lacked sufficient detail. Specifically, the following areas were underdeveloped: Conflict of interest policies were not clearly defined or aligned with 2 CFR § 200.112. Procedures for determining allowable costs under 2 CFR §200.403–§200.405 were not well documented. Subrecipient monitoring procedures required by 2 CFR §200.331 were not adequately addressed. Record retention and access policies under 2 CFR §200.333–§200.338 were not clearly outlined. While some general policies were in place, they do not currently meet the level of specificity and comprehensiveness required under the Uniform Guidance. Cause: The Center is in the process of updating its financial policies and procedures to comply with Uniform Guidance requirements. A consultant has been engaged to assist with this process, and updates are expected to be finalized and approved by the Board of Directors in August 2025. Effect: The lack of complete and detailed policies increases the risk of noncompliance with federal requirements, especially in areas such as cost allowability, subrecipient oversight, and recordkeeping. It also creates challenges in ensuring consistent and compliant financial practices across the Center. Questioned Costs: $0 – No noncompliant expenditures were identified; however, the absence of sufficient policies represents a control deficiency. Recommendation: We recommend for the Center to prioritize the completion and formal adoption of revised fiscal policies and procedures, ensuring they fully align with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. These should include detailed written policies on conflict of interest, allowable costs, subrecipient monitoring, and record retention. Finalizing and implementing these policies ahead of the new fiscal year, as planned, will strengthen internal controls and help ensure compliance moving forward. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan: Management agrees with the finding. The Center is currently in the process of updating its fiscal policies and procedures to align with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. The Finance Committee is leading this effort and is reviewing each policy area identified, including conflict of interest, allowable costs, subrecipient monitoring, and record retention. Updated policies and procedures will be finalized and presented for Board approval by August 30, 2025. Once approved, the Center will ensure implementation across all departments and provide internal guidance to promote consistent application. Anticipated Completion Date: August 30, 2025 Responsible Party: Finance Committee, with support from Executive Director, Nichole Henry.
2024-001 – Fiscal Policies and Procedures Not Fully Aligned with Uniform Guidance Federal Program: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Family Violence Prevention Services Act, ARP Supplemental and ARP Covid-19 Federal Assistance Listing Number: 93.558 and 93.671 Pass-Through Agency: Texas Health and Human Services Commission Pass-Through Grantor Number: HHS000380000040 Criteria: Non-federal entities are required under 2 CFR §200.303 to establish and maintain effective internal controls over federal awards that provide reasonable assurance of compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the award. Adequate written policies and procedures are a critical component of an effective internal control system. Condition: During our review of the Center’s fiscal policies and procedures, we noted that several key elements required for compliance with 2 CFR Part 200 were either missing or lacked sufficient detail. Specifically, the following areas were underdeveloped: Conflict of interest policies were not clearly defined or aligned with 2 CFR § 200.112. Procedures for determining allowable costs under 2 CFR §200.403–§200.405 were not well documented. Subrecipient monitoring procedures required by 2 CFR §200.331 were not adequately addressed. Record retention and access policies under 2 CFR §200.333–§200.338 were not clearly outlined. While some general policies were in place, they do not currently meet the level of specificity and comprehensiveness required under the Uniform Guidance. Cause: The Center is in the process of updating its financial policies and procedures to comply with Uniform Guidance requirements. A consultant has been engaged to assist with this process, and updates are expected to be finalized and approved by the Board of Directors in August 2025. Effect: The lack of complete and detailed policies increases the risk of noncompliance with federal requirements, especially in areas such as cost allowability, subrecipient oversight, and recordkeeping. It also creates challenges in ensuring consistent and compliant financial practices across the Center. Questioned Costs: $0 – No noncompliant expenditures were identified; however, the absence of sufficient policies represents a control deficiency. Recommendation: We recommend for the Center to prioritize the completion and formal adoption of revised fiscal policies and procedures, ensuring they fully align with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. These should include detailed written policies on conflict of interest, allowable costs, subrecipient monitoring, and record retention. Finalizing and implementing these policies ahead of the new fiscal year, as planned, will strengthen internal controls and help ensure compliance moving forward. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan: Management agrees with the finding. The Center is currently in the process of updating its fiscal policies and procedures to align with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. The Finance Committee is leading this effort and is reviewing each policy area identified, including conflict of interest, allowable costs, subrecipient monitoring, and record retention. Updated policies and procedures will be finalized and presented for Board approval by August 30, 2025. Once approved, the Center will ensure implementation across all departments and provide internal guidance to promote consistent application. Anticipated Completion Date: August 30, 2025 Responsible Party: Finance Committee, with support from Executive Director, Nichole Henry.
2024-001 – Fiscal Policies and Procedures Not Fully Aligned with Uniform Guidance Federal Program: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Family Violence Prevention Services Act, ARP Supplemental and ARP Covid-19 Federal Assistance Listing Number: 93.558 and 93.671 Pass-Through Agency: Texas Health and Human Services Commission Pass-Through Grantor Number: HHS000380000040 Criteria: Non-federal entities are required under 2 CFR §200.303 to establish and maintain effective internal controls over federal awards that provide reasonable assurance of compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the award. Adequate written policies and procedures are a critical component of an effective internal control system. Condition: During our review of the Center’s fiscal policies and procedures, we noted that several key elements required for compliance with 2 CFR Part 200 were either missing or lacked sufficient detail. Specifically, the following areas were underdeveloped: Conflict of interest policies were not clearly defined or aligned with 2 CFR § 200.112. Procedures for determining allowable costs under 2 CFR §200.403–§200.405 were not well documented. Subrecipient monitoring procedures required by 2 CFR §200.331 were not adequately addressed. Record retention and access policies under 2 CFR §200.333–§200.338 were not clearly outlined. While some general policies were in place, they do not currently meet the level of specificity and comprehensiveness required under the Uniform Guidance. Cause: The Center is in the process of updating its financial policies and procedures to comply with Uniform Guidance requirements. A consultant has been engaged to assist with this process, and updates are expected to be finalized and approved by the Board of Directors in August 2025. Effect: The lack of complete and detailed policies increases the risk of noncompliance with federal requirements, especially in areas such as cost allowability, subrecipient oversight, and recordkeeping. It also creates challenges in ensuring consistent and compliant financial practices across the Center. Questioned Costs: $0 – No noncompliant expenditures were identified; however, the absence of sufficient policies represents a control deficiency. Recommendation: We recommend for the Center to prioritize the completion and formal adoption of revised fiscal policies and procedures, ensuring they fully align with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. These should include detailed written policies on conflict of interest, allowable costs, subrecipient monitoring, and record retention. Finalizing and implementing these policies ahead of the new fiscal year, as planned, will strengthen internal controls and help ensure compliance moving forward. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan: Management agrees with the finding. The Center is currently in the process of updating its fiscal policies and procedures to align with the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. The Finance Committee is leading this effort and is reviewing each policy area identified, including conflict of interest, allowable costs, subrecipient monitoring, and record retention. Updated policies and procedures will be finalized and presented for Board approval by August 30, 2025. Once approved, the Center will ensure implementation across all departments and provide internal guidance to promote consistent application. Anticipated Completion Date: August 30, 2025 Responsible Party: Finance Committee, with support from Executive Director, Nichole Henry.
Federal Program: ALN 14.218 - Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants Category: Compliance/Internal control Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Criteria: As part of the standards for documentation of personnel expenses (2 CFR §200.430 (i)), it is required that charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed and be supported by a system of internal control that ensures accuracy, allowability, and proper allocation. According to the record retention requirements (2 CFR §200.334), recipients and subrecipients are required to retain all records for three years from the date of submission of their final financial report, or from the date of submission of the respective reports if the award is renewed quarterly or annually. The federal regulations require employers to verify the identity and employment authorization of individuals hired for employment in the United States using the Employment Eligibility Verification form (I-9). The EEOC's Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace recommends that employers periodically update their sexual harassment policies and conduct regular training to ensure compliance with federal antidiscrimination laws. 2 CFR §200.112 requires that Federal agencies establish conflict of interest policies for Federal awards. Recipients or subrecipients must disclose in writing any potential conflict of interest to the Federal agency or pass-through entity in accordance with the established Federal agency policies. Regular updates to conflict-of-interest certifications are recommended to ensure ongoing compliance. As part of the BGCPR recruitment, selection, and hiring process, it is required that the employee file includes a copy of form I-9 and a signed copy of the job description. The protocol for disclosure of conflicts of interest establishes that as part of the recruitment procedures and on an annual basis, all candidates for the board of directors, management teams, employees, and, in certain cases, investors and donors are required to complete a conflict-of-interest disclosure form. Condition: There were significant gaps in the documentation of employee files, which pose potential noncompliance risks. Cause: Lack of monitoring procedures to ascertain compliance with federal, local and internal requirements.Effect or potential effect: Failure to maintain proper documentation can result in non-compliance with federal regulations and organizational policies, potentially leading to legal penalties and ethical breaches. Questioned costs: Not determined Context: The allowable activities/cost test revealed the following: • One (1) of fifty (50) employees’ files tested did not have a copy of the Employment eligibility verification form (I- 9) • Nineteen (19) of fifty (50) employees’ files tested did not have a copy of the signed job description. • Forty-nine (49) of fifty (50) employees’ files tested did not have evidence of certification regarding compliance with conflicts of interest protocol. • Twenty-nine (29) of fifty (50) employees’ files tested did not have evidence of annual training of sexual harassment. Recommendation: We recommended that BGCPR implement comprehensive record retention policies and ensure strict adherence to established procedures. Additionally, BGCPR should establish monitoring procedures to ascertain the completeness of employee files in compliance with regulatory requirements. Views of responsible officials: BGCPR acknowledges that document retention policy does not comply with the requirements set forth in Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (2 CFR §200.334). This regulation requires that all financial records, supporting documents, statistical data, and other files related to federal grants be retained for a minimum period of three years from the date of submission of the final financial report. In the absence of this policy, BGCPR exposes itself to risks of non-compliance and possible sanctions during federal audits or reviews. Therefore, it is considered a priority to develop and implement a document retention policy that ensures compliance with this regulation and strengthens institutional transparency and accountability. As a corrective measure, BGCPR will take the following actions and will anticipate completing on June 30, 2025: a. Establish clear guidelines for the creation, storage, access, updating, and disposal of records. b. Define retention periods in accordance with legal requirements. c. Develop periodic monitoring procedures to verify record completeness and compliance. d. Implement scheduled internal reviews and standardized checklists. e. Assign specific responsibilities to Human Resources personnel for policy enforcement.
Federal Program: ALN 14.218 - Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants Category: Compliance/Internal control Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Criteria: As part of the standards for documentation of personnel expenses (2 CFR §200.430 (i)), it is required that charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed and be supported by a system of internal control that ensures accuracy, allowability, and proper allocation. According to the record retention requirements (2 CFR §200.334), recipients and subrecipients are required to retain all records for three years from the date of submission of their final financial report, or from the date of submission of the respective reports if the award is renewed quarterly or annually. The federal regulations require employers to verify the identity and employment authorization of individuals hired for employment in the United States using the Employment Eligibility Verification form (I-9). The EEOC's Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace recommends that employers periodically update their sexual harassment policies and conduct regular training to ensure compliance with federal antidiscrimination laws. 2 CFR §200.112 requires that Federal agencies establish conflict of interest policies for Federal awards. Recipients or subrecipients must disclose in writing any potential conflict of interest to the Federal agency or pass-through entity in accordance with the established Federal agency policies. Regular updates to conflict-of-interest certifications are recommended to ensure ongoing compliance. As part of the BGCPR recruitment, selection, and hiring process, it is required that the employee file includes a copy of form I-9 and a signed copy of the job description. The protocol for disclosure of conflicts of interest establishes that as part of the recruitment procedures and on an annual basis, all candidates for the board of directors, management teams, employees, and, in certain cases, investors and donors are required to complete a conflict-of-interest disclosure form. Condition: There were significant gaps in the documentation of employee files, which pose potential noncompliance risks. Cause: Lack of monitoring procedures to ascertain compliance with federal, local and internal requirements.Effect or potential effect: Failure to maintain proper documentation can result in non-compliance with federal regulations and organizational policies, potentially leading to legal penalties and ethical breaches. Questioned costs: Not determined Context: The allowable activities/cost test revealed the following: • One (1) of fifty (50) employees’ files tested did not have a copy of the Employment eligibility verification form (I- 9) • Nineteen (19) of fifty (50) employees’ files tested did not have a copy of the signed job description. • Forty-nine (49) of fifty (50) employees’ files tested did not have evidence of certification regarding compliance with conflicts of interest protocol. • Twenty-nine (29) of fifty (50) employees’ files tested did not have evidence of annual training of sexual harassment. Recommendation: We recommended that BGCPR implement comprehensive record retention policies and ensure strict adherence to established procedures. Additionally, BGCPR should establish monitoring procedures to ascertain the completeness of employee files in compliance with regulatory requirements. Views of responsible officials: BGCPR acknowledges that document retention policy does not comply with the requirements set forth in Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (2 CFR §200.334). This regulation requires that all financial records, supporting documents, statistical data, and other files related to federal grants be retained for a minimum period of three years from the date of submission of the final financial report. In the absence of this policy, BGCPR exposes itself to risks of non-compliance and possible sanctions during federal audits or reviews. Therefore, it is considered a priority to develop and implement a document retention policy that ensures compliance with this regulation and strengthens institutional transparency and accountability. As a corrective measure, BGCPR will take the following actions and will anticipate completing on June 30, 2025: a. Establish clear guidelines for the creation, storage, access, updating, and disposal of records. b. Define retention periods in accordance with legal requirements. c. Develop periodic monitoring procedures to verify record completeness and compliance. d. Implement scheduled internal reviews and standardized checklists. e. Assign specific responsibilities to Human Resources personnel for policy enforcement.
CFDA No. 14.228 – Community Development Block Grant Year Ended – May 31, 2024 Passed Through the NEW York State Housing Trust Fund Federal Agency – U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Criteria – the Village’s procurement policy must incorporate federal award activity within the process and procedures followed by the Village in accordance with the Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), sections 200.112, 200.317-200.326. Under the Uniform Guidance, the procurement requirements were required to be implemented by January 1, 2018 for federal award recipients. Condition – The Village’s code of ethics, conflict of interest and procurement policies have not been updated to comply with the requirements in the Uniform Guidance. Cause – The control environment related to the requirements of the Uniform Guidance has not be reviewed and incorporated into the Village’s control activities through the updating and documentation of the Village’s policies noted above. Effect – The Village was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.112, Conflict of Interest and Sections 200.317-200.326, Procurement Standards. Questioned Costs – There were no questioned costs noted related to this finding. Context – This finding was identified during inquiries of management in regards to the control environment over the requirements of the Uniform Guidance and through the review of the related policies noted above. Recommendation – We recommend the Village review their policies and establish/update such policies to ensure compliance with the Uniform Guidance. Village’s Response – The Village Mayor will continue working with the consultants to update the required policies and procedures to ensure compliance during this next year.
CFDA No. 14.228 – Community Development Block Grant Year Ended – May 31, 2024 Passed Through the NEW York State Housing Trust Fund Federal Agency – U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Criteria – the Village’s procurement policy must incorporate federal award activity within the process and procedures followed by the Village in accordance with the Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), sections 200.112, 200.317-200.326. Under the Uniform Guidance, the procurement requirements were required to be implemented by January 1, 2018 for federal award recipients. Condition – The Village’s code of ethics, conflict of interest and procurement policies have not been updated to comply with the requirements in the Uniform Guidance. Cause – The control environment related to the requirements of the Uniform Guidance has not be reviewed and incorporated into the Village’s control activities through the updating and documentation of the Village’s policies noted above. Effect – The Village was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.112, Conflict of Interest and Sections 200.317-200.326, Procurement Standards. Questioned Costs – There were no questioned costs noted related to this finding. Context – This finding was identified during inquiries of management in regards to the control environment over the requirements of the Uniform Guidance and through the review of the related policies noted above. Recommendation – We recommend the Village review their policies and establish/update such policies to ensure compliance with the Uniform Guidance. Village’s Response – The Village Mayor will continue working with the consultants to update the required policies and procedures to ensure compliance during this next year.
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 14.231 Emergency Solutions Grant Program 14.231 COVID-19 - Emergency Solutions Grant Program Award numbers and years: E-20-DW-04-001, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2022; E-21-DC-04-001, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $1,820 Assistance Listings numbers and names: 93.558 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 93.558 COVID-19 - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Award numbers and years: 2201AZTANF, October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; 2301AZTANF, October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Questioned costs: $10,330 Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Total questioned costs: $12,150 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its federal award terms, the Department of Economic Security (DES) reimbursed 1 nonprofit organization subrecipient for federal program costs totaling $12,150 during fiscal year 2023 that were unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Specifically, we reviewed 14 reimbursements that included Emergency Solutions Grant Program (ESG) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Family (TANF) program costs totaling $26,120 and $65,730 for the year, respectively, and found that DES reimbursed the subrecipient: • $4,733 for financial and accounting services that were paid to 1 of the nonprofit organization’s principal officers, who served as the Treasurer, and their company, which was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to DES as required by DES’ contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, DES did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements ($112 for ESG and $4,621 for TANF). • $7,417 for bookkeeping services that were not adequately supported by sufficiently detailed invoices and a signed, written contract having a specified price rate for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts paid were appropriate. Further, DES reimbursed the subrecipient for payments made to the Treasurer’s family member, whose bookkeeping services company was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to DES as required by federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, DES did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements ($1,708 for ESG and $5,709 for TANF). Additionally, contrary to federal regulations, DES had not ensured that the subrecipient implemented competitive purchasing procedures when procuring the professional services described above, and the subrecipient was unable to provide documentation that it had competitively procured the services. ESG was not audited as a major federal program for the State’s fiscal year 2023 single audit; therefore, the scope of our review was not sufficient to determine whether DES or its subrecipients complied with all applicable federal requirements for this program. We audited the TANF program as a major federal program for the State’s fiscal year 2023 single audit, and we performed follow-up procedures to the review that we conducted during fiscal year 2022. During the audit, we became aware of the potentially noncompliant 14 reimbursements involving 1 of DES’ nonprofit subrecipients with which it partnered to carry out federal and State programs, including the Continuum of Care Program (Assistance Listings number 14.267), ESG, and TANF, which was audited as a major federal program for fiscal year 2023, as well as the State Housing Trust Fund. Our review of select reimbursements to this subrecipient resulted in similar findings for the federal Continuum of Care Program and the State Housing Trust Fund that are described in findings 2023-116 and 2023-06, respectively. Effect—DES’ reimbursing a nonprofit organization subrecipient for $12,150 of unallowable or unsupported costs and/or costs paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officer or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements resulted in those monies being unavailable to be spent for their intended purpose of providing housing assistance to those in need. Consequently, DES may be required to return these monies to the federal agencies in accordance with federal requirements.1 Cause—Although DES’ subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures did not require it to obtain from subrecipients documentation supporting charges for personal and contracted professional services to verify allowability when subrecipients requested reimbursement, the policies and procedures required an on-site monitoring visit once every 3 years for each subrecipient in which it reviews a sample of the subrecipient’s personal and professional services charges. However, DES had not performed an on-site monitoring visit of the nonprofit subrecipient since 2018 because it had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. In addition, DES had not properly assessed the subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures it should put in place or training the subrecipient needed. For example, DES was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of a principal officer’s conflicts of interest so that it could ensure that the principal officer and their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively reviewed the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Criteria—Federal regulations require DES to monitor subrecipients and include required procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and implementing appropriate monitoring procedures to address those risk assessments; verifying single audits were conducted timely, if required; reviewing financial and performance reports; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on deficiencies that could potentially affect the program; and issuing management decisions on the results of audit findings or monitoring.2 Federal regulations provide that monitoring procedures DES may implement to address a subrecipient’s risk assessment include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs.2 In addition, federal regulations require DES’ subrecipients to allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, to use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and to disclose in writing to DES any potential conflicts of interest.3 Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303 and 45 CFR §75.303). Recommendations—DES should: 1. Immediately stop reimbursing the nonprofit subrecipient for costs that are unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit subrecipient’s principal officer or their immediate family member in violation of federal regulations and take appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with its subaward contract. 2. Update its written policies and procedures for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests to include a process to ensure costs are adequately supported, allowable in accordance with program requirements, and approved by the appropriate level of management. 3. Train personnel responsible for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests on how to identify costs that are unallowable under federal regulations. 4. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and perform the appropriate monitoring procedures based on the assessed risk, such as providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs for allowability. 5. Ensure subrecipients allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and disclose in writing to DES any potential conflicts of interest. DES may need to provide training and technical assistance to subrecipients that address these compliance areas, including DES obtaining conflict-of-interest disclosures from subrecipients as part of the subaward contract, as an example, or otherwise establishing a communication mechanism for subrecipients to use as such conflicts arise. 6. Continue to work with the nonprofit subrecipient to resolve the $12,150 of unallowable costs, including recovering these monies from the subrecipient and assessing the continued need to use this subrecipient for services. 7. Work with the federal agencies to resolve the $12,150 of unallowable costs that it reimbursed, which may involve returning monies to the agencies. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-114 (TANF) and 2022-115 (ESG) and was initially reported in fiscal year 2022. 1 Federal Uniform Guidance and U.S. Health and Human Services audit requirements require federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c] and 45 CFR §75.513[c]). Further, they require that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521 and 45 CFR §75.521). 2 The applicable federal requirements related to subrecipient monitoring can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.332, .339, and .521 and 45 CFR §§75.352, .371, and .521. 3 The applicable federal requirements related to allowable costs, competitive purchasing, and conflicts of interest can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.112, .318-.327, and Subpart E; 24 CFR §578.95; and 45 CFR §§75.112, .326-.335, and Subpart E.
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 14.231 Emergency Solutions Grant Program 14.231 COVID-19 - Emergency Solutions Grant Program Award numbers and years: E-20-DW-04-001, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2022; E-21-DC-04-001, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $1,820 Assistance Listings numbers and names: 93.558 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 93.558 COVID-19 - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Award numbers and years: 2201AZTANF, October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; 2301AZTANF, October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Questioned costs: $10,330 Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Total questioned costs: $12,150 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its federal award terms, the Department of Economic Security (DES) reimbursed 1 nonprofit organization subrecipient for federal program costs totaling $12,150 during fiscal year 2023 that were unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Specifically, we reviewed 14 reimbursements that included Emergency Solutions Grant Program (ESG) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Family (TANF) program costs totaling $26,120 and $65,730 for the year, respectively, and found that DES reimbursed the subrecipient: • $4,733 for financial and accounting services that were paid to 1 of the nonprofit organization’s principal officers, who served as the Treasurer, and their company, which was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to DES as required by DES’ contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, DES did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements ($112 for ESG and $4,621 for TANF). • $7,417 for bookkeeping services that were not adequately supported by sufficiently detailed invoices and a signed, written contract having a specified price rate for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts paid were appropriate. Further, DES reimbursed the subrecipient for payments made to the Treasurer’s family member, whose bookkeeping services company was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to DES as required by federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, DES did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements ($1,708 for ESG and $5,709 for TANF). Additionally, contrary to federal regulations, DES had not ensured that the subrecipient implemented competitive purchasing procedures when procuring the professional services described above, and the subrecipient was unable to provide documentation that it had competitively procured the services. ESG was not audited as a major federal program for the State’s fiscal year 2023 single audit; therefore, the scope of our review was not sufficient to determine whether DES or its subrecipients complied with all applicable federal requirements for this program. We audited the TANF program as a major federal program for the State’s fiscal year 2023 single audit, and we performed follow-up procedures to the review that we conducted during fiscal year 2022. During the audit, we became aware of the potentially noncompliant 14 reimbursements involving 1 of DES’ nonprofit subrecipients with which it partnered to carry out federal and State programs, including the Continuum of Care Program (Assistance Listings number 14.267), ESG, and TANF, which was audited as a major federal program for fiscal year 2023, as well as the State Housing Trust Fund. Our review of select reimbursements to this subrecipient resulted in similar findings for the federal Continuum of Care Program and the State Housing Trust Fund that are described in findings 2023-116 and 2023-06, respectively. Effect—DES’ reimbursing a nonprofit organization subrecipient for $12,150 of unallowable or unsupported costs and/or costs paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officer or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements resulted in those monies being unavailable to be spent for their intended purpose of providing housing assistance to those in need. Consequently, DES may be required to return these monies to the federal agencies in accordance with federal requirements.1 Cause—Although DES’ subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures did not require it to obtain from subrecipients documentation supporting charges for personal and contracted professional services to verify allowability when subrecipients requested reimbursement, the policies and procedures required an on-site monitoring visit once every 3 years for each subrecipient in which it reviews a sample of the subrecipient’s personal and professional services charges. However, DES had not performed an on-site monitoring visit of the nonprofit subrecipient since 2018 because it had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. In addition, DES had not properly assessed the subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures it should put in place or training the subrecipient needed. For example, DES was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of a principal officer’s conflicts of interest so that it could ensure that the principal officer and their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively reviewed the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Criteria—Federal regulations require DES to monitor subrecipients and include required procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and implementing appropriate monitoring procedures to address those risk assessments; verifying single audits were conducted timely, if required; reviewing financial and performance reports; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on deficiencies that could potentially affect the program; and issuing management decisions on the results of audit findings or monitoring.2 Federal regulations provide that monitoring procedures DES may implement to address a subrecipient’s risk assessment include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs.2 In addition, federal regulations require DES’ subrecipients to allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, to use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and to disclose in writing to DES any potential conflicts of interest.3 Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303 and 45 CFR §75.303). Recommendations—DES should: 1. Immediately stop reimbursing the nonprofit subrecipient for costs that are unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit subrecipient’s principal officer or their immediate family member in violation of federal regulations and take appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with its subaward contract. 2. Update its written policies and procedures for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests to include a process to ensure costs are adequately supported, allowable in accordance with program requirements, and approved by the appropriate level of management. 3. Train personnel responsible for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests on how to identify costs that are unallowable under federal regulations. 4. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and perform the appropriate monitoring procedures based on the assessed risk, such as providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs for allowability. 5. Ensure subrecipients allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and disclose in writing to DES any potential conflicts of interest. DES may need to provide training and technical assistance to subrecipients that address these compliance areas, including DES obtaining conflict-of-interest disclosures from subrecipients as part of the subaward contract, as an example, or otherwise establishing a communication mechanism for subrecipients to use as such conflicts arise. 6. Continue to work with the nonprofit subrecipient to resolve the $12,150 of unallowable costs, including recovering these monies from the subrecipient and assessing the continued need to use this subrecipient for services. 7. Work with the federal agencies to resolve the $12,150 of unallowable costs that it reimbursed, which may involve returning monies to the agencies. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-114 (TANF) and 2022-115 (ESG) and was initially reported in fiscal year 2022. 1 Federal Uniform Guidance and U.S. Health and Human Services audit requirements require federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c] and 45 CFR §75.513[c]). Further, they require that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521 and 45 CFR §75.521). 2 The applicable federal requirements related to subrecipient monitoring can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.332, .339, and .521 and 45 CFR §§75.352, .371, and .521. 3 The applicable federal requirements related to allowable costs, competitive purchasing, and conflicts of interest can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.112, .318-.327, and Subpart E; 24 CFR §578.95; and 45 CFR §§75.112, .326-.335, and Subpart E.
Assistance Listings number and name: 14.267 Continuum of Care Program Award number and year: AZ9999U9T002101, February 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: $40,455 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its federal award terms, the Department of Housing (Department) reimbursed 1 nonprofit organization subrecipient for federal program costs totaling $40,455 during fiscal year 2023 that were unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family members in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Specifically, we reviewed 40 reimbursements that included Continuum of Care costs totaling $346,747 for the year and found that the Department reimbursed the subrecipient for: • $18,385 for financial and accounting services and supplies that were paid to 1 of the nonprofit organization’s principal officers, who served as the Treasurer, and their company, which was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the Department as required by its contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, the Department did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements. • $20,664 for bookkeeping services that were not adequately supported by sufficiently detailed invoices and a signed, written contract having a specified price rate for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts paid were appropriate. Further, the Department reimbursed the subrecipient for payments made to the Treasurer’s family member, whose bookkeeping services company was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the Department as required by federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, the Department did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements. • $831 for repairs and maintenance, travel, supplies, and other contracted services that were paid to another principal officer ($705) and the Executive Director’s immediate family member ($126) who performed various handyman services, including plumbing, painting, and building repairs, that were not adequately supported by a signed contract having specified price rates for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by the Department were appropriate. Further, the Department reimbursed the subrecipient for payments made to the principal officer and the Executive Director’s immediate family member, whose services were not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the Department as required by its contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. • $476 for unallowable loan payments to the subrecipient’s Executive Director, which was for personal use. • $99 for incentive payments to 1 contractor and 1 principal officer without documentation demonstrating that they were authorized by an agreement, reasonable for the services performed as provided in the subrecipient’s policies, and consistent with compensation paid for similar work in other activities; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed were allowable. Additionally, contrary to federal regulations, the Department had not ensured that the subrecipient implemented competitive purchasing procedures when procuring the professional services and handyman services described above, and the subrecipient was unable to provide documentation that it had competitively procured the services. We audited the Continuum of Care Program as a major federal program for the State’s fiscal year 2023 single audit, and we performed follow-up procedures to the review that we conducted during fiscal year 2022. During the audit, we became aware of the potentially noncompliant 40 reimbursements involving 1 of the Department’s nonprofit subrecipients with which it partnered with to carry out federal and State programs, including the Continuum of Care Program, the Emergency Solutions Grants Program (Assistance Listings number 14.231), and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (Assistance Listings number 93.558), which was audited as a major federal program for fiscal year 2023, as well as the State Housing Trust Fund. Our review of select reimbursements to this subrecipient resulted in similar findings for the federal Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and Emergency Solutions Grants Program and the State Housing Trust Fund that are described in findings 2023-115 and 2023-06, respectively. Effect—The Department’s reimbursing a nonprofit organization subrecipient for $40,455 of unallowable or unsupported costs and/or costs paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family members in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements resulted in those monies being unavailable to be spent for their intended purpose of providing housing assistance to those in need. Consequently, the Department may be required to return those monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.1 Cause—The Department had not yet resumed all its subrecipient monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending them starting in fiscal year 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Also, the Department had not properly assessed the subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures it should put in place or training the subrecipient needed. For example, the Department was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of principal officers’ conflicts of interest so that it could ensure that those principal officers or their immediate family members were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively reviewed the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Further, Department personnel responsible for reviewing and approving the subrecipient’s reimbursement requests reported to us that dating back to at least 2021, staff were trained to not follow the Department’s policies and procedures because they were not sufficiently detailed to provide direction on how to ensure costs are adequately supported and allowable in accordance with program requirements but, instead, to approve any costs that had been previously reimbursed. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Department to monitor subrecipients and include required procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and implementing appropriate monitoring procedures to address those risk assessments; verifying single audits were conducted timely, if required; reviewing financial and performance reports; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on deficiencies that could potentially affect the program; and issuing management decisions on the results of audit findings or monitoring (2 CFR §§ 200.332, .339, and .521). Federal regulations provide that monitoring procedures the Department may implement to address a subrecipient’s risk assessment include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs (2 CFR §200.332[e]). In addition, federal regulations require the Department’s subrecipients to allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, to use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and to disclose in writing to the Department any potential conflicts of interest.2 Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Department should: 1. Immediately stop reimbursing the nonprofit subrecipient for costs that are unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit subrecipient’s principal officers or their immediate family members in violation of federal regulations and take appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with its subaward contract. 2. Update its written policies and procedures for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests to include a process to ensure costs are adequately supported, allowable in accordance with program requirements, and approved by the appropriate level of management. 3. Train personnel responsible for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests on how to identify costs that are unallowable under federal regulations. 4. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and perform the appropriate monitoring procedures based on the assessed risk, such as providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs for allowability. 5. Ensure subrecipients allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and disclose in writing to the Department any potential conflicts of interest. The Department may need to provide training and technical assistance to subrecipients that address these compliance areas, including the Department’s obtaining conflict-of-interest disclosures from subrecipients as part of the subaward contract, as an example, or otherwise establishing a communication mechanism for subrecipients to use as such conflicts arise. 6. Continue to work with the nonprofit subrecipient to resolve the $40,455 in unallowable costs, including recovering these monies from the subrecipient and assessing the continued need to use this subrecipient for services. 7. Work with the federal agency to resolve the $40,455 of unallowable costs that it reimbursed, which may involve returning monies to the federal agency. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year finding 2022-115 and was initially reported in fiscal year 2022. 1 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 2 The applicable federal requirements related to allowable costs, competitive purchasing, and conflicts of interest can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.112, .318-.327, and Subpart E, and 24 CFR §578.95.
Assistance Listings number and name: 14.267 Continuum of Care Program Award number and year: AZ9999U9T002101, February 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: $40,455 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its federal award terms, the Department of Housing (Department) reimbursed 1 nonprofit organization subrecipient for federal program costs totaling $40,455 during fiscal year 2023 that were unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family members in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Specifically, we reviewed 40 reimbursements that included Continuum of Care costs totaling $346,747 for the year and found that the Department reimbursed the subrecipient for: • $18,385 for financial and accounting services and supplies that were paid to 1 of the nonprofit organization’s principal officers, who served as the Treasurer, and their company, which was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the Department as required by its contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, the Department did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements. • $20,664 for bookkeeping services that were not adequately supported by sufficiently detailed invoices and a signed, written contract having a specified price rate for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts paid were appropriate. Further, the Department reimbursed the subrecipient for payments made to the Treasurer’s family member, whose bookkeeping services company was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the Department as required by federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, the Department did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements. • $831 for repairs and maintenance, travel, supplies, and other contracted services that were paid to another principal officer ($705) and the Executive Director’s immediate family member ($126) who performed various handyman services, including plumbing, painting, and building repairs, that were not adequately supported by a signed contract having specified price rates for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by the Department were appropriate. Further, the Department reimbursed the subrecipient for payments made to the principal officer and the Executive Director’s immediate family member, whose services were not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the Department as required by its contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. • $476 for unallowable loan payments to the subrecipient’s Executive Director, which was for personal use. • $99 for incentive payments to 1 contractor and 1 principal officer without documentation demonstrating that they were authorized by an agreement, reasonable for the services performed as provided in the subrecipient’s policies, and consistent with compensation paid for similar work in other activities; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed were allowable. Additionally, contrary to federal regulations, the Department had not ensured that the subrecipient implemented competitive purchasing procedures when procuring the professional services and handyman services described above, and the subrecipient was unable to provide documentation that it had competitively procured the services. We audited the Continuum of Care Program as a major federal program for the State’s fiscal year 2023 single audit, and we performed follow-up procedures to the review that we conducted during fiscal year 2022. During the audit, we became aware of the potentially noncompliant 40 reimbursements involving 1 of the Department’s nonprofit subrecipients with which it partnered with to carry out federal and State programs, including the Continuum of Care Program, the Emergency Solutions Grants Program (Assistance Listings number 14.231), and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (Assistance Listings number 93.558), which was audited as a major federal program for fiscal year 2023, as well as the State Housing Trust Fund. Our review of select reimbursements to this subrecipient resulted in similar findings for the federal Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and Emergency Solutions Grants Program and the State Housing Trust Fund that are described in findings 2023-115 and 2023-06, respectively. Effect—The Department’s reimbursing a nonprofit organization subrecipient for $40,455 of unallowable or unsupported costs and/or costs paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family members in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements resulted in those monies being unavailable to be spent for their intended purpose of providing housing assistance to those in need. Consequently, the Department may be required to return those monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.1 Cause—The Department had not yet resumed all its subrecipient monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending them starting in fiscal year 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Also, the Department had not properly assessed the subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures it should put in place or training the subrecipient needed. For example, the Department was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of principal officers’ conflicts of interest so that it could ensure that those principal officers or their immediate family members were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively reviewed the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Further, Department personnel responsible for reviewing and approving the subrecipient’s reimbursement requests reported to us that dating back to at least 2021, staff were trained to not follow the Department’s policies and procedures because they were not sufficiently detailed to provide direction on how to ensure costs are adequately supported and allowable in accordance with program requirements but, instead, to approve any costs that had been previously reimbursed. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Department to monitor subrecipients and include required procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and implementing appropriate monitoring procedures to address those risk assessments; verifying single audits were conducted timely, if required; reviewing financial and performance reports; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on deficiencies that could potentially affect the program; and issuing management decisions on the results of audit findings or monitoring (2 CFR §§ 200.332, .339, and .521). Federal regulations provide that monitoring procedures the Department may implement to address a subrecipient’s risk assessment include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs (2 CFR §200.332[e]). In addition, federal regulations require the Department’s subrecipients to allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, to use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and to disclose in writing to the Department any potential conflicts of interest.2 Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Department should: 1. Immediately stop reimbursing the nonprofit subrecipient for costs that are unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit subrecipient’s principal officers or their immediate family members in violation of federal regulations and take appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with its subaward contract. 2. Update its written policies and procedures for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests to include a process to ensure costs are adequately supported, allowable in accordance with program requirements, and approved by the appropriate level of management. 3. Train personnel responsible for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests on how to identify costs that are unallowable under federal regulations. 4. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and perform the appropriate monitoring procedures based on the assessed risk, such as providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs for allowability. 5. Ensure subrecipients allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and disclose in writing to the Department any potential conflicts of interest. The Department may need to provide training and technical assistance to subrecipients that address these compliance areas, including the Department’s obtaining conflict-of-interest disclosures from subrecipients as part of the subaward contract, as an example, or otherwise establishing a communication mechanism for subrecipients to use as such conflicts arise. 6. Continue to work with the nonprofit subrecipient to resolve the $40,455 in unallowable costs, including recovering these monies from the subrecipient and assessing the continued need to use this subrecipient for services. 7. Work with the federal agency to resolve the $40,455 of unallowable costs that it reimbursed, which may involve returning monies to the federal agency. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year finding 2022-115 and was initially reported in fiscal year 2022. 1 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 2 The applicable federal requirements related to allowable costs, competitive purchasing, and conflicts of interest can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.112, .318-.327, and Subpart E, and 24 CFR §578.95.
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 14.231 Emergency Solutions Grant Program 14.231 COVID-19 - Emergency Solutions Grant Program Award numbers and years: E-20-DW-04-001, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2022; E-21-DC-04-001, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $1,820 Assistance Listings numbers and names: 93.558 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 93.558 COVID-19 - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Award numbers and years: 2201AZTANF, October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; 2301AZTANF, October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Questioned costs: $10,330 Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Total questioned costs: $12,150 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its federal award terms, the Department of Economic Security (DES) reimbursed 1 nonprofit organization subrecipient for federal program costs totaling $12,150 during fiscal year 2023 that were unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Specifically, we reviewed 14 reimbursements that included Emergency Solutions Grant Program (ESG) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Family (TANF) program costs totaling $26,120 and $65,730 for the year, respectively, and found that DES reimbursed the subrecipient: • $4,733 for financial and accounting services that were paid to 1 of the nonprofit organization’s principal officers, who served as the Treasurer, and their company, which was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to DES as required by DES’ contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, DES did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements ($112 for ESG and $4,621 for TANF). • $7,417 for bookkeeping services that were not adequately supported by sufficiently detailed invoices and a signed, written contract having a specified price rate for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts paid were appropriate. Further, DES reimbursed the subrecipient for payments made to the Treasurer’s family member, whose bookkeeping services company was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to DES as required by federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, DES did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements ($1,708 for ESG and $5,709 for TANF). Additionally, contrary to federal regulations, DES had not ensured that the subrecipient implemented competitive purchasing procedures when procuring the professional services described above, and the subrecipient was unable to provide documentation that it had competitively procured the services. ESG was not audited as a major federal program for the State’s fiscal year 2023 single audit; therefore, the scope of our review was not sufficient to determine whether DES or its subrecipients complied with all applicable federal requirements for this program. We audited the TANF program as a major federal program for the State’s fiscal year 2023 single audit, and we performed follow-up procedures to the review that we conducted during fiscal year 2022. During the audit, we became aware of the potentially noncompliant 14 reimbursements involving 1 of DES’ nonprofit subrecipients with which it partnered to carry out federal and State programs, including the Continuum of Care Program (Assistance Listings number 14.267), ESG, and TANF, which was audited as a major federal program for fiscal year 2023, as well as the State Housing Trust Fund. Our review of select reimbursements to this subrecipient resulted in similar findings for the federal Continuum of Care Program and the State Housing Trust Fund that are described in findings 2023-116 and 2023-06, respectively. Effect—DES’ reimbursing a nonprofit organization subrecipient for $12,150 of unallowable or unsupported costs and/or costs paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officer or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements resulted in those monies being unavailable to be spent for their intended purpose of providing housing assistance to those in need. Consequently, DES may be required to return these monies to the federal agencies in accordance with federal requirements.1 Cause—Although DES’ subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures did not require it to obtain from subrecipients documentation supporting charges for personal and contracted professional services to verify allowability when subrecipients requested reimbursement, the policies and procedures required an on-site monitoring visit once every 3 years for each subrecipient in which it reviews a sample of the subrecipient’s personal and professional services charges. However, DES had not performed an on-site monitoring visit of the nonprofit subrecipient since 2018 because it had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. In addition, DES had not properly assessed the subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures it should put in place or training the subrecipient needed. For example, DES was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of a principal officer’s conflicts of interest so that it could ensure that the principal officer and their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively reviewed the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Criteria—Federal regulations require DES to monitor subrecipients and include required procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and implementing appropriate monitoring procedures to address those risk assessments; verifying single audits were conducted timely, if required; reviewing financial and performance reports; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on deficiencies that could potentially affect the program; and issuing management decisions on the results of audit findings or monitoring.2 Federal regulations provide that monitoring procedures DES may implement to address a subrecipient’s risk assessment include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs.2 In addition, federal regulations require DES’ subrecipients to allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, to use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and to disclose in writing to DES any potential conflicts of interest.3 Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303 and 45 CFR §75.303). Recommendations—DES should: 1. Immediately stop reimbursing the nonprofit subrecipient for costs that are unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit subrecipient’s principal officer or their immediate family member in violation of federal regulations and take appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with its subaward contract. 2. Update its written policies and procedures for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests to include a process to ensure costs are adequately supported, allowable in accordance with program requirements, and approved by the appropriate level of management. 3. Train personnel responsible for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests on how to identify costs that are unallowable under federal regulations. 4. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and perform the appropriate monitoring procedures based on the assessed risk, such as providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs for allowability. 5. Ensure subrecipients allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and disclose in writing to DES any potential conflicts of interest. DES may need to provide training and technical assistance to subrecipients that address these compliance areas, including DES obtaining conflict-of-interest disclosures from subrecipients as part of the subaward contract, as an example, or otherwise establishing a communication mechanism for subrecipients to use as such conflicts arise. 6. Continue to work with the nonprofit subrecipient to resolve the $12,150 of unallowable costs, including recovering these monies from the subrecipient and assessing the continued need to use this subrecipient for services. 7. Work with the federal agencies to resolve the $12,150 of unallowable costs that it reimbursed, which may involve returning monies to the agencies. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-114 (TANF) and 2022-115 (ESG) and was initially reported in fiscal year 2022. 1 Federal Uniform Guidance and U.S. Health and Human Services audit requirements require federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c] and 45 CFR §75.513[c]). Further, they require that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521 and 45 CFR §75.521). 2 The applicable federal requirements related to subrecipient monitoring can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.332, .339, and .521 and 45 CFR §§75.352, .371, and .521. 3 The applicable federal requirements related to allowable costs, competitive purchasing, and conflicts of interest can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.112, .318-.327, and Subpart E; 24 CFR §578.95; and 45 CFR §§75.112, .326-.335, and Subpart E.
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 14.231 Emergency Solutions Grant Program 14.231 COVID-19 - Emergency Solutions Grant Program Award numbers and years: E-20-DW-04-001, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2022; E-21-DC-04-001, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $1,820 Assistance Listings numbers and names: 93.558 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 93.558 COVID-19 - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Award numbers and years: 2201AZTANF, October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; 2301AZTANF, October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Questioned costs: $10,330 Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Total questioned costs: $12,150 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its federal award terms, the Department of Economic Security (DES) reimbursed 1 nonprofit organization subrecipient for federal program costs totaling $12,150 during fiscal year 2023 that were unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Specifically, we reviewed 14 reimbursements that included Emergency Solutions Grant Program (ESG) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Family (TANF) program costs totaling $26,120 and $65,730 for the year, respectively, and found that DES reimbursed the subrecipient: • $4,733 for financial and accounting services that were paid to 1 of the nonprofit organization’s principal officers, who served as the Treasurer, and their company, which was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to DES as required by DES’ contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, DES did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements ($112 for ESG and $4,621 for TANF). • $7,417 for bookkeeping services that were not adequately supported by sufficiently detailed invoices and a signed, written contract having a specified price rate for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts paid were appropriate. Further, DES reimbursed the subrecipient for payments made to the Treasurer’s family member, whose bookkeeping services company was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to DES as required by federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, DES did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements ($1,708 for ESG and $5,709 for TANF). Additionally, contrary to federal regulations, DES had not ensured that the subrecipient implemented competitive purchasing procedures when procuring the professional services described above, and the subrecipient was unable to provide documentation that it had competitively procured the services. ESG was not audited as a major federal program for the State’s fiscal year 2023 single audit; therefore, the scope of our review was not sufficient to determine whether DES or its subrecipients complied with all applicable federal requirements for this program. We audited the TANF program as a major federal program for the State’s fiscal year 2023 single audit, and we performed follow-up procedures to the review that we conducted during fiscal year 2022. During the audit, we became aware of the potentially noncompliant 14 reimbursements involving 1 of DES’ nonprofit subrecipients with which it partnered to carry out federal and State programs, including the Continuum of Care Program (Assistance Listings number 14.267), ESG, and TANF, which was audited as a major federal program for fiscal year 2023, as well as the State Housing Trust Fund. Our review of select reimbursements to this subrecipient resulted in similar findings for the federal Continuum of Care Program and the State Housing Trust Fund that are described in findings 2023-116 and 2023-06, respectively. Effect—DES’ reimbursing a nonprofit organization subrecipient for $12,150 of unallowable or unsupported costs and/or costs paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officer or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements resulted in those monies being unavailable to be spent for their intended purpose of providing housing assistance to those in need. Consequently, DES may be required to return these monies to the federal agencies in accordance with federal requirements.1 Cause—Although DES’ subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures did not require it to obtain from subrecipients documentation supporting charges for personal and contracted professional services to verify allowability when subrecipients requested reimbursement, the policies and procedures required an on-site monitoring visit once every 3 years for each subrecipient in which it reviews a sample of the subrecipient’s personal and professional services charges. However, DES had not performed an on-site monitoring visit of the nonprofit subrecipient since 2018 because it had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. In addition, DES had not properly assessed the subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures it should put in place or training the subrecipient needed. For example, DES was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of a principal officer’s conflicts of interest so that it could ensure that the principal officer and their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively reviewed the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Criteria—Federal regulations require DES to monitor subrecipients and include required procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and implementing appropriate monitoring procedures to address those risk assessments; verifying single audits were conducted timely, if required; reviewing financial and performance reports; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on deficiencies that could potentially affect the program; and issuing management decisions on the results of audit findings or monitoring.2 Federal regulations provide that monitoring procedures DES may implement to address a subrecipient’s risk assessment include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs.2 In addition, federal regulations require DES’ subrecipients to allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, to use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and to disclose in writing to DES any potential conflicts of interest.3 Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303 and 45 CFR §75.303). Recommendations—DES should: 1. Immediately stop reimbursing the nonprofit subrecipient for costs that are unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit subrecipient’s principal officer or their immediate family member in violation of federal regulations and take appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with its subaward contract. 2. Update its written policies and procedures for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests to include a process to ensure costs are adequately supported, allowable in accordance with program requirements, and approved by the appropriate level of management. 3. Train personnel responsible for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests on how to identify costs that are unallowable under federal regulations. 4. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and perform the appropriate monitoring procedures based on the assessed risk, such as providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs for allowability. 5. Ensure subrecipients allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and disclose in writing to DES any potential conflicts of interest. DES may need to provide training and technical assistance to subrecipients that address these compliance areas, including DES obtaining conflict-of-interest disclosures from subrecipients as part of the subaward contract, as an example, or otherwise establishing a communication mechanism for subrecipients to use as such conflicts arise. 6. Continue to work with the nonprofit subrecipient to resolve the $12,150 of unallowable costs, including recovering these monies from the subrecipient and assessing the continued need to use this subrecipient for services. 7. Work with the federal agencies to resolve the $12,150 of unallowable costs that it reimbursed, which may involve returning monies to the agencies. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-114 (TANF) and 2022-115 (ESG) and was initially reported in fiscal year 2022. 1 Federal Uniform Guidance and U.S. Health and Human Services audit requirements require federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c] and 45 CFR §75.513[c]). Further, they require that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521 and 45 CFR §75.521). 2 The applicable federal requirements related to subrecipient monitoring can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.332, .339, and .521 and 45 CFR §§75.352, .371, and .521. 3 The applicable federal requirements related to allowable costs, competitive purchasing, and conflicts of interest can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.112, .318-.327, and Subpart E; 24 CFR §578.95; and 45 CFR §§75.112, .326-.335, and Subpart E.
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 14.231 Emergency Solutions Grant Program 14.231 COVID-19 - Emergency Solutions Grant Program Award numbers and years: E-20-DW-04-001, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2022; E-21-DC-04-001, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $1,820 Assistance Listings numbers and names: 93.558 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 93.558 COVID-19 - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Award numbers and years: 2201AZTANF, October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; 2301AZTANF, October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Questioned costs: $10,330 Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Total questioned costs: $12,150 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its federal award terms, the Department of Economic Security (DES) reimbursed 1 nonprofit organization subrecipient for federal program costs totaling $12,150 during fiscal year 2023 that were unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Specifically, we reviewed 14 reimbursements that included Emergency Solutions Grant Program (ESG) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Family (TANF) program costs totaling $26,120 and $65,730 for the year, respectively, and found that DES reimbursed the subrecipient: • $4,733 for financial and accounting services that were paid to 1 of the nonprofit organization’s principal officers, who served as the Treasurer, and their company, which was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to DES as required by DES’ contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, DES did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements ($112 for ESG and $4,621 for TANF). • $7,417 for bookkeeping services that were not adequately supported by sufficiently detailed invoices and a signed, written contract having a specified price rate for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts paid were appropriate. Further, DES reimbursed the subrecipient for payments made to the Treasurer’s family member, whose bookkeeping services company was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to DES as required by federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, DES did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements ($1,708 for ESG and $5,709 for TANF). Additionally, contrary to federal regulations, DES had not ensured that the subrecipient implemented competitive purchasing procedures when procuring the professional services described above, and the subrecipient was unable to provide documentation that it had competitively procured the services. ESG was not audited as a major federal program for the State’s fiscal year 2023 single audit; therefore, the scope of our review was not sufficient to determine whether DES or its subrecipients complied with all applicable federal requirements for this program. We audited the TANF program as a major federal program for the State’s fiscal year 2023 single audit, and we performed follow-up procedures to the review that we conducted during fiscal year 2022. During the audit, we became aware of the potentially noncompliant 14 reimbursements involving 1 of DES’ nonprofit subrecipients with which it partnered to carry out federal and State programs, including the Continuum of Care Program (Assistance Listings number 14.267), ESG, and TANF, which was audited as a major federal program for fiscal year 2023, as well as the State Housing Trust Fund. Our review of select reimbursements to this subrecipient resulted in similar findings for the federal Continuum of Care Program and the State Housing Trust Fund that are described in findings 2023-116 and 2023-06, respectively. Effect—DES’ reimbursing a nonprofit organization subrecipient for $12,150 of unallowable or unsupported costs and/or costs paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officer or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements resulted in those monies being unavailable to be spent for their intended purpose of providing housing assistance to those in need. Consequently, DES may be required to return these monies to the federal agencies in accordance with federal requirements.1 Cause—Although DES’ subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures did not require it to obtain from subrecipients documentation supporting charges for personal and contracted professional services to verify allowability when subrecipients requested reimbursement, the policies and procedures required an on-site monitoring visit once every 3 years for each subrecipient in which it reviews a sample of the subrecipient’s personal and professional services charges. However, DES had not performed an on-site monitoring visit of the nonprofit subrecipient since 2018 because it had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. In addition, DES had not properly assessed the subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures it should put in place or training the subrecipient needed. For example, DES was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of a principal officer’s conflicts of interest so that it could ensure that the principal officer and their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively reviewed the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Criteria—Federal regulations require DES to monitor subrecipients and include required procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and implementing appropriate monitoring procedures to address those risk assessments; verifying single audits were conducted timely, if required; reviewing financial and performance reports; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on deficiencies that could potentially affect the program; and issuing management decisions on the results of audit findings or monitoring.2 Federal regulations provide that monitoring procedures DES may implement to address a subrecipient’s risk assessment include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs.2 In addition, federal regulations require DES’ subrecipients to allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, to use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and to disclose in writing to DES any potential conflicts of interest.3 Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303 and 45 CFR §75.303). Recommendations—DES should: 1. Immediately stop reimbursing the nonprofit subrecipient for costs that are unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit subrecipient’s principal officer or their immediate family member in violation of federal regulations and take appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with its subaward contract. 2. Update its written policies and procedures for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests to include a process to ensure costs are adequately supported, allowable in accordance with program requirements, and approved by the appropriate level of management. 3. Train personnel responsible for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests on how to identify costs that are unallowable under federal regulations. 4. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and perform the appropriate monitoring procedures based on the assessed risk, such as providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs for allowability. 5. Ensure subrecipients allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and disclose in writing to DES any potential conflicts of interest. DES may need to provide training and technical assistance to subrecipients that address these compliance areas, including DES obtaining conflict-of-interest disclosures from subrecipients as part of the subaward contract, as an example, or otherwise establishing a communication mechanism for subrecipients to use as such conflicts arise. 6. Continue to work with the nonprofit subrecipient to resolve the $12,150 of unallowable costs, including recovering these monies from the subrecipient and assessing the continued need to use this subrecipient for services. 7. Work with the federal agencies to resolve the $12,150 of unallowable costs that it reimbursed, which may involve returning monies to the agencies. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-114 (TANF) and 2022-115 (ESG) and was initially reported in fiscal year 2022. 1 Federal Uniform Guidance and U.S. Health and Human Services audit requirements require federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c] and 45 CFR §75.513[c]). Further, they require that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521 and 45 CFR §75.521). 2 The applicable federal requirements related to subrecipient monitoring can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.332, .339, and .521 and 45 CFR §§75.352, .371, and .521. 3 The applicable federal requirements related to allowable costs, competitive purchasing, and conflicts of interest can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.112, .318-.327, and Subpart E; 24 CFR §578.95; and 45 CFR §§75.112, .326-.335, and Subpart E.
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 14.231 Emergency Solutions Grant Program 14.231 COVID-19 - Emergency Solutions Grant Program Award numbers and years: E-20-DW-04-001, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2022; E-21-DC-04-001, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $1,820 Assistance Listings numbers and names: 93.558 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 93.558 COVID-19 - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Award numbers and years: 2201AZTANF, October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; 2301AZTANF, October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Questioned costs: $10,330 Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Total questioned costs: $12,150 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its federal award terms, the Department of Economic Security (DES) reimbursed 1 nonprofit organization subrecipient for federal program costs totaling $12,150 during fiscal year 2023 that were unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Specifically, we reviewed 14 reimbursements that included Emergency Solutions Grant Program (ESG) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Family (TANF) program costs totaling $26,120 and $65,730 for the year, respectively, and found that DES reimbursed the subrecipient: • $4,733 for financial and accounting services that were paid to 1 of the nonprofit organization’s principal officers, who served as the Treasurer, and their company, which was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to DES as required by DES’ contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, DES did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements ($112 for ESG and $4,621 for TANF). • $7,417 for bookkeeping services that were not adequately supported by sufficiently detailed invoices and a signed, written contract having a specified price rate for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts paid were appropriate. Further, DES reimbursed the subrecipient for payments made to the Treasurer’s family member, whose bookkeeping services company was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to DES as required by federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, DES did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements ($1,708 for ESG and $5,709 for TANF). Additionally, contrary to federal regulations, DES had not ensured that the subrecipient implemented competitive purchasing procedures when procuring the professional services described above, and the subrecipient was unable to provide documentation that it had competitively procured the services. ESG was not audited as a major federal program for the State’s fiscal year 2023 single audit; therefore, the scope of our review was not sufficient to determine whether DES or its subrecipients complied with all applicable federal requirements for this program. We audited the TANF program as a major federal program for the State’s fiscal year 2023 single audit, and we performed follow-up procedures to the review that we conducted during fiscal year 2022. During the audit, we became aware of the potentially noncompliant 14 reimbursements involving 1 of DES’ nonprofit subrecipients with which it partnered to carry out federal and State programs, including the Continuum of Care Program (Assistance Listings number 14.267), ESG, and TANF, which was audited as a major federal program for fiscal year 2023, as well as the State Housing Trust Fund. Our review of select reimbursements to this subrecipient resulted in similar findings for the federal Continuum of Care Program and the State Housing Trust Fund that are described in findings 2023-116 and 2023-06, respectively. Effect—DES’ reimbursing a nonprofit organization subrecipient for $12,150 of unallowable or unsupported costs and/or costs paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officer or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements resulted in those monies being unavailable to be spent for their intended purpose of providing housing assistance to those in need. Consequently, DES may be required to return these monies to the federal agencies in accordance with federal requirements.1 Cause—Although DES’ subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures did not require it to obtain from subrecipients documentation supporting charges for personal and contracted professional services to verify allowability when subrecipients requested reimbursement, the policies and procedures required an on-site monitoring visit once every 3 years for each subrecipient in which it reviews a sample of the subrecipient’s personal and professional services charges. However, DES had not performed an on-site monitoring visit of the nonprofit subrecipient since 2018 because it had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. In addition, DES had not properly assessed the subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures it should put in place or training the subrecipient needed. For example, DES was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of a principal officer’s conflicts of interest so that it could ensure that the principal officer and their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively reviewed the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Criteria—Federal regulations require DES to monitor subrecipients and include required procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and implementing appropriate monitoring procedures to address those risk assessments; verifying single audits were conducted timely, if required; reviewing financial and performance reports; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on deficiencies that could potentially affect the program; and issuing management decisions on the results of audit findings or monitoring.2 Federal regulations provide that monitoring procedures DES may implement to address a subrecipient’s risk assessment include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs.2 In addition, federal regulations require DES’ subrecipients to allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, to use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and to disclose in writing to DES any potential conflicts of interest.3 Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303 and 45 CFR §75.303). Recommendations—DES should: 1. Immediately stop reimbursing the nonprofit subrecipient for costs that are unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit subrecipient’s principal officer or their immediate family member in violation of federal regulations and take appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with its subaward contract. 2. Update its written policies and procedures for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests to include a process to ensure costs are adequately supported, allowable in accordance with program requirements, and approved by the appropriate level of management. 3. Train personnel responsible for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests on how to identify costs that are unallowable under federal regulations. 4. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and perform the appropriate monitoring procedures based on the assessed risk, such as providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs for allowability. 5. Ensure subrecipients allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and disclose in writing to DES any potential conflicts of interest. DES may need to provide training and technical assistance to subrecipients that address these compliance areas, including DES obtaining conflict-of-interest disclosures from subrecipients as part of the subaward contract, as an example, or otherwise establishing a communication mechanism for subrecipients to use as such conflicts arise. 6. Continue to work with the nonprofit subrecipient to resolve the $12,150 of unallowable costs, including recovering these monies from the subrecipient and assessing the continued need to use this subrecipient for services. 7. Work with the federal agencies to resolve the $12,150 of unallowable costs that it reimbursed, which may involve returning monies to the agencies. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-114 (TANF) and 2022-115 (ESG) and was initially reported in fiscal year 2022. 1 Federal Uniform Guidance and U.S. Health and Human Services audit requirements require federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c] and 45 CFR §75.513[c]). Further, they require that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521 and 45 CFR §75.521). 2 The applicable federal requirements related to subrecipient monitoring can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.332, .339, and .521 and 45 CFR §§75.352, .371, and .521. 3 The applicable federal requirements related to allowable costs, competitive purchasing, and conflicts of interest can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.112, .318-.327, and Subpart E; 24 CFR §578.95; and 45 CFR §§75.112, .326-.335, and Subpart E.
Assistance Listings number and name: 14.267 Continuum of Care Program Award number and year: AZ9999U9T002101, February 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: $40,455 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its federal award terms, the Department of Housing (Department) reimbursed 1 nonprofit organization subrecipient for federal program costs totaling $40,455 during fiscal year 2023 that were unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family members in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Specifically, we reviewed 40 reimbursements that included Continuum of Care costs totaling $346,747 for the year and found that the Department reimbursed the subrecipient for: • $18,385 for financial and accounting services and supplies that were paid to 1 of the nonprofit organization’s principal officers, who served as the Treasurer, and their company, which was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the Department as required by its contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, the Department did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements. • $20,664 for bookkeeping services that were not adequately supported by sufficiently detailed invoices and a signed, written contract having a specified price rate for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts paid were appropriate. Further, the Department reimbursed the subrecipient for payments made to the Treasurer’s family member, whose bookkeeping services company was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the Department as required by federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, the Department did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements. • $831 for repairs and maintenance, travel, supplies, and other contracted services that were paid to another principal officer ($705) and the Executive Director’s immediate family member ($126) who performed various handyman services, including plumbing, painting, and building repairs, that were not adequately supported by a signed contract having specified price rates for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by the Department were appropriate. Further, the Department reimbursed the subrecipient for payments made to the principal officer and the Executive Director’s immediate family member, whose services were not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the Department as required by its contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. • $476 for unallowable loan payments to the subrecipient’s Executive Director, which was for personal use. • $99 for incentive payments to 1 contractor and 1 principal officer without documentation demonstrating that they were authorized by an agreement, reasonable for the services performed as provided in the subrecipient’s policies, and consistent with compensation paid for similar work in other activities; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed were allowable. Additionally, contrary to federal regulations, the Department had not ensured that the subrecipient implemented competitive purchasing procedures when procuring the professional services and handyman services described above, and the subrecipient was unable to provide documentation that it had competitively procured the services. We audited the Continuum of Care Program as a major federal program for the State’s fiscal year 2023 single audit, and we performed follow-up procedures to the review that we conducted during fiscal year 2022. During the audit, we became aware of the potentially noncompliant 40 reimbursements involving 1 of the Department’s nonprofit subrecipients with which it partnered with to carry out federal and State programs, including the Continuum of Care Program, the Emergency Solutions Grants Program (Assistance Listings number 14.231), and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (Assistance Listings number 93.558), which was audited as a major federal program for fiscal year 2023, as well as the State Housing Trust Fund. Our review of select reimbursements to this subrecipient resulted in similar findings for the federal Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and Emergency Solutions Grants Program and the State Housing Trust Fund that are described in findings 2023-115 and 2023-06, respectively. Effect—The Department’s reimbursing a nonprofit organization subrecipient for $40,455 of unallowable or unsupported costs and/or costs paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family members in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements resulted in those monies being unavailable to be spent for their intended purpose of providing housing assistance to those in need. Consequently, the Department may be required to return those monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.1 Cause—The Department had not yet resumed all its subrecipient monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending them starting in fiscal year 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Also, the Department had not properly assessed the subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures it should put in place or training the subrecipient needed. For example, the Department was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of principal officers’ conflicts of interest so that it could ensure that those principal officers or their immediate family members were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively reviewed the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Further, Department personnel responsible for reviewing and approving the subrecipient’s reimbursement requests reported to us that dating back to at least 2021, staff were trained to not follow the Department’s policies and procedures because they were not sufficiently detailed to provide direction on how to ensure costs are adequately supported and allowable in accordance with program requirements but, instead, to approve any costs that had been previously reimbursed. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Department to monitor subrecipients and include required procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and implementing appropriate monitoring procedures to address those risk assessments; verifying single audits were conducted timely, if required; reviewing financial and performance reports; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on deficiencies that could potentially affect the program; and issuing management decisions on the results of audit findings or monitoring (2 CFR §§ 200.332, .339, and .521). Federal regulations provide that monitoring procedures the Department may implement to address a subrecipient’s risk assessment include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs (2 CFR §200.332[e]). In addition, federal regulations require the Department’s subrecipients to allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, to use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and to disclose in writing to the Department any potential conflicts of interest.2 Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Department should: 1. Immediately stop reimbursing the nonprofit subrecipient for costs that are unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit subrecipient’s principal officers or their immediate family members in violation of federal regulations and take appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with its subaward contract. 2. Update its written policies and procedures for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests to include a process to ensure costs are adequately supported, allowable in accordance with program requirements, and approved by the appropriate level of management. 3. Train personnel responsible for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests on how to identify costs that are unallowable under federal regulations. 4. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and perform the appropriate monitoring procedures based on the assessed risk, such as providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs for allowability. 5. Ensure subrecipients allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and disclose in writing to the Department any potential conflicts of interest. The Department may need to provide training and technical assistance to subrecipients that address these compliance areas, including the Department’s obtaining conflict-of-interest disclosures from subrecipients as part of the subaward contract, as an example, or otherwise establishing a communication mechanism for subrecipients to use as such conflicts arise. 6. Continue to work with the nonprofit subrecipient to resolve the $40,455 in unallowable costs, including recovering these monies from the subrecipient and assessing the continued need to use this subrecipient for services. 7. Work with the federal agency to resolve the $40,455 of unallowable costs that it reimbursed, which may involve returning monies to the federal agency. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year finding 2022-115 and was initially reported in fiscal year 2022. 1 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 2 The applicable federal requirements related to allowable costs, competitive purchasing, and conflicts of interest can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.112, .318-.327, and Subpart E, and 24 CFR §578.95.
Assistance Listings number and name: 14.267 Continuum of Care Program Award number and year: AZ9999U9T002101, February 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: $40,455 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its federal award terms, the Department of Housing (Department) reimbursed 1 nonprofit organization subrecipient for federal program costs totaling $40,455 during fiscal year 2023 that were unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family members in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Specifically, we reviewed 40 reimbursements that included Continuum of Care costs totaling $346,747 for the year and found that the Department reimbursed the subrecipient for: • $18,385 for financial and accounting services and supplies that were paid to 1 of the nonprofit organization’s principal officers, who served as the Treasurer, and their company, which was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the Department as required by its contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, the Department did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements. • $20,664 for bookkeeping services that were not adequately supported by sufficiently detailed invoices and a signed, written contract having a specified price rate for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts paid were appropriate. Further, the Department reimbursed the subrecipient for payments made to the Treasurer’s family member, whose bookkeeping services company was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the Department as required by federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, the Department did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements. • $831 for repairs and maintenance, travel, supplies, and other contracted services that were paid to another principal officer ($705) and the Executive Director’s immediate family member ($126) who performed various handyman services, including plumbing, painting, and building repairs, that were not adequately supported by a signed contract having specified price rates for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by the Department were appropriate. Further, the Department reimbursed the subrecipient for payments made to the principal officer and the Executive Director’s immediate family member, whose services were not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the Department as required by its contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. • $476 for unallowable loan payments to the subrecipient’s Executive Director, which was for personal use. • $99 for incentive payments to 1 contractor and 1 principal officer without documentation demonstrating that they were authorized by an agreement, reasonable for the services performed as provided in the subrecipient’s policies, and consistent with compensation paid for similar work in other activities; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed were allowable. Additionally, contrary to federal regulations, the Department had not ensured that the subrecipient implemented competitive purchasing procedures when procuring the professional services and handyman services described above, and the subrecipient was unable to provide documentation that it had competitively procured the services. We audited the Continuum of Care Program as a major federal program for the State’s fiscal year 2023 single audit, and we performed follow-up procedures to the review that we conducted during fiscal year 2022. During the audit, we became aware of the potentially noncompliant 40 reimbursements involving 1 of the Department’s nonprofit subrecipients with which it partnered with to carry out federal and State programs, including the Continuum of Care Program, the Emergency Solutions Grants Program (Assistance Listings number 14.231), and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (Assistance Listings number 93.558), which was audited as a major federal program for fiscal year 2023, as well as the State Housing Trust Fund. Our review of select reimbursements to this subrecipient resulted in similar findings for the federal Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and Emergency Solutions Grants Program and the State Housing Trust Fund that are described in findings 2023-115 and 2023-06, respectively. Effect—The Department’s reimbursing a nonprofit organization subrecipient for $40,455 of unallowable or unsupported costs and/or costs paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family members in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements resulted in those monies being unavailable to be spent for their intended purpose of providing housing assistance to those in need. Consequently, the Department may be required to return those monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.1 Cause—The Department had not yet resumed all its subrecipient monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending them starting in fiscal year 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Also, the Department had not properly assessed the subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures it should put in place or training the subrecipient needed. For example, the Department was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of principal officers’ conflicts of interest so that it could ensure that those principal officers or their immediate family members were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively reviewed the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Further, Department personnel responsible for reviewing and approving the subrecipient’s reimbursement requests reported to us that dating back to at least 2021, staff were trained to not follow the Department’s policies and procedures because they were not sufficiently detailed to provide direction on how to ensure costs are adequately supported and allowable in accordance with program requirements but, instead, to approve any costs that had been previously reimbursed. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Department to monitor subrecipients and include required procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and implementing appropriate monitoring procedures to address those risk assessments; verifying single audits were conducted timely, if required; reviewing financial and performance reports; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on deficiencies that could potentially affect the program; and issuing management decisions on the results of audit findings or monitoring (2 CFR §§ 200.332, .339, and .521). Federal regulations provide that monitoring procedures the Department may implement to address a subrecipient’s risk assessment include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs (2 CFR §200.332[e]). In addition, federal regulations require the Department’s subrecipients to allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, to use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and to disclose in writing to the Department any potential conflicts of interest.2 Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Department should: 1. Immediately stop reimbursing the nonprofit subrecipient for costs that are unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit subrecipient’s principal officers or their immediate family members in violation of federal regulations and take appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with its subaward contract. 2. Update its written policies and procedures for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests to include a process to ensure costs are adequately supported, allowable in accordance with program requirements, and approved by the appropriate level of management. 3. Train personnel responsible for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests on how to identify costs that are unallowable under federal regulations. 4. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and perform the appropriate monitoring procedures based on the assessed risk, such as providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs for allowability. 5. Ensure subrecipients allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and disclose in writing to the Department any potential conflicts of interest. The Department may need to provide training and technical assistance to subrecipients that address these compliance areas, including the Department’s obtaining conflict-of-interest disclosures from subrecipients as part of the subaward contract, as an example, or otherwise establishing a communication mechanism for subrecipients to use as such conflicts arise. 6. Continue to work with the nonprofit subrecipient to resolve the $40,455 in unallowable costs, including recovering these monies from the subrecipient and assessing the continued need to use this subrecipient for services. 7. Work with the federal agency to resolve the $40,455 of unallowable costs that it reimbursed, which may involve returning monies to the federal agency. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year finding 2022-115 and was initially reported in fiscal year 2022. 1 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 2 The applicable federal requirements related to allowable costs, competitive purchasing, and conflicts of interest can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.112, .318-.327, and Subpart E, and 24 CFR §578.95.
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 14.231 Emergency Solutions Grant Program 14.231 COVID-19 - Emergency Solutions Grant Program Award numbers and years: E-20-DW-04-001, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2022; E-21-DC-04-001, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $1,820 Assistance Listings numbers and names: 93.558 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 93.558 COVID-19 - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Award numbers and years: 2201AZTANF, October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; 2301AZTANF, October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Questioned costs: $10,330 Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Total questioned costs: $12,150 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its federal award terms, the Department of Economic Security (DES) reimbursed 1 nonprofit organization subrecipient for federal program costs totaling $12,150 during fiscal year 2023 that were unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Specifically, we reviewed 14 reimbursements that included Emergency Solutions Grant Program (ESG) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Family (TANF) program costs totaling $26,120 and $65,730 for the year, respectively, and found that DES reimbursed the subrecipient: • $4,733 for financial and accounting services that were paid to 1 of the nonprofit organization’s principal officers, who served as the Treasurer, and their company, which was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to DES as required by DES’ contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, DES did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements ($112 for ESG and $4,621 for TANF). • $7,417 for bookkeeping services that were not adequately supported by sufficiently detailed invoices and a signed, written contract having a specified price rate for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts paid were appropriate. Further, DES reimbursed the subrecipient for payments made to the Treasurer’s family member, whose bookkeeping services company was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to DES as required by federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, DES did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements ($1,708 for ESG and $5,709 for TANF). Additionally, contrary to federal regulations, DES had not ensured that the subrecipient implemented competitive purchasing procedures when procuring the professional services described above, and the subrecipient was unable to provide documentation that it had competitively procured the services. ESG was not audited as a major federal program for the State’s fiscal year 2023 single audit; therefore, the scope of our review was not sufficient to determine whether DES or its subrecipients complied with all applicable federal requirements for this program. We audited the TANF program as a major federal program for the State’s fiscal year 2023 single audit, and we performed follow-up procedures to the review that we conducted during fiscal year 2022. During the audit, we became aware of the potentially noncompliant 14 reimbursements involving 1 of DES’ nonprofit subrecipients with which it partnered to carry out federal and State programs, including the Continuum of Care Program (Assistance Listings number 14.267), ESG, and TANF, which was audited as a major federal program for fiscal year 2023, as well as the State Housing Trust Fund. Our review of select reimbursements to this subrecipient resulted in similar findings for the federal Continuum of Care Program and the State Housing Trust Fund that are described in findings 2023-116 and 2023-06, respectively. Effect—DES’ reimbursing a nonprofit organization subrecipient for $12,150 of unallowable or unsupported costs and/or costs paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officer or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements resulted in those monies being unavailable to be spent for their intended purpose of providing housing assistance to those in need. Consequently, DES may be required to return these monies to the federal agencies in accordance with federal requirements.1 Cause—Although DES’ subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures did not require it to obtain from subrecipients documentation supporting charges for personal and contracted professional services to verify allowability when subrecipients requested reimbursement, the policies and procedures required an on-site monitoring visit once every 3 years for each subrecipient in which it reviews a sample of the subrecipient’s personal and professional services charges. However, DES had not performed an on-site monitoring visit of the nonprofit subrecipient since 2018 because it had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. In addition, DES had not properly assessed the subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures it should put in place or training the subrecipient needed. For example, DES was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of a principal officer’s conflicts of interest so that it could ensure that the principal officer and their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively reviewed the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Criteria—Federal regulations require DES to monitor subrecipients and include required procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and implementing appropriate monitoring procedures to address those risk assessments; verifying single audits were conducted timely, if required; reviewing financial and performance reports; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on deficiencies that could potentially affect the program; and issuing management decisions on the results of audit findings or monitoring.2 Federal regulations provide that monitoring procedures DES may implement to address a subrecipient’s risk assessment include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs.2 In addition, federal regulations require DES’ subrecipients to allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, to use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and to disclose in writing to DES any potential conflicts of interest.3 Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303 and 45 CFR §75.303). Recommendations—DES should: 1. Immediately stop reimbursing the nonprofit subrecipient for costs that are unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit subrecipient’s principal officer or their immediate family member in violation of federal regulations and take appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with its subaward contract. 2. Update its written policies and procedures for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests to include a process to ensure costs are adequately supported, allowable in accordance with program requirements, and approved by the appropriate level of management. 3. Train personnel responsible for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests on how to identify costs that are unallowable under federal regulations. 4. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and perform the appropriate monitoring procedures based on the assessed risk, such as providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs for allowability. 5. Ensure subrecipients allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and disclose in writing to DES any potential conflicts of interest. DES may need to provide training and technical assistance to subrecipients that address these compliance areas, including DES obtaining conflict-of-interest disclosures from subrecipients as part of the subaward contract, as an example, or otherwise establishing a communication mechanism for subrecipients to use as such conflicts arise. 6. Continue to work with the nonprofit subrecipient to resolve the $12,150 of unallowable costs, including recovering these monies from the subrecipient and assessing the continued need to use this subrecipient for services. 7. Work with the federal agencies to resolve the $12,150 of unallowable costs that it reimbursed, which may involve returning monies to the agencies. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-114 (TANF) and 2022-115 (ESG) and was initially reported in fiscal year 2022. 1 Federal Uniform Guidance and U.S. Health and Human Services audit requirements require federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c] and 45 CFR §75.513[c]). Further, they require that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521 and 45 CFR §75.521). 2 The applicable federal requirements related to subrecipient monitoring can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.332, .339, and .521 and 45 CFR §§75.352, .371, and .521. 3 The applicable federal requirements related to allowable costs, competitive purchasing, and conflicts of interest can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.112, .318-.327, and Subpart E; 24 CFR §578.95; and 45 CFR §§75.112, .326-.335, and Subpart E.
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 14.231 Emergency Solutions Grant Program 14.231 COVID-19 - Emergency Solutions Grant Program Award numbers and years: E-20-DW-04-001, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2022; E-21-DC-04-001, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $1,820 Assistance Listings numbers and names: 93.558 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 93.558 COVID-19 - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Award numbers and years: 2201AZTANF, October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; 2301AZTANF, October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Questioned costs: $10,330 Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Total questioned costs: $12,150 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its federal award terms, the Department of Economic Security (DES) reimbursed 1 nonprofit organization subrecipient for federal program costs totaling $12,150 during fiscal year 2023 that were unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Specifically, we reviewed 14 reimbursements that included Emergency Solutions Grant Program (ESG) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Family (TANF) program costs totaling $26,120 and $65,730 for the year, respectively, and found that DES reimbursed the subrecipient: • $4,733 for financial and accounting services that were paid to 1 of the nonprofit organization’s principal officers, who served as the Treasurer, and their company, which was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to DES as required by DES’ contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, DES did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements ($112 for ESG and $4,621 for TANF). • $7,417 for bookkeeping services that were not adequately supported by sufficiently detailed invoices and a signed, written contract having a specified price rate for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts paid were appropriate. Further, DES reimbursed the subrecipient for payments made to the Treasurer’s family member, whose bookkeeping services company was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to DES as required by federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, DES did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements ($1,708 for ESG and $5,709 for TANF). Additionally, contrary to federal regulations, DES had not ensured that the subrecipient implemented competitive purchasing procedures when procuring the professional services described above, and the subrecipient was unable to provide documentation that it had competitively procured the services. ESG was not audited as a major federal program for the State’s fiscal year 2023 single audit; therefore, the scope of our review was not sufficient to determine whether DES or its subrecipients complied with all applicable federal requirements for this program. We audited the TANF program as a major federal program for the State’s fiscal year 2023 single audit, and we performed follow-up procedures to the review that we conducted during fiscal year 2022. During the audit, we became aware of the potentially noncompliant 14 reimbursements involving 1 of DES’ nonprofit subrecipients with which it partnered to carry out federal and State programs, including the Continuum of Care Program (Assistance Listings number 14.267), ESG, and TANF, which was audited as a major federal program for fiscal year 2023, as well as the State Housing Trust Fund. Our review of select reimbursements to this subrecipient resulted in similar findings for the federal Continuum of Care Program and the State Housing Trust Fund that are described in findings 2023-116 and 2023-06, respectively. Effect—DES’ reimbursing a nonprofit organization subrecipient for $12,150 of unallowable or unsupported costs and/or costs paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officer or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements resulted in those monies being unavailable to be spent for their intended purpose of providing housing assistance to those in need. Consequently, DES may be required to return these monies to the federal agencies in accordance with federal requirements.1 Cause—Although DES’ subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures did not require it to obtain from subrecipients documentation supporting charges for personal and contracted professional services to verify allowability when subrecipients requested reimbursement, the policies and procedures required an on-site monitoring visit once every 3 years for each subrecipient in which it reviews a sample of the subrecipient’s personal and professional services charges. However, DES had not performed an on-site monitoring visit of the nonprofit subrecipient since 2018 because it had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. In addition, DES had not properly assessed the subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures it should put in place or training the subrecipient needed. For example, DES was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of a principal officer’s conflicts of interest so that it could ensure that the principal officer and their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively reviewed the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Criteria—Federal regulations require DES to monitor subrecipients and include required procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and implementing appropriate monitoring procedures to address those risk assessments; verifying single audits were conducted timely, if required; reviewing financial and performance reports; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on deficiencies that could potentially affect the program; and issuing management decisions on the results of audit findings or monitoring.2 Federal regulations provide that monitoring procedures DES may implement to address a subrecipient’s risk assessment include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs.2 In addition, federal regulations require DES’ subrecipients to allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, to use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and to disclose in writing to DES any potential conflicts of interest.3 Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303 and 45 CFR §75.303). Recommendations—DES should: 1. Immediately stop reimbursing the nonprofit subrecipient for costs that are unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit subrecipient’s principal officer or their immediate family member in violation of federal regulations and take appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with its subaward contract. 2. Update its written policies and procedures for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests to include a process to ensure costs are adequately supported, allowable in accordance with program requirements, and approved by the appropriate level of management. 3. Train personnel responsible for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests on how to identify costs that are unallowable under federal regulations. 4. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and perform the appropriate monitoring procedures based on the assessed risk, such as providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs for allowability. 5. Ensure subrecipients allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and disclose in writing to DES any potential conflicts of interest. DES may need to provide training and technical assistance to subrecipients that address these compliance areas, including DES obtaining conflict-of-interest disclosures from subrecipients as part of the subaward contract, as an example, or otherwise establishing a communication mechanism for subrecipients to use as such conflicts arise. 6. Continue to work with the nonprofit subrecipient to resolve the $12,150 of unallowable costs, including recovering these monies from the subrecipient and assessing the continued need to use this subrecipient for services. 7. Work with the federal agencies to resolve the $12,150 of unallowable costs that it reimbursed, which may involve returning monies to the agencies. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-114 (TANF) and 2022-115 (ESG) and was initially reported in fiscal year 2022. 1 Federal Uniform Guidance and U.S. Health and Human Services audit requirements require federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c] and 45 CFR §75.513[c]). Further, they require that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521 and 45 CFR §75.521). 2 The applicable federal requirements related to subrecipient monitoring can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.332, .339, and .521 and 45 CFR §§75.352, .371, and .521. 3 The applicable federal requirements related to allowable costs, competitive purchasing, and conflicts of interest can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.112, .318-.327, and Subpart E; 24 CFR §578.95; and 45 CFR §§75.112, .326-.335, and Subpart E.
FINDING 2022-003 Subject: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Procurement and Suspension and Debarment, Subrecipient Monitoring Federal Agency: Department of the Treasury Federal Program: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listings Number: 21.027 Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): CY2021 Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Procurement and Suspension and Debarment, Subrecipient Monitoring Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The City made a payment to a non-profit agency (non-profit) in the amount of $350,000. The City could not provide documentation to support whether the non-profit was considered by the City to be a beneficiary or a subrecipient of State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF). Documentation presented for audit to support the payment was an invoice from the non-profit and the City's approved Recovery Plan, neither of which included sufficient evidence to determine the relationship between the two entities. Due to the lack of sufficient audit evidence, we were unable to identify whether the payment was to a beneficiary or a subrecipient in order to perform the required corresponding audit procedures. If the non-profit had been determined by the City to be a subrecipient, the City would have been required to complete monitoring procedures designated for subrecipient relationships, including ensuring the non-profit complied with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. In addition, the City did not perform procedures to verify if the non-profit was suspended or debarred or otherwise prohibited from participating in federal awards prior to issuing the payment. Furthermore, the City did not have policies or procedures as part of a proper internal control system in place to ensure payments made from SLFRF funds were free of conflicts of interest. A conflict of interest arises when an employee, officer, or agent, any member of his or her immediate family, his or her partner, or an organization which employs or is about to employ any of the parties indicated, has a financial or other interest in or a tangible personal benefit from an entity considered for a payment. The Chief Executive Officer of the non-profit at the time that the payment of $350,000 was received was also the wife of the President of the Common Council. The President of the Common Council did not have a conflict-of-interest statement filed to disclose the circumstance, nor did the President of the Common Council abstain from voting on the City's plan for utilizing the SLFRF funding, which included the payment to the non-profit. In addition to the payment to the non-profit, the City paid premium pay, totaling $50,000, to ten exempt employees whose earnings exceeded the 150 percent of the average annual wage threshold. The City was required to notify the U.S. Department of the Treasury if the employees were classified as exempt or if the employees' wages were over the threshold. The City did not submit a reasoning for the premium pay payments. We consider the $400,000 paid to the non-profit and the employees to be questioned costs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the payments as described 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). . . ." 31 CFR 35.6(b) states in part: "Responding to the public health emergency or its negative economic impacts. A recipient may use funds to respond to the public health emergency or its negative economic impacts if the use meets the criteria provided in paragraph (b)(1) of this section or is enumerated in paragraph (b)(3) of this section; . . . (1) Identifying eligible responses to the public health emergency or it negative impacts. (i) A program, service, or capital expenditure is eligible under this paragraph (b)(1) if a recipient identifies a harm or impact to a beneficiary or class of beneficiaries caused or exacerbated by the public health emergency or its negative impacts and the program, service, or capital expenditure responds to such harm. . . ." 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. . . . (g) be adequately documented. . . ." 31 CFR 35.3 states in part: ". . . Obligation means an order placed for property and services and entering into contracts, subawards, and similar transactions that require payment. . . ." Federal Register, Vol. 87, No.18, page 4400, states in part: ". . . as part of accepting the Award Terms and Conditions for SLFRF, each recipient agreed to maintain a conflict-of-interest policy consistent with 2 CFR 200.318(c) that is applicable to all activities funded with the SLFRF award. This award term requires recipients and subrecipients to report to Treasury or the pass-through agency, as appropriate, any potential conflict of interest related to the award funds per 2 CFR 200.112. . . ." 2 CFR 200.112 states: "The Federal awarding agency must establish conflict of interest policies for Federal awards. The non-Federal entity must disclose in writing any potential conflict of interest to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in accordance with applicable Federal awarding agency policy." 2 CFR 200.318(c)(1) states in part: "The non-Federal entity must maintain written standards of conduct covering conflicts of interest and governing actions of its employees engaged in the selection, award and administration of contracts. No employee, officer, or agent may participate in the selection, award, or administration of a contract supported by a Federal award if he or she has a real or apparent conflict of interest. Such a conflict of interest would arise when the employee, officer, or agent, any member of his or her immediate family, his or her partner, or an organization which employs or is about to employ any of the parties indicated herein, has a financial or other interest in or a tangible personal benefit from a firm considered for a contract. . . ." Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds: Overview of the Final Rule, pages 35-36, states in part: "The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds may be used to provide premium pay to eligible workers performing essential work during the pandemic. Premium pay may be awarded to eligible workers up to $13 per hour. Premium pay must be in addition to wages or remuneration (i.e., compensation) the eligible worker otherwise receives. Premium pay may not exceed $25,000 for any single worker during the program. . . . 3. Confirm that the premium pay 'responds to' workers performing essential work during the COVID-19 public health emergency. Under the final rule, which broadened the share of eligible workers who can receive premium pay without a written justification, recipients may meet this requirement in one of three ways: ? Eligible worker receiving premium pay is earning (with the premium included) at or below 150 percent of their residing state or county's average annual wage for all occupations, as defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, whichever is higher, on an annual basis; or ? Eligible worker receiving premium pay is not exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act overtime provisions; or ? If a worker does not meet either of the above requirements, the recipient must submit written justification to Treasury detailing how the premium pay is otherwise responsive to workers performing essential work during the public health emergency. This may include a description of the essential worker's duties, health, or financial risks faced due to COVID-19, and why the recipient determined that the premium pay was responsive. Treasury anticipates that recipients will easily be able to satisfy the justification requirement for front-line workers, like nurses and hospital staff. . . ." Cause The system of internal controls as established by management of the City was not properly designed, nor implemented. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect City management's views of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. These policies and procedures should include the preparation and retention of appropriate documentation to support a determination of the relationship with the non-profit. Additionally, policies and procedures were not in place to ensure conflict-of-interest statements or written justification for the premium pay paid to employees were filed as required. 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 of the failure to identify, as well as document the relationship with the nonprofit, the City's compliance with the applicable compliance requirements could not be verified. If the City had determined the non-profit to be a subrecipient, the City would have been responsible for monitoring the non-profit, and additional audit procedures related to subrecipient monitoring would have been required. The failure to file a conflict-of-interest statement and abstain from voting on matters related to the SLFRF funds caused the payment to the non-profit to be a questioned cost of the federal award. 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 City. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs in the amount of $400,000 were identified as noted in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that management of the City design and implement a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure adequate supporting documentation is retained to be presented for audit and that appropriate conflict-of-interest statements are filed. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-002 Subject: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - Procurement Federal Agency: Department of the Treasury Federal Program: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listings Number: 21.027 Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): CY 2022 Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Significant Deficiency, Noncompliance Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2021-003. Condition and Context Nonfederal entities are required to maintain written standards of conduct covering conflicts of interest and governing actions of its employees engaged in the selection, award, and administration of contracts. As part of accepting the State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) the County agreed to maintain a conflict-of-interest policy, which is applicable to all activities funded with the SLFRF award. The County addressed conflicts of interest in the County's Personnel Policies Handbook. However, it did not include standards of conduct covering conflicts of interest or how to govern the actions of its employees engaged in selection, award, and administration of contracts supported by federal awards. The lack of 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(c)(1) states: "The non-Federal entity must maintain written standards of conduct covering conflicts of interest and governing the actions of its employees engaged in the selection, award and administration of contracts. No employee, officer, or agent may participate in the selection, award, or administration of a contract supported by a Federal award if he or she has a real or apparent conflict of interest. Such a conflict of interest would arise when the employee, officer, or agent, any member of his or her immediate family, his or her partner, or an organization which employs or is about to employ any of the parties indicated herein, has a financial or other interest in or a tangible personal benefit from a firm considered for a contract. The officers, employees, and agents of the non-Federal entity may neither solicit nor accept gratuities, favors, or anything of monetary value from contractors or parties to subcontracts. However, non-Federal entities may set standards for situations in which the financial interest is not substantial or the gift is an unsolicited item of nominal value. The standards of conduct must provide for disciplinary actions to be applied for violations of such standards by officers, employees, or agents of the non-Federal entity." Federal Register, Vol. 87, No.18, page 4400, states in part: ". . . as part of accepting the Award Terms and Conditions for SLFRF, each recipient agreed to maintain a conflict-of-interest policy consistent with 2 CFR 200.318(c) that is applicable to all activities funded with the SLFRF award. This award term requires recipients and subrecipients to report to Treasury or the pass-through agency, as appropriate, any potential conflict of interest related to the award funds per 2 CFR 200.112. . . ." Cause The system of internal controls as established by management of the County was not properly implemented to ensure that policies adequately addressed all required elements related to procurement. 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. 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 County. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the County establish a proper system of internal controls, including strengthening its policies and procedures to ensure its compliance with requirements related to procurement. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-003 Subject: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Procurement and Suspension and Debarment, Subrecipient Monitoring Federal Agency: Department of the Treasury Federal Program: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listings Number: 21.027 Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): CY2021 Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Procurement and Suspension and Debarment, Subrecipient Monitoring Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The City made a payment to a non-profit agency (non-profit) in the amount of $350,000. The City could not provide documentation to support whether the non-profit was considered by the City to be a beneficiary or a subrecipient of State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF). Documentation presented for audit to support the payment was an invoice from the non-profit and the City's approved Recovery Plan, neither of which included sufficient evidence to determine the relationship between the two entities. Due to the lack of sufficient audit evidence, we were unable to identify whether the payment was to a beneficiary or a subrecipient in order to perform the required corresponding audit procedures. If the non-profit had been determined by the City to be a subrecipient, the City would have been required to complete monitoring procedures designated for subrecipient relationships, including ensuring the non-profit complied with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. In addition, the City did not perform procedures to verify if the non-profit was suspended or debarred or otherwise prohibited from participating in federal awards prior to issuing the payment. Furthermore, the City did not have policies or procedures as part of a proper internal control system in place to ensure payments made from SLFRF funds were free of conflicts of interest. A conflict of interest arises when an employee, officer, or agent, any member of his or her immediate family, his or her partner, or an organization which employs or is about to employ any of the parties indicated, has a financial or other interest in or a tangible personal benefit from an entity considered for a payment. The Chief Executive Officer of the non-profit at the time that the payment of $350,000 was received was also the wife of the President of the Common Council. The President of the Common Council did not have a conflict-of-interest statement filed to disclose the circumstance, nor did the President of the Common Council abstain from voting on the City's plan for utilizing the SLFRF funding, which included the payment to the non-profit. In addition to the payment to the non-profit, the City paid premium pay, totaling $50,000, to ten exempt employees whose earnings exceeded the 150 percent of the average annual wage threshold. The City was required to notify the U.S. Department of the Treasury if the employees were classified as exempt or if the employees' wages were over the threshold. The City did not submit a reasoning for the premium pay payments. We consider the $400,000 paid to the non-profit and the employees to be questioned costs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the payments as described 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). . . ." 31 CFR 35.6(b) states in part: "Responding to the public health emergency or its negative economic impacts. A recipient may use funds to respond to the public health emergency or its negative economic impacts if the use meets the criteria provided in paragraph (b)(1) of this section or is enumerated in paragraph (b)(3) of this section; . . . (1) Identifying eligible responses to the public health emergency or it negative impacts. (i) A program, service, or capital expenditure is eligible under this paragraph (b)(1) if a recipient identifies a harm or impact to a beneficiary or class of beneficiaries caused or exacerbated by the public health emergency or its negative impacts and the program, service, or capital expenditure responds to such harm. . . ." 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. . . . (g) be adequately documented. . . ." 31 CFR 35.3 states in part: ". . . Obligation means an order placed for property and services and entering into contracts, subawards, and similar transactions that require payment. . . ." Federal Register, Vol. 87, No.18, page 4400, states in part: ". . . as part of accepting the Award Terms and Conditions for SLFRF, each recipient agreed to maintain a conflict-of-interest policy consistent with 2 CFR 200.318(c) that is applicable to all activities funded with the SLFRF award. This award term requires recipients and subrecipients to report to Treasury or the pass-through agency, as appropriate, any potential conflict of interest related to the award funds per 2 CFR 200.112. . . ." 2 CFR 200.112 states: "The Federal awarding agency must establish conflict of interest policies for Federal awards. The non-Federal entity must disclose in writing any potential conflict of interest to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in accordance with applicable Federal awarding agency policy." 2 CFR 200.318(c)(1) states in part: "The non-Federal entity must maintain written standards of conduct covering conflicts of interest and governing actions of its employees engaged in the selection, award and administration of contracts. No employee, officer, or agent may participate in the selection, award, or administration of a contract supported by a Federal award if he or she has a real or apparent conflict of interest. Such a conflict of interest would arise when the employee, officer, or agent, any member of his or her immediate family, his or her partner, or an organization which employs or is about to employ any of the parties indicated herein, has a financial or other interest in or a tangible personal benefit from a firm considered for a contract. . . ." Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds: Overview of the Final Rule, pages 35-36, states in part: "The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds may be used to provide premium pay to eligible workers performing essential work during the pandemic. Premium pay may be awarded to eligible workers up to $13 per hour. Premium pay must be in addition to wages or remuneration (i.e., compensation) the eligible worker otherwise receives. Premium pay may not exceed $25,000 for any single worker during the program. . . . 3. Confirm that the premium pay 'responds to' workers performing essential work during the COVID-19 public health emergency. Under the final rule, which broadened the share of eligible workers who can receive premium pay without a written justification, recipients may meet this requirement in one of three ways: ? Eligible worker receiving premium pay is earning (with the premium included) at or below 150 percent of their residing state or county's average annual wage for all occupations, as defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, whichever is higher, on an annual basis; or ? Eligible worker receiving premium pay is not exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act overtime provisions; or ? If a worker does not meet either of the above requirements, the recipient must submit written justification to Treasury detailing how the premium pay is otherwise responsive to workers performing essential work during the public health emergency. This may include a description of the essential worker's duties, health, or financial risks faced due to COVID-19, and why the recipient determined that the premium pay was responsive. Treasury anticipates that recipients will easily be able to satisfy the justification requirement for front-line workers, like nurses and hospital staff. . . ." Cause The system of internal controls as established by management of the City was not properly designed, nor implemented. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect City management's views of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. These policies and procedures should include the preparation and retention of appropriate documentation to support a determination of the relationship with the non-profit. Additionally, policies and procedures were not in place to ensure conflict-of-interest statements or written justification for the premium pay paid to employees were filed as required. 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 of the failure to identify, as well as document the relationship with the nonprofit, the City's compliance with the applicable compliance requirements could not be verified. If the City had determined the non-profit to be a subrecipient, the City would have been responsible for monitoring the non-profit, and additional audit procedures related to subrecipient monitoring would have been required. The failure to file a conflict-of-interest statement and abstain from voting on matters related to the SLFRF funds caused the payment to the non-profit to be a questioned cost of the federal award. 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 City. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs in the amount of $400,000 were identified as noted in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that management of the City design and implement a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure adequate supporting documentation is retained to be presented for audit and that appropriate conflict-of-interest statements are filed. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-002 Subject: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - Procurement Federal Agency: Department of the Treasury Federal Program: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listings Number: 21.027 Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): CY 2022 Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Significant Deficiency, Noncompliance Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2021-003. Condition and Context Nonfederal entities are required to maintain written standards of conduct covering conflicts of interest and governing actions of its employees engaged in the selection, award, and administration of contracts. As part of accepting the State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) the County agreed to maintain a conflict-of-interest policy, which is applicable to all activities funded with the SLFRF award. The County addressed conflicts of interest in the County's Personnel Policies Handbook. However, it did not include standards of conduct covering conflicts of interest or how to govern the actions of its employees engaged in selection, award, and administration of contracts supported by federal awards. The lack of 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(c)(1) states: "The non-Federal entity must maintain written standards of conduct covering conflicts of interest and governing the actions of its employees engaged in the selection, award and administration of contracts. No employee, officer, or agent may participate in the selection, award, or administration of a contract supported by a Federal award if he or she has a real or apparent conflict of interest. Such a conflict of interest would arise when the employee, officer, or agent, any member of his or her immediate family, his or her partner, or an organization which employs or is about to employ any of the parties indicated herein, has a financial or other interest in or a tangible personal benefit from a firm considered for a contract. The officers, employees, and agents of the non-Federal entity may neither solicit nor accept gratuities, favors, or anything of monetary value from contractors or parties to subcontracts. However, non-Federal entities may set standards for situations in which the financial interest is not substantial or the gift is an unsolicited item of nominal value. The standards of conduct must provide for disciplinary actions to be applied for violations of such standards by officers, employees, or agents of the non-Federal entity." Federal Register, Vol. 87, No.18, page 4400, states in part: ". . . as part of accepting the Award Terms and Conditions for SLFRF, each recipient agreed to maintain a conflict-of-interest policy consistent with 2 CFR 200.318(c) that is applicable to all activities funded with the SLFRF award. This award term requires recipients and subrecipients to report to Treasury or the pass-through agency, as appropriate, any potential conflict of interest related to the award funds per 2 CFR 200.112. . . ." Cause The system of internal controls as established by management of the County was not properly implemented to ensure that policies adequately addressed all required elements related to procurement. 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. 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 County. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the County establish a proper system of internal controls, including strengthening its policies and procedures to ensure its compliance with requirements related to procurement. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 14.231 Emergency Solutions Grant Program 14.231 COVID-19—Emergency Solutions Grant Program Award numbers and years: E-20-DW-04-001, July 1, 2020 through September 9, 2022 E-21-DC-04-001, July 1, 2021 through September 9, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $1,425 Assistance Listings number and name: 14.267 Continuum of Care Program Award numbers and years: AZ0009L9T001912, October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; AZ0118L9T002008, February 1, 2021 through January 31, 2022; AZ0011L9T002013, May 1, 2021 through April 30, 2022; AZ0173L9T002004, July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022; AZ0009L9T002013, October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $46,352 Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Total questioned costs: $47,777 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its federal award terms, the Department of Housing (ADOH) and Department of Economic Security (DES) reimbursed 1 nonprofit organization subrecipient for federal program costs totaling $47,777 during fiscal year 2022 that were unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Specifically, we reviewed 51 reimbursements that included Continuum of Care Program and Emergency Solutions Grant Program costs totaling $446,695 and $10,692 for the year, respectively, and found that the departments reimbursed the subrecipient for: • $35,562 for financial and accounting services, travel, and supplies that were paid to 1 of the nonprofit organization’s principal officers, who served as the Treasurer, and their company, which was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to both departments as required by federal laws. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, neither department verified that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the programs’ requirements. We noted that the allocation method used may have resulted in multiple programs being overbilled for these services by up to $5,087. (ADOH and DES) • $7,274 for bookkeeping services that were not adequately supported by sufficiently detailed invoices and a signed contract having a specified price rate for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts paid were appropriate. Further, the departments reimbursed the Treasurer’s family member, whose bookkeeping services company was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the departments as required by federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, the departments did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the programs’ requirements. (ADOH and DES) • $4,365 for repairs and maintenance, travel, and supplies that were paid to another principal officer who performed various handyman services, including plumbing, painting, and building repairs, that were not adequately supported by a contract having specified price rates for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by ADOH were appropriate. Further, ADOH reimbursed the principal officer, whose services were not disclosed as a conflict of interest to ADOH as required by its contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. (ADOH) • $576 for incentive payments to the subrecipient’s executive director without documentation demonstrating it was authorized by an agreement, reasonable for the services performed as provided in the subrecipient’s policies, and consistent with compensation paid for similar work in other activities; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by ADOH were allowable. (ADOH) Additionally, contrary to federal regulations, the departments had not ensured that the subrecipient implemented competitive purchasing procedures when procuring the professional services and handyman services described above, and the subrecipient was unable to provide documentation that it had competitively procured the services. (ADOH and DES) The Continuum of Care and the Emergency Solutions Grant Programs were not audited as major federal programs for the State’s fiscal year 2022 single audit; therefore, the scope of our review was not sufficient to determine whether the departments or their subrecipients complied with all applicable federal requirements for these programs. During the audit, we became aware of the potentially noncompliant 51 reimbursements involving 1 of the departments’ nonprofit subrecipients with which they partner to carry out federal and State programs, including the Continuum of Care Program, the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), which was audited as a major federal program for fiscal year 2022, as well as the State Housing Trust Fund. Our review of select reimbursements to this subrecipient resulted in similar findings for the TANF federal program and the State Housing Trust Fund that are described in items 2022-114 and 2022-05, respectively. Effect—The departments’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the monies it awarded to 1 nonprofit organization may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the departments’ reimbursing the subrecipient for $47,777 of unallowable or unsupported costs and/or costs paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements resulted in those monies being unavailable to be spent for their intended purpose of providing housing assistance to those in need. Consequently, the departments may be required to return these monies to the federal agencies in accordance with federal requirements.1 Cause—ADOH had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. Also, ADOH had not properly assessed this subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures or training the subrecipient needed. For example, ADOH was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of principal officers’ conflicts of interest so that ADOH could ensure that those principal officers or their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively reviewed the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Further, ADOH personnel responsible for reviewing and approving the subrecipient’s reimbursement requests reported to us that they were trained to not follow its policies and procedures but, instead, to approve any costs that had been previously reimbursed. As reported in finding 2022-114, although the DES subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures did not require it to obtain from subrecipients documentation supporting charges for personal and contracted professional services to verify allowability when subrecipients requested reimbursement, the policies and procedures required an on-site monitoring visit once every 3 years for each subrecipient in which it reviews a sample of the subrecipient’s personal and professional services charges. However, DES had not performed an on-site monitoring visit of the nonprofit subrecipient since 2018 because it had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. In addition, DES had not properly assessed the subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures or training the subrecipient needed. For example, the Division was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of a principal officer’s conflicts of interest so that the Division could ensure that the principal officer or their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively review the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Departments to monitor subrecipients and include required procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and implementing appropriate monitoring procedures to address those risk assessments; verifying single audits were conducted timely, if required; reviewing financial and performance reports; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on deficiencies that could potentially affect the program; and issuing management decisions on the results of audit findings or monitoring (2 CFR §§200.332, .339, and .521). Federal regulations provide that monitoring procedures the Departments may implement to address a subrecipient’s risk assessment include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs (2 CFR §200.332[e]). Further, federal regulations require the Departments’ subrecipients to allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, to use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and to disclose in writing to the Departments any potential conflicts of interest.2 Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Departments should: 1. Immediately stop reimbursing the nonprofit subrecipient for costs that are unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit subrecipient’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements without obtaining documentation to support they comply with the program’s requirements and take appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with its subaward contract. (ADOH and DES) 2. Update its written policies and procedures for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests to include a process to ensure costs are adequately supported and allowable in accordance with program requirements. (ADOH and DES) 3. Train personnel responsible for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests on how to identify costs that are unallowable under federal regulations. (ADOH) 4. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and perform the appropriate monitoring procedures based on the assessed risk, such as providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs for allowability. (ADOH and DES) 5. Ensure subrecipients allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and disclose in writing to the Departments any potential conflicts of interest. The Departments may need to provide training and technical assistance to subrecipients that addresses these compliance areas, including the Departments’ obtaining conflict-of-interest disclosures from subrecipients as part of the subaward contract, as an example, or otherwise establishing a communication mechanism for subrecipients to use as such conflicts arise. (ADOH and DES) 6. Continue to work with the nonprofit subrecipient to resolve the $47,777 in unallowable costs, including recovering these monies from the subrecipient and assessing the continued need to use this subrecipient for services. (ADOH and DES) 7. Work with the federal agencies to resolve the $47,777 of unallowable costs that it reimbursed, which may involve returning monies to the agencies. (ADOH and DES) The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 2 The applicable federal requirements related to allowable costs, competitive purchasing, and conflicts of interest can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.112, .318-.327, and Subpart E, and 24 CFR §578.95 and 45 CFR §75.112.
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 14.231 Emergency Solutions Grant Program 14.231 COVID-19—Emergency Solutions Grant Program Award numbers and years: E-20-DW-04-001, July 1, 2020 through September 9, 2022 E-21-DC-04-001, July 1, 2021 through September 9, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $1,425 Assistance Listings number and name: 14.267 Continuum of Care Program Award numbers and years: AZ0009L9T001912, October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; AZ0118L9T002008, February 1, 2021 through January 31, 2022; AZ0011L9T002013, May 1, 2021 through April 30, 2022; AZ0173L9T002004, July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022; AZ0009L9T002013, October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $46,352 Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Total questioned costs: $47,777 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its federal award terms, the Department of Housing (ADOH) and Department of Economic Security (DES) reimbursed 1 nonprofit organization subrecipient for federal program costs totaling $47,777 during fiscal year 2022 that were unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Specifically, we reviewed 51 reimbursements that included Continuum of Care Program and Emergency Solutions Grant Program costs totaling $446,695 and $10,692 for the year, respectively, and found that the departments reimbursed the subrecipient for: • $35,562 for financial and accounting services, travel, and supplies that were paid to 1 of the nonprofit organization’s principal officers, who served as the Treasurer, and their company, which was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to both departments as required by federal laws. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, neither department verified that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the programs’ requirements. We noted that the allocation method used may have resulted in multiple programs being overbilled for these services by up to $5,087. (ADOH and DES) • $7,274 for bookkeeping services that were not adequately supported by sufficiently detailed invoices and a signed contract having a specified price rate for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts paid were appropriate. Further, the departments reimbursed the Treasurer’s family member, whose bookkeeping services company was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the departments as required by federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, the departments did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the programs’ requirements. (ADOH and DES) • $4,365 for repairs and maintenance, travel, and supplies that were paid to another principal officer who performed various handyman services, including plumbing, painting, and building repairs, that were not adequately supported by a contract having specified price rates for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by ADOH were appropriate. Further, ADOH reimbursed the principal officer, whose services were not disclosed as a conflict of interest to ADOH as required by its contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. (ADOH) • $576 for incentive payments to the subrecipient’s executive director without documentation demonstrating it was authorized by an agreement, reasonable for the services performed as provided in the subrecipient’s policies, and consistent with compensation paid for similar work in other activities; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by ADOH were allowable. (ADOH) Additionally, contrary to federal regulations, the departments had not ensured that the subrecipient implemented competitive purchasing procedures when procuring the professional services and handyman services described above, and the subrecipient was unable to provide documentation that it had competitively procured the services. (ADOH and DES) The Continuum of Care and the Emergency Solutions Grant Programs were not audited as major federal programs for the State’s fiscal year 2022 single audit; therefore, the scope of our review was not sufficient to determine whether the departments or their subrecipients complied with all applicable federal requirements for these programs. During the audit, we became aware of the potentially noncompliant 51 reimbursements involving 1 of the departments’ nonprofit subrecipients with which they partner to carry out federal and State programs, including the Continuum of Care Program, the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), which was audited as a major federal program for fiscal year 2022, as well as the State Housing Trust Fund. Our review of select reimbursements to this subrecipient resulted in similar findings for the TANF federal program and the State Housing Trust Fund that are described in items 2022-114 and 2022-05, respectively. Effect—The departments’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the monies it awarded to 1 nonprofit organization may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the departments’ reimbursing the subrecipient for $47,777 of unallowable or unsupported costs and/or costs paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements resulted in those monies being unavailable to be spent for their intended purpose of providing housing assistance to those in need. Consequently, the departments may be required to return these monies to the federal agencies in accordance with federal requirements.1 Cause—ADOH had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. Also, ADOH had not properly assessed this subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures or training the subrecipient needed. For example, ADOH was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of principal officers’ conflicts of interest so that ADOH could ensure that those principal officers or their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively reviewed the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Further, ADOH personnel responsible for reviewing and approving the subrecipient’s reimbursement requests reported to us that they were trained to not follow its policies and procedures but, instead, to approve any costs that had been previously reimbursed. As reported in finding 2022-114, although the DES subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures did not require it to obtain from subrecipients documentation supporting charges for personal and contracted professional services to verify allowability when subrecipients requested reimbursement, the policies and procedures required an on-site monitoring visit once every 3 years for each subrecipient in which it reviews a sample of the subrecipient’s personal and professional services charges. However, DES had not performed an on-site monitoring visit of the nonprofit subrecipient since 2018 because it had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. In addition, DES had not properly assessed the subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures or training the subrecipient needed. For example, the Division was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of a principal officer’s conflicts of interest so that the Division could ensure that the principal officer or their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively review the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Departments to monitor subrecipients and include required procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and implementing appropriate monitoring procedures to address those risk assessments; verifying single audits were conducted timely, if required; reviewing financial and performance reports; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on deficiencies that could potentially affect the program; and issuing management decisions on the results of audit findings or monitoring (2 CFR §§200.332, .339, and .521). Federal regulations provide that monitoring procedures the Departments may implement to address a subrecipient’s risk assessment include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs (2 CFR §200.332[e]). Further, federal regulations require the Departments’ subrecipients to allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, to use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and to disclose in writing to the Departments any potential conflicts of interest.2 Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Departments should: 1. Immediately stop reimbursing the nonprofit subrecipient for costs that are unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit subrecipient’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements without obtaining documentation to support they comply with the program’s requirements and take appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with its subaward contract. (ADOH and DES) 2. Update its written policies and procedures for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests to include a process to ensure costs are adequately supported and allowable in accordance with program requirements. (ADOH and DES) 3. Train personnel responsible for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests on how to identify costs that are unallowable under federal regulations. (ADOH) 4. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and perform the appropriate monitoring procedures based on the assessed risk, such as providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs for allowability. (ADOH and DES) 5. Ensure subrecipients allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and disclose in writing to the Departments any potential conflicts of interest. The Departments may need to provide training and technical assistance to subrecipients that addresses these compliance areas, including the Departments’ obtaining conflict-of-interest disclosures from subrecipients as part of the subaward contract, as an example, or otherwise establishing a communication mechanism for subrecipients to use as such conflicts arise. (ADOH and DES) 6. Continue to work with the nonprofit subrecipient to resolve the $47,777 in unallowable costs, including recovering these monies from the subrecipient and assessing the continued need to use this subrecipient for services. (ADOH and DES) 7. Work with the federal agencies to resolve the $47,777 of unallowable costs that it reimbursed, which may involve returning monies to the agencies. (ADOH and DES) The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 2 The applicable federal requirements related to allowable costs, competitive purchasing, and conflicts of interest can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.112, .318-.327, and Subpart E, and 24 CFR §578.95 and 45 CFR §75.112.
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 14.231 Emergency Solutions Grant Program 14.231 COVID-19—Emergency Solutions Grant Program Award numbers and years: E-20-DW-04-001, July 1, 2020 through September 9, 2022 E-21-DC-04-001, July 1, 2021 through September 9, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $1,425 Assistance Listings number and name: 14.267 Continuum of Care Program Award numbers and years: AZ0009L9T001912, October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; AZ0118L9T002008, February 1, 2021 through January 31, 2022; AZ0011L9T002013, May 1, 2021 through April 30, 2022; AZ0173L9T002004, July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022; AZ0009L9T002013, October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $46,352 Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Total questioned costs: $47,777 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its federal award terms, the Department of Housing (ADOH) and Department of Economic Security (DES) reimbursed 1 nonprofit organization subrecipient for federal program costs totaling $47,777 during fiscal year 2022 that were unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Specifically, we reviewed 51 reimbursements that included Continuum of Care Program and Emergency Solutions Grant Program costs totaling $446,695 and $10,692 for the year, respectively, and found that the departments reimbursed the subrecipient for: • $35,562 for financial and accounting services, travel, and supplies that were paid to 1 of the nonprofit organization’s principal officers, who served as the Treasurer, and their company, which was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to both departments as required by federal laws. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, neither department verified that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the programs’ requirements. We noted that the allocation method used may have resulted in multiple programs being overbilled for these services by up to $5,087. (ADOH and DES) • $7,274 for bookkeeping services that were not adequately supported by sufficiently detailed invoices and a signed contract having a specified price rate for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts paid were appropriate. Further, the departments reimbursed the Treasurer’s family member, whose bookkeeping services company was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the departments as required by federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, the departments did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the programs’ requirements. (ADOH and DES) • $4,365 for repairs and maintenance, travel, and supplies that were paid to another principal officer who performed various handyman services, including plumbing, painting, and building repairs, that were not adequately supported by a contract having specified price rates for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by ADOH were appropriate. Further, ADOH reimbursed the principal officer, whose services were not disclosed as a conflict of interest to ADOH as required by its contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. (ADOH) • $576 for incentive payments to the subrecipient’s executive director without documentation demonstrating it was authorized by an agreement, reasonable for the services performed as provided in the subrecipient’s policies, and consistent with compensation paid for similar work in other activities; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by ADOH were allowable. (ADOH) Additionally, contrary to federal regulations, the departments had not ensured that the subrecipient implemented competitive purchasing procedures when procuring the professional services and handyman services described above, and the subrecipient was unable to provide documentation that it had competitively procured the services. (ADOH and DES) The Continuum of Care and the Emergency Solutions Grant Programs were not audited as major federal programs for the State’s fiscal year 2022 single audit; therefore, the scope of our review was not sufficient to determine whether the departments or their subrecipients complied with all applicable federal requirements for these programs. During the audit, we became aware of the potentially noncompliant 51 reimbursements involving 1 of the departments’ nonprofit subrecipients with which they partner to carry out federal and State programs, including the Continuum of Care Program, the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), which was audited as a major federal program for fiscal year 2022, as well as the State Housing Trust Fund. Our review of select reimbursements to this subrecipient resulted in similar findings for the TANF federal program and the State Housing Trust Fund that are described in items 2022-114 and 2022-05, respectively. Effect—The departments’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the monies it awarded to 1 nonprofit organization may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the departments’ reimbursing the subrecipient for $47,777 of unallowable or unsupported costs and/or costs paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements resulted in those monies being unavailable to be spent for their intended purpose of providing housing assistance to those in need. Consequently, the departments may be required to return these monies to the federal agencies in accordance with federal requirements.1 Cause—ADOH had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. Also, ADOH had not properly assessed this subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures or training the subrecipient needed. For example, ADOH was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of principal officers’ conflicts of interest so that ADOH could ensure that those principal officers or their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively reviewed the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Further, ADOH personnel responsible for reviewing and approving the subrecipient’s reimbursement requests reported to us that they were trained to not follow its policies and procedures but, instead, to approve any costs that had been previously reimbursed. As reported in finding 2022-114, although the DES subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures did not require it to obtain from subrecipients documentation supporting charges for personal and contracted professional services to verify allowability when subrecipients requested reimbursement, the policies and procedures required an on-site monitoring visit once every 3 years for each subrecipient in which it reviews a sample of the subrecipient’s personal and professional services charges. However, DES had not performed an on-site monitoring visit of the nonprofit subrecipient since 2018 because it had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. In addition, DES had not properly assessed the subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures or training the subrecipient needed. For example, the Division was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of a principal officer’s conflicts of interest so that the Division could ensure that the principal officer or their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively review the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Departments to monitor subrecipients and include required procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and implementing appropriate monitoring procedures to address those risk assessments; verifying single audits were conducted timely, if required; reviewing financial and performance reports; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on deficiencies that could potentially affect the program; and issuing management decisions on the results of audit findings or monitoring (2 CFR §§200.332, .339, and .521). Federal regulations provide that monitoring procedures the Departments may implement to address a subrecipient’s risk assessment include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs (2 CFR §200.332[e]). Further, federal regulations require the Departments’ subrecipients to allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, to use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and to disclose in writing to the Departments any potential conflicts of interest.2 Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Departments should: 1. Immediately stop reimbursing the nonprofit subrecipient for costs that are unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit subrecipient’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements without obtaining documentation to support they comply with the program’s requirements and take appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with its subaward contract. (ADOH and DES) 2. Update its written policies and procedures for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests to include a process to ensure costs are adequately supported and allowable in accordance with program requirements. (ADOH and DES) 3. Train personnel responsible for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests on how to identify costs that are unallowable under federal regulations. (ADOH) 4. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and perform the appropriate monitoring procedures based on the assessed risk, such as providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs for allowability. (ADOH and DES) 5. Ensure subrecipients allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and disclose in writing to the Departments any potential conflicts of interest. The Departments may need to provide training and technical assistance to subrecipients that addresses these compliance areas, including the Departments’ obtaining conflict-of-interest disclosures from subrecipients as part of the subaward contract, as an example, or otherwise establishing a communication mechanism for subrecipients to use as such conflicts arise. (ADOH and DES) 6. Continue to work with the nonprofit subrecipient to resolve the $47,777 in unallowable costs, including recovering these monies from the subrecipient and assessing the continued need to use this subrecipient for services. (ADOH and DES) 7. Work with the federal agencies to resolve the $47,777 of unallowable costs that it reimbursed, which may involve returning monies to the agencies. (ADOH and DES) The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 2 The applicable federal requirements related to allowable costs, competitive purchasing, and conflicts of interest can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.112, .318-.327, and Subpart E, and 24 CFR §578.95 and 45 CFR §75.112.
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 14.231 Emergency Solutions Grant Program 14.231 COVID-19—Emergency Solutions Grant Program Award numbers and years: E-20-DW-04-001, July 1, 2020 through September 9, 2022 E-21-DC-04-001, July 1, 2021 through September 9, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $1,425 Assistance Listings number and name: 14.267 Continuum of Care Program Award numbers and years: AZ0009L9T001912, October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; AZ0118L9T002008, February 1, 2021 through January 31, 2022; AZ0011L9T002013, May 1, 2021 through April 30, 2022; AZ0173L9T002004, July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022; AZ0009L9T002013, October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $46,352 Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Total questioned costs: $47,777 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its federal award terms, the Department of Housing (ADOH) and Department of Economic Security (DES) reimbursed 1 nonprofit organization subrecipient for federal program costs totaling $47,777 during fiscal year 2022 that were unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Specifically, we reviewed 51 reimbursements that included Continuum of Care Program and Emergency Solutions Grant Program costs totaling $446,695 and $10,692 for the year, respectively, and found that the departments reimbursed the subrecipient for: • $35,562 for financial and accounting services, travel, and supplies that were paid to 1 of the nonprofit organization’s principal officers, who served as the Treasurer, and their company, which was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to both departments as required by federal laws. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, neither department verified that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the programs’ requirements. We noted that the allocation method used may have resulted in multiple programs being overbilled for these services by up to $5,087. (ADOH and DES) • $7,274 for bookkeeping services that were not adequately supported by sufficiently detailed invoices and a signed contract having a specified price rate for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts paid were appropriate. Further, the departments reimbursed the Treasurer’s family member, whose bookkeeping services company was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the departments as required by federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, the departments did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the programs’ requirements. (ADOH and DES) • $4,365 for repairs and maintenance, travel, and supplies that were paid to another principal officer who performed various handyman services, including plumbing, painting, and building repairs, that were not adequately supported by a contract having specified price rates for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by ADOH were appropriate. Further, ADOH reimbursed the principal officer, whose services were not disclosed as a conflict of interest to ADOH as required by its contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. (ADOH) • $576 for incentive payments to the subrecipient’s executive director without documentation demonstrating it was authorized by an agreement, reasonable for the services performed as provided in the subrecipient’s policies, and consistent with compensation paid for similar work in other activities; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by ADOH were allowable. (ADOH) Additionally, contrary to federal regulations, the departments had not ensured that the subrecipient implemented competitive purchasing procedures when procuring the professional services and handyman services described above, and the subrecipient was unable to provide documentation that it had competitively procured the services. (ADOH and DES) The Continuum of Care and the Emergency Solutions Grant Programs were not audited as major federal programs for the State’s fiscal year 2022 single audit; therefore, the scope of our review was not sufficient to determine whether the departments or their subrecipients complied with all applicable federal requirements for these programs. During the audit, we became aware of the potentially noncompliant 51 reimbursements involving 1 of the departments’ nonprofit subrecipients with which they partner to carry out federal and State programs, including the Continuum of Care Program, the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), which was audited as a major federal program for fiscal year 2022, as well as the State Housing Trust Fund. Our review of select reimbursements to this subrecipient resulted in similar findings for the TANF federal program and the State Housing Trust Fund that are described in items 2022-114 and 2022-05, respectively. Effect—The departments’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the monies it awarded to 1 nonprofit organization may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the departments’ reimbursing the subrecipient for $47,777 of unallowable or unsupported costs and/or costs paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements resulted in those monies being unavailable to be spent for their intended purpose of providing housing assistance to those in need. Consequently, the departments may be required to return these monies to the federal agencies in accordance with federal requirements.1 Cause—ADOH had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. Also, ADOH had not properly assessed this subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures or training the subrecipient needed. For example, ADOH was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of principal officers’ conflicts of interest so that ADOH could ensure that those principal officers or their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively reviewed the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Further, ADOH personnel responsible for reviewing and approving the subrecipient’s reimbursement requests reported to us that they were trained to not follow its policies and procedures but, instead, to approve any costs that had been previously reimbursed. As reported in finding 2022-114, although the DES subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures did not require it to obtain from subrecipients documentation supporting charges for personal and contracted professional services to verify allowability when subrecipients requested reimbursement, the policies and procedures required an on-site monitoring visit once every 3 years for each subrecipient in which it reviews a sample of the subrecipient’s personal and professional services charges. However, DES had not performed an on-site monitoring visit of the nonprofit subrecipient since 2018 because it had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. In addition, DES had not properly assessed the subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures or training the subrecipient needed. For example, the Division was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of a principal officer’s conflicts of interest so that the Division could ensure that the principal officer or their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively review the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Departments to monitor subrecipients and include required procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and implementing appropriate monitoring procedures to address those risk assessments; verifying single audits were conducted timely, if required; reviewing financial and performance reports; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on deficiencies that could potentially affect the program; and issuing management decisions on the results of audit findings or monitoring (2 CFR §§200.332, .339, and .521). Federal regulations provide that monitoring procedures the Departments may implement to address a subrecipient’s risk assessment include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs (2 CFR §200.332[e]). Further, federal regulations require the Departments’ subrecipients to allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, to use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and to disclose in writing to the Departments any potential conflicts of interest.2 Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Departments should: 1. Immediately stop reimbursing the nonprofit subrecipient for costs that are unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit subrecipient’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements without obtaining documentation to support they comply with the program’s requirements and take appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with its subaward contract. (ADOH and DES) 2. Update its written policies and procedures for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests to include a process to ensure costs are adequately supported and allowable in accordance with program requirements. (ADOH and DES) 3. Train personnel responsible for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests on how to identify costs that are unallowable under federal regulations. (ADOH) 4. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and perform the appropriate monitoring procedures based on the assessed risk, such as providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs for allowability. (ADOH and DES) 5. Ensure subrecipients allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and disclose in writing to the Departments any potential conflicts of interest. The Departments may need to provide training and technical assistance to subrecipients that addresses these compliance areas, including the Departments’ obtaining conflict-of-interest disclosures from subrecipients as part of the subaward contract, as an example, or otherwise establishing a communication mechanism for subrecipients to use as such conflicts arise. (ADOH and DES) 6. Continue to work with the nonprofit subrecipient to resolve the $47,777 in unallowable costs, including recovering these monies from the subrecipient and assessing the continued need to use this subrecipient for services. (ADOH and DES) 7. Work with the federal agencies to resolve the $47,777 of unallowable costs that it reimbursed, which may involve returning monies to the agencies. (ADOH and DES) The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 2 The applicable federal requirements related to allowable costs, competitive purchasing, and conflicts of interest can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.112, .318-.327, and Subpart E, and 24 CFR §578.95 and 45 CFR §75.112.
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 93.558 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 93.558 COVID-19 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Award numbers and years: 2101AZTANF, October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; 2201AZTANF, October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: $6,754 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its federal award terms, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) reimbursed 1 nonprofit organization subrecipient for federal program costs totaling $6,754 during fiscal year 2022 that were unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to 1 of the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Specifically, we reviewed 12 reimbursements that included Temporary Assistance for Needy Family program costs totaling $72,800 for the year and found that the Division reimbursed the subrecipient for: • $4,973 for financial and accounting services that were paid to 1 of the nonprofit organization’s principal officers, who served as the Treasurer, and their company, which was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the Division as required by the Division’s contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, the Division did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements. We noted that the allocation method used may have resulted in multiple programs being overbilled for these services by up to $5,087. • $1,474 for bookkeeping services that were not adequately supported by sufficiently detailed invoices and a signed, written contract having a specified price rate for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts paid were appropriate. Further, the Division reimbursed the Treasurer’s family member, whose bookkeeping services company was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the Division as required by the Division’s contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, the Division did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements. • $307 for incentive payments to the subrecipient’s Executive Director without documentation to support that it was authorized by an agreement, reasonable for the services performed as provided in the subrecipient’s policies, and consistent with compensation paid for similar work in other activities; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by the Division were allowable. Additionally, contrary to federal regulations, the Division had not ensured that the subrecipient implemented its competitive purchasing procedures when procuring the professional services described above, and the subrecipient was unable to provide documentation that it had competitively procured the services. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Family program was audited as a major federal program for the State’s fiscal year 2022 single audit. During the audit, we became aware of the potentially noncompliant 12 reimbursements involving 1 of the Division’s nonprofit subrecipients with which it partners to carry out federal programs, including the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, which was not audited as a major federal program for the State’s fiscal year 2022 single audit. Our review of select reimbursements to this subrecipient resulted in similar findings for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, Continuum of Care Program, and the State Housing Trust Fund that are described in items 2022 115 and 2022-05, respectively. Effect—The Division’s lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the monies it awarded to a nonprofit organization may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the Division’s reimbursing the subrecipient for $6,754 of unallowable or unsupported costs and/or costs paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officer or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements resulted in those monies being unavailable to be spent for their intended purpose to provide housing assistance to individuals in need. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.1 Cause—Although the Division’s subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures did not require it to obtain from subrecipients documentation supporting charges for personal and contracted professional services to verify allowability when subrecipients requested reimbursement, the policies and procedures required an on-site monitoring visit once every 3 years for each subrecipient in which it reviews a sample of the subrecipient’s personal and professional services charges. However, the Division had not performed an on-site monitoring visit of the nonprofit subrecipient since 2018 because it had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. In addition, the Division had not properly assessed the subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures or training the subrecipient needed. For example, the Division was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of a principal officer’s conflicts of interest so that the Division could ensure that the principal officer or their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively review the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Division to monitor subrecipients and include required procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and implementing appropriate monitoring procedures to address those risk assessments; verifying single audits were conducted timely, if required; reviewing financial and performance reports; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on deficiencies that could potentially affect the program; and issuing management decisions on the results of audit findings or monitoring (2 CFR §§200.332, .339, and .521). Federal regulations provide that monitoring procedures the Division may implement to address a subrecipient’s risk assessment include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs (2 CFR §200.332[e]). Further, federal regulations require the Division’s subrecipients to allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, to use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and to disclose in writing to the Division any potential conflicts of interest.2 Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Immediately stop reimbursing the nonprofit subrecipient for costs that are unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit subrecipient’s principal officer or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements without obtaining documentation to support they comply with the program’s requirements and take appropriate enforcement actions with the subrecipient in accordance with its contract. 2. Update its written policies and procedures for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests to include a process to ensure costs are adequately supported and allowable in accordance with program requirements. 3. Train personnel responsible for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests on how to identify costs that are unallowable under federal regulations. 4. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and perform the appropriate monitoring procedures based on the assessed risk, such as providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs for allowability. 5. Ensure subrecipients allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and disclose in writing to the Division any potential conflicts of interest. The Division may need to provide training and technical assistance to subrecipients that address these compliance areas, including the Division’s obtaining conflict-of-interest disclosures from subrecipients as part of the subaward contract, as an example, or otherwise establishing a communication mechanism for subrecipients to use as such conflicts arise. 6. Continue to work with the nonprofit subrecipient to resolve the $6,754 of unallowable costs, including recovering these monies from the subrecipient and assessing the continued need to use this subrecipient for services. 7. Work with the federal agency to resolve the $6,754 of unallowable costs that it reimbursed, which may involve returning monies to the federal agency. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 2 The applicable federal requirements related to allowable costs, competitive purchasing, and conflicts of interest can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.112, .318-.327, and Subpart E, and 45 CFR §75.112.
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 93.558 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 93.558 COVID-19 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Award numbers and years: 2101AZTANF, October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; 2201AZTANF, October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: $6,754 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its federal award terms, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) reimbursed 1 nonprofit organization subrecipient for federal program costs totaling $6,754 during fiscal year 2022 that were unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to 1 of the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Specifically, we reviewed 12 reimbursements that included Temporary Assistance for Needy Family program costs totaling $72,800 for the year and found that the Division reimbursed the subrecipient for: • $4,973 for financial and accounting services that were paid to 1 of the nonprofit organization’s principal officers, who served as the Treasurer, and their company, which was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the Division as required by the Division’s contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, the Division did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements. We noted that the allocation method used may have resulted in multiple programs being overbilled for these services by up to $5,087. • $1,474 for bookkeeping services that were not adequately supported by sufficiently detailed invoices and a signed, written contract having a specified price rate for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts paid were appropriate. Further, the Division reimbursed the Treasurer’s family member, whose bookkeeping services company was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the Division as required by the Division’s contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, the Division did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements. • $307 for incentive payments to the subrecipient’s Executive Director without documentation to support that it was authorized by an agreement, reasonable for the services performed as provided in the subrecipient’s policies, and consistent with compensation paid for similar work in other activities; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by the Division were allowable. Additionally, contrary to federal regulations, the Division had not ensured that the subrecipient implemented its competitive purchasing procedures when procuring the professional services described above, and the subrecipient was unable to provide documentation that it had competitively procured the services. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Family program was audited as a major federal program for the State’s fiscal year 2022 single audit. During the audit, we became aware of the potentially noncompliant 12 reimbursements involving 1 of the Division’s nonprofit subrecipients with which it partners to carry out federal programs, including the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, which was not audited as a major federal program for the State’s fiscal year 2022 single audit. Our review of select reimbursements to this subrecipient resulted in similar findings for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, Continuum of Care Program, and the State Housing Trust Fund that are described in items 2022 115 and 2022-05, respectively. Effect—The Division’s lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the monies it awarded to a nonprofit organization may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the Division’s reimbursing the subrecipient for $6,754 of unallowable or unsupported costs and/or costs paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officer or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements resulted in those monies being unavailable to be spent for their intended purpose to provide housing assistance to individuals in need. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.1 Cause—Although the Division’s subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures did not require it to obtain from subrecipients documentation supporting charges for personal and contracted professional services to verify allowability when subrecipients requested reimbursement, the policies and procedures required an on-site monitoring visit once every 3 years for each subrecipient in which it reviews a sample of the subrecipient’s personal and professional services charges. However, the Division had not performed an on-site monitoring visit of the nonprofit subrecipient since 2018 because it had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. In addition, the Division had not properly assessed the subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures or training the subrecipient needed. For example, the Division was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of a principal officer’s conflicts of interest so that the Division could ensure that the principal officer or their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively review the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Division to monitor subrecipients and include required procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and implementing appropriate monitoring procedures to address those risk assessments; verifying single audits were conducted timely, if required; reviewing financial and performance reports; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on deficiencies that could potentially affect the program; and issuing management decisions on the results of audit findings or monitoring (2 CFR §§200.332, .339, and .521). Federal regulations provide that monitoring procedures the Division may implement to address a subrecipient’s risk assessment include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs (2 CFR §200.332[e]). Further, federal regulations require the Division’s subrecipients to allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, to use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and to disclose in writing to the Division any potential conflicts of interest.2 Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Immediately stop reimbursing the nonprofit subrecipient for costs that are unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit subrecipient’s principal officer or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements without obtaining documentation to support they comply with the program’s requirements and take appropriate enforcement actions with the subrecipient in accordance with its contract. 2. Update its written policies and procedures for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests to include a process to ensure costs are adequately supported and allowable in accordance with program requirements. 3. Train personnel responsible for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests on how to identify costs that are unallowable under federal regulations. 4. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and perform the appropriate monitoring procedures based on the assessed risk, such as providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs for allowability. 5. Ensure subrecipients allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and disclose in writing to the Division any potential conflicts of interest. The Division may need to provide training and technical assistance to subrecipients that address these compliance areas, including the Division’s obtaining conflict-of-interest disclosures from subrecipients as part of the subaward contract, as an example, or otherwise establishing a communication mechanism for subrecipients to use as such conflicts arise. 6. Continue to work with the nonprofit subrecipient to resolve the $6,754 of unallowable costs, including recovering these monies from the subrecipient and assessing the continued need to use this subrecipient for services. 7. Work with the federal agency to resolve the $6,754 of unallowable costs that it reimbursed, which may involve returning monies to the federal agency. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 2 The applicable federal requirements related to allowable costs, competitive purchasing, and conflicts of interest can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.112, .318-.327, and Subpart E, and 45 CFR §75.112.
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 93.558 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 93.558 COVID-19 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Award numbers and years: 2101AZTANF, October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; 2201AZTANF, October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: $6,754 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its federal award terms, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) reimbursed 1 nonprofit organization subrecipient for federal program costs totaling $6,754 during fiscal year 2022 that were unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to 1 of the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Specifically, we reviewed 12 reimbursements that included Temporary Assistance for Needy Family program costs totaling $72,800 for the year and found that the Division reimbursed the subrecipient for: • $4,973 for financial and accounting services that were paid to 1 of the nonprofit organization’s principal officers, who served as the Treasurer, and their company, which was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the Division as required by the Division’s contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, the Division did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements. We noted that the allocation method used may have resulted in multiple programs being overbilled for these services by up to $5,087. • $1,474 for bookkeeping services that were not adequately supported by sufficiently detailed invoices and a signed, written contract having a specified price rate for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts paid were appropriate. Further, the Division reimbursed the Treasurer’s family member, whose bookkeeping services company was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the Division as required by the Division’s contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, the Division did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements. • $307 for incentive payments to the subrecipient’s Executive Director without documentation to support that it was authorized by an agreement, reasonable for the services performed as provided in the subrecipient’s policies, and consistent with compensation paid for similar work in other activities; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by the Division were allowable. Additionally, contrary to federal regulations, the Division had not ensured that the subrecipient implemented its competitive purchasing procedures when procuring the professional services described above, and the subrecipient was unable to provide documentation that it had competitively procured the services. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Family program was audited as a major federal program for the State’s fiscal year 2022 single audit. During the audit, we became aware of the potentially noncompliant 12 reimbursements involving 1 of the Division’s nonprofit subrecipients with which it partners to carry out federal programs, including the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, which was not audited as a major federal program for the State’s fiscal year 2022 single audit. Our review of select reimbursements to this subrecipient resulted in similar findings for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, Continuum of Care Program, and the State Housing Trust Fund that are described in items 2022 115 and 2022-05, respectively. Effect—The Division’s lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the monies it awarded to a nonprofit organization may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the Division’s reimbursing the subrecipient for $6,754 of unallowable or unsupported costs and/or costs paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officer or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements resulted in those monies being unavailable to be spent for their intended purpose to provide housing assistance to individuals in need. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.1 Cause—Although the Division’s subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures did not require it to obtain from subrecipients documentation supporting charges for personal and contracted professional services to verify allowability when subrecipients requested reimbursement, the policies and procedures required an on-site monitoring visit once every 3 years for each subrecipient in which it reviews a sample of the subrecipient’s personal and professional services charges. However, the Division had not performed an on-site monitoring visit of the nonprofit subrecipient since 2018 because it had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. In addition, the Division had not properly assessed the subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures or training the subrecipient needed. For example, the Division was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of a principal officer’s conflicts of interest so that the Division could ensure that the principal officer or their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively review the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Division to monitor subrecipients and include required procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and implementing appropriate monitoring procedures to address those risk assessments; verifying single audits were conducted timely, if required; reviewing financial and performance reports; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on deficiencies that could potentially affect the program; and issuing management decisions on the results of audit findings or monitoring (2 CFR §§200.332, .339, and .521). Federal regulations provide that monitoring procedures the Division may implement to address a subrecipient’s risk assessment include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs (2 CFR §200.332[e]). Further, federal regulations require the Division’s subrecipients to allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, to use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and to disclose in writing to the Division any potential conflicts of interest.2 Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Immediately stop reimbursing the nonprofit subrecipient for costs that are unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit subrecipient’s principal officer or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements without obtaining documentation to support they comply with the program’s requirements and take appropriate enforcement actions with the subrecipient in accordance with its contract. 2. Update its written policies and procedures for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests to include a process to ensure costs are adequately supported and allowable in accordance with program requirements. 3. Train personnel responsible for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests on how to identify costs that are unallowable under federal regulations. 4. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and perform the appropriate monitoring procedures based on the assessed risk, such as providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs for allowability. 5. Ensure subrecipients allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and disclose in writing to the Division any potential conflicts of interest. The Division may need to provide training and technical assistance to subrecipients that address these compliance areas, including the Division’s obtaining conflict-of-interest disclosures from subrecipients as part of the subaward contract, as an example, or otherwise establishing a communication mechanism for subrecipients to use as such conflicts arise. 6. Continue to work with the nonprofit subrecipient to resolve the $6,754 of unallowable costs, including recovering these monies from the subrecipient and assessing the continued need to use this subrecipient for services. 7. Work with the federal agency to resolve the $6,754 of unallowable costs that it reimbursed, which may involve returning monies to the federal agency. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 2 The applicable federal requirements related to allowable costs, competitive purchasing, and conflicts of interest can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.112, .318-.327, and Subpart E, and 45 CFR §75.112.
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 14.231 Emergency Solutions Grant Program 14.231 COVID-19—Emergency Solutions Grant Program Award numbers and years: E-20-DW-04-001, July 1, 2020 through September 9, 2022 E-21-DC-04-001, July 1, 2021 through September 9, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $1,425 Assistance Listings number and name: 14.267 Continuum of Care Program Award numbers and years: AZ0009L9T001912, October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; AZ0118L9T002008, February 1, 2021 through January 31, 2022; AZ0011L9T002013, May 1, 2021 through April 30, 2022; AZ0173L9T002004, July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022; AZ0009L9T002013, October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $46,352 Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Total questioned costs: $47,777 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its federal award terms, the Department of Housing (ADOH) and Department of Economic Security (DES) reimbursed 1 nonprofit organization subrecipient for federal program costs totaling $47,777 during fiscal year 2022 that were unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Specifically, we reviewed 51 reimbursements that included Continuum of Care Program and Emergency Solutions Grant Program costs totaling $446,695 and $10,692 for the year, respectively, and found that the departments reimbursed the subrecipient for: • $35,562 for financial and accounting services, travel, and supplies that were paid to 1 of the nonprofit organization’s principal officers, who served as the Treasurer, and their company, which was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to both departments as required by federal laws. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, neither department verified that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the programs’ requirements. We noted that the allocation method used may have resulted in multiple programs being overbilled for these services by up to $5,087. (ADOH and DES) • $7,274 for bookkeeping services that were not adequately supported by sufficiently detailed invoices and a signed contract having a specified price rate for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts paid were appropriate. Further, the departments reimbursed the Treasurer’s family member, whose bookkeeping services company was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the departments as required by federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, the departments did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the programs’ requirements. (ADOH and DES) • $4,365 for repairs and maintenance, travel, and supplies that were paid to another principal officer who performed various handyman services, including plumbing, painting, and building repairs, that were not adequately supported by a contract having specified price rates for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by ADOH were appropriate. Further, ADOH reimbursed the principal officer, whose services were not disclosed as a conflict of interest to ADOH as required by its contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. (ADOH) • $576 for incentive payments to the subrecipient’s executive director without documentation demonstrating it was authorized by an agreement, reasonable for the services performed as provided in the subrecipient’s policies, and consistent with compensation paid for similar work in other activities; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by ADOH were allowable. (ADOH) Additionally, contrary to federal regulations, the departments had not ensured that the subrecipient implemented competitive purchasing procedures when procuring the professional services and handyman services described above, and the subrecipient was unable to provide documentation that it had competitively procured the services. (ADOH and DES) The Continuum of Care and the Emergency Solutions Grant Programs were not audited as major federal programs for the State’s fiscal year 2022 single audit; therefore, the scope of our review was not sufficient to determine whether the departments or their subrecipients complied with all applicable federal requirements for these programs. During the audit, we became aware of the potentially noncompliant 51 reimbursements involving 1 of the departments’ nonprofit subrecipients with which they partner to carry out federal and State programs, including the Continuum of Care Program, the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), which was audited as a major federal program for fiscal year 2022, as well as the State Housing Trust Fund. Our review of select reimbursements to this subrecipient resulted in similar findings for the TANF federal program and the State Housing Trust Fund that are described in items 2022-114 and 2022-05, respectively. Effect—The departments’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the monies it awarded to 1 nonprofit organization may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the departments’ reimbursing the subrecipient for $47,777 of unallowable or unsupported costs and/or costs paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements resulted in those monies being unavailable to be spent for their intended purpose of providing housing assistance to those in need. Consequently, the departments may be required to return these monies to the federal agencies in accordance with federal requirements.1 Cause—ADOH had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. Also, ADOH had not properly assessed this subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures or training the subrecipient needed. For example, ADOH was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of principal officers’ conflicts of interest so that ADOH could ensure that those principal officers or their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively reviewed the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Further, ADOH personnel responsible for reviewing and approving the subrecipient’s reimbursement requests reported to us that they were trained to not follow its policies and procedures but, instead, to approve any costs that had been previously reimbursed. As reported in finding 2022-114, although the DES subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures did not require it to obtain from subrecipients documentation supporting charges for personal and contracted professional services to verify allowability when subrecipients requested reimbursement, the policies and procedures required an on-site monitoring visit once every 3 years for each subrecipient in which it reviews a sample of the subrecipient’s personal and professional services charges. However, DES had not performed an on-site monitoring visit of the nonprofit subrecipient since 2018 because it had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. In addition, DES had not properly assessed the subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures or training the subrecipient needed. For example, the Division was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of a principal officer’s conflicts of interest so that the Division could ensure that the principal officer or their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively review the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Departments to monitor subrecipients and include required procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and implementing appropriate monitoring procedures to address those risk assessments; verifying single audits were conducted timely, if required; reviewing financial and performance reports; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on deficiencies that could potentially affect the program; and issuing management decisions on the results of audit findings or monitoring (2 CFR §§200.332, .339, and .521). Federal regulations provide that monitoring procedures the Departments may implement to address a subrecipient’s risk assessment include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs (2 CFR §200.332[e]). Further, federal regulations require the Departments’ subrecipients to allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, to use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and to disclose in writing to the Departments any potential conflicts of interest.2 Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Departments should: 1. Immediately stop reimbursing the nonprofit subrecipient for costs that are unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit subrecipient’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements without obtaining documentation to support they comply with the program’s requirements and take appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with its subaward contract. (ADOH and DES) 2. Update its written policies and procedures for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests to include a process to ensure costs are adequately supported and allowable in accordance with program requirements. (ADOH and DES) 3. Train personnel responsible for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests on how to identify costs that are unallowable under federal regulations. (ADOH) 4. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and perform the appropriate monitoring procedures based on the assessed risk, such as providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs for allowability. (ADOH and DES) 5. Ensure subrecipients allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and disclose in writing to the Departments any potential conflicts of interest. The Departments may need to provide training and technical assistance to subrecipients that addresses these compliance areas, including the Departments’ obtaining conflict-of-interest disclosures from subrecipients as part of the subaward contract, as an example, or otherwise establishing a communication mechanism for subrecipients to use as such conflicts arise. (ADOH and DES) 6. Continue to work with the nonprofit subrecipient to resolve the $47,777 in unallowable costs, including recovering these monies from the subrecipient and assessing the continued need to use this subrecipient for services. (ADOH and DES) 7. Work with the federal agencies to resolve the $47,777 of unallowable costs that it reimbursed, which may involve returning monies to the agencies. (ADOH and DES) The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 2 The applicable federal requirements related to allowable costs, competitive purchasing, and conflicts of interest can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.112, .318-.327, and Subpart E, and 24 CFR §578.95 and 45 CFR §75.112.
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 14.231 Emergency Solutions Grant Program 14.231 COVID-19—Emergency Solutions Grant Program Award numbers and years: E-20-DW-04-001, July 1, 2020 through September 9, 2022 E-21-DC-04-001, July 1, 2021 through September 9, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $1,425 Assistance Listings number and name: 14.267 Continuum of Care Program Award numbers and years: AZ0009L9T001912, October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; AZ0118L9T002008, February 1, 2021 through January 31, 2022; AZ0011L9T002013, May 1, 2021 through April 30, 2022; AZ0173L9T002004, July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022; AZ0009L9T002013, October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $46,352 Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Total questioned costs: $47,777 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its federal award terms, the Department of Housing (ADOH) and Department of Economic Security (DES) reimbursed 1 nonprofit organization subrecipient for federal program costs totaling $47,777 during fiscal year 2022 that were unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Specifically, we reviewed 51 reimbursements that included Continuum of Care Program and Emergency Solutions Grant Program costs totaling $446,695 and $10,692 for the year, respectively, and found that the departments reimbursed the subrecipient for: • $35,562 for financial and accounting services, travel, and supplies that were paid to 1 of the nonprofit organization’s principal officers, who served as the Treasurer, and their company, which was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to both departments as required by federal laws. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, neither department verified that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the programs’ requirements. We noted that the allocation method used may have resulted in multiple programs being overbilled for these services by up to $5,087. (ADOH and DES) • $7,274 for bookkeeping services that were not adequately supported by sufficiently detailed invoices and a signed contract having a specified price rate for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts paid were appropriate. Further, the departments reimbursed the Treasurer’s family member, whose bookkeeping services company was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the departments as required by federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, the departments did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the programs’ requirements. (ADOH and DES) • $4,365 for repairs and maintenance, travel, and supplies that were paid to another principal officer who performed various handyman services, including plumbing, painting, and building repairs, that were not adequately supported by a contract having specified price rates for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by ADOH were appropriate. Further, ADOH reimbursed the principal officer, whose services were not disclosed as a conflict of interest to ADOH as required by its contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. (ADOH) • $576 for incentive payments to the subrecipient’s executive director without documentation demonstrating it was authorized by an agreement, reasonable for the services performed as provided in the subrecipient’s policies, and consistent with compensation paid for similar work in other activities; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by ADOH were allowable. (ADOH) Additionally, contrary to federal regulations, the departments had not ensured that the subrecipient implemented competitive purchasing procedures when procuring the professional services and handyman services described above, and the subrecipient was unable to provide documentation that it had competitively procured the services. (ADOH and DES) The Continuum of Care and the Emergency Solutions Grant Programs were not audited as major federal programs for the State’s fiscal year 2022 single audit; therefore, the scope of our review was not sufficient to determine whether the departments or their subrecipients complied with all applicable federal requirements for these programs. During the audit, we became aware of the potentially noncompliant 51 reimbursements involving 1 of the departments’ nonprofit subrecipients with which they partner to carry out federal and State programs, including the Continuum of Care Program, the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), which was audited as a major federal program for fiscal year 2022, as well as the State Housing Trust Fund. Our review of select reimbursements to this subrecipient resulted in similar findings for the TANF federal program and the State Housing Trust Fund that are described in items 2022-114 and 2022-05, respectively. Effect—The departments’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the monies it awarded to 1 nonprofit organization may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the departments’ reimbursing the subrecipient for $47,777 of unallowable or unsupported costs and/or costs paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements resulted in those monies being unavailable to be spent for their intended purpose of providing housing assistance to those in need. Consequently, the departments may be required to return these monies to the federal agencies in accordance with federal requirements.1 Cause—ADOH had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. Also, ADOH had not properly assessed this subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures or training the subrecipient needed. For example, ADOH was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of principal officers’ conflicts of interest so that ADOH could ensure that those principal officers or their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively reviewed the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Further, ADOH personnel responsible for reviewing and approving the subrecipient’s reimbursement requests reported to us that they were trained to not follow its policies and procedures but, instead, to approve any costs that had been previously reimbursed. As reported in finding 2022-114, although the DES subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures did not require it to obtain from subrecipients documentation supporting charges for personal and contracted professional services to verify allowability when subrecipients requested reimbursement, the policies and procedures required an on-site monitoring visit once every 3 years for each subrecipient in which it reviews a sample of the subrecipient’s personal and professional services charges. However, DES had not performed an on-site monitoring visit of the nonprofit subrecipient since 2018 because it had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. In addition, DES had not properly assessed the subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures or training the subrecipient needed. For example, the Division was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of a principal officer’s conflicts of interest so that the Division could ensure that the principal officer or their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively review the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Departments to monitor subrecipients and include required procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and implementing appropriate monitoring procedures to address those risk assessments; verifying single audits were conducted timely, if required; reviewing financial and performance reports; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on deficiencies that could potentially affect the program; and issuing management decisions on the results of audit findings or monitoring (2 CFR §§200.332, .339, and .521). Federal regulations provide that monitoring procedures the Departments may implement to address a subrecipient’s risk assessment include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs (2 CFR §200.332[e]). Further, federal regulations require the Departments’ subrecipients to allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, to use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and to disclose in writing to the Departments any potential conflicts of interest.2 Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Departments should: 1. Immediately stop reimbursing the nonprofit subrecipient for costs that are unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit subrecipient’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements without obtaining documentation to support they comply with the program’s requirements and take appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with its subaward contract. (ADOH and DES) 2. Update its written policies and procedures for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests to include a process to ensure costs are adequately supported and allowable in accordance with program requirements. (ADOH and DES) 3. Train personnel responsible for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests on how to identify costs that are unallowable under federal regulations. (ADOH) 4. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and perform the appropriate monitoring procedures based on the assessed risk, such as providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs for allowability. (ADOH and DES) 5. Ensure subrecipients allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and disclose in writing to the Departments any potential conflicts of interest. The Departments may need to provide training and technical assistance to subrecipients that addresses these compliance areas, including the Departments’ obtaining conflict-of-interest disclosures from subrecipients as part of the subaward contract, as an example, or otherwise establishing a communication mechanism for subrecipients to use as such conflicts arise. (ADOH and DES) 6. Continue to work with the nonprofit subrecipient to resolve the $47,777 in unallowable costs, including recovering these monies from the subrecipient and assessing the continued need to use this subrecipient for services. (ADOH and DES) 7. Work with the federal agencies to resolve the $47,777 of unallowable costs that it reimbursed, which may involve returning monies to the agencies. (ADOH and DES) The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 2 The applicable federal requirements related to allowable costs, competitive purchasing, and conflicts of interest can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.112, .318-.327, and Subpart E, and 24 CFR §578.95 and 45 CFR §75.112.
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 14.231 Emergency Solutions Grant Program 14.231 COVID-19—Emergency Solutions Grant Program Award numbers and years: E-20-DW-04-001, July 1, 2020 through September 9, 2022 E-21-DC-04-001, July 1, 2021 through September 9, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $1,425 Assistance Listings number and name: 14.267 Continuum of Care Program Award numbers and years: AZ0009L9T001912, October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; AZ0118L9T002008, February 1, 2021 through January 31, 2022; AZ0011L9T002013, May 1, 2021 through April 30, 2022; AZ0173L9T002004, July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022; AZ0009L9T002013, October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $46,352 Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Total questioned costs: $47,777 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its federal award terms, the Department of Housing (ADOH) and Department of Economic Security (DES) reimbursed 1 nonprofit organization subrecipient for federal program costs totaling $47,777 during fiscal year 2022 that were unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Specifically, we reviewed 51 reimbursements that included Continuum of Care Program and Emergency Solutions Grant Program costs totaling $446,695 and $10,692 for the year, respectively, and found that the departments reimbursed the subrecipient for: • $35,562 for financial and accounting services, travel, and supplies that were paid to 1 of the nonprofit organization’s principal officers, who served as the Treasurer, and their company, which was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to both departments as required by federal laws. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, neither department verified that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the programs’ requirements. We noted that the allocation method used may have resulted in multiple programs being overbilled for these services by up to $5,087. (ADOH and DES) • $7,274 for bookkeeping services that were not adequately supported by sufficiently detailed invoices and a signed contract having a specified price rate for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts paid were appropriate. Further, the departments reimbursed the Treasurer’s family member, whose bookkeeping services company was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the departments as required by federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, the departments did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the programs’ requirements. (ADOH and DES) • $4,365 for repairs and maintenance, travel, and supplies that were paid to another principal officer who performed various handyman services, including plumbing, painting, and building repairs, that were not adequately supported by a contract having specified price rates for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by ADOH were appropriate. Further, ADOH reimbursed the principal officer, whose services were not disclosed as a conflict of interest to ADOH as required by its contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. (ADOH) • $576 for incentive payments to the subrecipient’s executive director without documentation demonstrating it was authorized by an agreement, reasonable for the services performed as provided in the subrecipient’s policies, and consistent with compensation paid for similar work in other activities; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by ADOH were allowable. (ADOH) Additionally, contrary to federal regulations, the departments had not ensured that the subrecipient implemented competitive purchasing procedures when procuring the professional services and handyman services described above, and the subrecipient was unable to provide documentation that it had competitively procured the services. (ADOH and DES) The Continuum of Care and the Emergency Solutions Grant Programs were not audited as major federal programs for the State’s fiscal year 2022 single audit; therefore, the scope of our review was not sufficient to determine whether the departments or their subrecipients complied with all applicable federal requirements for these programs. During the audit, we became aware of the potentially noncompliant 51 reimbursements involving 1 of the departments’ nonprofit subrecipients with which they partner to carry out federal and State programs, including the Continuum of Care Program, the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), which was audited as a major federal program for fiscal year 2022, as well as the State Housing Trust Fund. Our review of select reimbursements to this subrecipient resulted in similar findings for the TANF federal program and the State Housing Trust Fund that are described in items 2022-114 and 2022-05, respectively. Effect—The departments’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the monies it awarded to 1 nonprofit organization may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the departments’ reimbursing the subrecipient for $47,777 of unallowable or unsupported costs and/or costs paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements resulted in those monies being unavailable to be spent for their intended purpose of providing housing assistance to those in need. Consequently, the departments may be required to return these monies to the federal agencies in accordance with federal requirements.1 Cause—ADOH had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. Also, ADOH had not properly assessed this subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures or training the subrecipient needed. For example, ADOH was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of principal officers’ conflicts of interest so that ADOH could ensure that those principal officers or their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively reviewed the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Further, ADOH personnel responsible for reviewing and approving the subrecipient’s reimbursement requests reported to us that they were trained to not follow its policies and procedures but, instead, to approve any costs that had been previously reimbursed. As reported in finding 2022-114, although the DES subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures did not require it to obtain from subrecipients documentation supporting charges for personal and contracted professional services to verify allowability when subrecipients requested reimbursement, the policies and procedures required an on-site monitoring visit once every 3 years for each subrecipient in which it reviews a sample of the subrecipient’s personal and professional services charges. However, DES had not performed an on-site monitoring visit of the nonprofit subrecipient since 2018 because it had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. In addition, DES had not properly assessed the subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures or training the subrecipient needed. For example, the Division was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of a principal officer’s conflicts of interest so that the Division could ensure that the principal officer or their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively review the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Departments to monitor subrecipients and include required procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and implementing appropriate monitoring procedures to address those risk assessments; verifying single audits were conducted timely, if required; reviewing financial and performance reports; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on deficiencies that could potentially affect the program; and issuing management decisions on the results of audit findings or monitoring (2 CFR §§200.332, .339, and .521). Federal regulations provide that monitoring procedures the Departments may implement to address a subrecipient’s risk assessment include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs (2 CFR §200.332[e]). Further, federal regulations require the Departments’ subrecipients to allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, to use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and to disclose in writing to the Departments any potential conflicts of interest.2 Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Departments should: 1. Immediately stop reimbursing the nonprofit subrecipient for costs that are unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit subrecipient’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements without obtaining documentation to support they comply with the program’s requirements and take appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with its subaward contract. (ADOH and DES) 2. Update its written policies and procedures for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests to include a process to ensure costs are adequately supported and allowable in accordance with program requirements. (ADOH and DES) 3. Train personnel responsible for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests on how to identify costs that are unallowable under federal regulations. (ADOH) 4. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and perform the appropriate monitoring procedures based on the assessed risk, such as providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs for allowability. (ADOH and DES) 5. Ensure subrecipients allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and disclose in writing to the Departments any potential conflicts of interest. The Departments may need to provide training and technical assistance to subrecipients that addresses these compliance areas, including the Departments’ obtaining conflict-of-interest disclosures from subrecipients as part of the subaward contract, as an example, or otherwise establishing a communication mechanism for subrecipients to use as such conflicts arise. (ADOH and DES) 6. Continue to work with the nonprofit subrecipient to resolve the $47,777 in unallowable costs, including recovering these monies from the subrecipient and assessing the continued need to use this subrecipient for services. (ADOH and DES) 7. Work with the federal agencies to resolve the $47,777 of unallowable costs that it reimbursed, which may involve returning monies to the agencies. (ADOH and DES) The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 2 The applicable federal requirements related to allowable costs, competitive purchasing, and conflicts of interest can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.112, .318-.327, and Subpart E, and 24 CFR §578.95 and 45 CFR §75.112.
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 14.231 Emergency Solutions Grant Program 14.231 COVID-19—Emergency Solutions Grant Program Award numbers and years: E-20-DW-04-001, July 1, 2020 through September 9, 2022 E-21-DC-04-001, July 1, 2021 through September 9, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $1,425 Assistance Listings number and name: 14.267 Continuum of Care Program Award numbers and years: AZ0009L9T001912, October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; AZ0118L9T002008, February 1, 2021 through January 31, 2022; AZ0011L9T002013, May 1, 2021 through April 30, 2022; AZ0173L9T002004, July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022; AZ0009L9T002013, October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $46,352 Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Total questioned costs: $47,777 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its federal award terms, the Department of Housing (ADOH) and Department of Economic Security (DES) reimbursed 1 nonprofit organization subrecipient for federal program costs totaling $47,777 during fiscal year 2022 that were unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Specifically, we reviewed 51 reimbursements that included Continuum of Care Program and Emergency Solutions Grant Program costs totaling $446,695 and $10,692 for the year, respectively, and found that the departments reimbursed the subrecipient for: • $35,562 for financial and accounting services, travel, and supplies that were paid to 1 of the nonprofit organization’s principal officers, who served as the Treasurer, and their company, which was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to both departments as required by federal laws. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, neither department verified that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the programs’ requirements. We noted that the allocation method used may have resulted in multiple programs being overbilled for these services by up to $5,087. (ADOH and DES) • $7,274 for bookkeeping services that were not adequately supported by sufficiently detailed invoices and a signed contract having a specified price rate for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts paid were appropriate. Further, the departments reimbursed the Treasurer’s family member, whose bookkeeping services company was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the departments as required by federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, the departments did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the programs’ requirements. (ADOH and DES) • $4,365 for repairs and maintenance, travel, and supplies that were paid to another principal officer who performed various handyman services, including plumbing, painting, and building repairs, that were not adequately supported by a contract having specified price rates for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by ADOH were appropriate. Further, ADOH reimbursed the principal officer, whose services were not disclosed as a conflict of interest to ADOH as required by its contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. (ADOH) • $576 for incentive payments to the subrecipient’s executive director without documentation demonstrating it was authorized by an agreement, reasonable for the services performed as provided in the subrecipient’s policies, and consistent with compensation paid for similar work in other activities; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by ADOH were allowable. (ADOH) Additionally, contrary to federal regulations, the departments had not ensured that the subrecipient implemented competitive purchasing procedures when procuring the professional services and handyman services described above, and the subrecipient was unable to provide documentation that it had competitively procured the services. (ADOH and DES) The Continuum of Care and the Emergency Solutions Grant Programs were not audited as major federal programs for the State’s fiscal year 2022 single audit; therefore, the scope of our review was not sufficient to determine whether the departments or their subrecipients complied with all applicable federal requirements for these programs. During the audit, we became aware of the potentially noncompliant 51 reimbursements involving 1 of the departments’ nonprofit subrecipients with which they partner to carry out federal and State programs, including the Continuum of Care Program, the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), which was audited as a major federal program for fiscal year 2022, as well as the State Housing Trust Fund. Our review of select reimbursements to this subrecipient resulted in similar findings for the TANF federal program and the State Housing Trust Fund that are described in items 2022-114 and 2022-05, respectively. Effect—The departments’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the monies it awarded to 1 nonprofit organization may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the departments’ reimbursing the subrecipient for $47,777 of unallowable or unsupported costs and/or costs paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements resulted in those monies being unavailable to be spent for their intended purpose of providing housing assistance to those in need. Consequently, the departments may be required to return these monies to the federal agencies in accordance with federal requirements.1 Cause—ADOH had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. Also, ADOH had not properly assessed this subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures or training the subrecipient needed. For example, ADOH was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of principal officers’ conflicts of interest so that ADOH could ensure that those principal officers or their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively reviewed the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Further, ADOH personnel responsible for reviewing and approving the subrecipient’s reimbursement requests reported to us that they were trained to not follow its policies and procedures but, instead, to approve any costs that had been previously reimbursed. As reported in finding 2022-114, although the DES subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures did not require it to obtain from subrecipients documentation supporting charges for personal and contracted professional services to verify allowability when subrecipients requested reimbursement, the policies and procedures required an on-site monitoring visit once every 3 years for each subrecipient in which it reviews a sample of the subrecipient’s personal and professional services charges. However, DES had not performed an on-site monitoring visit of the nonprofit subrecipient since 2018 because it had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. In addition, DES had not properly assessed the subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures or training the subrecipient needed. For example, the Division was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of a principal officer’s conflicts of interest so that the Division could ensure that the principal officer or their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively review the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Departments to monitor subrecipients and include required procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and implementing appropriate monitoring procedures to address those risk assessments; verifying single audits were conducted timely, if required; reviewing financial and performance reports; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on deficiencies that could potentially affect the program; and issuing management decisions on the results of audit findings or monitoring (2 CFR §§200.332, .339, and .521). Federal regulations provide that monitoring procedures the Departments may implement to address a subrecipient’s risk assessment include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs (2 CFR §200.332[e]). Further, federal regulations require the Departments’ subrecipients to allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, to use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and to disclose in writing to the Departments any potential conflicts of interest.2 Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Departments should: 1. Immediately stop reimbursing the nonprofit subrecipient for costs that are unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit subrecipient’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements without obtaining documentation to support they comply with the program’s requirements and take appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with its subaward contract. (ADOH and DES) 2. Update its written policies and procedures for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests to include a process to ensure costs are adequately supported and allowable in accordance with program requirements. (ADOH and DES) 3. Train personnel responsible for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests on how to identify costs that are unallowable under federal regulations. (ADOH) 4. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and perform the appropriate monitoring procedures based on the assessed risk, such as providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs for allowability. (ADOH and DES) 5. Ensure subrecipients allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and disclose in writing to the Departments any potential conflicts of interest. The Departments may need to provide training and technical assistance to subrecipients that addresses these compliance areas, including the Departments’ obtaining conflict-of-interest disclosures from subrecipients as part of the subaward contract, as an example, or otherwise establishing a communication mechanism for subrecipients to use as such conflicts arise. (ADOH and DES) 6. Continue to work with the nonprofit subrecipient to resolve the $47,777 in unallowable costs, including recovering these monies from the subrecipient and assessing the continued need to use this subrecipient for services. (ADOH and DES) 7. Work with the federal agencies to resolve the $47,777 of unallowable costs that it reimbursed, which may involve returning monies to the agencies. (ADOH and DES) The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 2 The applicable federal requirements related to allowable costs, competitive purchasing, and conflicts of interest can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.112, .318-.327, and Subpart E, and 24 CFR §578.95 and 45 CFR §75.112.
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 93.558 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 93.558 COVID-19 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Award numbers and years: 2101AZTANF, October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; 2201AZTANF, October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: $6,754 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its federal award terms, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) reimbursed 1 nonprofit organization subrecipient for federal program costs totaling $6,754 during fiscal year 2022 that were unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to 1 of the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Specifically, we reviewed 12 reimbursements that included Temporary Assistance for Needy Family program costs totaling $72,800 for the year and found that the Division reimbursed the subrecipient for: • $4,973 for financial and accounting services that were paid to 1 of the nonprofit organization’s principal officers, who served as the Treasurer, and their company, which was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the Division as required by the Division’s contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, the Division did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements. We noted that the allocation method used may have resulted in multiple programs being overbilled for these services by up to $5,087. • $1,474 for bookkeeping services that were not adequately supported by sufficiently detailed invoices and a signed, written contract having a specified price rate for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts paid were appropriate. Further, the Division reimbursed the Treasurer’s family member, whose bookkeeping services company was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the Division as required by the Division’s contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, the Division did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements. • $307 for incentive payments to the subrecipient’s Executive Director without documentation to support that it was authorized by an agreement, reasonable for the services performed as provided in the subrecipient’s policies, and consistent with compensation paid for similar work in other activities; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by the Division were allowable. Additionally, contrary to federal regulations, the Division had not ensured that the subrecipient implemented its competitive purchasing procedures when procuring the professional services described above, and the subrecipient was unable to provide documentation that it had competitively procured the services. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Family program was audited as a major federal program for the State’s fiscal year 2022 single audit. During the audit, we became aware of the potentially noncompliant 12 reimbursements involving 1 of the Division’s nonprofit subrecipients with which it partners to carry out federal programs, including the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, which was not audited as a major federal program for the State’s fiscal year 2022 single audit. Our review of select reimbursements to this subrecipient resulted in similar findings for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, Continuum of Care Program, and the State Housing Trust Fund that are described in items 2022 115 and 2022-05, respectively. Effect—The Division’s lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the monies it awarded to a nonprofit organization may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the Division’s reimbursing the subrecipient for $6,754 of unallowable or unsupported costs and/or costs paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officer or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements resulted in those monies being unavailable to be spent for their intended purpose to provide housing assistance to individuals in need. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.1 Cause—Although the Division’s subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures did not require it to obtain from subrecipients documentation supporting charges for personal and contracted professional services to verify allowability when subrecipients requested reimbursement, the policies and procedures required an on-site monitoring visit once every 3 years for each subrecipient in which it reviews a sample of the subrecipient’s personal and professional services charges. However, the Division had not performed an on-site monitoring visit of the nonprofit subrecipient since 2018 because it had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. In addition, the Division had not properly assessed the subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures or training the subrecipient needed. For example, the Division was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of a principal officer’s conflicts of interest so that the Division could ensure that the principal officer or their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively review the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Division to monitor subrecipients and include required procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and implementing appropriate monitoring procedures to address those risk assessments; verifying single audits were conducted timely, if required; reviewing financial and performance reports; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on deficiencies that could potentially affect the program; and issuing management decisions on the results of audit findings or monitoring (2 CFR §§200.332, .339, and .521). Federal regulations provide that monitoring procedures the Division may implement to address a subrecipient’s risk assessment include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs (2 CFR §200.332[e]). Further, federal regulations require the Division’s subrecipients to allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, to use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and to disclose in writing to the Division any potential conflicts of interest.2 Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Immediately stop reimbursing the nonprofit subrecipient for costs that are unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit subrecipient’s principal officer or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements without obtaining documentation to support they comply with the program’s requirements and take appropriate enforcement actions with the subrecipient in accordance with its contract. 2. Update its written policies and procedures for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests to include a process to ensure costs are adequately supported and allowable in accordance with program requirements. 3. Train personnel responsible for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests on how to identify costs that are unallowable under federal regulations. 4. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and perform the appropriate monitoring procedures based on the assessed risk, such as providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs for allowability. 5. Ensure subrecipients allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and disclose in writing to the Division any potential conflicts of interest. The Division may need to provide training and technical assistance to subrecipients that address these compliance areas, including the Division’s obtaining conflict-of-interest disclosures from subrecipients as part of the subaward contract, as an example, or otherwise establishing a communication mechanism for subrecipients to use as such conflicts arise. 6. Continue to work with the nonprofit subrecipient to resolve the $6,754 of unallowable costs, including recovering these monies from the subrecipient and assessing the continued need to use this subrecipient for services. 7. Work with the federal agency to resolve the $6,754 of unallowable costs that it reimbursed, which may involve returning monies to the federal agency. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 2 The applicable federal requirements related to allowable costs, competitive purchasing, and conflicts of interest can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.112, .318-.327, and Subpart E, and 45 CFR §75.112.
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 93.558 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 93.558 COVID-19 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Award numbers and years: 2101AZTANF, October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; 2201AZTANF, October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: $6,754 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its federal award terms, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) reimbursed 1 nonprofit organization subrecipient for federal program costs totaling $6,754 during fiscal year 2022 that were unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to 1 of the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Specifically, we reviewed 12 reimbursements that included Temporary Assistance for Needy Family program costs totaling $72,800 for the year and found that the Division reimbursed the subrecipient for: • $4,973 for financial and accounting services that were paid to 1 of the nonprofit organization’s principal officers, who served as the Treasurer, and their company, which was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the Division as required by the Division’s contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, the Division did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements. We noted that the allocation method used may have resulted in multiple programs being overbilled for these services by up to $5,087. • $1,474 for bookkeeping services that were not adequately supported by sufficiently detailed invoices and a signed, written contract having a specified price rate for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts paid were appropriate. Further, the Division reimbursed the Treasurer’s family member, whose bookkeeping services company was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the Division as required by the Division’s contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, the Division did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements. • $307 for incentive payments to the subrecipient’s Executive Director without documentation to support that it was authorized by an agreement, reasonable for the services performed as provided in the subrecipient’s policies, and consistent with compensation paid for similar work in other activities; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by the Division were allowable. Additionally, contrary to federal regulations, the Division had not ensured that the subrecipient implemented its competitive purchasing procedures when procuring the professional services described above, and the subrecipient was unable to provide documentation that it had competitively procured the services. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Family program was audited as a major federal program for the State’s fiscal year 2022 single audit. During the audit, we became aware of the potentially noncompliant 12 reimbursements involving 1 of the Division’s nonprofit subrecipients with which it partners to carry out federal programs, including the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, which was not audited as a major federal program for the State’s fiscal year 2022 single audit. Our review of select reimbursements to this subrecipient resulted in similar findings for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, Continuum of Care Program, and the State Housing Trust Fund that are described in items 2022 115 and 2022-05, respectively. Effect—The Division’s lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the monies it awarded to a nonprofit organization may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the Division’s reimbursing the subrecipient for $6,754 of unallowable or unsupported costs and/or costs paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officer or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements resulted in those monies being unavailable to be spent for their intended purpose to provide housing assistance to individuals in need. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.1 Cause—Although the Division’s subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures did not require it to obtain from subrecipients documentation supporting charges for personal and contracted professional services to verify allowability when subrecipients requested reimbursement, the policies and procedures required an on-site monitoring visit once every 3 years for each subrecipient in which it reviews a sample of the subrecipient’s personal and professional services charges. However, the Division had not performed an on-site monitoring visit of the nonprofit subrecipient since 2018 because it had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. In addition, the Division had not properly assessed the subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures or training the subrecipient needed. For example, the Division was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of a principal officer’s conflicts of interest so that the Division could ensure that the principal officer or their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively review the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Division to monitor subrecipients and include required procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and implementing appropriate monitoring procedures to address those risk assessments; verifying single audits were conducted timely, if required; reviewing financial and performance reports; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on deficiencies that could potentially affect the program; and issuing management decisions on the results of audit findings or monitoring (2 CFR §§200.332, .339, and .521). Federal regulations provide that monitoring procedures the Division may implement to address a subrecipient’s risk assessment include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs (2 CFR §200.332[e]). Further, federal regulations require the Division’s subrecipients to allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, to use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and to disclose in writing to the Division any potential conflicts of interest.2 Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Immediately stop reimbursing the nonprofit subrecipient for costs that are unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit subrecipient’s principal officer or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements without obtaining documentation to support they comply with the program’s requirements and take appropriate enforcement actions with the subrecipient in accordance with its contract. 2. Update its written policies and procedures for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests to include a process to ensure costs are adequately supported and allowable in accordance with program requirements. 3. Train personnel responsible for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests on how to identify costs that are unallowable under federal regulations. 4. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and perform the appropriate monitoring procedures based on the assessed risk, such as providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs for allowability. 5. Ensure subrecipients allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and disclose in writing to the Division any potential conflicts of interest. The Division may need to provide training and technical assistance to subrecipients that address these compliance areas, including the Division’s obtaining conflict-of-interest disclosures from subrecipients as part of the subaward contract, as an example, or otherwise establishing a communication mechanism for subrecipients to use as such conflicts arise. 6. Continue to work with the nonprofit subrecipient to resolve the $6,754 of unallowable costs, including recovering these monies from the subrecipient and assessing the continued need to use this subrecipient for services. 7. Work with the federal agency to resolve the $6,754 of unallowable costs that it reimbursed, which may involve returning monies to the federal agency. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 2 The applicable federal requirements related to allowable costs, competitive purchasing, and conflicts of interest can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.112, .318-.327, and Subpart E, and 45 CFR §75.112.
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 93.558 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 93.558 COVID-19 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Award numbers and years: 2101AZTANF, October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; 2201AZTANF, October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: $6,754 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its federal award terms, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) reimbursed 1 nonprofit organization subrecipient for federal program costs totaling $6,754 during fiscal year 2022 that were unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to 1 of the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Specifically, we reviewed 12 reimbursements that included Temporary Assistance for Needy Family program costs totaling $72,800 for the year and found that the Division reimbursed the subrecipient for: • $4,973 for financial and accounting services that were paid to 1 of the nonprofit organization’s principal officers, who served as the Treasurer, and their company, which was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the Division as required by the Division’s contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, the Division did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements. We noted that the allocation method used may have resulted in multiple programs being overbilled for these services by up to $5,087. • $1,474 for bookkeeping services that were not adequately supported by sufficiently detailed invoices and a signed, written contract having a specified price rate for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts paid were appropriate. Further, the Division reimbursed the Treasurer’s family member, whose bookkeeping services company was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the Division as required by the Division’s contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, the Division did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements. • $307 for incentive payments to the subrecipient’s Executive Director without documentation to support that it was authorized by an agreement, reasonable for the services performed as provided in the subrecipient’s policies, and consistent with compensation paid for similar work in other activities; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by the Division were allowable. Additionally, contrary to federal regulations, the Division had not ensured that the subrecipient implemented its competitive purchasing procedures when procuring the professional services described above, and the subrecipient was unable to provide documentation that it had competitively procured the services. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Family program was audited as a major federal program for the State’s fiscal year 2022 single audit. During the audit, we became aware of the potentially noncompliant 12 reimbursements involving 1 of the Division’s nonprofit subrecipients with which it partners to carry out federal programs, including the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, which was not audited as a major federal program for the State’s fiscal year 2022 single audit. Our review of select reimbursements to this subrecipient resulted in similar findings for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, Continuum of Care Program, and the State Housing Trust Fund that are described in items 2022 115 and 2022-05, respectively. Effect—The Division’s lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the monies it awarded to a nonprofit organization may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the Division’s reimbursing the subrecipient for $6,754 of unallowable or unsupported costs and/or costs paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officer or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements resulted in those monies being unavailable to be spent for their intended purpose to provide housing assistance to individuals in need. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.1 Cause—Although the Division’s subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures did not require it to obtain from subrecipients documentation supporting charges for personal and contracted professional services to verify allowability when subrecipients requested reimbursement, the policies and procedures required an on-site monitoring visit once every 3 years for each subrecipient in which it reviews a sample of the subrecipient’s personal and professional services charges. However, the Division had not performed an on-site monitoring visit of the nonprofit subrecipient since 2018 because it had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. In addition, the Division had not properly assessed the subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures or training the subrecipient needed. For example, the Division was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of a principal officer’s conflicts of interest so that the Division could ensure that the principal officer or their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively review the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Division to monitor subrecipients and include required procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and implementing appropriate monitoring procedures to address those risk assessments; verifying single audits were conducted timely, if required; reviewing financial and performance reports; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on deficiencies that could potentially affect the program; and issuing management decisions on the results of audit findings or monitoring (2 CFR §§200.332, .339, and .521). Federal regulations provide that monitoring procedures the Division may implement to address a subrecipient’s risk assessment include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs (2 CFR §200.332[e]). Further, federal regulations require the Division’s subrecipients to allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, to use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and to disclose in writing to the Division any potential conflicts of interest.2 Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Immediately stop reimbursing the nonprofit subrecipient for costs that are unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit subrecipient’s principal officer or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements without obtaining documentation to support they comply with the program’s requirements and take appropriate enforcement actions with the subrecipient in accordance with its contract. 2. Update its written policies and procedures for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests to include a process to ensure costs are adequately supported and allowable in accordance with program requirements. 3. Train personnel responsible for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests on how to identify costs that are unallowable under federal regulations. 4. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and perform the appropriate monitoring procedures based on the assessed risk, such as providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs for allowability. 5. Ensure subrecipients allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and disclose in writing to the Division any potential conflicts of interest. The Division may need to provide training and technical assistance to subrecipients that address these compliance areas, including the Division’s obtaining conflict-of-interest disclosures from subrecipients as part of the subaward contract, as an example, or otherwise establishing a communication mechanism for subrecipients to use as such conflicts arise. 6. Continue to work with the nonprofit subrecipient to resolve the $6,754 of unallowable costs, including recovering these monies from the subrecipient and assessing the continued need to use this subrecipient for services. 7. Work with the federal agency to resolve the $6,754 of unallowable costs that it reimbursed, which may involve returning monies to the federal agency. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 2 The applicable federal requirements related to allowable costs, competitive purchasing, and conflicts of interest can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.112, .318-.327, and Subpart E, and 45 CFR §75.112.