Program: AL 84.287 – Twenty-First Century Community Learning Centers – Subrecipient Monitoring Grant Number & Year: S287C210027, FFY 2022 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Education Criteria: Per 2 CFR § 3474.1 (January 1, 2023), the U.S. Department of Education adopted the OMB Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR part 200, except for 2 CFR § 200.102(a) and 200.207(a). 2 CFR § 200.332 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: All pass-through entities must: * * * * (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. 2 CFR § 200.508 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: The auditee must: * * * * (d) Provide the auditor with access to personnel, accounts, books, records, supporting documentation, and other information as needed for the auditor to perform the audit required by this part. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-305(2) (Cum. Supp. 2022) states, in relevant part, the following: Upon receipt of a written request by the Auditor of Public Accounts for access to any information or records, the public entity shall provide to the auditor as soon as is practicable and without delay, but not more than three business days after actual receipt of the request, either (a) the requested materials or (b)(i) if there is a legal basis for refusal to comply with the request, a written denial of the request together with the information specified in subsection (1) of this section or (ii) if the entire request cannot with reasonable good faith efforts be fulfilled within three business days after actual receipt of the request due to the significant difficulty or the extensiveness of the request, a written explanation, including the earliest practicable date for fulfilling the request, and an opportunity for the auditor to modify or prioritize the items within the request. No delay due to the significant difficulty or the extensiveness of any request for access to information or records shall exceed three calendar weeks after actual receipt of such request by any public entity. (Emphasis added.) A proper system of internal control includes procedures to ensure the Department’s fiscal monitoring polices are followed. Good internal control also requires procedures to ensure audit information is provided promptly in accordance with State and Federal requirements. Condition: The Agency failed to perform fiscal monitoring of one subrecipient tested for the Twenty-First Century Community Learning Centers grant. Contrary to § 84-305(2), moreover, the Agency failed to respond promptly to requests for information. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: None Statistical Sample: No Context: The Agency performed a review of a reimbursement request for $183,825, where staff compared the amount claimed to the school-provided accounting records and payroll reports with employee names. The Agency’s policy then requires further fiscal monitoring on at least a three-year rotational basis for all school districts. As part of this process, a more detailed review of time and effort documentation is supposed to be completed. According to Agency staff, fiscal monitoring was scheduled for October 2022; however, school district staff stated that the timing would not work for them. The Agency began its review in December 2022, but the process had yet to be completed – more than a year later – due to a lack of responsiveness from the school district. Fiscal monitoring of the school district was last performed in fiscal year 2020. Additionally, the APA asked the Agency on January 11, 2024, for documentation to support the payroll expenses on the reimbursement request. On January 12, 2024, the Agency presented the APA with the documentation from the school district; however, this was the same documentation provided previously to the Agency at the time of reimbursement. This documentation was insufficient to support the payroll expenses questioned. On March 1, 2024, seven weeks after the APA’s request, the Agency produced the additional information to support the payroll expenses. Cause: Inadequate subrecipient monitoring procedures. Effect: Without adequate monitoring procedures, there is an increased risk for the payment of unallowable Federal expenses. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency strengthen its procedures for ensuring that fiscal monitoring is completed in accordance with the Agency’s policies. We further recommend the Agency implement procedures to ensure compliance with both 2 CFR § 200.508 and § 84-305(2). Management Response: The Grants Compliance Section is the Agency’s internal control function performing the requirements within 2 CFR 200.332, applying risk assessment to determine the annual fiscal monitoring base cadence and sequential sampling; non-probability sampling ensuring all recipients are subject to fiscal monitoring efforts in a three-year cycle at a minimum. As education subrecipients have received a significant influx of subawards to mitigate post-COVID supports for Nebraska education with limited staff capacity, the Department has remained mindful of these conditions and completed fiscal monitoring activities and issued an exit letter on September 5, 2023. APA Response: This finding was included as Comment 4 in the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) management letter dated December 13, 2023. The Agency responded, in part, “Fiscal monitoring of Lexington Public Schools was being performed in 2023 but was not completed as of the time of the ACFR audit.” When the Single Audit team requested the payroll documentation, the Agency did not inform the APA that monitoring was completed until March 5, 2024, which is well past the time requirements set out in § 84-305(2). Regardless, the fiscal monitoring was not completed within three years.
Program: Various, including AL 84.027 – Special Education Grants to States; AL 84.173 – COVID-19 Special Education Preschool Grants; AL 84.425D – COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER I and ESSER II); AL 84.425U – COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – American Rescue Plan – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ARP ESSER) – Subrecipient Monitoring Grant Number & Year: Various, including H027A210079, FFY 2022; H173X210077, FFY 2022; S425D200048, grant period ending 9/30/2022; S425D210048, grant period ending 9/30/2023; S425U210048, grant period ending 9/30/2024. Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Education Criteria: Per 2 CFR § 3474.1 (January 1, 2023), the U.S. Department of Education adopted the OMB Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR part 200, except for 2 CFR § 200.102(a) and 200.207(a). Per 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023), allowable costs must be necessary, reasonable, and adequately documented. 2 CFR § 200.332 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: All pass-through entities must: * * * * (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. * * * * (2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. (3) Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. (4) The pass-through entity is responsible for resolving audit findings specifically related to the subaward[.] * * * * (f) Verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by Subpart F of this part when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in § 200.501. 2 CFR § 200.521 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: (c) Pass-through entity. As provided in § 200.332(d), the pass-through entity must be responsible for issuing a management decision for audit findings that relate to Federal awards it makes to subrecipients. (d) Time requirements. The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity responsible for issuing a management decision must do so within six months of acceptance of the audit report by the FAC. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that subrecipients are using grant funds for allowable purposes. Good internal control also requires procedures to ensure that subrecipient Single Audit reports are being reviewed, and management decision letters are being issued in a timely manner to ensure that corrective action is being implemented. Condition: For 3 of 27 subrecipients tested that received Federal funds from the Special Education Cluster, the Agency did not perform adequate subrecipient monitoring to ensure that funds were used for allowable purposes. For seven subrecipients tested that received Federal funds from the Education Stabilization Fund and/or Special Education Cluster, the Agency did not issue a management decision letter within the time requirement for five subrecipients and did not issue a management decision letter for two subrecipients. The Agency also failed to track and review the Single Audit report for one subrecipient. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: Unknown Statistical Sample: No Context: The Agency performs various subrecipient monitoring activities during the year to ensure that subrecipients are using funds for an allowable purpose. These activities include reviewing a sample of expenditures from all reimbursement requests, tracking subrecipient audit requirements and reviewing Single Audit reports, and performing fiscal monitoring on a three-year basis. During review of reimbursement requests, the Agency does not perform procedures to ensure that salary and benefits allocated to the Special Education (SPED) grants are adequately supported by underlying documentation for a majority of its subrecipients. Rather the Agency relies on the fiscal monitoring to test that payroll is being properly allocated to grants, and the subrecipients have procedures in place to comply with Uniform Guidance Requirements. During testing of 27 subrecipients that received SPED grants, we noted the following for three subrecipients: • For the first subrecipient, the Agency had never completed a fiscal monitoring review. The Agency indicated that it was currently conducting fiscal monitoring of the school, but the subrecipient had been slow to provide documentation, resulting in delays. • The second subrecipient also did not have a fiscal monitoring review. At the time of the reimbursement, moreover, the Agency did not review any underlying documentation to support the costs allocated to the grant. The Agency stated that it relied on the entity’s annual audit to ensure costs were allocated properly; however, the subrecipient had not had a recent Single Audit in which the Special Education Cluster was a major program. • The third subrecipient had a fiscal monitoring review of payroll costs, but there was no documentation to show that the Agency had reviewed other purchased services at the time of reimbursement or during the fiscal monitoring. During review of the Agency’s procedures for reviewing subrecipient Single Audits, we noted the following: • For two subrecipients tested, their Single Audits noted significant deficiencies and material weaknesses, including one instance of questioned costs totaling $105,273; however, the Agency did not issue a management decision letter on the findings or provide documentation of any follow-up performed. • For five subrecipients tested, the management decision letter was issued eight to nine months after the audit was made available on the Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC). • One subrecipient was not being tracked by the Agency. This subrecipient had received $939,358 in Federal funds from the Agency. After the APA pointed this out, the Agency obtained a copy of the subrecipient’s Single Audit report, which noted no findings. Cause: Inadequate subrecipient monitoring procedures. The Agency stated it had other priorities during the year that delayed its review of the subrecipients’ Single Audit reports. Effect: Without adequate procedures, there is increased risk of noncompliance with Federal regulations, audit findings of subrecipients not being corrected, and an increased risk of loss or misuse of funds. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency review its procedures for reimbursements and fiscal monitoring to ensure subrecipients are operating in compliance with Federal requirements. We also recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure that all subrecipients are being tracked for Single Audit requirements, and management decisions are issued in response to all findings in a timely manner. Management Response: First SPED subrecipient – The first recipient’s fiscal monitoring review is part of the current annual group of recipients being monitored; set to close June 30, 2024. Second SPED subrecipient – As part of the FY2020 federal Single Audit testing conducted by KPMG, determined the after-the-fact verification as a method to certify that the payment received on a project is reasonable in relation to the amount of work performed. Third SPED subrecipient – Purchased services and supplies were reviewed during fiscal monitoring, but the documentation was in paper form, not electronic, and was not initially provided to the auditors when requested. It was provided on March 4, 2024, when located. Single Audits – Due to extensive time commitment to State audit facilitation and Education Stabilization Fund Annual Performance Reporting, some management decision letters were not issued or were issued late. The NDE staff member performing the annual audit reviews was not aware of an additional subrecipient that needed reviewed. APA Response: The Special Education Cluster was not a major program for the second subrecipient in FY2020. For the third subrecipient, we originally requested the Agency’s fiscal monitoring documentation on December 21, 2023. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-305(2) (Cum. Supp. 2022) requires compliance with such a request to occur within “three business days after actual receipt of the request.” The only exceptions to that three-day response requirement are if there is “a legal basis for refusal to comply with the request” or “the entire request cannot with reasonable good faith efforts be fulfilled within three business days after actual receipt of the request due to the significant difficulty or the extensiveness of the request.” In either instance, § 84-305(2) requires the recipient of the request to take specific action in claiming the exception. The Agency failed to do so, clearly violating § 84-305(2). In no case not involving a legal basis for noncompliance, moreover, may the required compliance “exceed three calendar weeks after actual receipt of such request by any public entity.” Nevertheless, the additional documentation was not provided until over 11 weeks after being requested, which is another clear violation of § 84-305(2).
Program: Various, including AL 84.027 – Special Education Grants to States; AL 84.173 – COVID-19 Special Education Preschool Grants; AL 84.425D – COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER I and ESSER II); AL 84.425U – COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – American Rescue Plan – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ARP ESSER) – Subrecipient Monitoring Grant Number & Year: Various, including H027A210079, FFY 2022; H173X210077, FFY 2022; S425D200048, grant period ending 9/30/2022; S425D210048, grant period ending 9/30/2023; S425U210048, grant period ending 9/30/2024. Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Education Criteria: Per 2 CFR § 3474.1 (January 1, 2023), the U.S. Department of Education adopted the OMB Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR part 200, except for 2 CFR § 200.102(a) and 200.207(a). Per 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023), allowable costs must be necessary, reasonable, and adequately documented. 2 CFR § 200.332 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: All pass-through entities must: * * * * (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. * * * * (2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. (3) Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. (4) The pass-through entity is responsible for resolving audit findings specifically related to the subaward[.] * * * * (f) Verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by Subpart F of this part when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in § 200.501. 2 CFR § 200.521 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: (c) Pass-through entity. As provided in § 200.332(d), the pass-through entity must be responsible for issuing a management decision for audit findings that relate to Federal awards it makes to subrecipients. (d) Time requirements. The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity responsible for issuing a management decision must do so within six months of acceptance of the audit report by the FAC. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that subrecipients are using grant funds for allowable purposes. Good internal control also requires procedures to ensure that subrecipient Single Audit reports are being reviewed, and management decision letters are being issued in a timely manner to ensure that corrective action is being implemented. Condition: For 3 of 27 subrecipients tested that received Federal funds from the Special Education Cluster, the Agency did not perform adequate subrecipient monitoring to ensure that funds were used for allowable purposes. For seven subrecipients tested that received Federal funds from the Education Stabilization Fund and/or Special Education Cluster, the Agency did not issue a management decision letter within the time requirement for five subrecipients and did not issue a management decision letter for two subrecipients. The Agency also failed to track and review the Single Audit report for one subrecipient. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: Unknown Statistical Sample: No Context: The Agency performs various subrecipient monitoring activities during the year to ensure that subrecipients are using funds for an allowable purpose. These activities include reviewing a sample of expenditures from all reimbursement requests, tracking subrecipient audit requirements and reviewing Single Audit reports, and performing fiscal monitoring on a three-year basis. During review of reimbursement requests, the Agency does not perform procedures to ensure that salary and benefits allocated to the Special Education (SPED) grants are adequately supported by underlying documentation for a majority of its subrecipients. Rather the Agency relies on the fiscal monitoring to test that payroll is being properly allocated to grants, and the subrecipients have procedures in place to comply with Uniform Guidance Requirements. During testing of 27 subrecipients that received SPED grants, we noted the following for three subrecipients: • For the first subrecipient, the Agency had never completed a fiscal monitoring review. The Agency indicated that it was currently conducting fiscal monitoring of the school, but the subrecipient had been slow to provide documentation, resulting in delays. • The second subrecipient also did not have a fiscal monitoring review. At the time of the reimbursement, moreover, the Agency did not review any underlying documentation to support the costs allocated to the grant. The Agency stated that it relied on the entity’s annual audit to ensure costs were allocated properly; however, the subrecipient had not had a recent Single Audit in which the Special Education Cluster was a major program. • The third subrecipient had a fiscal monitoring review of payroll costs, but there was no documentation to show that the Agency had reviewed other purchased services at the time of reimbursement or during the fiscal monitoring. During review of the Agency’s procedures for reviewing subrecipient Single Audits, we noted the following: • For two subrecipients tested, their Single Audits noted significant deficiencies and material weaknesses, including one instance of questioned costs totaling $105,273; however, the Agency did not issue a management decision letter on the findings or provide documentation of any follow-up performed. • For five subrecipients tested, the management decision letter was issued eight to nine months after the audit was made available on the Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC). • One subrecipient was not being tracked by the Agency. This subrecipient had received $939,358 in Federal funds from the Agency. After the APA pointed this out, the Agency obtained a copy of the subrecipient’s Single Audit report, which noted no findings. Cause: Inadequate subrecipient monitoring procedures. The Agency stated it had other priorities during the year that delayed its review of the subrecipients’ Single Audit reports. Effect: Without adequate procedures, there is increased risk of noncompliance with Federal regulations, audit findings of subrecipients not being corrected, and an increased risk of loss or misuse of funds. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency review its procedures for reimbursements and fiscal monitoring to ensure subrecipients are operating in compliance with Federal requirements. We also recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure that all subrecipients are being tracked for Single Audit requirements, and management decisions are issued in response to all findings in a timely manner. Management Response: First SPED subrecipient – The first recipient’s fiscal monitoring review is part of the current annual group of recipients being monitored; set to close June 30, 2024. Second SPED subrecipient – As part of the FY2020 federal Single Audit testing conducted by KPMG, determined the after-the-fact verification as a method to certify that the payment received on a project is reasonable in relation to the amount of work performed. Third SPED subrecipient – Purchased services and supplies were reviewed during fiscal monitoring, but the documentation was in paper form, not electronic, and was not initially provided to the auditors when requested. It was provided on March 4, 2024, when located. Single Audits – Due to extensive time commitment to State audit facilitation and Education Stabilization Fund Annual Performance Reporting, some management decision letters were not issued or were issued late. The NDE staff member performing the annual audit reviews was not aware of an additional subrecipient that needed reviewed. APA Response: The Special Education Cluster was not a major program for the second subrecipient in FY2020. For the third subrecipient, we originally requested the Agency’s fiscal monitoring documentation on December 21, 2023. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-305(2) (Cum. Supp. 2022) requires compliance with such a request to occur within “three business days after actual receipt of the request.” The only exceptions to that three-day response requirement are if there is “a legal basis for refusal to comply with the request” or “the entire request cannot with reasonable good faith efforts be fulfilled within three business days after actual receipt of the request due to the significant difficulty or the extensiveness of the request.” In either instance, § 84-305(2) requires the recipient of the request to take specific action in claiming the exception. The Agency failed to do so, clearly violating § 84-305(2). In no case not involving a legal basis for noncompliance, moreover, may the required compliance “exceed three calendar weeks after actual receipt of such request by any public entity.” Nevertheless, the additional documentation was not provided until over 11 weeks after being requested, which is another clear violation of § 84-305(2).
Program: Various, including AL 84.027 – Special Education Grants to States; AL 84.173 – COVID-19 Special Education Preschool Grants; AL 84.425D – COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER I and ESSER II); AL 84.425U – COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – American Rescue Plan – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ARP ESSER) – Subrecipient Monitoring Grant Number & Year: Various, including H027A210079, FFY 2022; H173X210077, FFY 2022; S425D200048, grant period ending 9/30/2022; S425D210048, grant period ending 9/30/2023; S425U210048, grant period ending 9/30/2024. Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Education Criteria: Per 2 CFR § 3474.1 (January 1, 2023), the U.S. Department of Education adopted the OMB Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR part 200, except for 2 CFR § 200.102(a) and 200.207(a). Per 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023), allowable costs must be necessary, reasonable, and adequately documented. 2 CFR § 200.332 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: All pass-through entities must: * * * * (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. * * * * (2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. (3) Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. (4) The pass-through entity is responsible for resolving audit findings specifically related to the subaward[.] * * * * (f) Verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by Subpart F of this part when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in § 200.501. 2 CFR § 200.521 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: (c) Pass-through entity. As provided in § 200.332(d), the pass-through entity must be responsible for issuing a management decision for audit findings that relate to Federal awards it makes to subrecipients. (d) Time requirements. The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity responsible for issuing a management decision must do so within six months of acceptance of the audit report by the FAC. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that subrecipients are using grant funds for allowable purposes. Good internal control also requires procedures to ensure that subrecipient Single Audit reports are being reviewed, and management decision letters are being issued in a timely manner to ensure that corrective action is being implemented. Condition: For 3 of 27 subrecipients tested that received Federal funds from the Special Education Cluster, the Agency did not perform adequate subrecipient monitoring to ensure that funds were used for allowable purposes. For seven subrecipients tested that received Federal funds from the Education Stabilization Fund and/or Special Education Cluster, the Agency did not issue a management decision letter within the time requirement for five subrecipients and did not issue a management decision letter for two subrecipients. The Agency also failed to track and review the Single Audit report for one subrecipient. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: Unknown Statistical Sample: No Context: The Agency performs various subrecipient monitoring activities during the year to ensure that subrecipients are using funds for an allowable purpose. These activities include reviewing a sample of expenditures from all reimbursement requests, tracking subrecipient audit requirements and reviewing Single Audit reports, and performing fiscal monitoring on a three-year basis. During review of reimbursement requests, the Agency does not perform procedures to ensure that salary and benefits allocated to the Special Education (SPED) grants are adequately supported by underlying documentation for a majority of its subrecipients. Rather the Agency relies on the fiscal monitoring to test that payroll is being properly allocated to grants, and the subrecipients have procedures in place to comply with Uniform Guidance Requirements. During testing of 27 subrecipients that received SPED grants, we noted the following for three subrecipients: • For the first subrecipient, the Agency had never completed a fiscal monitoring review. The Agency indicated that it was currently conducting fiscal monitoring of the school, but the subrecipient had been slow to provide documentation, resulting in delays. • The second subrecipient also did not have a fiscal monitoring review. At the time of the reimbursement, moreover, the Agency did not review any underlying documentation to support the costs allocated to the grant. The Agency stated that it relied on the entity’s annual audit to ensure costs were allocated properly; however, the subrecipient had not had a recent Single Audit in which the Special Education Cluster was a major program. • The third subrecipient had a fiscal monitoring review of payroll costs, but there was no documentation to show that the Agency had reviewed other purchased services at the time of reimbursement or during the fiscal monitoring. During review of the Agency’s procedures for reviewing subrecipient Single Audits, we noted the following: • For two subrecipients tested, their Single Audits noted significant deficiencies and material weaknesses, including one instance of questioned costs totaling $105,273; however, the Agency did not issue a management decision letter on the findings or provide documentation of any follow-up performed. • For five subrecipients tested, the management decision letter was issued eight to nine months after the audit was made available on the Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC). • One subrecipient was not being tracked by the Agency. This subrecipient had received $939,358 in Federal funds from the Agency. After the APA pointed this out, the Agency obtained a copy of the subrecipient’s Single Audit report, which noted no findings. Cause: Inadequate subrecipient monitoring procedures. The Agency stated it had other priorities during the year that delayed its review of the subrecipients’ Single Audit reports. Effect: Without adequate procedures, there is increased risk of noncompliance with Federal regulations, audit findings of subrecipients not being corrected, and an increased risk of loss or misuse of funds. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency review its procedures for reimbursements and fiscal monitoring to ensure subrecipients are operating in compliance with Federal requirements. We also recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure that all subrecipients are being tracked for Single Audit requirements, and management decisions are issued in response to all findings in a timely manner. Management Response: First SPED subrecipient – The first recipient’s fiscal monitoring review is part of the current annual group of recipients being monitored; set to close June 30, 2024. Second SPED subrecipient – As part of the FY2020 federal Single Audit testing conducted by KPMG, determined the after-the-fact verification as a method to certify that the payment received on a project is reasonable in relation to the amount of work performed. Third SPED subrecipient – Purchased services and supplies were reviewed during fiscal monitoring, but the documentation was in paper form, not electronic, and was not initially provided to the auditors when requested. It was provided on March 4, 2024, when located. Single Audits – Due to extensive time commitment to State audit facilitation and Education Stabilization Fund Annual Performance Reporting, some management decision letters were not issued or were issued late. The NDE staff member performing the annual audit reviews was not aware of an additional subrecipient that needed reviewed. APA Response: The Special Education Cluster was not a major program for the second subrecipient in FY2020. For the third subrecipient, we originally requested the Agency’s fiscal monitoring documentation on December 21, 2023. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-305(2) (Cum. Supp. 2022) requires compliance with such a request to occur within “three business days after actual receipt of the request.” The only exceptions to that three-day response requirement are if there is “a legal basis for refusal to comply with the request” or “the entire request cannot with reasonable good faith efforts be fulfilled within three business days after actual receipt of the request due to the significant difficulty or the extensiveness of the request.” In either instance, § 84-305(2) requires the recipient of the request to take specific action in claiming the exception. The Agency failed to do so, clearly violating § 84-305(2). In no case not involving a legal basis for noncompliance, moreover, may the required compliance “exceed three calendar weeks after actual receipt of such request by any public entity.” Nevertheless, the additional documentation was not provided until over 11 weeks after being requested, which is another clear violation of § 84-305(2).
FINDING 2023-002 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) –Earmarking Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listing Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 20611-047-PN01, 21611-047-PN01, 20619-047-PN01, 21619-047-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, and Earmarking Audit Finding: Material Weakness, Other Matters Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).... 2 CFR 200.207(a) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may impose additional specific award conditions as needed . . ." 511 IAC 7-34-7(b) states: "The public agency, in providing special education and related services to students in nonpublic schools and facilities, must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools or facilities within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the earmarking portion of the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Cause: The School Corporation participates in a Special Education Cooperative that manages and operates the special education program and oversees the majority of the federal compliance requirements. The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Effect: The failure to establish an effective internal control system placed the School Corporation in noncompliance with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Noncompliance with the grant agreement or the compliance requirement could have resulted in the loss of federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no known questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation did not meet the earmarking requirements for the grants, which concluded during the audit period. Both the Special Education Grants to States and Special Education Preschool Grants required a proportionate share of their funding to be spent on non-public school students with disabilities. The 20611-047-PN01, 20619-047-PN01, 21611-047-PN01, 21619-047-PN01 grant awards were fully expended during the audit period with minimum Non-Public Proportionate Share earmarking requirements of $24,977, $1,171, $22,088, and $866, respectively. There was no supporting documentation provided to support any non-public school expenditures were incurred towards the meeting the non-public proportionate share requirement. Identification as a repeat finding: No. Recommendation: We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish internal controls to monitor earmarking requirements periodically to ensure compliance with the earmarking compliance requirements by the end of the grant period. This includes meeting with the Cooperative periodically to monitor and track progress towards meeting the earmarking requirements. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-002 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) –Earmarking Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listing Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 20611-047-PN01, 21611-047-PN01, 20619-047-PN01, 21619-047-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, and Earmarking Audit Finding: Material Weakness, Other Matters Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).... 2 CFR 200.207(a) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may impose additional specific award conditions as needed . . ." 511 IAC 7-34-7(b) states: "The public agency, in providing special education and related services to students in nonpublic schools and facilities, must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools or facilities within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the earmarking portion of the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Cause: The School Corporation participates in a Special Education Cooperative that manages and operates the special education program and oversees the majority of the federal compliance requirements. The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Effect: The failure to establish an effective internal control system placed the School Corporation in noncompliance with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Noncompliance with the grant agreement or the compliance requirement could have resulted in the loss of federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no known questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation did not meet the earmarking requirements for the grants, which concluded during the audit period. Both the Special Education Grants to States and Special Education Preschool Grants required a proportionate share of their funding to be spent on non-public school students with disabilities. The 20611-047-PN01, 20619-047-PN01, 21611-047-PN01, 21619-047-PN01 grant awards were fully expended during the audit period with minimum Non-Public Proportionate Share earmarking requirements of $24,977, $1,171, $22,088, and $866, respectively. There was no supporting documentation provided to support any non-public school expenditures were incurred towards the meeting the non-public proportionate share requirement. Identification as a repeat finding: No. Recommendation: We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish internal controls to monitor earmarking requirements periodically to ensure compliance with the earmarking compliance requirements by the end of the grant period. This includes meeting with the Cooperative periodically to monitor and track progress towards meeting the earmarking requirements. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-002 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) –Earmarking Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listing Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 20611-047-PN01, 21611-047-PN01, 20619-047-PN01, 21619-047-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, and Earmarking Audit Finding: Material Weakness, Other Matters Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).... 2 CFR 200.207(a) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may impose additional specific award conditions as needed . . ." 511 IAC 7-34-7(b) states: "The public agency, in providing special education and related services to students in nonpublic schools and facilities, must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools or facilities within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the earmarking portion of the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Cause: The School Corporation participates in a Special Education Cooperative that manages and operates the special education program and oversees the majority of the federal compliance requirements. The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Effect: The failure to establish an effective internal control system placed the School Corporation in noncompliance with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Noncompliance with the grant agreement or the compliance requirement could have resulted in the loss of federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no known questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation did not meet the earmarking requirements for the grants, which concluded during the audit period. Both the Special Education Grants to States and Special Education Preschool Grants required a proportionate share of their funding to be spent on non-public school students with disabilities. The 20611-047-PN01, 20619-047-PN01, 21611-047-PN01, 21619-047-PN01 grant awards were fully expended during the audit period with minimum Non-Public Proportionate Share earmarking requirements of $24,977, $1,171, $22,088, and $866, respectively. There was no supporting documentation provided to support any non-public school expenditures were incurred towards the meeting the non-public proportionate share requirement. Identification as a repeat finding: No. Recommendation: We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish internal controls to monitor earmarking requirements periodically to ensure compliance with the earmarking compliance requirements by the end of the grant period. This includes meeting with the Cooperative periodically to monitor and track progress towards meeting the earmarking requirements. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-002 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) –Earmarking Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listing Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 20611-047-PN01, 21611-047-PN01, 20619-047-PN01, 21619-047-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, and Earmarking Audit Finding: Material Weakness, Other Matters Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).... 2 CFR 200.207(a) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may impose additional specific award conditions as needed . . ." 511 IAC 7-34-7(b) states: "The public agency, in providing special education and related services to students in nonpublic schools and facilities, must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools or facilities within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the earmarking portion of the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Cause: The School Corporation participates in a Special Education Cooperative that manages and operates the special education program and oversees the majority of the federal compliance requirements. The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Effect: The failure to establish an effective internal control system placed the School Corporation in noncompliance with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Noncompliance with the grant agreement or the compliance requirement could have resulted in the loss of federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no known questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation did not meet the earmarking requirements for the grants, which concluded during the audit period. Both the Special Education Grants to States and Special Education Preschool Grants required a proportionate share of their funding to be spent on non-public school students with disabilities. The 20611-047-PN01, 20619-047-PN01, 21611-047-PN01, 21619-047-PN01 grant awards were fully expended during the audit period with minimum Non-Public Proportionate Share earmarking requirements of $24,977, $1,171, $22,088, and $866, respectively. There was no supporting documentation provided to support any non-public school expenditures were incurred towards the meeting the non-public proportionate share requirement. Identification as a repeat finding: No. Recommendation: We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish internal controls to monitor earmarking requirements periodically to ensure compliance with the earmarking compliance requirements by the end of the grant period. This includes meeting with the Cooperative periodically to monitor and track progress towards meeting the earmarking requirements. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-002 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) –Earmarking Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listing Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 20611-047-PN01, 21611-047-PN01, 20619-047-PN01, 21619-047-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, and Earmarking Audit Finding: Material Weakness, Other Matters Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).... 2 CFR 200.207(a) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may impose additional specific award conditions as needed . . ." 511 IAC 7-34-7(b) states: "The public agency, in providing special education and related services to students in nonpublic schools and facilities, must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools or facilities within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the earmarking portion of the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Cause: The School Corporation participates in a Special Education Cooperative that manages and operates the special education program and oversees the majority of the federal compliance requirements. The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Effect: The failure to establish an effective internal control system placed the School Corporation in noncompliance with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Noncompliance with the grant agreement or the compliance requirement could have resulted in the loss of federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no known questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation did not meet the earmarking requirements for the grants, which concluded during the audit period. Both the Special Education Grants to States and Special Education Preschool Grants required a proportionate share of their funding to be spent on non-public school students with disabilities. The 20611-047-PN01, 20619-047-PN01, 21611-047-PN01, 21619-047-PN01 grant awards were fully expended during the audit period with minimum Non-Public Proportionate Share earmarking requirements of $24,977, $1,171, $22,088, and $866, respectively. There was no supporting documentation provided to support any non-public school expenditures were incurred towards the meeting the non-public proportionate share requirement. Identification as a repeat finding: No. Recommendation: We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish internal controls to monitor earmarking requirements periodically to ensure compliance with the earmarking compliance requirements by the end of the grant period. This includes meeting with the Cooperative periodically to monitor and track progress towards meeting the earmarking requirements. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-002 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) –Earmarking Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listing Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 20611-047-PN01, 21611-047-PN01, 20619-047-PN01, 21619-047-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, and Earmarking Audit Finding: Material Weakness, Other Matters Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).... 2 CFR 200.207(a) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may impose additional specific award conditions as needed . . ." 511 IAC 7-34-7(b) states: "The public agency, in providing special education and related services to students in nonpublic schools and facilities, must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools or facilities within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the earmarking portion of the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Cause: The School Corporation participates in a Special Education Cooperative that manages and operates the special education program and oversees the majority of the federal compliance requirements. The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Effect: The failure to establish an effective internal control system placed the School Corporation in noncompliance with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Noncompliance with the grant agreement or the compliance requirement could have resulted in the loss of federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no known questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation did not meet the earmarking requirements for the grants, which concluded during the audit period. Both the Special Education Grants to States and Special Education Preschool Grants required a proportionate share of their funding to be spent on non-public school students with disabilities. The 20611-047-PN01, 20619-047-PN01, 21611-047-PN01, 21619-047-PN01 grant awards were fully expended during the audit period with minimum Non-Public Proportionate Share earmarking requirements of $24,977, $1,171, $22,088, and $866, respectively. There was no supporting documentation provided to support any non-public school expenditures were incurred towards the meeting the non-public proportionate share requirement. Identification as a repeat finding: No. Recommendation: We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish internal controls to monitor earmarking requirements periodically to ensure compliance with the earmarking compliance requirements by the end of the grant period. This includes meeting with the Cooperative periodically to monitor and track progress towards meeting the earmarking requirements. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-002 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) –Earmarking Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listing Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 20611-047-PN01, 21611-047-PN01, 20619-047-PN01, 21619-047-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, and Earmarking Audit Finding: Material Weakness, Other Matters Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).... 2 CFR 200.207(a) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may impose additional specific award conditions as needed . . ." 511 IAC 7-34-7(b) states: "The public agency, in providing special education and related services to students in nonpublic schools and facilities, must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools or facilities within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the earmarking portion of the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Cause: The School Corporation participates in a Special Education Cooperative that manages and operates the special education program and oversees the majority of the federal compliance requirements. The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Effect: The failure to establish an effective internal control system placed the School Corporation in noncompliance with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Noncompliance with the grant agreement or the compliance requirement could have resulted in the loss of federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no known questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation did not meet the earmarking requirements for the grants, which concluded during the audit period. Both the Special Education Grants to States and Special Education Preschool Grants required a proportionate share of their funding to be spent on non-public school students with disabilities. The 20611-047-PN01, 20619-047-PN01, 21611-047-PN01, 21619-047-PN01 grant awards were fully expended during the audit period with minimum Non-Public Proportionate Share earmarking requirements of $24,977, $1,171, $22,088, and $866, respectively. There was no supporting documentation provided to support any non-public school expenditures were incurred towards the meeting the non-public proportionate share requirement. Identification as a repeat finding: No. Recommendation: We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish internal controls to monitor earmarking requirements periodically to ensure compliance with the earmarking compliance requirements by the end of the grant period. This includes meeting with the Cooperative periodically to monitor and track progress towards meeting the earmarking requirements. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-002 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) –Earmarking Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listing Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 20611-047-PN01, 21611-047-PN01, 20619-047-PN01, 21619-047-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, and Earmarking Audit Finding: Material Weakness, Other Matters Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).... 2 CFR 200.207(a) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may impose additional specific award conditions as needed . . ." 511 IAC 7-34-7(b) states: "The public agency, in providing special education and related services to students in nonpublic schools and facilities, must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools or facilities within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the earmarking portion of the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Cause: The School Corporation participates in a Special Education Cooperative that manages and operates the special education program and oversees the majority of the federal compliance requirements. The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Effect: The failure to establish an effective internal control system placed the School Corporation in noncompliance with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Noncompliance with the grant agreement or the compliance requirement could have resulted in the loss of federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no known questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation did not meet the earmarking requirements for the grants, which concluded during the audit period. Both the Special Education Grants to States and Special Education Preschool Grants required a proportionate share of their funding to be spent on non-public school students with disabilities. The 20611-047-PN01, 20619-047-PN01, 21611-047-PN01, 21619-047-PN01 grant awards were fully expended during the audit period with minimum Non-Public Proportionate Share earmarking requirements of $24,977, $1,171, $22,088, and $866, respectively. There was no supporting documentation provided to support any non-public school expenditures were incurred towards the meeting the non-public proportionate share requirement. Identification as a repeat finding: No. Recommendation: We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish internal controls to monitor earmarking requirements periodically to ensure compliance with the earmarking compliance requirements by the end of the grant period. This includes meeting with the Cooperative periodically to monitor and track progress towards meeting the earmarking requirements. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-002 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) –Earmarking Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listing Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 20611-047-PN01, 21611-047-PN01, 20619-047-PN01, 21619-047-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, and Earmarking Audit Finding: Material Weakness, Other Matters Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).... 2 CFR 200.207(a) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may impose additional specific award conditions as needed . . ." 511 IAC 7-34-7(b) states: "The public agency, in providing special education and related services to students in nonpublic schools and facilities, must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools or facilities within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the earmarking portion of the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Cause: The School Corporation participates in a Special Education Cooperative that manages and operates the special education program and oversees the majority of the federal compliance requirements. The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Effect: The failure to establish an effective internal control system placed the School Corporation in noncompliance with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Noncompliance with the grant agreement or the compliance requirement could have resulted in the loss of federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no known questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation did not meet the earmarking requirements for the grants, which concluded during the audit period. Both the Special Education Grants to States and Special Education Preschool Grants required a proportionate share of their funding to be spent on non-public school students with disabilities. The 20611-047-PN01, 20619-047-PN01, 21611-047-PN01, 21619-047-PN01 grant awards were fully expended during the audit period with minimum Non-Public Proportionate Share earmarking requirements of $24,977, $1,171, $22,088, and $866, respectively. There was no supporting documentation provided to support any non-public school expenditures were incurred towards the meeting the non-public proportionate share requirement. Identification as a repeat finding: No. Recommendation: We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish internal controls to monitor earmarking requirements periodically to ensure compliance with the earmarking compliance requirements by the end of the grant period. This includes meeting with the Cooperative periodically to monitor and track progress towards meeting the earmarking requirements. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-002 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) –Earmarking Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listing Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 20611-047-PN01, 21611-047-PN01, 20619-047-PN01, 21619-047-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, and Earmarking Audit Finding: Material Weakness, Other Matters Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).... 2 CFR 200.207(a) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may impose additional specific award conditions as needed . . ." 511 IAC 7-34-7(b) states: "The public agency, in providing special education and related services to students in nonpublic schools and facilities, must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools or facilities within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the earmarking portion of the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Cause: The School Corporation participates in a Special Education Cooperative that manages and operates the special education program and oversees the majority of the federal compliance requirements. The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Effect: The failure to establish an effective internal control system placed the School Corporation in noncompliance with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Noncompliance with the grant agreement or the compliance requirement could have resulted in the loss of federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no known questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation did not meet the earmarking requirements for the grants, which concluded during the audit period. Both the Special Education Grants to States and Special Education Preschool Grants required a proportionate share of their funding to be spent on non-public school students with disabilities. The 20611-047-PN01, 20619-047-PN01, 21611-047-PN01, 21619-047-PN01 grant awards were fully expended during the audit period with minimum Non-Public Proportionate Share earmarking requirements of $24,977, $1,171, $22,088, and $866, respectively. There was no supporting documentation provided to support any non-public school expenditures were incurred towards the meeting the non-public proportionate share requirement. Identification as a repeat finding: No. Recommendation: We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish internal controls to monitor earmarking requirements periodically to ensure compliance with the earmarking compliance requirements by the end of the grant period. This includes meeting with the Cooperative periodically to monitor and track progress towards meeting the earmarking requirements. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-008 Subject: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies Assistance Listings Number: 84.010 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S010A190014, S010A200014, S010A210014, S010A220014 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context The School Corporation had not properly designed or implemented a system of internal controls, which would include appropriate segregation of duties, that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance related to the Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security compliance requirement. The School Corporation had not developed and adopted a written test security policy. Although training had been provided to staff on an annual basis, the School Corporation had not established a system of internal controls regarding test security for assessments. In addition, there were no documented internal controls in place to ensure all individuals that should have received training did receive training. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance due to not adopting a test security policy were systemic issues throughout the audit period. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 27 CROTHERSVILLE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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 200.207(a) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may impose additional specific award conditions as needed, . . ." 511 IAC 5-5-5(b) states: "Any individual who administers, handles, or has access to secure test materials at the school or school corporation shall complete assessment training and sign a testing security and integrity agreement to remain on file in the appropriate building-level office each year." Indiana Assessment Program Manual, Section 10, Part D states in part: ". . . Locally developed written test security policies must include, but not be limited to, the following descriptions regarding how the corporation will: ● Ensure that all appropriate staff have knowledge of the Code of Ethical Practices and Procedures and understand how to secure, administer, and handle the assessments while in their possession. ● Ensure all appropriate staff receive Test Security and Integrity Training prior to IDOE's established deadline. ● Ensure all appropriate staff receive test administration training prior to the stare of the state testing window for each assessment. ● Ensure staff members who will provide students with testing accommodations are familiar with each student's individual accommodation needs as per the student's IEP, ILP, Section 504 Plan, CSEP, and/or Service Plan prior to testing. ● Ensure staff members who will provide students with test accommodations receive focused training on providing such accommodations prior to the start of the state testing window for each assessment. ● Ensure all appropriate staff receive test security refresher training prior to the start of the state testing window for each assessment. ● Define and clearly communicate at least once annually for all appropriate staff how staff implementation of test administration and test security standards and procedures will be monitored by school administrators. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 28 CROTHERSVILLE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) ● Provide any other information and professional development necessary to ensure that all appropriate staff have the knowledge and skills necessary to make ethical decisions related to preparing students for an assessment, administering the assessment, and interpreting the results from assessment. ● Establish a testing schedule. At a minimum, the schedule should include the assessment name, testing dates and times, applicable grade levels, content areas, and testing room locations. Local testing schedules must be developed prior to the start of the state testing window for each assessment. ● Establish an access policy for assessment materials that allows only appropriate staff to have access to test administration manuals prior to the administration of the test, but prohibits the reviewing of any secure test questions before, during, or after the assessment administration. ● Establish a process that ensures all student assessments are secure when they are not being administered. ● Annually review school materials and practices related to preparing students for assessments. The description must include an explanation regarding how the corporation will ensure test preparation materials used by school staff are appropriate and do not violate test security protocols. ● Monitor testing to ensure staff are administering assessments with fidelity in terms of test administration and test security protocols/procedures and that staff are appropriately providing students with accommodations included in their formal plan. ● Provide channels of communication that allow teachers, administrators, students, parents/guardians, and other community members to voice their concerns about testing practices they consider inappropriate (see the Testing Concerns and Security Violations Report form in Appendix C). ● Establish procedures for investigating any complaint, allegation, or concern about inappropriate testing practices, and ensuring the protection of both the rights of individuals and of the integrity of the assessment. ● Investigate any complaint of inappropriate testing practices or testing irregularities according to the Protocol for Reporting and Investigating Alleged Breaches as established and published pursuant to 511 IAC 5-5-4 (see Appendix A)." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation, which would include segregation of key functions. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper design or implementation of the components of a system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that provide segregation of duties and additional oversight as needed, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, the School Corporation did not have a written test security policy. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 29 CROTHERSVILLE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure a written test security policy is created and adopted. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-008 Subject: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies Assistance Listings Number: 84.010 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S010A190014, S010A200014, S010A210014, S010A220014 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context The School Corporation had not properly designed or implemented a system of internal controls, which would include appropriate segregation of duties, that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance related to the Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security compliance requirement. The School Corporation had not developed and adopted a written test security policy. Although training had been provided to staff on an annual basis, the School Corporation had not established a system of internal controls regarding test security for assessments. In addition, there were no documented internal controls in place to ensure all individuals that should have received training did receive training. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance due to not adopting a test security policy were systemic issues throughout the audit period. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 27 CROTHERSVILLE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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 200.207(a) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may impose additional specific award conditions as needed, . . ." 511 IAC 5-5-5(b) states: "Any individual who administers, handles, or has access to secure test materials at the school or school corporation shall complete assessment training and sign a testing security and integrity agreement to remain on file in the appropriate building-level office each year." Indiana Assessment Program Manual, Section 10, Part D states in part: ". . . Locally developed written test security policies must include, but not be limited to, the following descriptions regarding how the corporation will: ● Ensure that all appropriate staff have knowledge of the Code of Ethical Practices and Procedures and understand how to secure, administer, and handle the assessments while in their possession. ● Ensure all appropriate staff receive Test Security and Integrity Training prior to IDOE's established deadline. ● Ensure all appropriate staff receive test administration training prior to the stare of the state testing window for each assessment. ● Ensure staff members who will provide students with testing accommodations are familiar with each student's individual accommodation needs as per the student's IEP, ILP, Section 504 Plan, CSEP, and/or Service Plan prior to testing. ● Ensure staff members who will provide students with test accommodations receive focused training on providing such accommodations prior to the start of the state testing window for each assessment. ● Ensure all appropriate staff receive test security refresher training prior to the start of the state testing window for each assessment. ● Define and clearly communicate at least once annually for all appropriate staff how staff implementation of test administration and test security standards and procedures will be monitored by school administrators. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 28 CROTHERSVILLE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) ● Provide any other information and professional development necessary to ensure that all appropriate staff have the knowledge and skills necessary to make ethical decisions related to preparing students for an assessment, administering the assessment, and interpreting the results from assessment. ● Establish a testing schedule. At a minimum, the schedule should include the assessment name, testing dates and times, applicable grade levels, content areas, and testing room locations. Local testing schedules must be developed prior to the start of the state testing window for each assessment. ● Establish an access policy for assessment materials that allows only appropriate staff to have access to test administration manuals prior to the administration of the test, but prohibits the reviewing of any secure test questions before, during, or after the assessment administration. ● Establish a process that ensures all student assessments are secure when they are not being administered. ● Annually review school materials and practices related to preparing students for assessments. The description must include an explanation regarding how the corporation will ensure test preparation materials used by school staff are appropriate and do not violate test security protocols. ● Monitor testing to ensure staff are administering assessments with fidelity in terms of test administration and test security protocols/procedures and that staff are appropriately providing students with accommodations included in their formal plan. ● Provide channels of communication that allow teachers, administrators, students, parents/guardians, and other community members to voice their concerns about testing practices they consider inappropriate (see the Testing Concerns and Security Violations Report form in Appendix C). ● Establish procedures for investigating any complaint, allegation, or concern about inappropriate testing practices, and ensuring the protection of both the rights of individuals and of the integrity of the assessment. ● Investigate any complaint of inappropriate testing practices or testing irregularities according to the Protocol for Reporting and Investigating Alleged Breaches as established and published pursuant to 511 IAC 5-5-4 (see Appendix A)." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation, which would include segregation of key functions. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper design or implementation of the components of a system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that provide segregation of duties and additional oversight as needed, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, the School Corporation did not have a written test security policy. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 29 CROTHERSVILLE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure a written test security policy is created and adopted. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
1. Final Expenditure Report Finding Number: 2023-002 Assistance Listing Number and Title: AL #84.425 COVID-19 – Education Stabilization Fund Federal Award Identification Number / Year: 2023 Federal Agency: Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Reporting Pass-Through Entity: Ohio Department of Education and Workforce Repeat Finding from Prior Audit? No Noncompliance and Material Weakness 2 CFR § 3474.1 provides the Department of Education (DOE) adopts the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidance in 2 CFR part 200, except for 2 CFR § 200.102(a) and 2 CFR § 200.207(a). Thus, this part gives regulatory effect to the OMB guidance and supplements the guidance as needed for the DOE. As documented by the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce Office of Federal and State Grants Management, the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce requires school districts to submit the American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief 2023 grant Final Expenditure Report (FER) by December 1, 2023. School Districts must complete the FER at the end of each fiscal year for the prior state fiscal year’s Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief expenditures. All expenses reported on the FER should be paid. There should be no encumbered amounts. The Treasurer and Superintendent approved and submitted the Final Expenditure Report for the American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief 2023 grant on September 26, 2023. However, the expenditures in this submission included the American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief 2022 grant expenditures as well as the 2023 grant. In an attempt to correct this, the Treasurer posted adjustments to the American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund on November 28, 2023 totaling $50,798 and on January 23, 2024 totaling $242,907. However, the amounts adjusted by the Treasurer in November 2023 and January 2024 would not be considered federal expenditures until the time management made the decision to allocate those allowable costs to the program. As such, those adjusted expenditures could appear on the fiscal year 2024 Final Expenditure Report but not fiscal year 2023. Therefore, the American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief 2023 grant Final Expenditure Report submitted to the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce overstated object codes 100 by $174,529, 200 by $81,982, 400 by $29,536, and 500 by $7,689. The School District should review the Final Expenditure Report before submission to help ensure all required amounts are included.
1. Final Expenditure Report Finding Number: 2023-002 Assistance Listing Number and Title: AL #84.425 COVID-19 – Education Stabilization Fund Federal Award Identification Number / Year: 2023 Federal Agency: Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Reporting Pass-Through Entity: Ohio Department of Education and Workforce Repeat Finding from Prior Audit? No Noncompliance and Material Weakness 2 CFR § 3474.1 provides the Department of Education (DOE) adopts the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidance in 2 CFR part 200, except for 2 CFR § 200.102(a) and 2 CFR § 200.207(a). Thus, this part gives regulatory effect to the OMB guidance and supplements the guidance as needed for the DOE. As documented by the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce Office of Federal and State Grants Management, the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce requires school districts to submit the American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief 2023 grant Final Expenditure Report (FER) by December 1, 2023. School Districts must complete the FER at the end of each fiscal year for the prior state fiscal year’s Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief expenditures. All expenses reported on the FER should be paid. There should be no encumbered amounts. The Treasurer and Superintendent approved and submitted the Final Expenditure Report for the American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief 2023 grant on September 26, 2023. However, the expenditures in this submission included the American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief 2022 grant expenditures as well as the 2023 grant. In an attempt to correct this, the Treasurer posted adjustments to the American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund on November 28, 2023 totaling $50,798 and on January 23, 2024 totaling $242,907. However, the amounts adjusted by the Treasurer in November 2023 and January 2024 would not be considered federal expenditures until the time management made the decision to allocate those allowable costs to the program. As such, those adjusted expenditures could appear on the fiscal year 2024 Final Expenditure Report but not fiscal year 2023. Therefore, the American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief 2023 grant Final Expenditure Report submitted to the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce overstated object codes 100 by $174,529, 200 by $81,982, 400 by $29,536, and 500 by $7,689. The School District should review the Final Expenditure Report before submission to help ensure all required amounts are included.
2 CFR § 3474.1 provides the Department of Education (DOE) adopts the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidance in 2 CFR part 200, except for 2 CFR § 200.102(a) and 2 CFR § 200.207(a). Thus, this part gives regulatory effect to the OMB guidance and supplements the guidance as needed for the DOE. 2 CFR § 200.329(a) provides that the non-Federal entity is responsible for oversight of the operations of the Federal award supported activities. The non-Federal entity must monitor its activities under Federal awards to assure compliance with applicable Federal requirements and performance expectations are being achieved. Monitoring by the non-Federal entity must cover each program, function or activity. See also § 200.332. 2 CFR § 200.302(b)(2) provides, in part, that the financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in §§ 200.328 and 200.329. 2 CFR § 200.332(d) provides, in part, that a pass-through entity must monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. Pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: (1) reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. The Ohio Department of Education requires school districts to file a Final Expenditure Report each year by September 30, unless stated otherwise in the grant application. ODE further requires subgrantees to obligate funds within the approved project period as set forth in the approved application and to liquidate said obligations not later than 90 days after the end of the project period for electronic applications for grants, with obligations having the same meaning as in 2 CFR §§ 200.343 and 200.1. ODE also requires all allowable grant expenditures obligated by the project end date as designated in the grant agreement to be reported in the FER. The District did file the Final Expenditure Report with ODE before the required reporting deadline, however, due to deficiencies in the internal policies and procedures over Federal compliance, the District did not exclude the prior grant year expenditures obligated during the prior fiscal year, but not paid until after June 30, 2022. This resulted in expenditures being overreported in the amount of $78,795; however, this oversight did not result in additional federal funding. Failure to file accurate financial information in the Final Expenditure Report could lead to material misstatements and could impact future grant funding. The District should review the Final Expenditure Report before submission to help ensure all required amounts are included.
2 CFR § 3474.1 provides the Department of Education (DOE) adopts the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidance in 2 CFR part 200, except for 2 CFR § 200.102(a) and 2 CFR § 200.207(a). Thus, this part gives regulatory effect to the OMB guidance and supplements the guidance as needed for the DOE. 2 CFR § 200.329(a) provides that the non-Federal entity is responsible for oversight of the operations of the Federal award supported activities. The non-Federal entity must monitor its activities under Federal awards to assure compliance with applicable Federal requirements and performance expectations are being achieved. Monitoring by the non-Federal entity must cover each program, function or activity. See also § 200.332. 2 CFR § 200.302(b)(2) provides, in part, that the financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in §§ 200.328 and 200.329. 2 CFR § 200.332(d) provides, in part, that a pass-through entity must monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. Pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: (1) reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. The Ohio Department of Education requires school districts to file a Final Expenditure Report each year by September 30, unless stated otherwise in the grant application. ODE further requires subgrantees to obligate funds within the approved project period as set forth in the approved application and to liquidate said obligations not later than 90 days after the end of the project period for electronic applications for grants, with obligations having the same meaning as in 2 CFR §§ 200.343 and 200.1. ODE also requires all allowable grant expenditures obligated by the project end date as designated in the grant agreement to be reported in the FER. The District did file the Final Expenditure Report with ODE before the required reporting deadline, however, due to deficiencies in the internal policies and procedures over Federal compliance, the District did not exclude the prior grant year expenditures obligated during the prior fiscal year, but not paid until after June 30, 2022. This resulted in expenditures being overreported in the amount of $78,795; however, this oversight did not result in additional federal funding. Failure to file accurate financial information in the Final Expenditure Report could lead to material misstatements and could impact future grant funding. The District should review the Final Expenditure Report before submission to help ensure all required amounts are included.
2 CFR ? 3474.1 provides the Department of Education (DOE) adopts the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidance in 2 CFR part 200, except for 2 CFR ? 200.102(a) and 2 CFR ? 200.207(a). Thus, this part gives regulatory effect to the OMB guidance and supplements the guidance as needed for the DOE. The Ohio Department of Education requires school districts to file a Final Expenditure Report each year by September 30, unless stated otherwise in the grant application. ODE further requires subgrantees to obligate funds within the approved project period as set forth in the approved application and to liquidate said obligations not later than 90 days after the end of the project period for electronic applications for grants. ODE also requires all allowable grant expenditures obligated by the project end date and liquidated no later than 90 days after the end of the project period as designated in the grant agreement to be reported in the FER. The District did file the Final Expenditure Report with ODE before the required reporting deadline, however, due to deficiencies in the internal policies and procedures over Federal compliance, the District did not report expenditures obligated after fiscal year end and prior to the project end date for the Assistance Listing #84.425U American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ARP ESSER) Fund grant, resulting in expenditures being underreported in the amount of $51,114. In addition, the District did not report any Assistance Listing #84.425D Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER I) Fund expenditures, totaling $2,843, that occurred during the fiscal year. Failure to file accurate financial information in the Final Expenditure Report could lead to material misstatements and could impact future grant funding. The District should review the Final Expenditure Report before submission to help ensure all required amounts are included.
2 CFR ? 3474.1 provides the Department of Education (DOE) adopts the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidance in 2 CFR part 200, except for 2 CFR ? 200.102(a) and 2 CFR ? 200.207(a). Thus, this part gives regulatory effect to the OMB guidance and supplements the guidance as needed for the DOE. The Ohio Department of Education requires school districts to file a Final Expenditure Report each year by September 30, unless stated otherwise in the grant application. ODE further requires subgrantees to obligate funds within the approved project period as set forth in the approved application and to liquidate said obligations not later than 90 days after the end of the project period for electronic applications for grants. ODE also requires all allowable grant expenditures obligated by the project end date and liquidated no later than 90 days after the end of the project period as designated in the grant agreement to be reported in the FER. The District did file the Final Expenditure Report with ODE before the required reporting deadline, however, due to deficiencies in the internal policies and procedures over Federal compliance, the District did not report expenditures obligated after fiscal year end and prior to the project end date for the Assistance Listing #84.425U American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ARP ESSER) Fund grant, resulting in expenditures being underreported in the amount of $51,114. In addition, the District did not report any Assistance Listing #84.425D Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER I) Fund expenditures, totaling $2,843, that occurred during the fiscal year. Failure to file accurate financial information in the Final Expenditure Report could lead to material misstatements and could impact future grant funding. The District should review the Final Expenditure Report before submission to help ensure all required amounts are included.
2 CFR ? 3474.1 provides the Department of Education (DOE) adopts the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidance in 2 CFR part 200, except for 2 CFR ? 200.102(a) and 2 CFR ? 200.207(a). Thus, this part gives regulatory effect to the OMB guidance and supplements the guidance as needed for the DOE. The Ohio Department of Education requires school districts to file a Final Expenditure Report each year by September 30, unless stated otherwise in the grant application. ODE further requires subgrantees to obligate funds within the approved project period as set forth in the approved application and to liquidate said obligations not later than 90 days after the end of the project period for electronic applications for grants. ODE also requires all allowable grant expenditures obligated by the project end date and liquidated no later than 90 days after the end of the project period as designated in the grant agreement to be reported in the FER. The District did file the Final Expenditure Report with ODE before the required reporting deadline, however, due to deficiencies in the internal policies and procedures over Federal compliance, the District did not report expenditures obligated after fiscal year end and prior to the project end date for the Assistance Listing #84.425U American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ARP ESSER) Fund grant, resulting in expenditures being underreported in the amount of $51,114. In addition, the District did not report any Assistance Listing #84.425D Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER I) Fund expenditures, totaling $2,843, that occurred during the fiscal year. Failure to file accurate financial information in the Final Expenditure Report could lead to material misstatements and could impact future grant funding. The District should review the Final Expenditure Report before submission to help ensure all required amounts are included.
FINDING 2022-006 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Earmarking Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 19611-014-PN01, 19619-014-PN01, 20611-014-PN01, 20619-014-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2020-011. Condition and Context The School Corporation had not established an effective internal control system to ensure the earmarking requirements for the Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) and the Non-Public Proportionate Share were met. Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) When an LEA is identified with significant disproportionality, they are required to expend exactly 15 percent of their total combined 611 and 619 allocation on CEIS expenses. The School Corporation had a mandatory CEIS amount of $254,650 for the 19611-014-PN01 grant. Per the submitted CEIS monitoring report, expenses related to CEIS were $273,292; however, no supporting documentation was provided with the report to substantiate this amount. Furthermore, the ledgers had expenses of $324,522 related to CEIS. As such we could not determine the amount spent for CEIS. Additionally, no documented review of the CEIS amounts expended was provided for audit to ensure the School Corporation would meet, but not exceed the required amount. The lack of internal controls, availability of supporting documentation, and noncompliance were isolated to the 19611-014-PN01 grant award. Non-Public Proportionate Share Proportionate share is an amount of funds that must be expended on special education or related services for parentally-placed private school and homeschooled students. Supporting documentation was not provided to substantiate the amounts reported as expensed for the nonpublic students. However, based on the expenses reported in the ledgers related to nonpublic schools, the required earmarking amounts for nonpublic proportionate share for the 19619-014-PN01, 20611-014-PN01, or 20619-014-PN01 grants was not spent. Additionally, no documented review of the amounts expended for proportionate share was provided for audit to ensure the School Corporation would spend the required amount. The lack of internal controls, availability of supporting documentation, and noncompliance were isolated to the 19619-014-PN01, 20611-014-PN01, and 20619-014-PN01 grant awards. 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). . . ." 34 CFR 300.226(a) states: "General. An LEA may not use more than 15 percent of the amount the LEA receives under Part B of the Act for any fiscal year, less any amount reduced by the LEA pursuant to ? 300.205, if any, in combination with other amounts (which may include amounts other than education funds), to develop and implement coordinated, early intervening services, which may include interagency financing structures, for students in kindergarten through grade 12 (with a particular emphasis on students in kindergarten through grade three) who are not currently identified as needing special education or related services, but who need additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in a general education environment. (See appendix D for examples of how ? 300.205(d), regarding local maintenance of effort, and ? 300.226(a) affect one another.)" 2 CFR 200.207(a) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may impose additional specific award conditions as needed. . . ." 511 IAC 7-34-7(b) states: "The public agency, in providing special education and related services to students in nonpublic schools and facilities, must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools or facilities within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Cause Management had not established an effective system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance, or that supporting documentation would have been maintained and made available for audit, with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Effect The failure to design and implement an effective system of internal controls and to retain supporting documentation prevented the determination of the School Corporation's compliance with the compliance requirement listed above. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a system of internal controls to ensure that documentation will be maintained and made available for audit and to comply with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking, compliance requirement. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-007 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Reporting Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 19611-014-PN01, 19619-014-PN01, 20611-014-PN01, 20619-014-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Reporting Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context Reimbursement requests are submitted through the Indiana Department of Education information portal after review by the Executive Director of the Elkhart County Special Education Cooperative and the School Corporation's Treasurer. Supporting documentation was not provided to substantiate the amounts reported on the reimbursement requests. Ledgers provided during the audit were used to determine amounts requested by abstracting the expenses for each Special Education Fund. However, upon testing of the reimbursement requests it was determined that the documentation, or lack thereof, accompanying the reimbursement requests was not sufficient to prevent or detect noncompliance. Therefore, an internal control had not been properly designed and implemented. ? 19611-014-PN01 - Reimbursement request totaled $105,205, and ledger detail provided for audit totaled $110,703, with a variance of $5,498 recorded in the ledger but not requested for reimbursement. ? 20611-014-PN01 - Reimbursement request totaled $638,466, and ledger detail provided for audit totaled $597,441, with a variance of $41,025 over requested on the reimbursement. ? 19619-014-PN01 - Reimbursement request totaled $71,486, and ledger detail provided for audit totaled $69,527, with a variance of $1,959 over requested on the reimbursement. ? 20619-014-PN01 - Reimbursement request totaled $72,589, and ledger detail provided for audit totaled $72,031, with a variance of $558 over requested on the reimbursement. The lack of internal controls, availability of supporting documentation, 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 200.207(a) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may impose additional specific award conditions as needed, . . ." 2 CFR 200.327 states: "Unless otherwise approved by OMB, the Federal awarding agency may solicit only the standard, OMB-approved governmentwide data elements for collection of financial information (at time of publication the Federal Financial Report or such future collections as may be approved by OMB and listed on the OMB Web site). This information must be collected with the frequency required by the terms and conditions of the Federal award, but no less frequently than annually nor more frequently than quarterly except in unusual circumstances, for example where more frequent reporting is necessary for the effective monitoring of the Federal award or could significantly affect program outcomes, and preferably in coordination with performance reporting." Cause Management had not established an effective system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance, or that supporting documentation would have been maintained and made available for audit, with the grant agreement and the Reporting compliance requirement. Effect The failure to design and implement an effective internal control system and to retain supporting documentation prevented the determination of the School Corporation's compliance with the compliance requirement listed above. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a system of internal controls to ensure that documentation will be maintained and made available for audit and to comply with the grant agreement and the Reporting compliance requirement. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-006 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Earmarking Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 19611-014-PN01, 19619-014-PN01, 20611-014-PN01, 20619-014-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2020-011. Condition and Context The School Corporation had not established an effective internal control system to ensure the earmarking requirements for the Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) and the Non-Public Proportionate Share were met. Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) When an LEA is identified with significant disproportionality, they are required to expend exactly 15 percent of their total combined 611 and 619 allocation on CEIS expenses. The School Corporation had a mandatory CEIS amount of $254,650 for the 19611-014-PN01 grant. Per the submitted CEIS monitoring report, expenses related to CEIS were $273,292; however, no supporting documentation was provided with the report to substantiate this amount. Furthermore, the ledgers had expenses of $324,522 related to CEIS. As such we could not determine the amount spent for CEIS. Additionally, no documented review of the CEIS amounts expended was provided for audit to ensure the School Corporation would meet, but not exceed the required amount. The lack of internal controls, availability of supporting documentation, and noncompliance were isolated to the 19611-014-PN01 grant award. Non-Public Proportionate Share Proportionate share is an amount of funds that must be expended on special education or related services for parentally-placed private school and homeschooled students. Supporting documentation was not provided to substantiate the amounts reported as expensed for the nonpublic students. However, based on the expenses reported in the ledgers related to nonpublic schools, the required earmarking amounts for nonpublic proportionate share for the 19619-014-PN01, 20611-014-PN01, or 20619-014-PN01 grants was not spent. Additionally, no documented review of the amounts expended for proportionate share was provided for audit to ensure the School Corporation would spend the required amount. The lack of internal controls, availability of supporting documentation, and noncompliance were isolated to the 19619-014-PN01, 20611-014-PN01, and 20619-014-PN01 grant awards. 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). . . ." 34 CFR 300.226(a) states: "General. An LEA may not use more than 15 percent of the amount the LEA receives under Part B of the Act for any fiscal year, less any amount reduced by the LEA pursuant to ? 300.205, if any, in combination with other amounts (which may include amounts other than education funds), to develop and implement coordinated, early intervening services, which may include interagency financing structures, for students in kindergarten through grade 12 (with a particular emphasis on students in kindergarten through grade three) who are not currently identified as needing special education or related services, but who need additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in a general education environment. (See appendix D for examples of how ? 300.205(d), regarding local maintenance of effort, and ? 300.226(a) affect one another.)" 2 CFR 200.207(a) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may impose additional specific award conditions as needed. . . ." 511 IAC 7-34-7(b) states: "The public agency, in providing special education and related services to students in nonpublic schools and facilities, must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools or facilities within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Cause Management had not established an effective system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance, or that supporting documentation would have been maintained and made available for audit, with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Effect The failure to design and implement an effective system of internal controls and to retain supporting documentation prevented the determination of the School Corporation's compliance with the compliance requirement listed above. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a system of internal controls to ensure that documentation will be maintained and made available for audit and to comply with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking, compliance requirement. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-007 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Reporting Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 19611-014-PN01, 19619-014-PN01, 20611-014-PN01, 20619-014-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Reporting Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context Reimbursement requests are submitted through the Indiana Department of Education information portal after review by the Executive Director of the Elkhart County Special Education Cooperative and the School Corporation's Treasurer. Supporting documentation was not provided to substantiate the amounts reported on the reimbursement requests. Ledgers provided during the audit were used to determine amounts requested by abstracting the expenses for each Special Education Fund. However, upon testing of the reimbursement requests it was determined that the documentation, or lack thereof, accompanying the reimbursement requests was not sufficient to prevent or detect noncompliance. Therefore, an internal control had not been properly designed and implemented. ? 19611-014-PN01 - Reimbursement request totaled $105,205, and ledger detail provided for audit totaled $110,703, with a variance of $5,498 recorded in the ledger but not requested for reimbursement. ? 20611-014-PN01 - Reimbursement request totaled $638,466, and ledger detail provided for audit totaled $597,441, with a variance of $41,025 over requested on the reimbursement. ? 19619-014-PN01 - Reimbursement request totaled $71,486, and ledger detail provided for audit totaled $69,527, with a variance of $1,959 over requested on the reimbursement. ? 20619-014-PN01 - Reimbursement request totaled $72,589, and ledger detail provided for audit totaled $72,031, with a variance of $558 over requested on the reimbursement. The lack of internal controls, availability of supporting documentation, 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 200.207(a) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may impose additional specific award conditions as needed, . . ." 2 CFR 200.327 states: "Unless otherwise approved by OMB, the Federal awarding agency may solicit only the standard, OMB-approved governmentwide data elements for collection of financial information (at time of publication the Federal Financial Report or such future collections as may be approved by OMB and listed on the OMB Web site). This information must be collected with the frequency required by the terms and conditions of the Federal award, but no less frequently than annually nor more frequently than quarterly except in unusual circumstances, for example where more frequent reporting is necessary for the effective monitoring of the Federal award or could significantly affect program outcomes, and preferably in coordination with performance reporting." Cause Management had not established an effective system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance, or that supporting documentation would have been maintained and made available for audit, with the grant agreement and the Reporting compliance requirement. Effect The failure to design and implement an effective internal control system and to retain supporting documentation prevented the determination of the School Corporation's compliance with the compliance requirement listed above. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a system of internal controls to ensure that documentation will be maintained and made available for audit and to comply with the grant agreement and the Reporting compliance requirement. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-006 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Earmarking Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 19611-014-PN01, 19619-014-PN01, 20611-014-PN01, 20619-014-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2020-011. Condition and Context The School Corporation had not established an effective internal control system to ensure the earmarking requirements for the Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) and the Non-Public Proportionate Share were met. Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) When an LEA is identified with significant disproportionality, they are required to expend exactly 15 percent of their total combined 611 and 619 allocation on CEIS expenses. The School Corporation had a mandatory CEIS amount of $254,650 for the 19611-014-PN01 grant. Per the submitted CEIS monitoring report, expenses related to CEIS were $273,292; however, no supporting documentation was provided with the report to substantiate this amount. Furthermore, the ledgers had expenses of $324,522 related to CEIS. As such we could not determine the amount spent for CEIS. Additionally, no documented review of the CEIS amounts expended was provided for audit to ensure the School Corporation would meet, but not exceed the required amount. The lack of internal controls, availability of supporting documentation, and noncompliance were isolated to the 19611-014-PN01 grant award. Non-Public Proportionate Share Proportionate share is an amount of funds that must be expended on special education or related services for parentally-placed private school and homeschooled students. Supporting documentation was not provided to substantiate the amounts reported as expensed for the nonpublic students. However, based on the expenses reported in the ledgers related to nonpublic schools, the required earmarking amounts for nonpublic proportionate share for the 19619-014-PN01, 20611-014-PN01, or 20619-014-PN01 grants was not spent. Additionally, no documented review of the amounts expended for proportionate share was provided for audit to ensure the School Corporation would spend the required amount. The lack of internal controls, availability of supporting documentation, and noncompliance were isolated to the 19619-014-PN01, 20611-014-PN01, and 20619-014-PN01 grant awards. 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). . . ." 34 CFR 300.226(a) states: "General. An LEA may not use more than 15 percent of the amount the LEA receives under Part B of the Act for any fiscal year, less any amount reduced by the LEA pursuant to ? 300.205, if any, in combination with other amounts (which may include amounts other than education funds), to develop and implement coordinated, early intervening services, which may include interagency financing structures, for students in kindergarten through grade 12 (with a particular emphasis on students in kindergarten through grade three) who are not currently identified as needing special education or related services, but who need additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in a general education environment. (See appendix D for examples of how ? 300.205(d), regarding local maintenance of effort, and ? 300.226(a) affect one another.)" 2 CFR 200.207(a) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may impose additional specific award conditions as needed. . . ." 511 IAC 7-34-7(b) states: "The public agency, in providing special education and related services to students in nonpublic schools and facilities, must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools or facilities within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Cause Management had not established an effective system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance, or that supporting documentation would have been maintained and made available for audit, with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Effect The failure to design and implement an effective system of internal controls and to retain supporting documentation prevented the determination of the School Corporation's compliance with the compliance requirement listed above. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a system of internal controls to ensure that documentation will be maintained and made available for audit and to comply with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking, compliance requirement. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-007 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Reporting Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 19611-014-PN01, 19619-014-PN01, 20611-014-PN01, 20619-014-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Reporting Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context Reimbursement requests are submitted through the Indiana Department of Education information portal after review by the Executive Director of the Elkhart County Special Education Cooperative and the School Corporation's Treasurer. Supporting documentation was not provided to substantiate the amounts reported on the reimbursement requests. Ledgers provided during the audit were used to determine amounts requested by abstracting the expenses for each Special Education Fund. However, upon testing of the reimbursement requests it was determined that the documentation, or lack thereof, accompanying the reimbursement requests was not sufficient to prevent or detect noncompliance. Therefore, an internal control had not been properly designed and implemented. ? 19611-014-PN01 - Reimbursement request totaled $105,205, and ledger detail provided for audit totaled $110,703, with a variance of $5,498 recorded in the ledger but not requested for reimbursement. ? 20611-014-PN01 - Reimbursement request totaled $638,466, and ledger detail provided for audit totaled $597,441, with a variance of $41,025 over requested on the reimbursement. ? 19619-014-PN01 - Reimbursement request totaled $71,486, and ledger detail provided for audit totaled $69,527, with a variance of $1,959 over requested on the reimbursement. ? 20619-014-PN01 - Reimbursement request totaled $72,589, and ledger detail provided for audit totaled $72,031, with a variance of $558 over requested on the reimbursement. The lack of internal controls, availability of supporting documentation, 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 200.207(a) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may impose additional specific award conditions as needed, . . ." 2 CFR 200.327 states: "Unless otherwise approved by OMB, the Federal awarding agency may solicit only the standard, OMB-approved governmentwide data elements for collection of financial information (at time of publication the Federal Financial Report or such future collections as may be approved by OMB and listed on the OMB Web site). This information must be collected with the frequency required by the terms and conditions of the Federal award, but no less frequently than annually nor more frequently than quarterly except in unusual circumstances, for example where more frequent reporting is necessary for the effective monitoring of the Federal award or could significantly affect program outcomes, and preferably in coordination with performance reporting." Cause Management had not established an effective system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance, or that supporting documentation would have been maintained and made available for audit, with the grant agreement and the Reporting compliance requirement. Effect The failure to design and implement an effective internal control system and to retain supporting documentation prevented the determination of the School Corporation's compliance with the compliance requirement listed above. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a system of internal controls to ensure that documentation will be maintained and made available for audit and to comply with the grant agreement and the Reporting compliance requirement. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-006 Information on the federal program: Subject: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies Assistance Listing Number: 84.010 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S010A170014; S010A190014; S010A200014 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security Audit Findings: Significant Deficiency 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 providesreasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliancewith Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Theseinternal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in theFederal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal ControlIntegrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the TreadwayCommission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.207(a) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may impose additional specific award conditions as needed. . . ." 511 IAC 5-5-5(b) states: "Any individual who administers, handles, or has access to secure test materials at the school or school corporation shall complete assessment training and sign a testing security and integrity agreement to remain on file in the appropriate building-level office each year." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security compliance requirement. Cause: Management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security compliance requirement. Effect: The failure to establish an effective internal control system enabled material noncompliance to go undetected. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation had not established effective internal controls to ensure applicable employees received proper training over test and security administration. The School Corporation had implemented a policy in which all applicable employees were to be provided training annually. However, documentation of training for six of 40 employees could not be provided. The six employees were in a position and location that had contact with the testing materials and therefore should have received the training. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: No Recommendation: We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish internal controls to ensure compliance and comply with the grant agreement and Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security compliance requirement. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2022-006 Information on the federal program: Subject: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies Assistance Listing Number: 84.010 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S010A170014; S010A190014; S010A200014 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security Audit Findings: Significant Deficiency 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 providesreasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliancewith Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Theseinternal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in theFederal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal ControlIntegrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the TreadwayCommission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.207(a) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may impose additional specific award conditions as needed. . . ." 511 IAC 5-5-5(b) states: "Any individual who administers, handles, or has access to secure test materials at the school or school corporation shall complete assessment training and sign a testing security and integrity agreement to remain on file in the appropriate building-level office each year." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security compliance requirement. Cause: Management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security compliance requirement. Effect: The failure to establish an effective internal control system enabled material noncompliance to go undetected. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation had not established effective internal controls to ensure applicable employees received proper training over test and security administration. The School Corporation had implemented a policy in which all applicable employees were to be provided training annually. However, documentation of training for six of 40 employees could not be provided. The six employees were in a position and location that had contact with the testing materials and therefore should have received the training. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: No Recommendation: We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish internal controls to ensure compliance and comply with the grant agreement and Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security compliance requirement. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2022-006 Information on the federal program: Subject: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies Assistance Listing Number: 84.010 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S010A170014; S010A190014; S010A200014 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security Audit Findings: Significant Deficiency 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 providesreasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliancewith Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Theseinternal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in theFederal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal ControlIntegrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the TreadwayCommission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.207(a) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may impose additional specific award conditions as needed. . . ." 511 IAC 5-5-5(b) states: "Any individual who administers, handles, or has access to secure test materials at the school or school corporation shall complete assessment training and sign a testing security and integrity agreement to remain on file in the appropriate building-level office each year." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security compliance requirement. Cause: Management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security compliance requirement. Effect: The failure to establish an effective internal control system enabled material noncompliance to go undetected. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation had not established effective internal controls to ensure applicable employees received proper training over test and security administration. The School Corporation had implemented a policy in which all applicable employees were to be provided training annually. However, documentation of training for six of 40 employees could not be provided. The six employees were in a position and location that had contact with the testing materials and therefore should have received the training. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: No Recommendation: We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish internal controls to ensure compliance and comply with the grant agreement and Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security compliance requirement. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
Criteria 2 CFR 200.305 (b3): Reimbursement is the preferred method when the requirements in paragraph (b) cannot be met, when the Federal awarding agency sets a specific condition per ?200.207 Specific conditions, or when the non-Federal entity requests payment by reimbursement. Per the OMB Compliance Supplement, the non-Federal entity must disburse funds for program purposes before requesting payment from the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity. Condition In testing compliance with the cash management compliance requirement, specifically the reimbursement-method, 40 individual expenditures were tested to compare the date the University made payment to a vendor for a selected expense transaction to the date the University requested sponsor reimbursement for the same transaction. Seven instances were noted in which the University paid the vendor after requesting and receiving reimbursement from the government, as shown in the chart below. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table This is a repeat of finding 2021-001, 2020-001, 2019-001, 2018-002 and 2017-002 in prior year audit reports. Cause Management?s current process to ensure that the reimbursement of expenditures occurs only after paying the vendor utilizes the assumption that vendors will be paid within 30 days, on average, of incurring the expense. Effect The University received Federal reimbursement prior to paying the vendors for the selected expenses. The reliance of the 30 day average time-frame allowed certain expenditures to be included in requests for reimbursement prior to being liquidated. Questioned Costs None as reimbursement was requested for allowable costs. Recommendation The University should revisit existing internal control procedures to ensure expenditures are paid in compliance with the Federal reimbursement requirements. We also recommend management discuss current cash management requirements with the OMB and the University?s cognizant agency to determine a solution that meets the needs of both parties. Management?s View and Corrective Action Plan Following these findings are management?s view and corrective action plan.
Criteria 2 CFR 200.305 (b3): Reimbursement is the preferred method when the requirements in paragraph (b) cannot be met, when the Federal awarding agency sets a specific condition per ?200.207 Specific conditions, or when the non-Federal entity requests payment by reimbursement. Per the OMB Compliance Supplement, the non-Federal entity must disburse funds for program purposes before requesting payment from the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity. Condition In testing compliance with the cash management compliance requirement, specifically the reimbursement-method, 40 individual expenditures were tested to compare the date the University made payment to a vendor for a selected expense transaction to the date the University requested sponsor reimbursement for the same transaction. Seven instances were noted in which the University paid the vendor after requesting and receiving reimbursement from the government, as shown in the chart below. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table This is a repeat of finding 2021-001, 2020-001, 2019-001, 2018-002 and 2017-002 in prior year audit reports. Cause Management?s current process to ensure that the reimbursement of expenditures occurs only after paying the vendor utilizes the assumption that vendors will be paid within 30 days, on average, of incurring the expense. Effect The University received Federal reimbursement prior to paying the vendors for the selected expenses. The reliance of the 30 day average time-frame allowed certain expenditures to be included in requests for reimbursement prior to being liquidated. Questioned Costs None as reimbursement was requested for allowable costs. Recommendation The University should revisit existing internal control procedures to ensure expenditures are paid in compliance with the Federal reimbursement requirements. We also recommend management discuss current cash management requirements with the OMB and the University?s cognizant agency to determine a solution that meets the needs of both parties. Management?s View and Corrective Action Plan Following these findings are management?s view and corrective action plan.
Criteria 2 CFR 200.305 (b3): Reimbursement is the preferred method when the requirements in paragraph (b) cannot be met, when the Federal awarding agency sets a specific condition per ?200.207 Specific conditions, or when the non-Federal entity requests payment by reimbursement. Per the OMB Compliance Supplement, the non-Federal entity must disburse funds for program purposes before requesting payment from the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity. Condition In testing compliance with the cash management compliance requirement, specifically the reimbursement-method, 40 individual expenditures were tested to compare the date the University made payment to a vendor for a selected expense transaction to the date the University requested sponsor reimbursement for the same transaction. Seven instances were noted in which the University paid the vendor after requesting and receiving reimbursement from the government, as shown in the chart below. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table This is a repeat of finding 2021-001, 2020-001, 2019-001, 2018-002 and 2017-002 in prior year audit reports. Cause Management?s current process to ensure that the reimbursement of expenditures occurs only after paying the vendor utilizes the assumption that vendors will be paid within 30 days, on average, of incurring the expense. Effect The University received Federal reimbursement prior to paying the vendors for the selected expenses. The reliance of the 30 day average time-frame allowed certain expenditures to be included in requests for reimbursement prior to being liquidated. Questioned Costs None as reimbursement was requested for allowable costs. Recommendation The University should revisit existing internal control procedures to ensure expenditures are paid in compliance with the Federal reimbursement requirements. We also recommend management discuss current cash management requirements with the OMB and the University?s cognizant agency to determine a solution that meets the needs of both parties. Management?s View and Corrective Action Plan Following these findings are management?s view and corrective action plan.
Criteria 2 CFR 200.305 (b3): Reimbursement is the preferred method when the requirements in paragraph (b) cannot be met, when the Federal awarding agency sets a specific condition per ?200.207 Specific conditions, or when the non-Federal entity requests payment by reimbursement. Per the OMB Compliance Supplement, the non-Federal entity must disburse funds for program purposes before requesting payment from the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity. Condition In testing compliance with the cash management compliance requirement, specifically the reimbursement-method, 40 individual expenditures were tested to compare the date the University made payment to a vendor for a selected expense transaction to the date the University requested sponsor reimbursement for the same transaction. Seven instances were noted in which the University paid the vendor after requesting and receiving reimbursement from the government, as shown in the chart below. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table This is a repeat of finding 2021-001, 2020-001, 2019-001, 2018-002 and 2017-002 in prior year audit reports. Cause Management?s current process to ensure that the reimbursement of expenditures occurs only after paying the vendor utilizes the assumption that vendors will be paid within 30 days, on average, of incurring the expense. Effect The University received Federal reimbursement prior to paying the vendors for the selected expenses. The reliance of the 30 day average time-frame allowed certain expenditures to be included in requests for reimbursement prior to being liquidated. Questioned Costs None as reimbursement was requested for allowable costs. Recommendation The University should revisit existing internal control procedures to ensure expenditures are paid in compliance with the Federal reimbursement requirements. We also recommend management discuss current cash management requirements with the OMB and the University?s cognizant agency to determine a solution that meets the needs of both parties. Management?s View and Corrective Action Plan Following these findings are management?s view and corrective action plan.
Criteria 2 CFR 200.305 (b3): Reimbursement is the preferred method when the requirements in paragraph (b) cannot be met, when the Federal awarding agency sets a specific condition per ?200.207 Specific conditions, or when the non-Federal entity requests payment by reimbursement. Per the OMB Compliance Supplement, the non-Federal entity must disburse funds for program purposes before requesting payment from the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity. Condition In testing compliance with the cash management compliance requirement, specifically the reimbursement-method, 40 individual expenditures were tested to compare the date the University made payment to a vendor for a selected expense transaction to the date the University requested sponsor reimbursement for the same transaction. Seven instances were noted in which the University paid the vendor after requesting and receiving reimbursement from the government, as shown in the chart below. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table This is a repeat of finding 2021-001, 2020-001, 2019-001, 2018-002 and 2017-002 in prior year audit reports. Cause Management?s current process to ensure that the reimbursement of expenditures occurs only after paying the vendor utilizes the assumption that vendors will be paid within 30 days, on average, of incurring the expense. Effect The University received Federal reimbursement prior to paying the vendors for the selected expenses. The reliance of the 30 day average time-frame allowed certain expenditures to be included in requests for reimbursement prior to being liquidated. Questioned Costs None as reimbursement was requested for allowable costs. Recommendation The University should revisit existing internal control procedures to ensure expenditures are paid in compliance with the Federal reimbursement requirements. We also recommend management discuss current cash management requirements with the OMB and the University?s cognizant agency to determine a solution that meets the needs of both parties. Management?s View and Corrective Action Plan Following these findings are management?s view and corrective action plan.
Criteria 2 CFR 200.305 (b3): Reimbursement is the preferred method when the requirements in paragraph (b) cannot be met, when the Federal awarding agency sets a specific condition per ?200.207 Specific conditions, or when the non-Federal entity requests payment by reimbursement. Per the OMB Compliance Supplement, the non-Federal entity must disburse funds for program purposes before requesting payment from the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity. Condition In testing compliance with the cash management compliance requirement, specifically the reimbursement-method, 40 individual expenditures were tested to compare the date the University made payment to a vendor for a selected expense transaction to the date the University requested sponsor reimbursement for the same transaction. Seven instances were noted in which the University paid the vendor after requesting and receiving reimbursement from the government, as shown in the chart below. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table This is a repeat of finding 2021-001, 2020-001, 2019-001, 2018-002 and 2017-002 in prior year audit reports. Cause Management?s current process to ensure that the reimbursement of expenditures occurs only after paying the vendor utilizes the assumption that vendors will be paid within 30 days, on average, of incurring the expense. Effect The University received Federal reimbursement prior to paying the vendors for the selected expenses. The reliance of the 30 day average time-frame allowed certain expenditures to be included in requests for reimbursement prior to being liquidated. Questioned Costs None as reimbursement was requested for allowable costs. Recommendation The University should revisit existing internal control procedures to ensure expenditures are paid in compliance with the Federal reimbursement requirements. We also recommend management discuss current cash management requirements with the OMB and the University?s cognizant agency to determine a solution that meets the needs of both parties. Management?s View and Corrective Action Plan Following these findings are management?s view and corrective action plan.
FINDING 2022-007 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Cash Management Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 21611-047-PN01, 21619-047-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Cash Management Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context During fiscal year 2020-2021, the School Corporation was a member as well as the fiscal agent of the Orange-Lawrence-Jackson-Martin-Greene Joint Services Cooperative (Cooperative). The Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of its member schools. During fiscal year 2021-2022, the School Corporation operated their own special education programs. Two reimbursement requests were received from the Indiana Department of Education during the audit period. The School Corporation was unable to provide supporting documentation for the costs included on each of the reimbursement requests. As a result, we were unable to verify the program funds were expended prior to requesting reimbursement. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.334 states in part: "Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, from the date of the submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass through entity in the case of a subrecipient. . . ." 2 CFR 200.305(b)(3) states in part: "Reimbursement is the preferred method when the requirements in paragraph (b) cannot be met when the Federal awarding agency sets a specific condition per ? 200.207 Specific conditions, or when the non-Federal entity requests payment by reimbursement. . . ." Cause Management had not developed nor implemented a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance, or that supporting documentation would have been maintained and made available for audit, with the grant agreement and the Cash Management compliance requirement. Effect The failure to establish an effective system of internal controls and retain and provide appropriate supporting documentation prevented the determination of the School Corporation's compliance with the compliance requirement listed above. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a system of internal controls to ensure that documentation will be maintained and made available for audit and comply with the grant agreement and the Cash Management compliance requirement. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-007 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Cash Management Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 21611-047-PN01, 21619-047-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Cash Management Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context During fiscal year 2020-2021, the School Corporation was a member as well as the fiscal agent of the Orange-Lawrence-Jackson-Martin-Greene Joint Services Cooperative (Cooperative). The Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of its member schools. During fiscal year 2021-2022, the School Corporation operated their own special education programs. Two reimbursement requests were received from the Indiana Department of Education during the audit period. The School Corporation was unable to provide supporting documentation for the costs included on each of the reimbursement requests. As a result, we were unable to verify the program funds were expended prior to requesting reimbursement. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.334 states in part: "Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, from the date of the submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass through entity in the case of a subrecipient. . . ." 2 CFR 200.305(b)(3) states in part: "Reimbursement is the preferred method when the requirements in paragraph (b) cannot be met when the Federal awarding agency sets a specific condition per ? 200.207 Specific conditions, or when the non-Federal entity requests payment by reimbursement. . . ." Cause Management had not developed nor implemented a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance, or that supporting documentation would have been maintained and made available for audit, with the grant agreement and the Cash Management compliance requirement. Effect The failure to establish an effective system of internal controls and retain and provide appropriate supporting documentation prevented the determination of the School Corporation's compliance with the compliance requirement listed above. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a system of internal controls to ensure that documentation will be maintained and made available for audit and comply with the grant agreement and the Cash Management compliance requirement. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-012 Subject: Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies - Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies Assistance Listings Number: 84.010 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S010A190014, S010A200014, S010A190014SIG Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation is required to implement policies and procedures regarding test security for assessments, which includes providing test administration and test security training to appropriate staff prior to testing. A sample of 25 staff members required to receive the training were selected for testing. Of the 25 selected, documentation was not provided for 8 staff members to verify they received the appropriate training. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.333 states in part: "Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, from the date of the submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient. . . ." 2 CFR 200.207(a) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may impose additional specific award conditions as needed, . . ." 511 IAC 5-5-5(b) states: "Any individual who administers, handles, or has access to secure test materials at the school or school corporation shall complete assessment training and sign a testing security and integrity agreement to remain on file in the appropriate building-level office each year." Indiana Assessment Program Manual, Section 9, Part D states in part: "Every school corporation or other test administration location that administers tests under the Indiana Assessment System must have a locally developed written test security policy. While IDOE does not require school board approval of this policy, corporations should follow local level practices to determine if this policy needs to be approved by the local school board. The test security policy developed must: ? Specify that secure test materials should not be delivered to school buildings more than one week (preferably less) in advance of test administration; ? Specify that teachers and other school staff members are not allowed access to secure materials (except for the TAM) more than 4 hours in advance of test administration; and . . . Locally developed written test security policies must include, but not be limited to, the following description regarding how the corporation will: . . . ? Ensure all appropriate staff receive test administration and test security training prior to testing. . . . ? Define and clearly communicate at least once annually for all appropriate staff how staff implementation of test administration and test security standards and procedures will be monitored by school administrators . . ." Cause Management had not established an effective system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance, or that supporting documentation would have been maintained and made available for audit, related to the Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security compliance requirement. Effect The failure to establish an effective system of internal controls and retain and provide appropriate supporting documentation prevented the determination of the School Corporation's compliance with the Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security compliance requirement. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish an effective system of internal controls to ensure documentation be maintained and made available for audit related to the grant agreement and the Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security compliance requirement. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-012 Subject: Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies - Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies Assistance Listings Number: 84.010 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S010A190014, S010A200014, S010A190014SIG Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation is required to implement policies and procedures regarding test security for assessments, which includes providing test administration and test security training to appropriate staff prior to testing. A sample of 25 staff members required to receive the training were selected for testing. Of the 25 selected, documentation was not provided for 8 staff members to verify they received the appropriate training. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.333 states in part: "Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, from the date of the submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient. . . ." 2 CFR 200.207(a) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may impose additional specific award conditions as needed, . . ." 511 IAC 5-5-5(b) states: "Any individual who administers, handles, or has access to secure test materials at the school or school corporation shall complete assessment training and sign a testing security and integrity agreement to remain on file in the appropriate building-level office each year." Indiana Assessment Program Manual, Section 9, Part D states in part: "Every school corporation or other test administration location that administers tests under the Indiana Assessment System must have a locally developed written test security policy. While IDOE does not require school board approval of this policy, corporations should follow local level practices to determine if this policy needs to be approved by the local school board. The test security policy developed must: ? Specify that secure test materials should not be delivered to school buildings more than one week (preferably less) in advance of test administration; ? Specify that teachers and other school staff members are not allowed access to secure materials (except for the TAM) more than 4 hours in advance of test administration; and . . . Locally developed written test security policies must include, but not be limited to, the following description regarding how the corporation will: . . . ? Ensure all appropriate staff receive test administration and test security training prior to testing. . . . ? Define and clearly communicate at least once annually for all appropriate staff how staff implementation of test administration and test security standards and procedures will be monitored by school administrators . . ." Cause Management had not established an effective system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance, or that supporting documentation would have been maintained and made available for audit, related to the Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security compliance requirement. Effect The failure to establish an effective system of internal controls and retain and provide appropriate supporting documentation prevented the determination of the School Corporation's compliance with the Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security compliance requirement. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish an effective system of internal controls to ensure documentation be maintained and made available for audit related to the grant agreement and the Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security compliance requirement. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-007 Subject: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies Assistance Listings Number: 84.010 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S010A190014, S010A200014, S010A210014 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context An effective internal control system was not properly implemented at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the grant agreement and the Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security compliance requirement. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 24 ROCHESTER COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The School Corporation did not have a system of internal controls in place to ensure that any individual who administered, handled, or had access to secure test materials at the school or School Corporation had completed assessment security training prior to testing or that all applicable staff members signed the Indiana Testing Security and Integrity Agreement. As a result, for 19 of the 40 applicable staff members tested, the School Corporation could not provide documentation that the individual received assessment security training. In addition, for 8 of the 40 applicable staff members tested, documentation could not be provided to show they had signed the Indiana Testing Security and Integrity Agreement. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The Non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.207(a) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may impose additional specific award conditions as needed. . . ." 511 IAC 5-5-5 states in part: ". . . (b) Any individual who administers, handles, or has access to secure test materials at the school or school corporation shall complete assessment training and sign a testing security and integrity agreement to remain on file in the appropriate building-level office each year. (c) Each individual required to sign the testing integrity agreement under this rule shall sign the form by the date established and included on the testing integrity agreement. (d) The school shall retain the form for a minimum of two (2) years from the date of signing. (e) Failure to comply with the terms of the testing integrity agreement may constitute evidence of an integrity breach." Cause Management had not established a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security compliance requirement. Effect The failure to establish a system of internal control enabled material noncompliance to go undetected. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement listed above could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 25 ROCHESTER COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a system of internal controls to ensure compliance and comply with the grant agreement and the Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security compliance requirement. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-007 Subject: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies Assistance Listings Number: 84.010 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S010A190014, S010A200014, S010A210014 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context An effective internal control system was not properly implemented at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the grant agreement and the Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security compliance requirement. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 24 ROCHESTER COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The School Corporation did not have a system of internal controls in place to ensure that any individual who administered, handled, or had access to secure test materials at the school or School Corporation had completed assessment security training prior to testing or that all applicable staff members signed the Indiana Testing Security and Integrity Agreement. As a result, for 19 of the 40 applicable staff members tested, the School Corporation could not provide documentation that the individual received assessment security training. In addition, for 8 of the 40 applicable staff members tested, documentation could not be provided to show they had signed the Indiana Testing Security and Integrity Agreement. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The Non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.207(a) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may impose additional specific award conditions as needed. . . ." 511 IAC 5-5-5 states in part: ". . . (b) Any individual who administers, handles, or has access to secure test materials at the school or school corporation shall complete assessment training and sign a testing security and integrity agreement to remain on file in the appropriate building-level office each year. (c) Each individual required to sign the testing integrity agreement under this rule shall sign the form by the date established and included on the testing integrity agreement. (d) The school shall retain the form for a minimum of two (2) years from the date of signing. (e) Failure to comply with the terms of the testing integrity agreement may constitute evidence of an integrity breach." Cause Management had not established a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security compliance requirement. Effect The failure to establish a system of internal control enabled material noncompliance to go undetected. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement listed above could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 25 ROCHESTER COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a system of internal controls to ensure compliance and comply with the grant agreement and the Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment System Security compliance requirement. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
Program: AL 84.010 ? Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies ? Allowability and Subrecipient Monitoring Grant Number & Year: S010A190027, FFY 2020; S010A200027, FFY 2021 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Education Criteria: Per 2 CFR ? 3474.1 (January 1, 2022), the U.S. Department of Education adopted the OMB Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR part 200, except for 2 CFR ? 200.102(a) and 200.207(a). Per 2 CFR ? 200.403 (January 1, 2022), allowable costs must be necessary, reasonable, and adequately documented. 2 CFR ? 200.430(i)(1) (January 1, 2022) states, in relevant part, the following: Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non-Federal entity, not exceeding 100% of compensated activities . . . . ; (iv) Encompass federally-assisted and all other activities compensated by the non-Federal entity on an integrated basis, but may include the use of subsidiary records as defined in the non-Federal entity?s written policy; (v) Comply with the established accounting policies and practices of the non-Federal entity . . . . ; and * * * * (vii) Support the distribution of the employee?s salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. Enclosure A of the ?Letter to Chief State School Officers on Granting Administrative Flexibility for Better Measures of Success? (September 7, 2012) provides guidelines for local educational agencies (LEAs), using a substitute system for time-and-effort reporting. Enclosure A states, in relevant part, the following: (3) Employee schedules must: a. Indicate the specific activity or cost objective that the employee worked on for each segment of the employee?s schedule; b. Account for the total hours for which each employee is compensated during the period reflected on the employee?s schedule; and c. Be certified at least semiannually and signed by the employee and a supervisory official having firsthand knowledge of the work performed by the employee. 2 CFR ? 200.332 (January 1, 2022) states, in relevant part, the following: All pass-through entities must: * * * * (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. Pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: * * * * (2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient . . . . A good internal control plan requires that adequate documentation be maintained to support amounts claimed by and paid to subrecipients. Good internal control also requires procedures to follow up with subrecipients to ensure they are correcting deficiencies and in compliance with applicable regulations. Condition: The Agency lacked procedures to ensure that subrecipients documented their use of Federal awards appropriately. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: $145,101 known (S010A190027, $8,041; S010A200027, $137,060) Statistical Sample: No Context: We randomly selected 25 subrecipient payments and also chose the largest subrecipient payment for testing. We noted the following: ? Several employees? salaries and benefits were included in the reimbursement requests; however, the Agency did not require subrecipients to submit documentation for these expenditures, other than reports from their accountings systems, at the time of reimbursement. We provided the Agency with an opportunity to request documentation from its subrecipients to support that their salaries and benefits expenses were allowable and in accordance with Federal cost principles; however, two of the subrecipients did not provide adequate support to show that their salaries and benefits were allocable to the grant, resulting in $8,041 sample questioned costs and $137,060 non-sample questioned costs. ? The Agency?s procedure is to perform fiscal reviews of each subrecipient at least once every three years. We reviewed the most recent fiscal reviews for the same 26 subrecipients selected for testing above. For five of these reviews, the Agency noted that the subrecipient did not maintain adequate documentation for salaries and benefits. When we inquired with the Agency regarding what had been done to follow up on its findings, the Agency replied that the findings did not require follow-up. Payment errors noted for the sample tested were $8,041. The total sample tested was $1,494,006. Subrecipient aid payments for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022, totaled $91,043,602. The sample population was $84,396,850 (total population $91,043,602 less $6,646,752 to largest subrecipient that was separately determined to be allowable). Based on the sample tested, the case error rate was 8% (2/25). The dollar error rate for the sample was 0.54% ($8,041/$1,494,006), which estimates the potential dollars at risk for fiscal year 2022 to be $455,753 (dollar rate multiplied by the population). Cause: Inadequate procedures. Effect: Without adequate supporting documentation and monitoring procedures, there is an increased risk that Federal awards could be used for unallowable costs. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency improve procedures to monitor subrecipients, including reviewing detailed supporting documentation for payroll expenses and following up with subrecipients to ensure that they correct errors noted. Management Response: The Department agrees the two subrecipients sampled did not complete one time and effort certification semi-annually (rather completed annually instead) or with all language suggested in the guidelines from the U.S. Department of Education. However, the Department disagrees with the reimbursement being questioned costs as the time and effort certifications demonstrated adequate documentation to support the employees? activities were allowable for the Title I grant. In the absence of this information, the Department submitted affidavits from the two LEA?s supervisory staff with personal knowledge of the work performed consistent with the U.S. Department of Education?s audit resolutions practices; whereas the APA does not consider documentation after the fact to be adequate to eliminate the finding. The findings noted in the subrecipient fiscal monitoring exit letters were identified for technical assistance purposes only and not considered to have met a level of materiality that required a corrective action plan. Corrective action plans are clearly noted in subrecipient fiscal monitoring exit letters when issued and proper follow-up action is taken when this occurs. Technical assistance was provided to each of the subrecipients at the time of the monitoring review as well as to all subrecipients periodically throughout the year. APA Response: Per the Uniform Guidance, questioned costs include expenditures that lack adequate supporting documentation at the time of the audit. 2 CFR ? 200.430(i)(1) (January 1, 2022), as referenced in the report comment, says that such documentation must ?accurately reflect the work performed? and be ?supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated.? Affidavits dated February 27, 2023, some 18 months after the salary and benefit expenses occurred, cannot possibly satisfy either of these requirements and are, therefore, not acceptable. As the documentation provided did not meet the minimum requirements set forth in Uniform Guidance and guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Education, the expenditures at issue must be considered questioned costs. Moreover, the Uniform Guidance requires the Agency, as the pass-through entity, to ensure that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action to address deficiencies identified not only during audits but also from the Agency?s own reviews. The Agency has noted issues similar to those addressed by the APA ? namely, that the subrecipients have lacked adequate supporting documentation for salary and benefit expenses. The Agency performs subrecipient fiscal monitoring for most subrecipients only every third year. Thus, effective follow-up procedures, as required by 2 CFR ? 200.332 (January 1, 2022), are needed to ensure that subrecipients implement the technical assistance provided by the Agency.
FINDING 2022-011 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Cash Management, Reporting Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 21611-138-PN01, 21619-138-PN01, 22611-138-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Cash Management, Reporting Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context An effective internal control system was not designed nor implemented at the School Corporation to ensure compliance with the requirements related to the grant agreement and the Cash Management and the Reporting compliance requirements. The School Corporation had not established an effective system of internal controls to ensure that proper documentation was retained for audit. The School Corporation was unable to provide supporting documentation for 12 of the 15 reimbursement requests tested. Due to the lack of documentation, we were unable to verify the amounts reported on the reimbursement requests to the School Corporation's records. In addition, we were unable to determine if program funds were expended prior to requesting reimbursement. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 43 SCOTT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The lack of internal controls and failure to retain supporting documentation 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 200.333 (Uniform Guidance) states in part: "Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, from the date of the submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass through entity in the case of a subrecipient. . . ." 2 CFR 200.334 (Revised Uniform Guidance) states in part: "Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, from the date of the submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient. . . ." 2 CFR 200.305(b) (Uniform Guidance) states in part: "For non-Federal entities other than states, payments methods must minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds from the United States Treasury or the pass-through entity and the disbursement by the non-Federal entity whether the payment is made by electronic funds transfer, or issuance or redemption of checks, warrants, or payment by other means. . . . (3) Reimbursement is the preferred method when the requirements in paragraph (b) cannot be met, when the Federal awarding agency sets a specific condition per ? 200.207 Specific conditions, or when the non-Federal entity requests payment by reimbursement. . . ." 2 CFR 200.305(b) (Revised Uniform Guidance) states in part: "For non-Federal entities other than states, payments methods must minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds from the United States Treasury or the pass-through entity and the disbursement by the non-Federal entity whether the payment is made by electronic funds transfer, or issuance or redemption of checks, warrants, or payment by other means. . . . INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 44 SCOTT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (3) Reimbursement is the preferred method when the requirements in paragraph (b) cannot be met, when the Federal awarding agency sets a specific condition per ? 200.208, or when the non-Federal entity requests payment by reimbursement. . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) (Uniform Guidance) states in part: "The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following: . . . (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in ?? 200.327 Financial reporting and 200.328 Monitoring and reporting program performance. . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) (Revised Uniform Guidance) states in part: "The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following: . . . (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in ?? 200.328 and 200.329. . . ." 34 CFR 76.722 states: "A State may require a subgrantee to submit reports in a manner and format that assists the State in complying with the requirements under 34 CFR 76.720 and in carrying out other responsibilities under the program." Cause Management had not developed nor implemented a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance, or that supporting documentation would have been maintained and made available for audit, with the grant agreement and the Cash Management and the Reporting compliance requirements. Effect The failure to establish an effective system of internal controls and to retain and provide appropriate supporting documentation prevented the determination of the School Corporation's compliance with compliance requirements listed above. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a system of internal controls to ensure documentation will be maintained and made available for audit and comply with the grant agreement and the Cash Management and the Reporting compliance requirements. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-011 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Cash Management, Reporting Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 21611-138-PN01, 21619-138-PN01, 22611-138-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Cash Management, Reporting Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context An effective internal control system was not designed nor implemented at the School Corporation to ensure compliance with the requirements related to the grant agreement and the Cash Management and the Reporting compliance requirements. The School Corporation had not established an effective system of internal controls to ensure that proper documentation was retained for audit. The School Corporation was unable to provide supporting documentation for 12 of the 15 reimbursement requests tested. Due to the lack of documentation, we were unable to verify the amounts reported on the reimbursement requests to the School Corporation's records. In addition, we were unable to determine if program funds were expended prior to requesting reimbursement. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 43 SCOTT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The lack of internal controls and failure to retain supporting documentation 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 200.333 (Uniform Guidance) states in part: "Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, from the date of the submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass through entity in the case of a subrecipient. . . ." 2 CFR 200.334 (Revised Uniform Guidance) states in part: "Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, from the date of the submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient. . . ." 2 CFR 200.305(b) (Uniform Guidance) states in part: "For non-Federal entities other than states, payments methods must minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds from the United States Treasury or the pass-through entity and the disbursement by the non-Federal entity whether the payment is made by electronic funds transfer, or issuance or redemption of checks, warrants, or payment by other means. . . . (3) Reimbursement is the preferred method when the requirements in paragraph (b) cannot be met, when the Federal awarding agency sets a specific condition per ? 200.207 Specific conditions, or when the non-Federal entity requests payment by reimbursement. . . ." 2 CFR 200.305(b) (Revised Uniform Guidance) states in part: "For non-Federal entities other than states, payments methods must minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds from the United States Treasury or the pass-through entity and the disbursement by the non-Federal entity whether the payment is made by electronic funds transfer, or issuance or redemption of checks, warrants, or payment by other means. . . . INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 44 SCOTT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (3) Reimbursement is the preferred method when the requirements in paragraph (b) cannot be met, when the Federal awarding agency sets a specific condition per ? 200.208, or when the non-Federal entity requests payment by reimbursement. . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) (Uniform Guidance) states in part: "The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following: . . . (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in ?? 200.327 Financial reporting and 200.328 Monitoring and reporting program performance. . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) (Revised Uniform Guidance) states in part: "The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following: . . . (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in ?? 200.328 and 200.329. . . ." 34 CFR 76.722 states: "A State may require a subgrantee to submit reports in a manner and format that assists the State in complying with the requirements under 34 CFR 76.720 and in carrying out other responsibilities under the program." Cause Management had not developed nor implemented a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance, or that supporting documentation would have been maintained and made available for audit, with the grant agreement and the Cash Management and the Reporting compliance requirements. Effect The failure to establish an effective system of internal controls and to retain and provide appropriate supporting documentation prevented the determination of the School Corporation's compliance with compliance requirements listed above. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a system of internal controls to ensure documentation will be maintained and made available for audit and comply with the grant agreement and the Cash Management and the Reporting compliance requirements. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-011 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Cash Management, Reporting Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 21611-138-PN01, 21619-138-PN01, 22611-138-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Cash Management, Reporting Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context An effective internal control system was not designed nor implemented at the School Corporation to ensure compliance with the requirements related to the grant agreement and the Cash Management and the Reporting compliance requirements. The School Corporation had not established an effective system of internal controls to ensure that proper documentation was retained for audit. The School Corporation was unable to provide supporting documentation for 12 of the 15 reimbursement requests tested. Due to the lack of documentation, we were unable to verify the amounts reported on the reimbursement requests to the School Corporation's records. In addition, we were unable to determine if program funds were expended prior to requesting reimbursement. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 43 SCOTT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The lack of internal controls and failure to retain supporting documentation 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 200.333 (Uniform Guidance) states in part: "Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, from the date of the submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass through entity in the case of a subrecipient. . . ." 2 CFR 200.334 (Revised Uniform Guidance) states in part: "Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, from the date of the submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient. . . ." 2 CFR 200.305(b) (Uniform Guidance) states in part: "For non-Federal entities other than states, payments methods must minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds from the United States Treasury or the pass-through entity and the disbursement by the non-Federal entity whether the payment is made by electronic funds transfer, or issuance or redemption of checks, warrants, or payment by other means. . . . (3) Reimbursement is the preferred method when the requirements in paragraph (b) cannot be met, when the Federal awarding agency sets a specific condition per ? 200.207 Specific conditions, or when the non-Federal entity requests payment by reimbursement. . . ." 2 CFR 200.305(b) (Revised Uniform Guidance) states in part: "For non-Federal entities other than states, payments methods must minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds from the United States Treasury or the pass-through entity and the disbursement by the non-Federal entity whether the payment is made by electronic funds transfer, or issuance or redemption of checks, warrants, or payment by other means. . . . INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 44 SCOTT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (3) Reimbursement is the preferred method when the requirements in paragraph (b) cannot be met, when the Federal awarding agency sets a specific condition per ? 200.208, or when the non-Federal entity requests payment by reimbursement. . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) (Uniform Guidance) states in part: "The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following: . . . (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in ?? 200.327 Financial reporting and 200.328 Monitoring and reporting program performance. . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) (Revised Uniform Guidance) states in part: "The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following: . . . (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in ?? 200.328 and 200.329. . . ." 34 CFR 76.722 states: "A State may require a subgrantee to submit reports in a manner and format that assists the State in complying with the requirements under 34 CFR 76.720 and in carrying out other responsibilities under the program." Cause Management had not developed nor implemented a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance, or that supporting documentation would have been maintained and made available for audit, with the grant agreement and the Cash Management and the Reporting compliance requirements. Effect The failure to establish an effective system of internal controls and to retain and provide appropriate supporting documentation prevented the determination of the School Corporation's compliance with compliance requirements listed above. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a system of internal controls to ensure documentation will be maintained and made available for audit and comply with the grant agreement and the Cash Management and the Reporting compliance requirements. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-006 Subject: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - Cash Management and Reporting Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies Assistance Listings Number: 84.010 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S010A190014, S010A200014, S010A210014 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Cash Management, Reporting Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding related to Reporting from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2020-007. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 32 SCOTT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Condition and Context An effective internal control system was not designed nor implemented at the School Corporation to ensure compliance with the requirements related to the grant agreement and the Cash Management and the Reporting compliance requirements. The School Corporation filed the required special reports with the Indiana Department of Education; however, none of the reports were supported by the School Corporation's records. Although the Title I Director reviewed the requests for reimbursement and the Final Expenditure Reports, the reviews did not ensure that the reports agreed to the School Corporation's financial records. The 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 Final Expenditure Reports and the four reimbursement requests tested could not be traced to the School Corporation's records. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.333 (Uniform Guidance) states in part: "Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, from the date of the submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass through entity in the case of a subrecipient. . . ." 2 CFR 200.334 states in part: "Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, from the date of the submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient. . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) (Uniform Guidance) states in part: . . . "The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following: INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 33 SCOTT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in ?? 200.327 Financial reporting. . . . (3) Records that identify adequately the source and application of funds for federally funded activities. These records must contain information pertaining to Federal awards, authorizations, obligations, unobligated balances, assets, expenditures, income and interest and be supported by source documentation. . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) (Revised Uniform Guidance) states in part: "The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following: . . . (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in ?? 200.328 and 200.329. . . ." 34 CFR 76.722 states: "A State may require a subgrantee to submit reports in a manner and format that assists the State in complying with the requirements under 34 CFR 76.720 and in carrying out other responsibilities under the program." 2 CFR 200.305(b) (Uniform Guidance) states in part: "For non-Federal entities other than states, payments methods must minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds from the United States Treasury or the pass-through entity and the disbursement by the non-Federal entity whether the payment is made by electronic funds transfer, or issuance or redemption of checks, warrants, or payment by other means. . . . (3) Reimbursement is the preferred method when the requirements in paragraph (b) cannot be met, when the Federal awarding agency sets a specific condition per ? 200.207 Specific conditions, or when the non-Federal entity requests payment by reimbursement. . . ." 2 CFR 200.305(b) (Revised Uniform Guidance) states in part: "For non-Federal entities other than states, payments methods must minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds from the United States Treasury or the pass-through entity and the disbursement by the non-Federal entity whether the payment is made by electronic funds transfer, or issuance or redemption of checks, warrants, or payment by other means. . . . (3) Reimbursement is the preferred method when the requirements in paragraph (b) cannot be met, when the Federal awarding agency sets a specific condition per ? 200.208, or when the non-Federal entity requests payment by reimbursement. . . ." Cause Management had not established an effective system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with requirements related to the Cash Management and the Reporting compliance requirements. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 34 SCOTT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Effect The failure to establish an effective system of internal controls and to retain and provide appropriate supporting documentation prevented the determination of the School Corporation's compliance with the compliance requirements listed above. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish an effective system of internal controls to ensure documentation be maintained and made available for audit related to the grant agreement and the Cash Management and the Reporting compliance requirements. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-008 Subject: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - Earmarking Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies Assistance Listings Number: 84.010 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S010A190014, S010A200014, S010A210014 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2020-008. Condition and Context An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the earmarking requirements of the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Officials of the School Corporation were unaware that the earmarking requirement for Parental Involvement was a mandatory spending requirement. Therefore, there were no internal controls in place related to this requirement nor was the required amounts spent for parental involvement. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 37 SCOTT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 2 CFR 200.400 states in part: ". . . (a) The non-Federal entity is responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the Federal award through the application of sound management practices. (b) The non-Federal entity assumes responsibility for administering Federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program objectives, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. . . ." 2 CFR 200.207 (Uniform Guidance) states in part: "The Federal Awarding Agency or pass-through entity may impose additional specific award conditions as needed . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) (Revised Uniform Guidance) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal award conditions as needed . . ." Cause Management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the earmarking requirements of the Matching, Level of Effort, and Earmarking compliance requirement. Effect The failure to establish an effective internal control system enabled material noncompliance to go undetected. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the earmarking requirements of the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish internal controls to ensure compliance and comply with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.