FINDING 2023-008 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Earmarking Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Special Education Grants to States Assistance Listings Number: 84.027 Federal Award Numbers: 22611-022-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking 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 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 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards:… (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal 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 must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Condition: The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the earmarking requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for non-public school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure non-public school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. Cause: A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As such, the earmarking requirements could not be verified as having been met. 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. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Greene Sullivan Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Although the Cooperative has a separate object code to identify expenditures for the purpose of proportionate share, there is no identifier or separate way to track which member school the funding was expended for. As such, the Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for the 22611-022-PN01 grant award could not be verified for the individual member schools. Additionally, the Cooperative did not obtain a waiver from the Indiana Department of Education for the 22611-022-PN01 grant award, no waiver was obtained, and the amounts spent could not be traced to documentation that indicated which member school the expenditure was applied to. Also, the total amount expended for proportionate share was less than the total amount required when all member school proportionate share requirements were totaled. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the 22611-022-PN01 grant award. The minimum earmarking requirement for the 22611-022-PN01 grant award was $1,620. Identification as a repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure non-public proportionate share funds are appropriately allocated to the member school based on expenses charged directly on behalf of the member school. Supporting documentation for these expenses should be retained for audit. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-003 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Earmarking Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Special Education Grants to States Assistance Listings Number: 84.027 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 19611-022-PN01, 20611-022-PN01, 21611-022-PN01, 22611-022-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking 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 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 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards:… (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal 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 must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." FINDING 2023-003 (Continued) Condition: The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the earmarking requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for non-public school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure non-public school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. Cause: A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As such, the earmarking requirements could not be verified as having been met. 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. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Greene Sullivan Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Although the Cooperative has a separate object code to identify expenditures for the purpose of proportionate share, there is no identifier or separate way to track which member school the funding was expended for. As such, the Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for the 19611-022-PN01, 20611- 022-PN01, 21611-022-PN01, and 22611-022-PN01 grant awards could not be verified for the individual member schools. Additionally, the Cooperative did not obtain a waiver from the Indiana Department of Education for the amount unspent for the requirement on the 19611-022-PN01 and 20611-022-PN01 grant awards. For the 21611-022-PN01 grant award, a waiver was obtained from the IDOE which was used to cover a portion of the member school's required proportionate share amount; however, the remaining amount, which the Cooperative claimed to have expended, could not be traced to documentation that indicated which member school the expenditure was applied to. For the 22611-022-PN01 grant award, no waiver was obtained, and the amounts spent could not be traced to documentation that indicated which member school the expenditure was applied to. Also, the total amount expended for proportionate share was less than the total amount required when all member school proportionate share requirements were totaled. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the 19611-022-PN01, 20611-022-PN01, 21611-022-PN01, and 22611-022-PN01 grant awards. The minimum earmarking requirement for the 19611-022-PN01, 20611-022-PN01, 21611-022-PN01, and 22611-022-PN01 grant awards were $1,931, $3,486, $6,832, and $1,794, respectively. FINDING 2023-003 (Continued) Identification as a repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure non-public proportionate share funds are appropriately allocated to the member school based on expenses charged directly on behalf of the member school. Supporting documentation for these expenses should be retained for audit. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-003 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Earmarking Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Special Education Grants to States Assistance Listings Number: 84.027 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 19611-022-PN01, 20611-022-PN01, 21611-022-PN01, 22611-022-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking 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 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 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards:… (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal 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 must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." FINDING 2023-003 (Continued) Condition: The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the earmarking requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for non-public school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure non-public school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. Cause: A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As such, the earmarking requirements could not be verified as having been met. 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. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Greene Sullivan Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Although the Cooperative has a separate object code to identify expenditures for the purpose of proportionate share, there is no identifier or separate way to track which member school the funding was expended for. As such, the Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for the 19611-022-PN01, 20611- 022-PN01, 21611-022-PN01, and 22611-022-PN01 grant awards could not be verified for the individual member schools. Additionally, the Cooperative did not obtain a waiver from the Indiana Department of Education for the amount unspent for the requirement on the 19611-022-PN01 and 20611-022-PN01 grant awards. For the 21611-022-PN01 grant award, a waiver was obtained from the IDOE which was used to cover a portion of the member school's required proportionate share amount; however, the remaining amount, which the Cooperative claimed to have expended, could not be traced to documentation that indicated which member school the expenditure was applied to. For the 22611-022-PN01 grant award, no waiver was obtained, and the amounts spent could not be traced to documentation that indicated which member school the expenditure was applied to. Also, the total amount expended for proportionate share was less than the total amount required when all member school proportionate share requirements were totaled. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the 19611-022-PN01, 20611-022-PN01, 21611-022-PN01, and 22611-022-PN01 grant awards. The minimum earmarking requirement for the 19611-022-PN01, 20611-022-PN01, 21611-022-PN01, and 22611-022-PN01 grant awards were $1,931, $3,486, $6,832, and $1,794, respectively. FINDING 2023-003 (Continued) Identification as a repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure non-public proportionate share funds are appropriately allocated to the member school based on expenses charged directly on behalf of the member school. Supporting documentation for these expenses should be retained for audit. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-003 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Earmarking Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Special Education Grants to States Assistance Listings Number: 84.027 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 19611-022-PN01, 20611-022-PN01, 21611-022-PN01, 22611-022-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking 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 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 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards:… (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal 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 must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." FINDING 2023-003 (Continued) Condition: The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the earmarking requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for non-public school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure non-public school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. Cause: A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As such, the earmarking requirements could not be verified as having been met. 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. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Greene Sullivan Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Although the Cooperative has a separate object code to identify expenditures for the purpose of proportionate share, there is no identifier or separate way to track which member school the funding was expended for. As such, the Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for the 19611-022-PN01, 20611- 022-PN01, 21611-022-PN01, and 22611-022-PN01 grant awards could not be verified for the individual member schools. Additionally, the Cooperative did not obtain a waiver from the Indiana Department of Education for the amount unspent for the requirement on the 19611-022-PN01 and 20611-022-PN01 grant awards. For the 21611-022-PN01 grant award, a waiver was obtained from the IDOE which was used to cover a portion of the member school's required proportionate share amount; however, the remaining amount, which the Cooperative claimed to have expended, could not be traced to documentation that indicated which member school the expenditure was applied to. For the 22611-022-PN01 grant award, no waiver was obtained, and the amounts spent could not be traced to documentation that indicated which member school the expenditure was applied to. Also, the total amount expended for proportionate share was less than the total amount required when all member school proportionate share requirements were totaled. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the 19611-022-PN01, 20611-022-PN01, 21611-022-PN01, and 22611-022-PN01 grant awards. The minimum earmarking requirement for the 19611-022-PN01, 20611-022-PN01, 21611-022-PN01, and 22611-022-PN01 grant awards were $1,931, $3,486, $6,832, and $1,794, respectively. FINDING 2023-003 (Continued) Identification as a repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure non-public proportionate share funds are appropriately allocated to the member school based on expenses charged directly on behalf of the member school. Supporting documentation for these expenses should be retained for audit. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-003 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Earmarking Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Special Education Grants to States Assistance Listings Number: 84.027 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 19611-022-PN01, 20611-022-PN01, 21611-022-PN01, 22611-022-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking 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 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 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards:… (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal 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 must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." FINDING 2023-003 (Continued) Condition: The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the earmarking requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for non-public school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure non-public school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. Cause: A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As such, the earmarking requirements could not be verified as having been met. 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. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Greene Sullivan Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Although the Cooperative has a separate object code to identify expenditures for the purpose of proportionate share, there is no identifier or separate way to track which member school the funding was expended for. As such, the Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for the 19611-022-PN01, 20611- 022-PN01, 21611-022-PN01, and 22611-022-PN01 grant awards could not be verified for the individual member schools. Additionally, the Cooperative did not obtain a waiver from the Indiana Department of Education for the amount unspent for the requirement on the 19611-022-PN01 and 20611-022-PN01 grant awards. For the 21611-022-PN01 grant award, a waiver was obtained from the IDOE which was used to cover a portion of the member school's required proportionate share amount; however, the remaining amount, which the Cooperative claimed to have expended, could not be traced to documentation that indicated which member school the expenditure was applied to. For the 22611-022-PN01 grant award, no waiver was obtained, and the amounts spent could not be traced to documentation that indicated which member school the expenditure was applied to. Also, the total amount expended for proportionate share was less than the total amount required when all member school proportionate share requirements were totaled. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the 19611-022-PN01, 20611-022-PN01, 21611-022-PN01, and 22611-022-PN01 grant awards. The minimum earmarking requirement for the 19611-022-PN01, 20611-022-PN01, 21611-022-PN01, and 22611-022-PN01 grant awards were $1,931, $3,486, $6,832, and $1,794, respectively. FINDING 2023-003 (Continued) Identification as a repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure non-public proportionate share funds are appropriately allocated to the member school based on expenses charged directly on behalf of the member school. Supporting documentation for these expenses should be retained for audit. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-002 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): 21611-058-PN01; 22611-058-PN01 21619-056-PN01; 22619-056-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Reporting Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation utilized separate funds to account for the financial activity of the special education programs. The ledger activity for these funds was used as the basis for the expenditures claimed for reimbursement on the reimbursement requests submitted to the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE). The School Corporation failed to properly review the reimbursement requests submitted to the IDOE. Although the Assistant Accounting Manager prepared the reimbursement requests, and the Accounting Manager reviewed the requests prior to submission through the IDOE information portal, the internal control was not effective and did not prevent, or detect and correct, material noncompliance. Testing of the reimbursement requests submitted during the audit period identified the following issues: Award 21611-058-PN01 - Seven reimbursement requests were filed during the audit period; all of which were selected for testing. For five of the seven reimbursement requests tested, the expenditures did not agree to the ledger. For four of the five reimbursement requests in which the expenditures did not agree to the ledger, the errors were due to timing issues as expenses were claimed for reimbursement prior to being incurred. As such, the expenditures claimed for reimbursement on two of the requests exceeded the amount per the ledger, with the amount per the ledger then exceeding the expenditures requested for reimbursement by the same amount on the subsequent request. The expenditures included in the fifth reimbursement request exceeded the ledger amount, resulting in a $17 excess reimbursement over what the School Corporation was entitled to receive. Award 22611-058-PN01 - Three reimbursement requests were filed during the audit period; all of which were selected for testing. For two of the three reimbursement requests tested, the amount per the ledger exceeded the expenditures claimed by a total of $416,468. Upon inquiry of the School Corporation to understand why this happened, the officials indicated that total expenditures exceeded the budgeted allocations per the awards. Therefore, the net difference was subtracted from the reimbursement request to determine the amount to request. As such, there was no supporting documentation that detailed the expenditures requested for or excluded from the reimbursement request. Award 21619-056-PN01 - Two reimbursement requests were filed during the audit period; all of which were selected for testing. For one of two reimbursement requests tested, the expenditures included on the reimbursement request exceeded the ledger amount, resulting in a $72 excess reimbursement. Award 22619-056-PN01 - Four reimbursement requests were filed during the audit period; all of which were selected for testing. For one of four reimbursement requests tested, the amount per the ledger exceeded the expenditures claimed by a total of $7,538. Upon inquiry of the School Corporation to understand why this happened, the officials indicated that total expenditures exceeded the budgeted allocations per the awards. Therefore, the net difference was subtracted from the reimbursement request to determine the amount to request. As such, there was no supporting documentation that detailed the expenditures requested for or excluded from the reimbursement request. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the 21611-058-PN01, 22611-058-PN01, 21619-056-PN01, and 22619-056-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). . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) 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 Financial reporting. . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal award conditions as needed, . . ." 2 CFR 200.328 states: "Unless otherwise approved by OMB, the Federal awarding agency must solicit only the OMBapproved governmentwide data elements for collection of financial information (at time of publication the Federal Financial Report or such future, OMB-approved, governmentwide data elements available from the OMB-designated standards lead. 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. The Federal awarding agency must use OMB-approved common information collections, as applicable, when providing financial and performance reporting information." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, requests for reimbursement were not supported by the ledgers. 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 requests for reimbursement are supported by the ledgers. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-002 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): 21611-058-PN01; 22611-058-PN01 21619-056-PN01; 22619-056-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Reporting Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation utilized separate funds to account for the financial activity of the special education programs. The ledger activity for these funds was used as the basis for the expenditures claimed for reimbursement on the reimbursement requests submitted to the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE). The School Corporation failed to properly review the reimbursement requests submitted to the IDOE. Although the Assistant Accounting Manager prepared the reimbursement requests, and the Accounting Manager reviewed the requests prior to submission through the IDOE information portal, the internal control was not effective and did not prevent, or detect and correct, material noncompliance. Testing of the reimbursement requests submitted during the audit period identified the following issues: Award 21611-058-PN01 - Seven reimbursement requests were filed during the audit period; all of which were selected for testing. For five of the seven reimbursement requests tested, the expenditures did not agree to the ledger. For four of the five reimbursement requests in which the expenditures did not agree to the ledger, the errors were due to timing issues as expenses were claimed for reimbursement prior to being incurred. As such, the expenditures claimed for reimbursement on two of the requests exceeded the amount per the ledger, with the amount per the ledger then exceeding the expenditures requested for reimbursement by the same amount on the subsequent request. The expenditures included in the fifth reimbursement request exceeded the ledger amount, resulting in a $17 excess reimbursement over what the School Corporation was entitled to receive. Award 22611-058-PN01 - Three reimbursement requests were filed during the audit period; all of which were selected for testing. For two of the three reimbursement requests tested, the amount per the ledger exceeded the expenditures claimed by a total of $416,468. Upon inquiry of the School Corporation to understand why this happened, the officials indicated that total expenditures exceeded the budgeted allocations per the awards. Therefore, the net difference was subtracted from the reimbursement request to determine the amount to request. As such, there was no supporting documentation that detailed the expenditures requested for or excluded from the reimbursement request. Award 21619-056-PN01 - Two reimbursement requests were filed during the audit period; all of which were selected for testing. For one of two reimbursement requests tested, the expenditures included on the reimbursement request exceeded the ledger amount, resulting in a $72 excess reimbursement. Award 22619-056-PN01 - Four reimbursement requests were filed during the audit period; all of which were selected for testing. For one of four reimbursement requests tested, the amount per the ledger exceeded the expenditures claimed by a total of $7,538. Upon inquiry of the School Corporation to understand why this happened, the officials indicated that total expenditures exceeded the budgeted allocations per the awards. Therefore, the net difference was subtracted from the reimbursement request to determine the amount to request. As such, there was no supporting documentation that detailed the expenditures requested for or excluded from the reimbursement request. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the 21611-058-PN01, 22611-058-PN01, 21619-056-PN01, and 22619-056-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). . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) 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 Financial reporting. . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal award conditions as needed, . . ." 2 CFR 200.328 states: "Unless otherwise approved by OMB, the Federal awarding agency must solicit only the OMBapproved governmentwide data elements for collection of financial information (at time of publication the Federal Financial Report or such future, OMB-approved, governmentwide data elements available from the OMB-designated standards lead. 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. The Federal awarding agency must use OMB-approved common information collections, as applicable, when providing financial and performance reporting information." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, requests for reimbursement were not supported by the ledgers. 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 requests for reimbursement are supported by the ledgers. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-002 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): 21611-058-PN01; 22611-058-PN01 21619-056-PN01; 22619-056-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Reporting Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation utilized separate funds to account for the financial activity of the special education programs. The ledger activity for these funds was used as the basis for the expenditures claimed for reimbursement on the reimbursement requests submitted to the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE). The School Corporation failed to properly review the reimbursement requests submitted to the IDOE. Although the Assistant Accounting Manager prepared the reimbursement requests, and the Accounting Manager reviewed the requests prior to submission through the IDOE information portal, the internal control was not effective and did not prevent, or detect and correct, material noncompliance. Testing of the reimbursement requests submitted during the audit period identified the following issues: Award 21611-058-PN01 - Seven reimbursement requests were filed during the audit period; all of which were selected for testing. For five of the seven reimbursement requests tested, the expenditures did not agree to the ledger. For four of the five reimbursement requests in which the expenditures did not agree to the ledger, the errors were due to timing issues as expenses were claimed for reimbursement prior to being incurred. As such, the expenditures claimed for reimbursement on two of the requests exceeded the amount per the ledger, with the amount per the ledger then exceeding the expenditures requested for reimbursement by the same amount on the subsequent request. The expenditures included in the fifth reimbursement request exceeded the ledger amount, resulting in a $17 excess reimbursement over what the School Corporation was entitled to receive. Award 22611-058-PN01 - Three reimbursement requests were filed during the audit period; all of which were selected for testing. For two of the three reimbursement requests tested, the amount per the ledger exceeded the expenditures claimed by a total of $416,468. Upon inquiry of the School Corporation to understand why this happened, the officials indicated that total expenditures exceeded the budgeted allocations per the awards. Therefore, the net difference was subtracted from the reimbursement request to determine the amount to request. As such, there was no supporting documentation that detailed the expenditures requested for or excluded from the reimbursement request. Award 21619-056-PN01 - Two reimbursement requests were filed during the audit period; all of which were selected for testing. For one of two reimbursement requests tested, the expenditures included on the reimbursement request exceeded the ledger amount, resulting in a $72 excess reimbursement. Award 22619-056-PN01 - Four reimbursement requests were filed during the audit period; all of which were selected for testing. For one of four reimbursement requests tested, the amount per the ledger exceeded the expenditures claimed by a total of $7,538. Upon inquiry of the School Corporation to understand why this happened, the officials indicated that total expenditures exceeded the budgeted allocations per the awards. Therefore, the net difference was subtracted from the reimbursement request to determine the amount to request. As such, there was no supporting documentation that detailed the expenditures requested for or excluded from the reimbursement request. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the 21611-058-PN01, 22611-058-PN01, 21619-056-PN01, and 22619-056-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). . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) 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 Financial reporting. . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal award conditions as needed, . . ." 2 CFR 200.328 states: "Unless otherwise approved by OMB, the Federal awarding agency must solicit only the OMBapproved governmentwide data elements for collection of financial information (at time of publication the Federal Financial Report or such future, OMB-approved, governmentwide data elements available from the OMB-designated standards lead. 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. The Federal awarding agency must use OMB-approved common information collections, as applicable, when providing financial and performance reporting information." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, requests for reimbursement were not supported by the ledgers. 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 requests for reimbursement are supported by the ledgers. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-002 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): 21611-058-PN01; 22611-058-PN01 21619-056-PN01; 22619-056-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Reporting Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation utilized separate funds to account for the financial activity of the special education programs. The ledger activity for these funds was used as the basis for the expenditures claimed for reimbursement on the reimbursement requests submitted to the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE). The School Corporation failed to properly review the reimbursement requests submitted to the IDOE. Although the Assistant Accounting Manager prepared the reimbursement requests, and the Accounting Manager reviewed the requests prior to submission through the IDOE information portal, the internal control was not effective and did not prevent, or detect and correct, material noncompliance. Testing of the reimbursement requests submitted during the audit period identified the following issues: Award 21611-058-PN01 - Seven reimbursement requests were filed during the audit period; all of which were selected for testing. For five of the seven reimbursement requests tested, the expenditures did not agree to the ledger. For four of the five reimbursement requests in which the expenditures did not agree to the ledger, the errors were due to timing issues as expenses were claimed for reimbursement prior to being incurred. As such, the expenditures claimed for reimbursement on two of the requests exceeded the amount per the ledger, with the amount per the ledger then exceeding the expenditures requested for reimbursement by the same amount on the subsequent request. The expenditures included in the fifth reimbursement request exceeded the ledger amount, resulting in a $17 excess reimbursement over what the School Corporation was entitled to receive. Award 22611-058-PN01 - Three reimbursement requests were filed during the audit period; all of which were selected for testing. For two of the three reimbursement requests tested, the amount per the ledger exceeded the expenditures claimed by a total of $416,468. Upon inquiry of the School Corporation to understand why this happened, the officials indicated that total expenditures exceeded the budgeted allocations per the awards. Therefore, the net difference was subtracted from the reimbursement request to determine the amount to request. As such, there was no supporting documentation that detailed the expenditures requested for or excluded from the reimbursement request. Award 21619-056-PN01 - Two reimbursement requests were filed during the audit period; all of which were selected for testing. For one of two reimbursement requests tested, the expenditures included on the reimbursement request exceeded the ledger amount, resulting in a $72 excess reimbursement. Award 22619-056-PN01 - Four reimbursement requests were filed during the audit period; all of which were selected for testing. For one of four reimbursement requests tested, the amount per the ledger exceeded the expenditures claimed by a total of $7,538. Upon inquiry of the School Corporation to understand why this happened, the officials indicated that total expenditures exceeded the budgeted allocations per the awards. Therefore, the net difference was subtracted from the reimbursement request to determine the amount to request. As such, there was no supporting documentation that detailed the expenditures requested for or excluded from the reimbursement request. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the 21611-058-PN01, 22611-058-PN01, 21619-056-PN01, and 22619-056-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). . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) 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 Financial reporting. . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal award conditions as needed, . . ." 2 CFR 200.328 states: "Unless otherwise approved by OMB, the Federal awarding agency must solicit only the OMBapproved governmentwide data elements for collection of financial information (at time of publication the Federal Financial Report or such future, OMB-approved, governmentwide data elements available from the OMB-designated standards lead. 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. The Federal awarding agency must use OMB-approved common information collections, as applicable, when providing financial and performance reporting information." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, requests for reimbursement were not supported by the ledgers. 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 requests for reimbursement are supported by the ledgers. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-004 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): 20611-021-PN01, 21611-021-PN01, 22619-021-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 prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2021-003. Condition and Context The School Corporation is a member of the Greater Lafayette Area Special Services Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal years 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school corporation, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the earmarking requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for nonpublic school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure nonpublic school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. The Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for the 20611-021-PN01, 21611-021-PN01, and 22619-021-PN01 grant awards could not be verified for the individual member school corporations. Total grant expenditures were posted as expended. The nonpublic proportionate share expenditures were determined by applying a percentage to the nonpublic school budgeted expenditures. As such, we were unable to identify if the minimum amount per the grant awards was expended and properly reported to the IDOE as required. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the 20611-021-PN01, 21611-021-PN01, and 22619-021-PN01 grant awards. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 25 LAFAYETTE SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal 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 must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As such, the school's Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures could not be determined, and it could not be determined if the School Corporation met their minimum Non-Public Proportionate Share as required by the grant agreement. 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. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 26 LAFAYETTE SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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 nonpublic school share funds are appropriately allocated to the member school corporation based on expenses charged directly on behalf of the member school corporation. Supporting documentation for these expenses should be retained for audit. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 27
FINDING 2023-004 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): 20611-021-PN01, 21611-021-PN01, 22619-021-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 prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2021-003. Condition and Context The School Corporation is a member of the Greater Lafayette Area Special Services Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal years 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school corporation, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the earmarking requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for nonpublic school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure nonpublic school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. The Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for the 20611-021-PN01, 21611-021-PN01, and 22619-021-PN01 grant awards could not be verified for the individual member school corporations. Total grant expenditures were posted as expended. The nonpublic proportionate share expenditures were determined by applying a percentage to the nonpublic school budgeted expenditures. As such, we were unable to identify if the minimum amount per the grant awards was expended and properly reported to the IDOE as required. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the 20611-021-PN01, 21611-021-PN01, and 22619-021-PN01 grant awards. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 25 LAFAYETTE SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal 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 must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As such, the school's Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures could not be determined, and it could not be determined if the School Corporation met their minimum Non-Public Proportionate Share as required by the grant agreement. 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. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 26 LAFAYETTE SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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 nonpublic school share funds are appropriately allocated to the member school corporation based on expenses charged directly on behalf of the member school corporation. Supporting documentation for these expenses should be retained for audit. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 27
FINDING 2023-004 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): 20611-021-PN01, 21611-021-PN01, 22619-021-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 prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2021-003. Condition and Context The School Corporation is a member of the Greater Lafayette Area Special Services Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal years 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school corporation, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the earmarking requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for nonpublic school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure nonpublic school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. The Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for the 20611-021-PN01, 21611-021-PN01, and 22619-021-PN01 grant awards could not be verified for the individual member school corporations. Total grant expenditures were posted as expended. The nonpublic proportionate share expenditures were determined by applying a percentage to the nonpublic school budgeted expenditures. As such, we were unable to identify if the minimum amount per the grant awards was expended and properly reported to the IDOE as required. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the 20611-021-PN01, 21611-021-PN01, and 22619-021-PN01 grant awards. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 25 LAFAYETTE SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal 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 must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As such, the school's Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures could not be determined, and it could not be determined if the School Corporation met their minimum Non-Public Proportionate Share as required by the grant agreement. 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. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 26 LAFAYETTE SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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 nonpublic school share funds are appropriately allocated to the member school corporation based on expenses charged directly on behalf of the member school corporation. Supporting documentation for these expenses should be retained for audit. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 27
FINDING 2023-004 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): 20611-021-PN01, 21611-021-PN01, 22619-021-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 prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2021-003. Condition and Context The School Corporation is a member of the Greater Lafayette Area Special Services Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal years 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school corporation, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the earmarking requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for nonpublic school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure nonpublic school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. The Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for the 20611-021-PN01, 21611-021-PN01, and 22619-021-PN01 grant awards could not be verified for the individual member school corporations. Total grant expenditures were posted as expended. The nonpublic proportionate share expenditures were determined by applying a percentage to the nonpublic school budgeted expenditures. As such, we were unable to identify if the minimum amount per the grant awards was expended and properly reported to the IDOE as required. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the 20611-021-PN01, 21611-021-PN01, and 22619-021-PN01 grant awards. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 25 LAFAYETTE SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal 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 must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As such, the school's Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures could not be determined, and it could not be determined if the School Corporation met their minimum Non-Public Proportionate Share as required by the grant agreement. 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. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 26 LAFAYETTE SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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 nonpublic school share funds are appropriately allocated to the member school corporation based on expenses charged directly on behalf of the member school corporation. Supporting documentation for these expenses should be retained for audit. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 27
Reference Number: 2023-011 Prior Year Finding: No Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation State Agency: Agency of Transportation Federal Program: Formula Grants for Rural Areas and Tribal Transit Program Assistance Listing Number: 20.509 Award Number and Year: VT2016-007-02 (9/23/2016 – 6/20/2023), VT-2017-007-01 (8/3/2017 – 6/21/2023), VT-2019-006-01 (9/20/2017 – 9/30/2022), VT-2020-005-00 (5/26/2020 – 9/30/2022), VT-2020-011-00 (9/9/2020 – 9/30/2023), VT-2020-012-00 (9/18/2020 – 9/30/2023), VT-2021-014-01 (9/20/2021 – 9/30/2023), VT-2022-001-02 (5/12/2022 – 6/30/2028) Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters Criteria or specific requirement: Compliance – Per 2 CFR section 200.332, the following requirements are imposed on pass-through entities: (a) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes information at the time of the subaward and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward. Required information includes: (1) (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date; (b) Evaluate each subrecipient's risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, which may include consideration of such factors as: (1) The subrecipient's prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits including whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with Subpart F of this part, and the extent to which the same or similar subaward has been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of Federal awarding agency monitoring (e.g., if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency). (c) Consider imposing specific subaward conditions upon a subrecipient if appropriate as described in § 200.208. Section III – Findings and Questioned Costs – Major Federal Programs (Continued) (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: (1) Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. (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 and not responsible for resolving crosscutting findings. If a subrecipient has a current Single Audit report posted in the Federal Audit Clearinghouse and has not otherwise been excluded from receipt of Federal funding (e.g., has been debarred or suspended), the pass-through entity may rely on the subrecipient's cognizant audit agency or cognizant oversight agency to perform audit follow-up and make management decisions related to cross-cutting findings in accordance with section § 200.513(a)(3)(vii). Such reliance does not eliminate the responsibility of the pass-through entity to issue subawards that conform to agency and award-specific requirements, to manage risk through ongoing subaward monitoring, and to monitor the status of the findings that are specifically related to the subaward. (e) Depending upon the pass-through entity's assessment of risk posed by the subrecipient (as described in paragraph (b) of this section), the following monitoring tools may be useful for the pass-through entity to ensure proper accountability and compliance with program requirements and achievement of performance goals: (1) Providing subrecipients with training and technical assistance on program-related matters; and (2) Performing on-site reviews of the subrecipient's program operations; (3) Arranging for agreed-upon-procedures engagements as described in § 200.425. Control – Per 2 CFR section 200.303(a), a non-Federal entity must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Condition: The Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) omitted required federal award information from subawards it issued in the program and did not adequately monitor subrecipients. Section III – Findings and Questioned Costs – Major Federal Programs (Continued) Context: Seven subawards were selected for testing and the following exceptions were noted: • For seven of seven subawards selected for testing, the FAIN and federal award date were not included on the subaward agreement. • For three of seven subawards selected for testing, the last on-site subrecipient monitoring visits were performed in FY 2020 and the next on-site monitoring is not scheduled to take place until FY 2024. Per the VTrans subrecipient monitoring plan, on-site monitoring must be performed no less than every three years. Cause: Procedures and internal controls were not sufficient to ensure that subawards included all required federal information. Although VTrans subsequently modified its subaward issuance process, controls in effect during the audit period were not sufficient to ensure that subawards included all required information. Procedures and internal controls were also not sufficient to ensure that timely on-site monitoring visits were performed in accordance with its monitoring plan. Effect: Excluding the required federal grant award information at the time of subaward issuance may cause subrecipients and their auditors to be uninformed about specific program and other regulations that apply to the funds they receive. There is also the potential for subrecipients to have incomplete Schedules of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in their Single Audit reports. Failure to conduct adequate subrecipient monitoring may result in a failure of VTrans to detect that subawards were used for unauthorized purposes, were managed in violation of the terms and conditions of the subawards, or that subaward performance goals were not achieved. There is an increased risk that subrecipients could be inappropriately spending and/or inaccurately tracking and reporting federal funds over multiple year periods, and these discrepancies may not be properly monitored, detected, and corrected by VTrans personnel on a timely basis. Questioned costs: Undetermined. Recommendation: VTrans should review and enhance internal controls and procedures to ensure that all required federal award information is included in subawards and that on-site subrecipient monitoring is conducted timely per the terms of its subrecipient monitoring plan. Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the finding.
Reference Number: 2023-011 Prior Year Finding: No Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation State Agency: Agency of Transportation Federal Program: Formula Grants for Rural Areas and Tribal Transit Program Assistance Listing Number: 20.509 Award Number and Year: VT2016-007-02 (9/23/2016 – 6/20/2023), VT-2017-007-01 (8/3/2017 – 6/21/2023), VT-2019-006-01 (9/20/2017 – 9/30/2022), VT-2020-005-00 (5/26/2020 – 9/30/2022), VT-2020-011-00 (9/9/2020 – 9/30/2023), VT-2020-012-00 (9/18/2020 – 9/30/2023), VT-2021-014-01 (9/20/2021 – 9/30/2023), VT-2022-001-02 (5/12/2022 – 6/30/2028) Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters Criteria or specific requirement: Compliance – Per 2 CFR section 200.332, the following requirements are imposed on pass-through entities: (a) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes information at the time of the subaward and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward. Required information includes: (1) (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date; (b) Evaluate each subrecipient's risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, which may include consideration of such factors as: (1) The subrecipient's prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits including whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with Subpart F of this part, and the extent to which the same or similar subaward has been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of Federal awarding agency monitoring (e.g., if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency). (c) Consider imposing specific subaward conditions upon a subrecipient if appropriate as described in § 200.208. Section III – Findings and Questioned Costs – Major Federal Programs (Continued) (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: (1) Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. (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 and not responsible for resolving crosscutting findings. If a subrecipient has a current Single Audit report posted in the Federal Audit Clearinghouse and has not otherwise been excluded from receipt of Federal funding (e.g., has been debarred or suspended), the pass-through entity may rely on the subrecipient's cognizant audit agency or cognizant oversight agency to perform audit follow-up and make management decisions related to cross-cutting findings in accordance with section § 200.513(a)(3)(vii). Such reliance does not eliminate the responsibility of the pass-through entity to issue subawards that conform to agency and award-specific requirements, to manage risk through ongoing subaward monitoring, and to monitor the status of the findings that are specifically related to the subaward. (e) Depending upon the pass-through entity's assessment of risk posed by the subrecipient (as described in paragraph (b) of this section), the following monitoring tools may be useful for the pass-through entity to ensure proper accountability and compliance with program requirements and achievement of performance goals: (1) Providing subrecipients with training and technical assistance on program-related matters; and (2) Performing on-site reviews of the subrecipient's program operations; (3) Arranging for agreed-upon-procedures engagements as described in § 200.425. Control – Per 2 CFR section 200.303(a), a non-Federal entity must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Condition: The Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) omitted required federal award information from subawards it issued in the program and did not adequately monitor subrecipients. Section III – Findings and Questioned Costs – Major Federal Programs (Continued) Context: Seven subawards were selected for testing and the following exceptions were noted: • For seven of seven subawards selected for testing, the FAIN and federal award date were not included on the subaward agreement. • For three of seven subawards selected for testing, the last on-site subrecipient monitoring visits were performed in FY 2020 and the next on-site monitoring is not scheduled to take place until FY 2024. Per the VTrans subrecipient monitoring plan, on-site monitoring must be performed no less than every three years. Cause: Procedures and internal controls were not sufficient to ensure that subawards included all required federal information. Although VTrans subsequently modified its subaward issuance process, controls in effect during the audit period were not sufficient to ensure that subawards included all required information. Procedures and internal controls were also not sufficient to ensure that timely on-site monitoring visits were performed in accordance with its monitoring plan. Effect: Excluding the required federal grant award information at the time of subaward issuance may cause subrecipients and their auditors to be uninformed about specific program and other regulations that apply to the funds they receive. There is also the potential for subrecipients to have incomplete Schedules of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in their Single Audit reports. Failure to conduct adequate subrecipient monitoring may result in a failure of VTrans to detect that subawards were used for unauthorized purposes, were managed in violation of the terms and conditions of the subawards, or that subaward performance goals were not achieved. There is an increased risk that subrecipients could be inappropriately spending and/or inaccurately tracking and reporting federal funds over multiple year periods, and these discrepancies may not be properly monitored, detected, and corrected by VTrans personnel on a timely basis. Questioned costs: Undetermined. Recommendation: VTrans should review and enhance internal controls and procedures to ensure that all required federal award information is included in subawards and that on-site subrecipient monitoring is conducted timely per the terms of its subrecipient monitoring plan. Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the finding.
FINDING 2023-003 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): 20611-158-PN01, 20619-158-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context The School Corporation was a member of the Clark County Joint Services Program (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2021-2022, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its member school corporations. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school corporation, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation to ensure compliance with the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the earmarking requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for nonpublic school students with disabilities was met for each member school corporation. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure nonpublic school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. The Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for all grant awards were not expended as required by the IDOE for the individual member school corporation. The Cooperative categorized each expenditure by location, and the total amount did not meet or exceed the required proportionate share as outlined on the award letter. The Cooperative was required to spend a total of $59,633 for 20611-158-PN01 and $35,470 for 20619-158-PN01. $32,798 was identified as being spent for 20611-158-PN01, which was less than the required proportionate share. The Cooperative was unable to provide documentation to identify the expenditures spent for 20619-158-PN01. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to fiscal year 2021-2022 and the 20611-158-PN01 and the 20619-158-PN01 grant awards. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 18 SILVER CREEK SCHOOL CORPORATION 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 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: . . . (g) Be adequately document. . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal 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 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 the nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, the total required Non-Public Proportionate Share was not spent for one grant and the expenditures for another grant could not be determined. 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. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 SILVER CREEK SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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 Non-Public Proportionate Share amounts are spent as identified within the application and all documentation is retained to determine so that expenditures can be appropriately identified. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-003 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): 20611-158-PN01, 20619-158-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context The School Corporation was a member of the Clark County Joint Services Program (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2021-2022, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its member school corporations. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school corporation, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation to ensure compliance with the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the earmarking requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for nonpublic school students with disabilities was met for each member school corporation. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure nonpublic school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. The Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for all grant awards were not expended as required by the IDOE for the individual member school corporation. The Cooperative categorized each expenditure by location, and the total amount did not meet or exceed the required proportionate share as outlined on the award letter. The Cooperative was required to spend a total of $59,633 for 20611-158-PN01 and $35,470 for 20619-158-PN01. $32,798 was identified as being spent for 20611-158-PN01, which was less than the required proportionate share. The Cooperative was unable to provide documentation to identify the expenditures spent for 20619-158-PN01. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to fiscal year 2021-2022 and the 20611-158-PN01 and the 20619-158-PN01 grant awards. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 18 SILVER CREEK SCHOOL CORPORATION 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 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: . . . (g) Be adequately document. . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal 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 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 the nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, the total required Non-Public Proportionate Share was not spent for one grant and the expenditures for another grant could not be determined. 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. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 SILVER CREEK SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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 Non-Public Proportionate Share amounts are spent as identified within the application and all documentation is retained to determine so that expenditures can be appropriately identified. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-009 Subject: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund - Cash Management Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listings Number: 84.425D Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425D200013, S425D210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Cash Management Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion 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 Cash Management compliance requirement. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 30 SILVER CREEK SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Reimbursement requests for the program were prepared by one employee and reviewed by another employee; however, no supporting documentation was provided to the reviewer. As documentation did not accompany the reimbursement request, and the reimbursement requests, as noted below, did not agree to the ledger, the reviewer could not have ensured expenses were paid prior to requesting reimbursement. Five reimbursement requests were submitted during the audit period. All five reimbursement requests were selected for testing. Of the five reimbursement requests tested, three were not traceable to the School Corporation's fund ledger. For those three reimbursement requests, the expenditures in the ledger exceeded the amount requested by $67,907, in total. However, as the expenditures could not be determined for each reimbursement requested, it could not be determined if the School Corporation paid for the expense prior to requesting reimbursement. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period for ESSER I and ESSER II grant funds. 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 200.305(b) 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. . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) 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. . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 31 SILVER CREEK SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, it could not be determined if all expenditures were paid by the School Corporation prior to requesting reimbursement. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation design and implement a proper system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that would provide segregation of duties to ensure appropriate reviews, approvals, and oversight are taking place prior to filing the reimbursement requests. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-009 Subject: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund - Cash Management Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listings Number: 84.425D Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425D200013, S425D210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Cash Management Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion 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 Cash Management compliance requirement. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 30 SILVER CREEK SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Reimbursement requests for the program were prepared by one employee and reviewed by another employee; however, no supporting documentation was provided to the reviewer. As documentation did not accompany the reimbursement request, and the reimbursement requests, as noted below, did not agree to the ledger, the reviewer could not have ensured expenses were paid prior to requesting reimbursement. Five reimbursement requests were submitted during the audit period. All five reimbursement requests were selected for testing. Of the five reimbursement requests tested, three were not traceable to the School Corporation's fund ledger. For those three reimbursement requests, the expenditures in the ledger exceeded the amount requested by $67,907, in total. However, as the expenditures could not be determined for each reimbursement requested, it could not be determined if the School Corporation paid for the expense prior to requesting reimbursement. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period for ESSER I and ESSER II grant funds. 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 200.305(b) 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. . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) 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. . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 31 SILVER CREEK SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, it could not be determined if all expenditures were paid by the School Corporation prior to requesting reimbursement. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation design and implement a proper system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that would provide segregation of duties to ensure appropriate reviews, approvals, and oversight are taking place prior to filing the reimbursement requests. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-003 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): 21611-007-PN01, 22611-007-PN01, 22619-007-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 prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2021-003. Condition and Context The School Corporation is a member of the Daviess-Martin Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its member schools. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the earmarking requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for nonpublic school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure nonpublic school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. The Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for the 21611-007-PN01, 22611-007-PN01, and 22619-007-PN01 grant awards could not be verified for the individual member schools. Total grant expenditures were posted as expended. The nonpublic proportionate share expenditures were then determined by applying the budgeted percentage for nonpublic school expenditures to the total expenditures. These were the amounts reported to the IDOE. As such, we were unable to identify if the minimum amount per the grant awards was expended and properly reported to the IDOE as required. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was isolated to the 21611-007-PN01, 22611-007-PN01, and 22619-007-PN01 grant awards. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 WASHINGTON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, INC. 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 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal 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 must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. 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. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 WASHINGTON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, INC. SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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 Non-Public Proportionate Share funds are appropriately allocated to the member school based on expenditures charged directly on behalf of the member school. Supporting documentation for these expenditures should be retained for audit. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-003 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): 21611-007-PN01, 22611-007-PN01, 22619-007-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 prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2021-003. Condition and Context The School Corporation is a member of the Daviess-Martin Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its member schools. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the earmarking requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for nonpublic school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure nonpublic school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. The Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for the 21611-007-PN01, 22611-007-PN01, and 22619-007-PN01 grant awards could not be verified for the individual member schools. Total grant expenditures were posted as expended. The nonpublic proportionate share expenditures were then determined by applying the budgeted percentage for nonpublic school expenditures to the total expenditures. These were the amounts reported to the IDOE. As such, we were unable to identify if the minimum amount per the grant awards was expended and properly reported to the IDOE as required. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was isolated to the 21611-007-PN01, 22611-007-PN01, and 22619-007-PN01 grant awards. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 WASHINGTON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, INC. 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 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal 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 must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. 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. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 WASHINGTON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, INC. SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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 Non-Public Proportionate Share funds are appropriately allocated to the member school based on expenditures charged directly on behalf of the member school. Supporting documentation for these expenditures should be retained for audit. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-003 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): 21611-007-PN01, 22611-007-PN01, 22619-007-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 prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2021-003. Condition and Context The School Corporation is a member of the Daviess-Martin Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its member schools. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the earmarking requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for nonpublic school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure nonpublic school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. The Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for the 21611-007-PN01, 22611-007-PN01, and 22619-007-PN01 grant awards could not be verified for the individual member schools. Total grant expenditures were posted as expended. The nonpublic proportionate share expenditures were then determined by applying the budgeted percentage for nonpublic school expenditures to the total expenditures. These were the amounts reported to the IDOE. As such, we were unable to identify if the minimum amount per the grant awards was expended and properly reported to the IDOE as required. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was isolated to the 21611-007-PN01, 22611-007-PN01, and 22619-007-PN01 grant awards. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 WASHINGTON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, INC. 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 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal 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 must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. 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. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 WASHINGTON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, INC. SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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 Non-Public Proportionate Share funds are appropriately allocated to the member school based on expenditures charged directly on behalf of the member school. Supporting documentation for these expenditures should be retained for audit. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-003 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): 21611-007-PN01, 22611-007-PN01, 22619-007-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 prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2021-003. Condition and Context The School Corporation is a member of the Daviess-Martin Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its member schools. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the earmarking requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for nonpublic school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure nonpublic school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. The Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for the 21611-007-PN01, 22611-007-PN01, and 22619-007-PN01 grant awards could not be verified for the individual member schools. Total grant expenditures were posted as expended. The nonpublic proportionate share expenditures were then determined by applying the budgeted percentage for nonpublic school expenditures to the total expenditures. These were the amounts reported to the IDOE. As such, we were unable to identify if the minimum amount per the grant awards was expended and properly reported to the IDOE as required. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was isolated to the 21611-007-PN01, 22611-007-PN01, and 22619-007-PN01 grant awards. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 WASHINGTON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, INC. 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 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal 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 must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. 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. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 WASHINGTON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, INC. SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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 Non-Public Proportionate Share funds are appropriately allocated to the member school based on expenditures charged directly on behalf of the member school. Supporting documentation for these expenditures should be retained for audit. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
Finding 2023-018 – Lack of Internal Controls and Noncompliance with Subrecipient Monitoring Requirement – Emergency Rental Assistance Program (Repeat Finding – 2021-002, 2022-011) FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. Department of the Treasury ASSISTANCE LISTING: 21.023 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Emergency Rental Assistance Program FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: ERAE0418 FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Subrecipient Monitoring QUESTIONED COSTS: $1,739,575 Condition: During the process of documenting the County’s internal controls regarding federal disbursements, we noted that Oklahoma County has not established the following procedures to ensure compliance with the Subrecipient Monitoring requirements: • Evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward (2 CFR § 200.332(c)). • Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals (2 CFR § 200.332(d) through (f)). Further, when performing tests over compliance of the federal grant, it was noted that the County did not perform any subrecipient monitoring procedures; however, the County did implement a subaward agreement that was designed to ensure the subrecipients understand and use the funds in accordance with federal regulations, terms, and conditions of the subaward. Cause of Condition: Policies and procedures have not been designed and implemented to ensure the County complies with federal laws and regulations and grant agreements. Effect of Condition: This condition resulted in noncompliance with federal laws and regulations and grant requirements. Recommendation: OSAI recommends the County comply with federal laws and regulations and grant agreements by designing and implementing risk assessments for non-compliance and ensuring Subrecipient Monitoring is performed. Management Response: Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners: Oklahoma County will comply with federal laws and regulations and grant agreements by creating award agreements that are designed and implemented to ensure Subrecipient Monitoring is performed. Criteria: GAO Standards – Section 2 – Establishing an Effective Internal Control System – OV2.23 states in part: Objectives of an Entity – Compliance Objectives Management conducts activities in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. As part of specifying compliance objectives, the entity determines which laws and regulations apply to the entity. Management is expected to set objectives that incorporate these requirements. 2 CFR § 200.303(a) Internal Controls reads as follows: The non-Federal entity must: (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 § 200.332 states: All pass-through entities must: (a) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the following information at the time of the subaward and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward… (b) Evaluate each subrecipient's risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, which may include consideration of such factors as: ... (c) Consider imposing specific subaward conditions upon a subrecipient if appropriate as described in § 200.208. (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... (e) Depending upon the pass-through entity's assessment of risk posed by the subrecipient (as described in paragraph (b) of this section), the following monitoring tools may be useful for the pass-through entity to ensure proper accountability and compliance with program requirements and achievement of performance goals: ... (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. (g) Consider whether the results of the subrecipient's audits, on-site reviews, or other monitoring indicate conditions that necessitate adjustments to the pass-through entity's own records. (h) Consider taking enforcement action against noncompliant subrecipients as described in § 200.339 of this part and in program regulations.
FINDING REFERENCE NUMBER 2023-061 FEDERAL PROGRAMS (ALN – 93.558) TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES (TANF) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AWARD NUMBERS 2022G996117; 2023996117 (Federal Award Years: 2022 through 2023) ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION FOR SOCIOECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE FAMILY (ADSEF, BY ITS SPANISH ACRONYM) COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT SUBRECIPIENT MONITORING TYPE OF FINDING MATERIAL NONCOMPLIANCE AND MATERIAL WEAKNESS CRITERIA In accordance with 2 CFR 200.332, a pass-through entity must: (a) Verify that the subrecipient is not excluded or disqualified in accordance with § 180.300. Verification methods are provided in § 180.300, which include confirming in SAM.gov that a potential subrecipient is not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded from receiving Federal funds. (b) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the information provided below. A pass-through entity must provide the best available information when some of the information below is unavailable. A pass-through entity must provide the unavailable information when it is obtained. Required information includes: (1) Federal award identification. (i) Subrecipient's name (must match the name associated with its unique entity identifier); (ii) Subrecipient's unique entity identifier; (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date; (v) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; (vi) Subaward Budget Period Start and End Date; (vii) Amount of Federal Funds Obligated in the subaward; (viii) Total Amount of Federal Funds Obligated to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity, including the current financial obligation; (ix) Total Amount of the Federal Award committed to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity; (x) Federal award project description, as required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA); (xi) Name of the Federal agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings title and number; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at the time of disbursement; (xiii) Identification of whether the Federal award is for research and development; and (xiv) Indirect cost rate for the Federal award (including if the de minimis rate is used in accordance with § 200.414). (2) All requirements of the subaward, including requirements imposed by Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award; (3) Any additional requirements that the pass-through entity imposes on the subrecipient for the pass-through entity to meet its responsibilities under the Federal award. This includes information and certifications (see § 200.415) required for submitting financial and performance reports that the pass-through entity must provide to the Federal agency; … (5) A requirement that the subrecipient permit the pass-through entity and auditors to access the subrecipient's records and financial statements for the pass-through entity to fulfill its monitoring requirements; and (6) Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward. (c) Evaluate each subrecipient's fraud risk and risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraph (f) of this section. When evaluating a subrecipient's risk, a pass-through entity should consider the following: (1) The subrecipient's prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits. This includes considering whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with subpart F and the extent to which the same or similar subawards have been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of any Federal agency monitoring (for example, if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from the Federal agency). (d) If appropriate, consider implementing specific conditions in a subaward as described in § 200.208 and notify the Federal agency of the specific conditions. (e) Monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subrecipient complies with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward. The pass-through entity is responsible for monitoring the overall performance of a subrecipient to ensure that the goals and objectives of the subaward are achieved. In monitoring a subrecipient, a pass-through entity must: (1) Review financial and performance reports. (2) Ensure that the subrecipient takes corrective action on all significant developments that negatively affect the subaward. Significant developments include Single Audit findings related to the subaward, other audit findings, site visits, and written notifications from a subrecipient of adverse conditions which will impact their ability to meet the milestones or the objectives of a subaward. When significant developments negatively impact the subaward, a subrecipient must provide the pass-through entity with information on their plan for corrective action and any assistance needed to resolve the situation. (3) Issue a management decision for audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. (4) Resolve audit findings specifically related to the subaward. However, the pass-through entity is not responsible for resolving cross-cutting audit findings that apply to the subaward and other Federal awards or subawards. If a subrecipient has a current Single Audit report and has not been excluded from receiving Federal funding (meaning, has not been debarred or suspended), the pass-through entity may rely on the subrecipient's cognizant agency for audit or oversight agency for audit to perform audit follow-up and make management decisions related to cross-cutting audit findings in accordance with section § 200.513(a)(4)(viii). Such reliance does not eliminate the responsibility of the pass-through entity to issue subawards that conform to agency and award-specific requirements, to manage risk through ongoing subaward monitoring, and to monitor the status of the findings that are specifically related to the subaward. (f) Depending upon the pass-through entity's assessment of the risk posed by the subrecipient (as described in paragraph (c) of this section), the following monitoring tools may be useful for the pass-through entity to ensure proper accountability and compliance with program requirements and achievement of performance goals: (1) Providing subrecipients with training and technical assistance on program-related matters; (2) Performing site visits to review the subrecipient's program operations; and (3) Arranging for agreed-upon-procedures engagements as described in § 200.425. (g) Verify that a subrecipient is audited as required by subpart F of this part. (h) Consider whether the results of a subrecipient's audit, site visits, or other monitoring necessitate adjustments to the pass-through entity's records. (i) Consider taking enforcement action against noncompliant subrecipients as described in § 200.339 and in program regulations. STATEMENT OF CONDITION As part of our understanding of the program, program staff were interviewed regarding the existence of subrecipients. None of the staff interviewed identified any transactions involving subrecipients. However, in our testing of internal controls and compliance with the allowable costs/cost principles requirement, transactions were selected to assess compliance with this requirement. Upon receiving documentation from a contractor, we realized that the transactions with this supplier were in the capacity of a subrecipient. In addition, the SEFA submitted by the PRDF does not identify any transaction under a subrecipient related to this program. In the final draft of the SEFA submitted for audit procedures, ADSEF reported the amount of $2,411,184, which included all transactions related to preventive services. We examined four (4) vouchers related to these services; the contract, proposal and invoices do not indicate information related to subrecipients. QUESTIONED COSTS No questioned costs identified. PERSPECTIVE INFORMATION This is a systemic deficiency. The staff in charge of administering TANF funds were unaware of the factors required to properly identify subrecipient transactions. The total expenditure reflected in the database related to subrecipient activities totaled $686,052.17 for the audited fiscal year. After providing the requirements for a subrecipient, staff were interviewed again to verify whether other providers met the subrecipient requirements, but no other entities were identified. From our testing, we identified no other subrecipients. Although, in the final draft of the SEFA submitted for audit procedures, all expenditures related to preventive services were included as pass-through expenditures. STATEMENT OF CAUSE The staff in charge of administering the program were unaware of the factors that determine whether a contractor is a subrecipient or a contractor. ADSEF has not established an adequate procedures manual that demonstrates compliance with all requirements for subrecipient activities. POSSIBLE ASSERTED EFFECT ADSEF does not have internal controls related to the identification, management, and reporting of subrecipient activities. This situation prevents compliance with all compliance requirements related to subrecipient monitoring. This situation prevented the proper presentation of Federal expenditures incurred under this program in the SEFA or other financial reports required by Federal agencies. IDENTIFICATION OF REPEAT FINDING No reported as prior audit finding. RECOMMENDATIONS The PRDF must provide training to ADSEF personnel on the requirements and regulations related to subrecipient monitoring. We recommend that management establish internal controls and compliance measures that allow for the identification, reporting, and monitoring of subrecipient activities.
Type of finding: Federal Award. Situation: Material weakness; material noncompliance with federal regulations. Federal Program: Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) Assistance Listing 97.036 Compliance Requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed / Allowable costs/Cost Principle Prior-Year(s) Audit Finding(s): 2022-005, 2021-002 Questioned Costs: $14,435 Condition: The Municipality could not provide supporting documentation for the disbursement of $14,435 of program funds. Documentation for the disbursement of $14,435 of program funds was not identified by the Municipality nor provided for our review, therefore we could not ascertain that the disbursements complied with program regulations. Context: A total of $14,435 of program funds were disbursed without sufficient and appropriate documentation. In previous years, program funds were also disbursed without sufficient and appropriate documentation and were accounted for as increases in the due from other funds account. The Municipality repaid during the current year the amount of $49,839. As of June 30, 2023 the balance of the due from other funds account is $505,271. Program regulation states that costs must be directly tied to the performance of eligible work; adequately documented; reduced by all applicable credits, such as insurance proceeds and salvage values; authorized and not prohibited under Federal or State government laws or regulation; consistent with the applicant’s internal policies, regulations, and procedures that apply uniformly toboth Federal awards and other activities of the applicant; and necessary and reasonable to accomplish the work properly and efficiently. We could not ascertain that these disbursements complied with program regulations. The Public Assistance Program is authorized under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency assistance Act, as Amended (Stafford Act). Assistance is provided so that communities can quickly respond to and recover from major disasters or emergencies declared by the President. The Municipality has approved grants for the Hurricane Irma and Maria disasters declared on September 2017 (disasters 3384EMPR, 4336 DRPR and 4339 DRPR). The program approves funding for debris removal, emergency protective measures, and the restoration of disaster-damaged, publicly owned facilities. It also encourages protection of damaged facilities from future incidents by providing assistance for hazard mitigation measures. Criteria: Uniform Guidance states in 2 CFR 200.403 that otherwise authorized by statue, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity and be adequately documented. As per 2 CFR 200.302 the other non-Federal entity’s financial management system must provide for the tracing of funds to a level of expenditures adequate to establish that such funds have been used according to the federal statues, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal Award. As per 44 CFR section 206.201 and 206.203, the public assistance program provides grant funding for emergency protective measures and debris removal (Emergency Work) and for permanent restoration of damaged facilities, including cost-effective hazard mitigation to protect facilities from future damage (Permanent Work) Cause: The Municipality applied inconsistent program procedures to the three disbursement transactions totaling $189,389 Effect: Remedies for noncompliance are described in 2 CFR 200.339. Grantor may impose additional conditions as described in 2 CRF 200.208 or take one or more of the actions listed on 2 CRF 200.339 as appropriate in the circumstances. Program regulations provide for recovery of assistance and penalty provisions on 44 CFR Part 206. Auditor’s recommendation: The Municipality must strengthen internal controls and procedures to assure that disbursement of program funds are properly documented, can be directly tied to the performance of eligible work, and is allowed under program regulations. Views of Responsible officials and corrective actions:
FINDING NO: 2023-096 (Repeat finding 2022-071) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma FEDERAL AGENCY: US Department of the Treasury ALN: 21.019 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: N/A FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Subrecipient Monitoring QUESTIONED COSTS: $248,779 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.303 - Internal controls 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.” 2 CFR § 200.332 - Requirements for pass-through entities states in part, “All pass-through entities must: … (b) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the information provided below. A pass-through entity must provide the best available information when some of the information below is unavailable. A pass-through entity must provide the unavailable information when it is obtained. Required information includes: (1) Federal award identification. (i) Subrecipient's name (must match the name associated with its unique entity identifier); (ii) Subrecipient's unique entity identifier; (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date; (v) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; (vi) Subaward Budget Period Start and End Date; (vii) Amount of Federal Funds Obligated in the subaward; (viii) Total Amount of Federal Funds Obligated to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity, including the current financial obligation; (ix) Total Amount of the Federal Award committed to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity; (x) Federal award project description, as required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA); (xi) Name of the Federal agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings title and number; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at the time of disbursement; (xiii) Identification of whether the Federal award is for research and development; and (xiv) Indirect cost rate for the Federal award (including if the de minimis rate is used in accordance with § 200.414). (2) All requirements of the subaward, including requirements imposed by Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award; (3) Any additional requirements that the pass-through entity imposes on the subrecipient for the pass-through entity to meet its responsibilities under the Federal award. This includes information and certifications (see § 200.415) required for submitting financial and performance reports that the pass-through entity must provide to the Federal agency; … (c) Evaluate each subrecipient's fraud risk and risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraph (f) of this section. When evaluating a subrecipient's risk, a passthrough entity should consider the following: (1) The subrecipient's prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits. This includes considering whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with subpart F and the extent to which the same or similar subawards have been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of any Federal agency monitoring (for example, if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from the Federal agency). (d) If appropriate, consider implementing specific conditions in a subaward as described in § 200.208 and notify the Federal agency of the specific conditions. (e) Monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subrecipient complies with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward. The pass-through entity is responsible for monitoring the overall performance of a subrecipient to ensure that the goals and objectives of the subaward are achieved. In monitoring a subrecipient, a pass-through entity must: (1) Review financial and performance reports. (2) Ensure that the subrecipient takes corrective action on all significant developments that negatively affect the subaward. Significant developments include Single Audit findings related to the subaward, other audit findings, site visits, and written notifications from a subrecipient of adverse conditions which will impact their ability to meet the milestones or the objectives of a subaward. When significant developments negatively impact the subaward, a subrecipient must provide the pass-through entity with information on their plan for corrective action and any assistance needed to resolve the situation. (3) Issue a management decision for audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. … .” The Department of the Treasury Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 10 from January 15, 2021 states in part, “The CARES [Coronavirus Aid, Relief, & Economic Security Act] Act provides that payments from the Fund may only be used to cover costs that— 1. are necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency with respect to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID–19); 2. were not accounted for in the budget most recently approved as of March 27, 2020 (the date of enactment of the CARES Act) for the State or government; and 3. were incurred during the period that begins on March 1, 2020 and ends on December 31, 2021. … This guidance applies in a like manner to costs of subrecipients. Thus, a grant or loan, for example, provided by a recipient using payments from the Fund must be used by the subrecipient only to purchase (or reimburse a purchase of) goods or services for which receipt both is needed within the covered period and occurs within the covered period. The direct recipient of payments from the Fund is ultimately responsible for compliance with this limitation on use of payments from the Fund. Condition and Context: Per the GAAP Package Z - Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA), the State of Oklahoma reported $249,660.69 in CRF cash basis expenditures reimbursed to subrecipients by the CARES FORWARD1 team. We tested all five (5) reimbursement transactions for one subrecipient and noted the following: • One (20%) of the five (5) transactions totaling $4,594.40 contained no supporting documentation. • Four (80%) of the five (5) transactions totaling $245,066.29 contained costs totaling $244,184.29 that were incurred by the subrecipient after 12/31/2021 (covered period). The State of Oklahoma – CARES FORWARD team failed to perform an adequate review to ensure the subrecipient purchased (or reimbursed a purchase of) goods or services for which receipt both is needed within the covered period and occurs within the covered period. Further, we noted Award documents provided to the subrecipient did not include the terms and conditions of the subaward. Also, the CARES FORWARD team did not perform a risk assessment on subrecipients receiving continued funding during SFY 2023. Lastly, while performing Single Audit monitoring testwork on three (3) subrecipients for SFY 2022, we determined that the State of Oklahoma - CARES FORWARD team did not perform tracking on two (2) of the subrecipients that received CRF funds. For the two subrecipients, there is no documentation to show that OMES received the SFY 2022 Single Audit, evaluated whether the subrecipient took corrective action on all significant developments that affect the subaward, and issued a management decision for any audit findings pertaining to the federal award. Cause: Adequate controls were not in place to ensure the monitoring process utilized by the CARES FORWARD team considered the Department of Treasury guidance when determining whether the financial activities of the subrecipients complied with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award prior to payment. Also, the State of Oklahoma – CARES FORWARD2 team did not have sufficient internal controls in place to ensure subrecipient award documentation included the terms and conditions of the subaward in accordance with 2 CFR § 200.332. Further, the State of Oklahoma – CARES FORWARD team did not have sufficient internal controls in place to ensure subrecipients are assessed for risk in accordance with 2 CFR § 200.332. Lastly, the State of Oklahoma – CARES Forward team did not have sufficient internal controls in place to ensure subrecipients are monitored for a Single Audit in accordance with 2 CFR § 200.332. Effect: These deficiencies resulted in questioned costs of $248,779 goods or services for which receipt both was needed and occurred within the covered period. The $248,779 in questioned costs related to subrecipient expenses is included in Finding 2023-108 (Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Period of Performance) as well, as the same transactions failed to meet requirements under all these compliance areas. The amount should not be considered cumulative. The State of Oklahoma – CARES FORWARD team did not comply with 2 CFR § 200.332. Recommendation: We recommend for future grants that the State of Oklahoma strengthen their control process related to subrecipients to ensure compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Brandy Manek Anticipated Completion Date: September 2022 Corrective Action Planned: The State of Oklahoma/Office of Management and Enterprise Services partially agrees with this finding. See corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: The State Auditor & Inspector’s Office questioned $248,779 to one subrecipient for SFY 2023 based on the expenditures for goods or services both needing to be within the covered period and occurring within the covered period. Therefore, since the subrecipient payments were after the covered period (December 31, 2021), the finding will stand. Further, since there was not a risk assessment performed during the year and the Single Audit tracking was not performed for SFY 2022 for 2 of the 3 subrecipients, the finding will stand.
FINDING NO: 2023-096 (Repeat finding 2022-071) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma FEDERAL AGENCY: US Department of the Treasury ALN: 21.019 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: N/A FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Subrecipient Monitoring QUESTIONED COSTS: $248,779 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.303 - Internal controls 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.” 2 CFR § 200.332 - Requirements for pass-through entities states in part, “All pass-through entities must: … (b) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the information provided below. A pass-through entity must provide the best available information when some of the information below is unavailable. A pass-through entity must provide the unavailable information when it is obtained. Required information includes: (1) Federal award identification. (i) Subrecipient's name (must match the name associated with its unique entity identifier); (ii) Subrecipient's unique entity identifier; (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date; (v) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; (vi) Subaward Budget Period Start and End Date; (vii) Amount of Federal Funds Obligated in the subaward; (viii) Total Amount of Federal Funds Obligated to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity, including the current financial obligation; (ix) Total Amount of the Federal Award committed to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity; (x) Federal award project description, as required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA); (xi) Name of the Federal agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings title and number; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at the time of disbursement; (xiii) Identification of whether the Federal award is for research and development; and (xiv) Indirect cost rate for the Federal award (including if the de minimis rate is used in accordance with § 200.414). (2) All requirements of the subaward, including requirements imposed by Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award; (3) Any additional requirements that the pass-through entity imposes on the subrecipient for the pass-through entity to meet its responsibilities under the Federal award. This includes information and certifications (see § 200.415) required for submitting financial and performance reports that the pass-through entity must provide to the Federal agency; … (c) Evaluate each subrecipient's fraud risk and risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraph (f) of this section. When evaluating a subrecipient's risk, a passthrough entity should consider the following: (1) The subrecipient's prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits. This includes considering whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with subpart F and the extent to which the same or similar subawards have been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of any Federal agency monitoring (for example, if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from the Federal agency). (d) If appropriate, consider implementing specific conditions in a subaward as described in § 200.208 and notify the Federal agency of the specific conditions. (e) Monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subrecipient complies with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward. The pass-through entity is responsible for monitoring the overall performance of a subrecipient to ensure that the goals and objectives of the subaward are achieved. In monitoring a subrecipient, a pass-through entity must: (1) Review financial and performance reports. (2) Ensure that the subrecipient takes corrective action on all significant developments that negatively affect the subaward. Significant developments include Single Audit findings related to the subaward, other audit findings, site visits, and written notifications from a subrecipient of adverse conditions which will impact their ability to meet the milestones or the objectives of a subaward. When significant developments negatively impact the subaward, a subrecipient must provide the pass-through entity with information on their plan for corrective action and any assistance needed to resolve the situation. (3) Issue a management decision for audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. … .” The Department of the Treasury Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 10 from January 15, 2021 states in part, “The CARES [Coronavirus Aid, Relief, & Economic Security Act] Act provides that payments from the Fund may only be used to cover costs that— 1. are necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency with respect to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID–19); 2. were not accounted for in the budget most recently approved as of March 27, 2020 (the date of enactment of the CARES Act) for the State or government; and 3. were incurred during the period that begins on March 1, 2020 and ends on December 31, 2021. … This guidance applies in a like manner to costs of subrecipients. Thus, a grant or loan, for example, provided by a recipient using payments from the Fund must be used by the subrecipient only to purchase (or reimburse a purchase of) goods or services for which receipt both is needed within the covered period and occurs within the covered period. The direct recipient of payments from the Fund is ultimately responsible for compliance with this limitation on use of payments from the Fund. Condition and Context: Per the GAAP Package Z - Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA), the State of Oklahoma reported $249,660.69 in CRF cash basis expenditures reimbursed to subrecipients by the CARES FORWARD1 team. We tested all five (5) reimbursement transactions for one subrecipient and noted the following: • One (20%) of the five (5) transactions totaling $4,594.40 contained no supporting documentation. • Four (80%) of the five (5) transactions totaling $245,066.29 contained costs totaling $244,184.29 that were incurred by the subrecipient after 12/31/2021 (covered period). The State of Oklahoma – CARES FORWARD team failed to perform an adequate review to ensure the subrecipient purchased (or reimbursed a purchase of) goods or services for which receipt both is needed within the covered period and occurs within the covered period. Further, we noted Award documents provided to the subrecipient did not include the terms and conditions of the subaward. Also, the CARES FORWARD team did not perform a risk assessment on subrecipients receiving continued funding during SFY 2023. Lastly, while performing Single Audit monitoring testwork on three (3) subrecipients for SFY 2022, we determined that the State of Oklahoma - CARES FORWARD team did not perform tracking on two (2) of the subrecipients that received CRF funds. For the two subrecipients, there is no documentation to show that OMES received the SFY 2022 Single Audit, evaluated whether the subrecipient took corrective action on all significant developments that affect the subaward, and issued a management decision for any audit findings pertaining to the federal award. Cause: Adequate controls were not in place to ensure the monitoring process utilized by the CARES FORWARD team considered the Department of Treasury guidance when determining whether the financial activities of the subrecipients complied with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award prior to payment. Also, the State of Oklahoma – CARES FORWARD2 team did not have sufficient internal controls in place to ensure subrecipient award documentation included the terms and conditions of the subaward in accordance with 2 CFR § 200.332. Further, the State of Oklahoma – CARES FORWARD team did not have sufficient internal controls in place to ensure subrecipients are assessed for risk in accordance with 2 CFR § 200.332. Lastly, the State of Oklahoma – CARES Forward team did not have sufficient internal controls in place to ensure subrecipients are monitored for a Single Audit in accordance with 2 CFR § 200.332. Effect: These deficiencies resulted in questioned costs of $248,779 goods or services for which receipt both was needed and occurred within the covered period. The $248,779 in questioned costs related to subrecipient expenses is included in Finding 2023-108 (Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Period of Performance) as well, as the same transactions failed to meet requirements under all these compliance areas. The amount should not be considered cumulative. The State of Oklahoma – CARES FORWARD team did not comply with 2 CFR § 200.332. Recommendation: We recommend for future grants that the State of Oklahoma strengthen their control process related to subrecipients to ensure compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Brandy Manek Anticipated Completion Date: September 2022 Corrective Action Planned: The State of Oklahoma/Office of Management and Enterprise Services partially agrees with this finding. See corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: The State Auditor & Inspector’s Office questioned $248,779 to one subrecipient for SFY 2023 based on the expenditures for goods or services both needing to be within the covered period and occurring within the covered period. Therefore, since the subrecipient payments were after the covered period (December 31, 2021), the finding will stand. Further, since there was not a risk assessment performed during the year and the Single Audit tracking was not performed for SFY 2022 for 2 of the 3 subrecipients, the finding will stand.
FINDING NO: 2023-096 (Repeat finding 2022-071) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma FEDERAL AGENCY: US Department of the Treasury ALN: 21.019 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: N/A FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Subrecipient Monitoring QUESTIONED COSTS: $248,779 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.303 - Internal controls 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.” 2 CFR § 200.332 - Requirements for pass-through entities states in part, “All pass-through entities must: … (b) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the information provided below. A pass-through entity must provide the best available information when some of the information below is unavailable. A pass-through entity must provide the unavailable information when it is obtained. Required information includes: (1) Federal award identification. (i) Subrecipient's name (must match the name associated with its unique entity identifier); (ii) Subrecipient's unique entity identifier; (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date; (v) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; (vi) Subaward Budget Period Start and End Date; (vii) Amount of Federal Funds Obligated in the subaward; (viii) Total Amount of Federal Funds Obligated to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity, including the current financial obligation; (ix) Total Amount of the Federal Award committed to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity; (x) Federal award project description, as required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA); (xi) Name of the Federal agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings title and number; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at the time of disbursement; (xiii) Identification of whether the Federal award is for research and development; and (xiv) Indirect cost rate for the Federal award (including if the de minimis rate is used in accordance with § 200.414). (2) All requirements of the subaward, including requirements imposed by Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award; (3) Any additional requirements that the pass-through entity imposes on the subrecipient for the pass-through entity to meet its responsibilities under the Federal award. This includes information and certifications (see § 200.415) required for submitting financial and performance reports that the pass-through entity must provide to the Federal agency; … (c) Evaluate each subrecipient's fraud risk and risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraph (f) of this section. When evaluating a subrecipient's risk, a passthrough entity should consider the following: (1) The subrecipient's prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits. This includes considering whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with subpart F and the extent to which the same or similar subawards have been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of any Federal agency monitoring (for example, if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from the Federal agency). (d) If appropriate, consider implementing specific conditions in a subaward as described in § 200.208 and notify the Federal agency of the specific conditions. (e) Monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subrecipient complies with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward. The pass-through entity is responsible for monitoring the overall performance of a subrecipient to ensure that the goals and objectives of the subaward are achieved. In monitoring a subrecipient, a pass-through entity must: (1) Review financial and performance reports. (2) Ensure that the subrecipient takes corrective action on all significant developments that negatively affect the subaward. Significant developments include Single Audit findings related to the subaward, other audit findings, site visits, and written notifications from a subrecipient of adverse conditions which will impact their ability to meet the milestones or the objectives of a subaward. When significant developments negatively impact the subaward, a subrecipient must provide the pass-through entity with information on their plan for corrective action and any assistance needed to resolve the situation. (3) Issue a management decision for audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. … .” The Department of the Treasury Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 10 from January 15, 2021 states in part, “The CARES [Coronavirus Aid, Relief, & Economic Security Act] Act provides that payments from the Fund may only be used to cover costs that— 1. are necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency with respect to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID–19); 2. were not accounted for in the budget most recently approved as of March 27, 2020 (the date of enactment of the CARES Act) for the State or government; and 3. were incurred during the period that begins on March 1, 2020 and ends on December 31, 2021. … This guidance applies in a like manner to costs of subrecipients. Thus, a grant or loan, for example, provided by a recipient using payments from the Fund must be used by the subrecipient only to purchase (or reimburse a purchase of) goods or services for which receipt both is needed within the covered period and occurs within the covered period. The direct recipient of payments from the Fund is ultimately responsible for compliance with this limitation on use of payments from the Fund. Condition and Context: Per the GAAP Package Z - Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA), the State of Oklahoma reported $249,660.69 in CRF cash basis expenditures reimbursed to subrecipients by the CARES FORWARD1 team. We tested all five (5) reimbursement transactions for one subrecipient and noted the following: • One (20%) of the five (5) transactions totaling $4,594.40 contained no supporting documentation. • Four (80%) of the five (5) transactions totaling $245,066.29 contained costs totaling $244,184.29 that were incurred by the subrecipient after 12/31/2021 (covered period). The State of Oklahoma – CARES FORWARD team failed to perform an adequate review to ensure the subrecipient purchased (or reimbursed a purchase of) goods or services for which receipt both is needed within the covered period and occurs within the covered period. Further, we noted Award documents provided to the subrecipient did not include the terms and conditions of the subaward. Also, the CARES FORWARD team did not perform a risk assessment on subrecipients receiving continued funding during SFY 2023. Lastly, while performing Single Audit monitoring testwork on three (3) subrecipients for SFY 2022, we determined that the State of Oklahoma - CARES FORWARD team did not perform tracking on two (2) of the subrecipients that received CRF funds. For the two subrecipients, there is no documentation to show that OMES received the SFY 2022 Single Audit, evaluated whether the subrecipient took corrective action on all significant developments that affect the subaward, and issued a management decision for any audit findings pertaining to the federal award. Cause: Adequate controls were not in place to ensure the monitoring process utilized by the CARES FORWARD team considered the Department of Treasury guidance when determining whether the financial activities of the subrecipients complied with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award prior to payment. Also, the State of Oklahoma – CARES FORWARD2 team did not have sufficient internal controls in place to ensure subrecipient award documentation included the terms and conditions of the subaward in accordance with 2 CFR § 200.332. Further, the State of Oklahoma – CARES FORWARD team did not have sufficient internal controls in place to ensure subrecipients are assessed for risk in accordance with 2 CFR § 200.332. Lastly, the State of Oklahoma – CARES Forward team did not have sufficient internal controls in place to ensure subrecipients are monitored for a Single Audit in accordance with 2 CFR § 200.332. Effect: These deficiencies resulted in questioned costs of $248,779 goods or services for which receipt both was needed and occurred within the covered period. The $248,779 in questioned costs related to subrecipient expenses is included in Finding 2023-108 (Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Period of Performance) as well, as the same transactions failed to meet requirements under all these compliance areas. The amount should not be considered cumulative. The State of Oklahoma – CARES FORWARD team did not comply with 2 CFR § 200.332. Recommendation: We recommend for future grants that the State of Oklahoma strengthen their control process related to subrecipients to ensure compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Brandy Manek Anticipated Completion Date: September 2022 Corrective Action Planned: The State of Oklahoma/Office of Management and Enterprise Services partially agrees with this finding. See corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: The State Auditor & Inspector’s Office questioned $248,779 to one subrecipient for SFY 2023 based on the expenditures for goods or services both needing to be within the covered period and occurring within the covered period. Therefore, since the subrecipient payments were after the covered period (December 31, 2021), the finding will stand. Further, since there was not a risk assessment performed during the year and the Single Audit tracking was not performed for SFY 2022 for 2 of the 3 subrecipients, the finding will stand.
FINDING NO: 2023-096 (Repeat finding 2022-071) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma FEDERAL AGENCY: US Department of the Treasury ALN: 21.019 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: N/A FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Subrecipient Monitoring QUESTIONED COSTS: $248,779 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.303 - Internal controls 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.” 2 CFR § 200.332 - Requirements for pass-through entities states in part, “All pass-through entities must: … (b) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the information provided below. A pass-through entity must provide the best available information when some of the information below is unavailable. A pass-through entity must provide the unavailable information when it is obtained. Required information includes: (1) Federal award identification. (i) Subrecipient's name (must match the name associated with its unique entity identifier); (ii) Subrecipient's unique entity identifier; (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date; (v) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; (vi) Subaward Budget Period Start and End Date; (vii) Amount of Federal Funds Obligated in the subaward; (viii) Total Amount of Federal Funds Obligated to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity, including the current financial obligation; (ix) Total Amount of the Federal Award committed to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity; (x) Federal award project description, as required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA); (xi) Name of the Federal agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings title and number; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at the time of disbursement; (xiii) Identification of whether the Federal award is for research and development; and (xiv) Indirect cost rate for the Federal award (including if the de minimis rate is used in accordance with § 200.414). (2) All requirements of the subaward, including requirements imposed by Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award; (3) Any additional requirements that the pass-through entity imposes on the subrecipient for the pass-through entity to meet its responsibilities under the Federal award. This includes information and certifications (see § 200.415) required for submitting financial and performance reports that the pass-through entity must provide to the Federal agency; … (c) Evaluate each subrecipient's fraud risk and risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraph (f) of this section. When evaluating a subrecipient's risk, a passthrough entity should consider the following: (1) The subrecipient's prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits. This includes considering whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with subpart F and the extent to which the same or similar subawards have been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of any Federal agency monitoring (for example, if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from the Federal agency). (d) If appropriate, consider implementing specific conditions in a subaward as described in § 200.208 and notify the Federal agency of the specific conditions. (e) Monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subrecipient complies with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward. The pass-through entity is responsible for monitoring the overall performance of a subrecipient to ensure that the goals and objectives of the subaward are achieved. In monitoring a subrecipient, a pass-through entity must: (1) Review financial and performance reports. (2) Ensure that the subrecipient takes corrective action on all significant developments that negatively affect the subaward. Significant developments include Single Audit findings related to the subaward, other audit findings, site visits, and written notifications from a subrecipient of adverse conditions which will impact their ability to meet the milestones or the objectives of a subaward. When significant developments negatively impact the subaward, a subrecipient must provide the pass-through entity with information on their plan for corrective action and any assistance needed to resolve the situation. (3) Issue a management decision for audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. … .” The Department of the Treasury Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 10 from January 15, 2021 states in part, “The CARES [Coronavirus Aid, Relief, & Economic Security Act] Act provides that payments from the Fund may only be used to cover costs that— 1. are necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency with respect to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID–19); 2. were not accounted for in the budget most recently approved as of March 27, 2020 (the date of enactment of the CARES Act) for the State or government; and 3. were incurred during the period that begins on March 1, 2020 and ends on December 31, 2021. … This guidance applies in a like manner to costs of subrecipients. Thus, a grant or loan, for example, provided by a recipient using payments from the Fund must be used by the subrecipient only to purchase (or reimburse a purchase of) goods or services for which receipt both is needed within the covered period and occurs within the covered period. The direct recipient of payments from the Fund is ultimately responsible for compliance with this limitation on use of payments from the Fund. Condition and Context: Per the GAAP Package Z - Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA), the State of Oklahoma reported $249,660.69 in CRF cash basis expenditures reimbursed to subrecipients by the CARES FORWARD1 team. We tested all five (5) reimbursement transactions for one subrecipient and noted the following: • One (20%) of the five (5) transactions totaling $4,594.40 contained no supporting documentation. • Four (80%) of the five (5) transactions totaling $245,066.29 contained costs totaling $244,184.29 that were incurred by the subrecipient after 12/31/2021 (covered period). The State of Oklahoma – CARES FORWARD team failed to perform an adequate review to ensure the subrecipient purchased (or reimbursed a purchase of) goods or services for which receipt both is needed within the covered period and occurs within the covered period. Further, we noted Award documents provided to the subrecipient did not include the terms and conditions of the subaward. Also, the CARES FORWARD team did not perform a risk assessment on subrecipients receiving continued funding during SFY 2023. Lastly, while performing Single Audit monitoring testwork on three (3) subrecipients for SFY 2022, we determined that the State of Oklahoma - CARES FORWARD team did not perform tracking on two (2) of the subrecipients that received CRF funds. For the two subrecipients, there is no documentation to show that OMES received the SFY 2022 Single Audit, evaluated whether the subrecipient took corrective action on all significant developments that affect the subaward, and issued a management decision for any audit findings pertaining to the federal award. Cause: Adequate controls were not in place to ensure the monitoring process utilized by the CARES FORWARD team considered the Department of Treasury guidance when determining whether the financial activities of the subrecipients complied with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award prior to payment. Also, the State of Oklahoma – CARES FORWARD2 team did not have sufficient internal controls in place to ensure subrecipient award documentation included the terms and conditions of the subaward in accordance with 2 CFR § 200.332. Further, the State of Oklahoma – CARES FORWARD team did not have sufficient internal controls in place to ensure subrecipients are assessed for risk in accordance with 2 CFR § 200.332. Lastly, the State of Oklahoma – CARES Forward team did not have sufficient internal controls in place to ensure subrecipients are monitored for a Single Audit in accordance with 2 CFR § 200.332. Effect: These deficiencies resulted in questioned costs of $248,779 goods or services for which receipt both was needed and occurred within the covered period. The $248,779 in questioned costs related to subrecipient expenses is included in Finding 2023-108 (Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Period of Performance) as well, as the same transactions failed to meet requirements under all these compliance areas. The amount should not be considered cumulative. The State of Oklahoma – CARES FORWARD team did not comply with 2 CFR § 200.332. Recommendation: We recommend for future grants that the State of Oklahoma strengthen their control process related to subrecipients to ensure compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Brandy Manek Anticipated Completion Date: September 2022 Corrective Action Planned: The State of Oklahoma/Office of Management and Enterprise Services partially agrees with this finding. See corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: The State Auditor & Inspector’s Office questioned $248,779 to one subrecipient for SFY 2023 based on the expenditures for goods or services both needing to be within the covered period and occurring within the covered period. Therefore, since the subrecipient payments were after the covered period (December 31, 2021), the finding will stand. Further, since there was not a risk assessment performed during the year and the Single Audit tracking was not performed for SFY 2022 for 2 of the 3 subrecipients, the finding will stand.
2 CFR § 2400.101 gives regulatory effect to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for 2 C.F.R. § 200.328 which states, unless otherwise approved by OMB, the Federal awarding agency must solicit only the OMB-approved governmentwide data elements for collection of financial information (at time of publication the Federal Financial Report or such future, OMB-approved, governmentwide data elements available from the OMB-designated standards lead. 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. The Federal awarding agency must use OMB-approved common information collections, as applicable, when providing financial and performance reporting information. 2 CFR § 200.208 states, in part, that Federal awarding agencies are responsible for ensuring that specific Federal award conditions are consistent with the program design reflected in § 200.202 and include clear performance expectations of recipients as required in § 200.301. The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal award conditions as needed, in accordance with this section, based on an analysis of specified factors. Additional Federal award conditions may be added provided the applicant or non-Federal entity has been notified, and any additional requirements must be promptly removed once the conditions that prompted them have been satisfied. Additional Federal award conditions may include items such as additional, more detailed financial reports. The State of Ohio Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Grant Agreements for the Village of Lafayette Water Line Project (B-W-20-1AB-1), the Gomer Wastewater Collection System Project (B-W-1AB-3) and Village of Harrod Water Line Project (B-W-20-1AB-2), state that the grantee shall submit the required reports in an adequate and timely fashion. Granter shall provide a format for these reports and shall instruct Grantee on the proper completion of said reports. All report forms and requirements listed herein shall be provided by Granter, but shall not be construed to limit Granter in making additional and/or further requests, nor in the change or addition of detail to the items listed. The Grantee shall submit to Granter a Status Report within 30 days of the request by Granter. The County submitted Status Reports; however, three out of six (fifty percent) Status Reports were submitted between three to six months late and for one out of six (sixteen percent) Status Reports the receipts and expenditures did not agree to the County records. Reporting errors could adversely affect future grant awards. A control system should be implemented to help ensure required reports are accurately prepared and submitted in a timely manner.
FINDING 2022-004 Subject: Formula Grants for Rural Areas and Tribal Transit Program - Subrecipient Monitoring Federal Agency: Department of Transportation Federal Programs: COVID-19 - Formula Grants for Rural Areas and Tribal Transit Program, Formula Grants for Rural Areas and Tribal Transit Program Assistance Listings Number: 20.509 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): EDS#A249-20-G20032, EDS#A249-22-G210088, EDS#A249-22-G210124 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Transportation Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The County 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, material noncompliance related to the Formula Grants for Rural Areas and Tribal Transit Program funds (Transit program) passed through to a subrecipient. The County received and passed through to a subrecipient $664,071 in Transit program funds. The County is to clearly identify the award and applicable requirements to the subrecipient, evaluate the risk of noncompliance related to the subrecipient to determine appropriate monitoring of the subaward, and monitor the activities of the subrecipient to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals. As part of managing the award, the County is to evaluate the subrecipients risk of noncompliance to determine the extent of monitoring. Such factors to consider would include the subrecipients prior experience with the award or similar awards, results of previous audits, any personnel or system changes at the subrecipient, and the extent and results of federal reviews. Based on the results of the County's risk of noncompliance evaluation, the extent of monitoring can be determined. Monitoring activities include, but are not limited to, reviewing financial and performance reports, ensuring audits are obtained as required, follow-up to ensure appropriate action was taken on deficiencies identified during an audit, issuing management decisions for applicable findings related to the federal award, and ensuring audit findings related to the subaward are resolved. The County did not have any policies or procedures in place to evaluate the subrecipient's risk of noncompliance or to monitor the activity of the subrecipient. Per inquiry of the County, it was determined an evaluation of the risk of noncompliance for the subrecipient was not completed, nor did the subrecipient's files support any such evaluation. In addition, while the subrecipient provided reimbursement requests, the requests did not include sufficient evidence for the County to ascertain if the subrecipient was complying with the grant requirements. The County also did not request or review the subrecipient's audit or monitoring reports to identify any potential noncompliance, determine if management decisions were needed, or if any issues identified were properly resolved. 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 200.332 Requirements for pass-through entities. (Revised Uniform Guidance) states in part: "All pass-through entities must: . . . (b) Evaluate each subrecipient's risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, which may include consideration of such factors as: (1) The subrecipient's prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits including whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with Subpart F of this part, and the extent to which the same or similar subaward has been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of Federal awarding agency monitoring (e.g., if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency). (c) Consider imposing specific subaward conditions upon a subrecipient if appropriate as described in ? 200.208. (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: (1) Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. (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 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 and not responsible for resolving cross-cutting findings. If a subrecipient has a current Single Audit report posted in the Federal Audit Clearinghouse and has not otherwise been excluded from receipt of Federal funding (e.g., has been debarred or suspended), the pass-through entity may rely on the subrecipient's cognizant audit agency or cognizant oversight agency to perform audit follow-up and make management decisions related to cross-cutting findings in accordance with section ? 200.513(a)(3)(vii). Such reliance does not eliminate the responsibility of the pass-through entity to issue subawards that conform to agency and award-specific requirements, to manage risk through ongoing subaward monitoring, and to monitor the status of the findings that are specifically related to the subaward. Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the County. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the County'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 implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, the County did not properly evaluate the subrecipients risk of noncompliance or adequately monitor the subrecipient. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the County. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the County implement a proper system of internal controls, including segregation of duties, to evaluate the subrecipients risk of noncompliance and adequately monitor the subrecipient. Additionally, policies and procedures should be implemented to ensure appropriate reviews, approvals, and oversight are taking place, as needed, to evaluate and monitor its subrecipient. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-004 Subject: Formula Grants for Rural Areas and Tribal Transit Program - Subrecipient Monitoring Federal Agency: Department of Transportation Federal Programs: COVID-19 - Formula Grants for Rural Areas and Tribal Transit Program, Formula Grants for Rural Areas and Tribal Transit Program Assistance Listings Number: 20.509 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): EDS#A249-20-G20032, EDS#A249-22-G210088, EDS#A249-22-G210124 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Transportation Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The County 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, material noncompliance related to the Formula Grants for Rural Areas and Tribal Transit Program funds (Transit program) passed through to a subrecipient. The County received and passed through to a subrecipient $664,071 in Transit program funds. The County is to clearly identify the award and applicable requirements to the subrecipient, evaluate the risk of noncompliance related to the subrecipient to determine appropriate monitoring of the subaward, and monitor the activities of the subrecipient to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals. As part of managing the award, the County is to evaluate the subrecipients risk of noncompliance to determine the extent of monitoring. Such factors to consider would include the subrecipients prior experience with the award or similar awards, results of previous audits, any personnel or system changes at the subrecipient, and the extent and results of federal reviews. Based on the results of the County's risk of noncompliance evaluation, the extent of monitoring can be determined. Monitoring activities include, but are not limited to, reviewing financial and performance reports, ensuring audits are obtained as required, follow-up to ensure appropriate action was taken on deficiencies identified during an audit, issuing management decisions for applicable findings related to the federal award, and ensuring audit findings related to the subaward are resolved. The County did not have any policies or procedures in place to evaluate the subrecipient's risk of noncompliance or to monitor the activity of the subrecipient. Per inquiry of the County, it was determined an evaluation of the risk of noncompliance for the subrecipient was not completed, nor did the subrecipient's files support any such evaluation. In addition, while the subrecipient provided reimbursement requests, the requests did not include sufficient evidence for the County to ascertain if the subrecipient was complying with the grant requirements. The County also did not request or review the subrecipient's audit or monitoring reports to identify any potential noncompliance, determine if management decisions were needed, or if any issues identified were properly resolved. 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 200.332 Requirements for pass-through entities. (Revised Uniform Guidance) states in part: "All pass-through entities must: . . . (b) Evaluate each subrecipient's risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, which may include consideration of such factors as: (1) The subrecipient's prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits including whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with Subpart F of this part, and the extent to which the same or similar subaward has been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of Federal awarding agency monitoring (e.g., if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency). (c) Consider imposing specific subaward conditions upon a subrecipient if appropriate as described in ? 200.208. (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: (1) Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. (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 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 and not responsible for resolving cross-cutting findings. If a subrecipient has a current Single Audit report posted in the Federal Audit Clearinghouse and has not otherwise been excluded from receipt of Federal funding (e.g., has been debarred or suspended), the pass-through entity may rely on the subrecipient's cognizant audit agency or cognizant oversight agency to perform audit follow-up and make management decisions related to cross-cutting findings in accordance with section ? 200.513(a)(3)(vii). Such reliance does not eliminate the responsibility of the pass-through entity to issue subawards that conform to agency and award-specific requirements, to manage risk through ongoing subaward monitoring, and to monitor the status of the findings that are specifically related to the subaward. Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the County. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the County'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 implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, the County did not properly evaluate the subrecipients risk of noncompliance or adequately monitor the subrecipient. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the County. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the County implement a proper system of internal controls, including segregation of duties, to evaluate the subrecipients risk of noncompliance and adequately monitor the subrecipient. Additionally, policies and procedures should be implemented to ensure appropriate reviews, approvals, and oversight are taking place, as needed, to evaluate and monitor its subrecipient. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
2022-002 Cash Management - Formula Grants for Rural Areas and Tribal Transit Program ALN 20.509 U.S. Department of Transportation Criteria: 2 CFR ?1200.1 gives regulatory effect to the Department of Transportation for 2 CFR ? 200.305(b)(3) which states 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. ODOT Federal Transit Administration Section 5311 Rural Transit Program Criteria and Application Instruction, Section VII, Part D provides that the grantee must submit via e-mail quarterly operating data reports on the 15th day of the month following the end of the calendar quarter. Condition: The County was required to submit quarterly invoices by the 15th day of the month following the end of the calendar quarter. Context: During our review of the quarterly reports, we noted the County had submitted all 2022 reports late. Effect: The County was not in compliance with cash management requirements in 2022. Cause: Lack of sufficient internal controls over the reporting requirements of the Rural Transit Program. Recommendation: We recommend the County enhance its internal controls over cash management requirements. View of Responsible Officials: See Corrective Action Plan
Finding Number: 2022-007 Repeat Finding: Yes Type of Finding: Material Weakness in Internal Control and Material Noncompliance Description: Subrecipient Monitoring and Management Major Programs AL#93.665 - Emergency Grants to Address Mental and Substance Use Disorders During COVID-19 ? Direct Award (DHHS) ? Award numbers: 6H79FG000252-01M003 and 6H79FG000689-01M004 AL#93.772 - Tribal Public Health Capacity Building and Quality Improvement Umbrella Cooperative Agreement ? Direct Award (DHHS) ? Award numbers: 5NU38OT000257-04-00 and 5NU38OT000257-05-00 Questioned Costs: None How the questioned costs were computed: N/A Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Condition: The Organization did not comply with any of the subrecipient monitoring and management requirements in accordance with 2 CFR Part 200.332. Criteria: The subrecipient monitoring and management requirements that are codified in 2 CFR Part 200.332 requires the pass-through entity must: Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes: Federal award identification; All requirements imposed by the pass-through entity on the subrecipient so that the Federal award is used in accordance with Federal statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of the Federal award; Any additional requirements that the pass-through entity imposes on the subrecipient in order for the pass-through entity to meet its own responsibility to the Federal awarding agency including identification of any required financial and performance reports. An approved federally recognized indirect cost rate negotiated between the subrecipient and the Federal Government. If no approved rate exists, the pass-through entity must determine the appropriate rate in collaboration with the subrecipient, which is either: The negotiated indirect cost rate between the pass-through entity and the subrecipient; The de minimis indirect cost rate The pass-through entity must not require use of a de minimis indirect cost rate if the subrecipient has a Federally approved rate. A requirement that the subrecipient permit the pass-through entity and auditors to have access to the subrecipient?s records and financial statements as necessary for the pass-through entity to meet the requirements of this part; and Appropriate terms and conditions concerning closeout of the subaward. Evaluate each subrecipient?s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring. Consider imposing specific subaward conditions upon a subrecipient if appropriate as described in ? 200.208. 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: Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. 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. 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. The pass-through entity is responsible for resolving audit findings specifically related to the subaward and not responsible for resolving crosscutting findings. If a subrecipient has a current Single Audit report posted in the Federal Audit Clearinghouse and has not otherwise been excluded from receipt of Federal funding (e.g., has been debarred or suspended), the pass-through entity may rely on the subrecipient's cognizant audit agency or cognizant oversight agency to perform audit follow-up and make management decisions related to cross-cutting findings in accordance with section ? 200.513(a)(3)(vii). Such reliance does not eliminate the responsibility of the pass-through entity to issue subawards that conform to agency and award-specific requirements, to manage risk through ongoing subaward monitoring, and to monitor the status of the findings that are specifically related to the subaward. Depending upon the pass-through entity's assessment of risk posed by the subrecipient, the following monitoring tools may be useful for the pass-through entity to ensure proper accountability and compliance with program requirements and achievement of performance goals: Providing subrecipients with training and technical assistance on program-related matters; and Performing on-site reviews of the subrecipient's program operations; Arranging for agreed-upon-procedures engagements as described in ? 200.425. 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. Consider whether the results of the subrecipient's audits, on-site reviews, or other monitoring indicate conditions that necessitate adjustments to the pass-through entity's own records. Consider taking enforcement action against noncompliant subrecipients as described in ? 200.339 of this part and in program regulations. Cause: The Organization?s management was not aware of the subrecipient monitoring and management requirements. Effect: The Organization was not in compliance with any of the subrecipient monitoring and management requirements, resulting in a material noncompliance and a material weakness in internal controls over compliance. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization implement systems and procedures to ensure compliance with the subrecipient monitoring and management compliance requirements.
Finding Number: 2022-007 Repeat Finding: Yes Type of Finding: Material Weakness in Internal Control and Material Noncompliance Description: Subrecipient Monitoring and Management Major Programs AL#93.665 - Emergency Grants to Address Mental and Substance Use Disorders During COVID-19 ? Direct Award (DHHS) ? Award numbers: 6H79FG000252-01M003 and 6H79FG000689-01M004 AL#93.772 - Tribal Public Health Capacity Building and Quality Improvement Umbrella Cooperative Agreement ? Direct Award (DHHS) ? Award numbers: 5NU38OT000257-04-00 and 5NU38OT000257-05-00 Questioned Costs: None How the questioned costs were computed: N/A Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Condition: The Organization did not comply with any of the subrecipient monitoring and management requirements in accordance with 2 CFR Part 200.332. Criteria: The subrecipient monitoring and management requirements that are codified in 2 CFR Part 200.332 requires the pass-through entity must: Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes: Federal award identification; All requirements imposed by the pass-through entity on the subrecipient so that the Federal award is used in accordance with Federal statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of the Federal award; Any additional requirements that the pass-through entity imposes on the subrecipient in order for the pass-through entity to meet its own responsibility to the Federal awarding agency including identification of any required financial and performance reports. An approved federally recognized indirect cost rate negotiated between the subrecipient and the Federal Government. If no approved rate exists, the pass-through entity must determine the appropriate rate in collaboration with the subrecipient, which is either: The negotiated indirect cost rate between the pass-through entity and the subrecipient; The de minimis indirect cost rate The pass-through entity must not require use of a de minimis indirect cost rate if the subrecipient has a Federally approved rate. A requirement that the subrecipient permit the pass-through entity and auditors to have access to the subrecipient?s records and financial statements as necessary for the pass-through entity to meet the requirements of this part; and Appropriate terms and conditions concerning closeout of the subaward. Evaluate each subrecipient?s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring. Consider imposing specific subaward conditions upon a subrecipient if appropriate as described in ? 200.208. 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: Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. 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. 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. The pass-through entity is responsible for resolving audit findings specifically related to the subaward and not responsible for resolving crosscutting findings. If a subrecipient has a current Single Audit report posted in the Federal Audit Clearinghouse and has not otherwise been excluded from receipt of Federal funding (e.g., has been debarred or suspended), the pass-through entity may rely on the subrecipient's cognizant audit agency or cognizant oversight agency to perform audit follow-up and make management decisions related to cross-cutting findings in accordance with section ? 200.513(a)(3)(vii). Such reliance does not eliminate the responsibility of the pass-through entity to issue subawards that conform to agency and award-specific requirements, to manage risk through ongoing subaward monitoring, and to monitor the status of the findings that are specifically related to the subaward. Depending upon the pass-through entity's assessment of risk posed by the subrecipient, the following monitoring tools may be useful for the pass-through entity to ensure proper accountability and compliance with program requirements and achievement of performance goals: Providing subrecipients with training and technical assistance on program-related matters; and Performing on-site reviews of the subrecipient's program operations; Arranging for agreed-upon-procedures engagements as described in ? 200.425. 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. Consider whether the results of the subrecipient's audits, on-site reviews, or other monitoring indicate conditions that necessitate adjustments to the pass-through entity's own records. Consider taking enforcement action against noncompliant subrecipients as described in ? 200.339 of this part and in program regulations. Cause: The Organization?s management was not aware of the subrecipient monitoring and management requirements. Effect: The Organization was not in compliance with any of the subrecipient monitoring and management requirements, resulting in a material noncompliance and a material weakness in internal controls over compliance. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization implement systems and procedures to ensure compliance with the subrecipient monitoring and management compliance requirements.
Finding Number: 2022-007 Repeat Finding: Yes Type of Finding: Material Weakness in Internal Control and Material Noncompliance Description: Subrecipient Monitoring and Management Major Programs AL#93.665 - Emergency Grants to Address Mental and Substance Use Disorders During COVID-19 ? Direct Award (DHHS) ? Award numbers: 6H79FG000252-01M003 and 6H79FG000689-01M004 AL#93.772 - Tribal Public Health Capacity Building and Quality Improvement Umbrella Cooperative Agreement ? Direct Award (DHHS) ? Award numbers: 5NU38OT000257-04-00 and 5NU38OT000257-05-00 Questioned Costs: None How the questioned costs were computed: N/A Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Condition: The Organization did not comply with any of the subrecipient monitoring and management requirements in accordance with 2 CFR Part 200.332. Criteria: The subrecipient monitoring and management requirements that are codified in 2 CFR Part 200.332 requires the pass-through entity must: Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes: Federal award identification; All requirements imposed by the pass-through entity on the subrecipient so that the Federal award is used in accordance with Federal statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of the Federal award; Any additional requirements that the pass-through entity imposes on the subrecipient in order for the pass-through entity to meet its own responsibility to the Federal awarding agency including identification of any required financial and performance reports. An approved federally recognized indirect cost rate negotiated between the subrecipient and the Federal Government. If no approved rate exists, the pass-through entity must determine the appropriate rate in collaboration with the subrecipient, which is either: The negotiated indirect cost rate between the pass-through entity and the subrecipient; The de minimis indirect cost rate The pass-through entity must not require use of a de minimis indirect cost rate if the subrecipient has a Federally approved rate. A requirement that the subrecipient permit the pass-through entity and auditors to have access to the subrecipient?s records and financial statements as necessary for the pass-through entity to meet the requirements of this part; and Appropriate terms and conditions concerning closeout of the subaward. Evaluate each subrecipient?s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring. Consider imposing specific subaward conditions upon a subrecipient if appropriate as described in ? 200.208. 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: Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. 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. 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. The pass-through entity is responsible for resolving audit findings specifically related to the subaward and not responsible for resolving crosscutting findings. If a subrecipient has a current Single Audit report posted in the Federal Audit Clearinghouse and has not otherwise been excluded from receipt of Federal funding (e.g., has been debarred or suspended), the pass-through entity may rely on the subrecipient's cognizant audit agency or cognizant oversight agency to perform audit follow-up and make management decisions related to cross-cutting findings in accordance with section ? 200.513(a)(3)(vii). Such reliance does not eliminate the responsibility of the pass-through entity to issue subawards that conform to agency and award-specific requirements, to manage risk through ongoing subaward monitoring, and to monitor the status of the findings that are specifically related to the subaward. Depending upon the pass-through entity's assessment of risk posed by the subrecipient, the following monitoring tools may be useful for the pass-through entity to ensure proper accountability and compliance with program requirements and achievement of performance goals: Providing subrecipients with training and technical assistance on program-related matters; and Performing on-site reviews of the subrecipient's program operations; Arranging for agreed-upon-procedures engagements as described in ? 200.425. 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. Consider whether the results of the subrecipient's audits, on-site reviews, or other monitoring indicate conditions that necessitate adjustments to the pass-through entity's own records. Consider taking enforcement action against noncompliant subrecipients as described in ? 200.339 of this part and in program regulations. Cause: The Organization?s management was not aware of the subrecipient monitoring and management requirements. Effect: The Organization was not in compliance with any of the subrecipient monitoring and management requirements, resulting in a material noncompliance and a material weakness in internal controls over compliance. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization implement systems and procedures to ensure compliance with the subrecipient monitoring and management compliance requirements.
2 CFR § 2400.101 gives regulatory effect to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for 2 C.F.R. § 200.328 which states, unless otherwise approved by OMB, the Federal awarding agency must solicit only the OMB-approved governmentwide data elements for collection of financial information (at time of publication the Federal Financial Report or such future, OMB-approved, governmentwide data elements available from the OMB-designated standards lead. 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. The Federal awarding agency must use OMB-approved common information collections, as applicable, when providing financial and performance reporting information. 2 CFR § 2400.101 gives regulatory effect to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for 2 CFR § 200.208 which states, in part, that Federal awarding agencies are responsible for ensuring that specific Federal award conditions are consistent with the program design reflected in § 200.202 and include clear performance expectations of recipients as required in § 200.301. The Federal awarding agency or pass- through entity may adjust specific Federal award conditions as needed, in accordance with this section, based on an analysis of specified factors. Additional Federal award conditions may be added provided the applicant or non-Federal entity has been notified, and any additional requirements must be promptly removed once the conditions that prompted them have been satisfied. Additional Federal award conditions may include items such as additional, more detailed financial reports. The State of Ohio Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Grant Agreement for McConnelsville NRG Sewer Facility Improvements (B-F-19-1CA-1) state that the grantee shall submit the required reports in an adequate and timely fashion. Granter shall provide a format for these reports and shall instruct Grantee on the proper completion of said reports. All report forms and requirements listed herein shall be provided by Granter, but shall not be construed to limit Granter in making additional and/or further requests, nor in the change or addition of detail to the items listed. The Grantee shall submit to Granter a Status Report within 30 days of the request by Granter. The County submitted Status Reports; however possibly due to the failure of an existing control(s), one out of one (one hundred percent) of Status Reports were submitted seven months late. Reporting errors could adversely affect future grant awards. An additional control(s) and/or procedure(s) should be implemented to help ensure required reports are accurately prepared and submitted in a timely manner.
2 CFR § 2400.101 gives regulatory effect to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for 2 C.F.R. § 200.328 which states, unless otherwise approved by OMB, the Federal awarding agency must solicit only the OMB-approved governmentwide data elements for collection of financial information (at time of publication the Federal Financial Report or such future, OMB-approved, governmentwide data elements available from the OMB-designated standards lead. 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. The Federal awarding agency must use OMB-approved common information collections, as applicable, when providing financial and performance reporting information. 2 CFR § 2400.101 gives regulatory effect to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for 2 CFR § 200.208 which states, in part, that Federal awarding agencies are responsible for ensuring that specific Federal award conditions are consistent with the program design reflected in § 200.202 and include clear performance expectations of recipients as required in § 200.301. The Federal awarding agency or pass- through entity may adjust specific Federal award conditions as needed, in accordance with this section, based on an analysis of specified factors. Additional Federal award conditions may be added provided the applicant or non-Federal entity has been notified, and any additional requirements must be promptly removed once the conditions that prompted them have been satisfied. Additional Federal award conditions may include items such as additional, more detailed financial reports. The State of Ohio Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Grant Agreement for McConnelsville NRG Sewer Facility Improvements (B-F-19-1CA-1) state that the grantee shall submit the required reports in an adequate and timely fashion. Granter shall provide a format for these reports and shall instruct Grantee on the proper completion of said reports. All report forms and requirements listed herein shall be provided by Granter, but shall not be construed to limit Granter in making additional and/or further requests, nor in the change or addition of detail to the items listed. The Grantee shall submit to Granter a Status Report within 30 days of the request by Granter. The County submitted Status Reports; however possibly due to the failure of an existing control(s), one out of one (one hundred percent) of Status Reports were submitted seven months late. Reporting errors could adversely affect future grant awards. An additional control(s) and/or procedure(s) should be implemented to help ensure required reports are accurately prepared and submitted in a timely manner.
2 CFR § 2400.101 gives regulatory effect to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for 2 C.F.R. § 200.328 which states, unless otherwise approved by OMB, the Federal awarding agency must solicit only the OMB-approved governmentwide data elements for collection of financial information (at time of publication the Federal Financial Report or such future, OMB-approved, governmentwide data elements available from the OMB-designated standards lead. 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. The Federal awarding agency must use OMB-approved common information collections, as applicable, when providing financial and performance reporting information. 2 CFR § 2400.101 gives regulatory effect to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for 2 CFR § 200.208 which states, in part, that Federal awarding agencies are responsible for ensuring that specific Federal award conditions are consistent with the program design reflected in § 200.202 and include clear performance expectations of recipients as required in § 200.301. The Federal awarding agency or pass- through entity may adjust specific Federal award conditions as needed, in accordance with this section, based on an analysis of specified factors. Additional Federal award conditions may be added provided the applicant or non-Federal entity has been notified, and any additional requirements must be promptly removed once the conditions that prompted them have been satisfied. Additional Federal award conditions may include items such as additional, more detailed financial reports. The State of Ohio Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Grant Agreement for McConnelsville NRG Sewer Facility Improvements (B-F-19-1CA-1) state that the grantee shall submit the required reports in an adequate and timely fashion. Granter shall provide a format for these reports and shall instruct Grantee on the proper completion of said reports. All report forms and requirements listed herein shall be provided by Granter, but shall not be construed to limit Granter in making additional and/or further requests, nor in the change or addition of detail to the items listed. The Grantee shall submit to Granter a Status Report within 30 days of the request by Granter. The County submitted Status Reports; however possibly due to the failure of an existing control(s), one out of one (one hundred percent) of Status Reports were submitted seven months late. Reporting errors could adversely affect future grant awards. An additional control(s) and/or procedure(s) should be implemented to help ensure required reports are accurately prepared and submitted in a timely manner.
2 CFR § 2400.101 gives regulatory effect to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for 2 C.F.R. § 200.328 which states, unless otherwise approved by OMB, the Federal awarding agency must solicit only the OMB-approved governmentwide data elements for collection of financial information (at time of publication the Federal Financial Report or such future, OMB-approved, governmentwide data elements available from the OMB-designated standards lead. 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. The Federal awarding agency must use OMB-approved common information collections, as applicable, when providing financial and performance reporting information. 2 CFR § 2400.101 gives regulatory effect to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for 2 CFR § 200.208 which states, in part, that Federal awarding agencies are responsible for ensuring that specific Federal award conditions are consistent with the program design reflected in § 200.202 and include clear performance expectations of recipients as required in § 200.301. The Federal awarding agency or pass- through entity may adjust specific Federal award conditions as needed, in accordance with this section, based on an analysis of specified factors. Additional Federal award conditions may be added provided the applicant or non-Federal entity has been notified, and any additional requirements must be promptly removed once the conditions that prompted them have been satisfied. Additional Federal award conditions may include items such as additional, more detailed financial reports. The State of Ohio Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Grant Agreement for McConnelsville NRG Sewer Facility Improvements (B-F-19-1CA-1) state that the grantee shall submit the required reports in an adequate and timely fashion. Granter shall provide a format for these reports and shall instruct Grantee on the proper completion of said reports. All report forms and requirements listed herein shall be provided by Granter, but shall not be construed to limit Granter in making additional and/or further requests, nor in the change or addition of detail to the items listed. The Grantee shall submit to Granter a Status Report within 30 days of the request by Granter. The County submitted Status Reports; however possibly due to the failure of an existing control(s), one out of one (one hundred percent) of Status Reports were submitted seven months late. Reporting errors could adversely affect future grant awards. An additional control(s) and/or procedure(s) should be implemented to help ensure required reports are accurately prepared and submitted in a timely manner.
2 CFR § 2400.101 gives regulatory effect to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for 2 C.F.R. § 200.328 which states, unless otherwise approved by OMB, the Federal awarding agency must solicit only the OMB-approved governmentwide data elements for collection of financial information (at time of publication the Federal Financial Report or such future, OMB-approved, governmentwide data elements available from the OMB-designated standards lead. 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. The Federal awarding agency must use OMB-approved common information collections, as applicable, when providing financial and performance reporting information. 2 CFR § 200.208 states, in part, that Federal awarding agencies are responsible for ensuring that specific Federal award conditions are consistent with the program design reflected in § 200.202 and include clear performance expectations of recipients as required in § 200.301. The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal award conditions as needed, in accordance with this section, based on an analysis of specified factors. Additional Federal award conditions may be added provided the applicant or non-Federal entity has been notified, and any additional requirements must be promptly removed once the conditions that prompted them have been satisfied. Additional Federal award conditions may include items such as additional, more detailed financial reports. The State of Ohio Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Grant Agreements for the Village of Lafayette Water Line Project (B-W-20-1AB-1), the Gomer Wastewater Collection System Project (B-W-1AB-3) and Village of Harrod Water Line Project (B-W-20-1AB-2), state that the grantee shall submit the required reports in an adequate and timely fashion. Granter shall provide a format for these reports and shall instruct Grantee on the proper completion of said reports. All report forms and requirements listed herein shall be provided by Granter, but shall not be construed to limit Granter in making additional and/or further requests, nor in the change or addition of detail to the items listed. The Grantee shall submit to Granter a Status Report within 30 days of the request by Granter. The County submitted Status Reports; however, three out of six (fifty percent) Status Reports were submitted between three to six months late and for one out of six (sixteen percent) Status Reports the receipts and expenditures did not agree to the County records. Reporting errors could adversely affect future grant awards. A control system should be implemented to help ensure required reports are accurately prepared and submitted in a timely manner.
FINDING 2022-004 Subject: Formula Grants for Rural Areas and Tribal Transit Program - Subrecipient Monitoring Federal Agency: Department of Transportation Federal Programs: COVID-19 - Formula Grants for Rural Areas and Tribal Transit Program, Formula Grants for Rural Areas and Tribal Transit Program Assistance Listings Number: 20.509 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): EDS#A249-20-G20032, EDS#A249-22-G210088, EDS#A249-22-G210124 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Transportation Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The County 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, material noncompliance related to the Formula Grants for Rural Areas and Tribal Transit Program funds (Transit program) passed through to a subrecipient. The County received and passed through to a subrecipient $664,071 in Transit program funds. The County is to clearly identify the award and applicable requirements to the subrecipient, evaluate the risk of noncompliance related to the subrecipient to determine appropriate monitoring of the subaward, and monitor the activities of the subrecipient to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals. As part of managing the award, the County is to evaluate the subrecipients risk of noncompliance to determine the extent of monitoring. Such factors to consider would include the subrecipients prior experience with the award or similar awards, results of previous audits, any personnel or system changes at the subrecipient, and the extent and results of federal reviews. Based on the results of the County's risk of noncompliance evaluation, the extent of monitoring can be determined. Monitoring activities include, but are not limited to, reviewing financial and performance reports, ensuring audits are obtained as required, follow-up to ensure appropriate action was taken on deficiencies identified during an audit, issuing management decisions for applicable findings related to the federal award, and ensuring audit findings related to the subaward are resolved. The County did not have any policies or procedures in place to evaluate the subrecipient's risk of noncompliance or to monitor the activity of the subrecipient. Per inquiry of the County, it was determined an evaluation of the risk of noncompliance for the subrecipient was not completed, nor did the subrecipient's files support any such evaluation. In addition, while the subrecipient provided reimbursement requests, the requests did not include sufficient evidence for the County to ascertain if the subrecipient was complying with the grant requirements. The County also did not request or review the subrecipient's audit or monitoring reports to identify any potential noncompliance, determine if management decisions were needed, or if any issues identified were properly resolved. 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 200.332 Requirements for pass-through entities. (Revised Uniform Guidance) states in part: "All pass-through entities must: . . . (b) Evaluate each subrecipient's risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, which may include consideration of such factors as: (1) The subrecipient's prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits including whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with Subpart F of this part, and the extent to which the same or similar subaward has been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of Federal awarding agency monitoring (e.g., if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency). (c) Consider imposing specific subaward conditions upon a subrecipient if appropriate as described in ? 200.208. (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: (1) Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. (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 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 and not responsible for resolving cross-cutting findings. If a subrecipient has a current Single Audit report posted in the Federal Audit Clearinghouse and has not otherwise been excluded from receipt of Federal funding (e.g., has been debarred or suspended), the pass-through entity may rely on the subrecipient's cognizant audit agency or cognizant oversight agency to perform audit follow-up and make management decisions related to cross-cutting findings in accordance with section ? 200.513(a)(3)(vii). Such reliance does not eliminate the responsibility of the pass-through entity to issue subawards that conform to agency and award-specific requirements, to manage risk through ongoing subaward monitoring, and to monitor the status of the findings that are specifically related to the subaward. Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the County. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the County'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 implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, the County did not properly evaluate the subrecipients risk of noncompliance or adequately monitor the subrecipient. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the County. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the County implement a proper system of internal controls, including segregation of duties, to evaluate the subrecipients risk of noncompliance and adequately monitor the subrecipient. Additionally, policies and procedures should be implemented to ensure appropriate reviews, approvals, and oversight are taking place, as needed, to evaluate and monitor its subrecipient. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-004 Subject: Formula Grants for Rural Areas and Tribal Transit Program - Subrecipient Monitoring Federal Agency: Department of Transportation Federal Programs: COVID-19 - Formula Grants for Rural Areas and Tribal Transit Program, Formula Grants for Rural Areas and Tribal Transit Program Assistance Listings Number: 20.509 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): EDS#A249-20-G20032, EDS#A249-22-G210088, EDS#A249-22-G210124 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Transportation Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The County 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, material noncompliance related to the Formula Grants for Rural Areas and Tribal Transit Program funds (Transit program) passed through to a subrecipient. The County received and passed through to a subrecipient $664,071 in Transit program funds. The County is to clearly identify the award and applicable requirements to the subrecipient, evaluate the risk of noncompliance related to the subrecipient to determine appropriate monitoring of the subaward, and monitor the activities of the subrecipient to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals. As part of managing the award, the County is to evaluate the subrecipients risk of noncompliance to determine the extent of monitoring. Such factors to consider would include the subrecipients prior experience with the award or similar awards, results of previous audits, any personnel or system changes at the subrecipient, and the extent and results of federal reviews. Based on the results of the County's risk of noncompliance evaluation, the extent of monitoring can be determined. Monitoring activities include, but are not limited to, reviewing financial and performance reports, ensuring audits are obtained as required, follow-up to ensure appropriate action was taken on deficiencies identified during an audit, issuing management decisions for applicable findings related to the federal award, and ensuring audit findings related to the subaward are resolved. The County did not have any policies or procedures in place to evaluate the subrecipient's risk of noncompliance or to monitor the activity of the subrecipient. Per inquiry of the County, it was determined an evaluation of the risk of noncompliance for the subrecipient was not completed, nor did the subrecipient's files support any such evaluation. In addition, while the subrecipient provided reimbursement requests, the requests did not include sufficient evidence for the County to ascertain if the subrecipient was complying with the grant requirements. The County also did not request or review the subrecipient's audit or monitoring reports to identify any potential noncompliance, determine if management decisions were needed, or if any issues identified were properly resolved. 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 200.332 Requirements for pass-through entities. (Revised Uniform Guidance) states in part: "All pass-through entities must: . . . (b) Evaluate each subrecipient's risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, which may include consideration of such factors as: (1) The subrecipient's prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits including whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with Subpart F of this part, and the extent to which the same or similar subaward has been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of Federal awarding agency monitoring (e.g., if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency). (c) Consider imposing specific subaward conditions upon a subrecipient if appropriate as described in ? 200.208. (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: (1) Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. (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 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 and not responsible for resolving cross-cutting findings. If a subrecipient has a current Single Audit report posted in the Federal Audit Clearinghouse and has not otherwise been excluded from receipt of Federal funding (e.g., has been debarred or suspended), the pass-through entity may rely on the subrecipient's cognizant audit agency or cognizant oversight agency to perform audit follow-up and make management decisions related to cross-cutting findings in accordance with section ? 200.513(a)(3)(vii). Such reliance does not eliminate the responsibility of the pass-through entity to issue subawards that conform to agency and award-specific requirements, to manage risk through ongoing subaward monitoring, and to monitor the status of the findings that are specifically related to the subaward. Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the County. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the County'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 implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, the County did not properly evaluate the subrecipients risk of noncompliance or adequately monitor the subrecipient. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the County. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the County implement a proper system of internal controls, including segregation of duties, to evaluate the subrecipients risk of noncompliance and adequately monitor the subrecipient. Additionally, policies and procedures should be implemented to ensure appropriate reviews, approvals, and oversight are taking place, as needed, to evaluate and monitor its subrecipient. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
2022-002 Cash Management - Formula Grants for Rural Areas and Tribal Transit Program ALN 20.509 U.S. Department of Transportation Criteria: 2 CFR ?1200.1 gives regulatory effect to the Department of Transportation for 2 CFR ? 200.305(b)(3) which states 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. ODOT Federal Transit Administration Section 5311 Rural Transit Program Criteria and Application Instruction, Section VII, Part D provides that the grantee must submit via e-mail quarterly operating data reports on the 15th day of the month following the end of the calendar quarter. Condition: The County was required to submit quarterly invoices by the 15th day of the month following the end of the calendar quarter. Context: During our review of the quarterly reports, we noted the County had submitted all 2022 reports late. Effect: The County was not in compliance with cash management requirements in 2022. Cause: Lack of sufficient internal controls over the reporting requirements of the Rural Transit Program. Recommendation: We recommend the County enhance its internal controls over cash management requirements. View of Responsible Officials: See Corrective Action Plan
Finding Number: 2022-007 Repeat Finding: Yes Type of Finding: Material Weakness in Internal Control and Material Noncompliance Description: Subrecipient Monitoring and Management Major Programs AL#93.665 - Emergency Grants to Address Mental and Substance Use Disorders During COVID-19 ? Direct Award (DHHS) ? Award numbers: 6H79FG000252-01M003 and 6H79FG000689-01M004 AL#93.772 - Tribal Public Health Capacity Building and Quality Improvement Umbrella Cooperative Agreement ? Direct Award (DHHS) ? Award numbers: 5NU38OT000257-04-00 and 5NU38OT000257-05-00 Questioned Costs: None How the questioned costs were computed: N/A Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Condition: The Organization did not comply with any of the subrecipient monitoring and management requirements in accordance with 2 CFR Part 200.332. Criteria: The subrecipient monitoring and management requirements that are codified in 2 CFR Part 200.332 requires the pass-through entity must: Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes: Federal award identification; All requirements imposed by the pass-through entity on the subrecipient so that the Federal award is used in accordance with Federal statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of the Federal award; Any additional requirements that the pass-through entity imposes on the subrecipient in order for the pass-through entity to meet its own responsibility to the Federal awarding agency including identification of any required financial and performance reports. An approved federally recognized indirect cost rate negotiated between the subrecipient and the Federal Government. If no approved rate exists, the pass-through entity must determine the appropriate rate in collaboration with the subrecipient, which is either: The negotiated indirect cost rate between the pass-through entity and the subrecipient; The de minimis indirect cost rate The pass-through entity must not require use of a de minimis indirect cost rate if the subrecipient has a Federally approved rate. A requirement that the subrecipient permit the pass-through entity and auditors to have access to the subrecipient?s records and financial statements as necessary for the pass-through entity to meet the requirements of this part; and Appropriate terms and conditions concerning closeout of the subaward. Evaluate each subrecipient?s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring. Consider imposing specific subaward conditions upon a subrecipient if appropriate as described in ? 200.208. 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: Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. 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. 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. The pass-through entity is responsible for resolving audit findings specifically related to the subaward and not responsible for resolving crosscutting findings. If a subrecipient has a current Single Audit report posted in the Federal Audit Clearinghouse and has not otherwise been excluded from receipt of Federal funding (e.g., has been debarred or suspended), the pass-through entity may rely on the subrecipient's cognizant audit agency or cognizant oversight agency to perform audit follow-up and make management decisions related to cross-cutting findings in accordance with section ? 200.513(a)(3)(vii). Such reliance does not eliminate the responsibility of the pass-through entity to issue subawards that conform to agency and award-specific requirements, to manage risk through ongoing subaward monitoring, and to monitor the status of the findings that are specifically related to the subaward. Depending upon the pass-through entity's assessment of risk posed by the subrecipient, the following monitoring tools may be useful for the pass-through entity to ensure proper accountability and compliance with program requirements and achievement of performance goals: Providing subrecipients with training and technical assistance on program-related matters; and Performing on-site reviews of the subrecipient's program operations; Arranging for agreed-upon-procedures engagements as described in ? 200.425. 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. Consider whether the results of the subrecipient's audits, on-site reviews, or other monitoring indicate conditions that necessitate adjustments to the pass-through entity's own records. Consider taking enforcement action against noncompliant subrecipients as described in ? 200.339 of this part and in program regulations. Cause: The Organization?s management was not aware of the subrecipient monitoring and management requirements. Effect: The Organization was not in compliance with any of the subrecipient monitoring and management requirements, resulting in a material noncompliance and a material weakness in internal controls over compliance. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization implement systems and procedures to ensure compliance with the subrecipient monitoring and management compliance requirements.
Finding Number: 2022-007 Repeat Finding: Yes Type of Finding: Material Weakness in Internal Control and Material Noncompliance Description: Subrecipient Monitoring and Management Major Programs AL#93.665 - Emergency Grants to Address Mental and Substance Use Disorders During COVID-19 ? Direct Award (DHHS) ? Award numbers: 6H79FG000252-01M003 and 6H79FG000689-01M004 AL#93.772 - Tribal Public Health Capacity Building and Quality Improvement Umbrella Cooperative Agreement ? Direct Award (DHHS) ? Award numbers: 5NU38OT000257-04-00 and 5NU38OT000257-05-00 Questioned Costs: None How the questioned costs were computed: N/A Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Condition: The Organization did not comply with any of the subrecipient monitoring and management requirements in accordance with 2 CFR Part 200.332. Criteria: The subrecipient monitoring and management requirements that are codified in 2 CFR Part 200.332 requires the pass-through entity must: Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes: Federal award identification; All requirements imposed by the pass-through entity on the subrecipient so that the Federal award is used in accordance with Federal statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of the Federal award; Any additional requirements that the pass-through entity imposes on the subrecipient in order for the pass-through entity to meet its own responsibility to the Federal awarding agency including identification of any required financial and performance reports. An approved federally recognized indirect cost rate negotiated between the subrecipient and the Federal Government. If no approved rate exists, the pass-through entity must determine the appropriate rate in collaboration with the subrecipient, which is either: The negotiated indirect cost rate between the pass-through entity and the subrecipient; The de minimis indirect cost rate The pass-through entity must not require use of a de minimis indirect cost rate if the subrecipient has a Federally approved rate. A requirement that the subrecipient permit the pass-through entity and auditors to have access to the subrecipient?s records and financial statements as necessary for the pass-through entity to meet the requirements of this part; and Appropriate terms and conditions concerning closeout of the subaward. Evaluate each subrecipient?s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring. Consider imposing specific subaward conditions upon a subrecipient if appropriate as described in ? 200.208. 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: Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. 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. 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. The pass-through entity is responsible for resolving audit findings specifically related to the subaward and not responsible for resolving crosscutting findings. If a subrecipient has a current Single Audit report posted in the Federal Audit Clearinghouse and has not otherwise been excluded from receipt of Federal funding (e.g., has been debarred or suspended), the pass-through entity may rely on the subrecipient's cognizant audit agency or cognizant oversight agency to perform audit follow-up and make management decisions related to cross-cutting findings in accordance with section ? 200.513(a)(3)(vii). Such reliance does not eliminate the responsibility of the pass-through entity to issue subawards that conform to agency and award-specific requirements, to manage risk through ongoing subaward monitoring, and to monitor the status of the findings that are specifically related to the subaward. Depending upon the pass-through entity's assessment of risk posed by the subrecipient, the following monitoring tools may be useful for the pass-through entity to ensure proper accountability and compliance with program requirements and achievement of performance goals: Providing subrecipients with training and technical assistance on program-related matters; and Performing on-site reviews of the subrecipient's program operations; Arranging for agreed-upon-procedures engagements as described in ? 200.425. 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. Consider whether the results of the subrecipient's audits, on-site reviews, or other monitoring indicate conditions that necessitate adjustments to the pass-through entity's own records. Consider taking enforcement action against noncompliant subrecipients as described in ? 200.339 of this part and in program regulations. Cause: The Organization?s management was not aware of the subrecipient monitoring and management requirements. Effect: The Organization was not in compliance with any of the subrecipient monitoring and management requirements, resulting in a material noncompliance and a material weakness in internal controls over compliance. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization implement systems and procedures to ensure compliance with the subrecipient monitoring and management compliance requirements.
Finding Number: 2022-007 Repeat Finding: Yes Type of Finding: Material Weakness in Internal Control and Material Noncompliance Description: Subrecipient Monitoring and Management Major Programs AL#93.665 - Emergency Grants to Address Mental and Substance Use Disorders During COVID-19 ? Direct Award (DHHS) ? Award numbers: 6H79FG000252-01M003 and 6H79FG000689-01M004 AL#93.772 - Tribal Public Health Capacity Building and Quality Improvement Umbrella Cooperative Agreement ? Direct Award (DHHS) ? Award numbers: 5NU38OT000257-04-00 and 5NU38OT000257-05-00 Questioned Costs: None How the questioned costs were computed: N/A Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Condition: The Organization did not comply with any of the subrecipient monitoring and management requirements in accordance with 2 CFR Part 200.332. Criteria: The subrecipient monitoring and management requirements that are codified in 2 CFR Part 200.332 requires the pass-through entity must: Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes: Federal award identification; All requirements imposed by the pass-through entity on the subrecipient so that the Federal award is used in accordance with Federal statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of the Federal award; Any additional requirements that the pass-through entity imposes on the subrecipient in order for the pass-through entity to meet its own responsibility to the Federal awarding agency including identification of any required financial and performance reports. An approved federally recognized indirect cost rate negotiated between the subrecipient and the Federal Government. If no approved rate exists, the pass-through entity must determine the appropriate rate in collaboration with the subrecipient, which is either: The negotiated indirect cost rate between the pass-through entity and the subrecipient; The de minimis indirect cost rate The pass-through entity must not require use of a de minimis indirect cost rate if the subrecipient has a Federally approved rate. A requirement that the subrecipient permit the pass-through entity and auditors to have access to the subrecipient?s records and financial statements as necessary for the pass-through entity to meet the requirements of this part; and Appropriate terms and conditions concerning closeout of the subaward. Evaluate each subrecipient?s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring. Consider imposing specific subaward conditions upon a subrecipient if appropriate as described in ? 200.208. 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: Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. 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. 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. The pass-through entity is responsible for resolving audit findings specifically related to the subaward and not responsible for resolving crosscutting findings. If a subrecipient has a current Single Audit report posted in the Federal Audit Clearinghouse and has not otherwise been excluded from receipt of Federal funding (e.g., has been debarred or suspended), the pass-through entity may rely on the subrecipient's cognizant audit agency or cognizant oversight agency to perform audit follow-up and make management decisions related to cross-cutting findings in accordance with section ? 200.513(a)(3)(vii). Such reliance does not eliminate the responsibility of the pass-through entity to issue subawards that conform to agency and award-specific requirements, to manage risk through ongoing subaward monitoring, and to monitor the status of the findings that are specifically related to the subaward. Depending upon the pass-through entity's assessment of risk posed by the subrecipient, the following monitoring tools may be useful for the pass-through entity to ensure proper accountability and compliance with program requirements and achievement of performance goals: Providing subrecipients with training and technical assistance on program-related matters; and Performing on-site reviews of the subrecipient's program operations; Arranging for agreed-upon-procedures engagements as described in ? 200.425. 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. Consider whether the results of the subrecipient's audits, on-site reviews, or other monitoring indicate conditions that necessitate adjustments to the pass-through entity's own records. Consider taking enforcement action against noncompliant subrecipients as described in ? 200.339 of this part and in program regulations. Cause: The Organization?s management was not aware of the subrecipient monitoring and management requirements. Effect: The Organization was not in compliance with any of the subrecipient monitoring and management requirements, resulting in a material noncompliance and a material weakness in internal controls over compliance. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization implement systems and procedures to ensure compliance with the subrecipient monitoring and management compliance requirements.
2 CFR § 2400.101 gives regulatory effect to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for 2 C.F.R. § 200.328 which states, unless otherwise approved by OMB, the Federal awarding agency must solicit only the OMB-approved governmentwide data elements for collection of financial information (at time of publication the Federal Financial Report or such future, OMB-approved, governmentwide data elements available from the OMB-designated standards lead. 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. The Federal awarding agency must use OMB-approved common information collections, as applicable, when providing financial and performance reporting information. 2 CFR § 2400.101 gives regulatory effect to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for 2 CFR § 200.208 which states, in part, that Federal awarding agencies are responsible for ensuring that specific Federal award conditions are consistent with the program design reflected in § 200.202 and include clear performance expectations of recipients as required in § 200.301. The Federal awarding agency or pass- through entity may adjust specific Federal award conditions as needed, in accordance with this section, based on an analysis of specified factors. Additional Federal award conditions may be added provided the applicant or non-Federal entity has been notified, and any additional requirements must be promptly removed once the conditions that prompted them have been satisfied. Additional Federal award conditions may include items such as additional, more detailed financial reports. The State of Ohio Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Grant Agreement for McConnelsville NRG Sewer Facility Improvements (B-F-19-1CA-1) state that the grantee shall submit the required reports in an adequate and timely fashion. Granter shall provide a format for these reports and shall instruct Grantee on the proper completion of said reports. All report forms and requirements listed herein shall be provided by Granter, but shall not be construed to limit Granter in making additional and/or further requests, nor in the change or addition of detail to the items listed. The Grantee shall submit to Granter a Status Report within 30 days of the request by Granter. The County submitted Status Reports; however possibly due to the failure of an existing control(s), one out of one (one hundred percent) of Status Reports were submitted seven months late. Reporting errors could adversely affect future grant awards. An additional control(s) and/or procedure(s) should be implemented to help ensure required reports are accurately prepared and submitted in a timely manner.
2 CFR § 2400.101 gives regulatory effect to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for 2 C.F.R. § 200.328 which states, unless otherwise approved by OMB, the Federal awarding agency must solicit only the OMB-approved governmentwide data elements for collection of financial information (at time of publication the Federal Financial Report or such future, OMB-approved, governmentwide data elements available from the OMB-designated standards lead. 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. The Federal awarding agency must use OMB-approved common information collections, as applicable, when providing financial and performance reporting information. 2 CFR § 2400.101 gives regulatory effect to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for 2 CFR § 200.208 which states, in part, that Federal awarding agencies are responsible for ensuring that specific Federal award conditions are consistent with the program design reflected in § 200.202 and include clear performance expectations of recipients as required in § 200.301. The Federal awarding agency or pass- through entity may adjust specific Federal award conditions as needed, in accordance with this section, based on an analysis of specified factors. Additional Federal award conditions may be added provided the applicant or non-Federal entity has been notified, and any additional requirements must be promptly removed once the conditions that prompted them have been satisfied. Additional Federal award conditions may include items such as additional, more detailed financial reports. The State of Ohio Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Grant Agreement for McConnelsville NRG Sewer Facility Improvements (B-F-19-1CA-1) state that the grantee shall submit the required reports in an adequate and timely fashion. Granter shall provide a format for these reports and shall instruct Grantee on the proper completion of said reports. All report forms and requirements listed herein shall be provided by Granter, but shall not be construed to limit Granter in making additional and/or further requests, nor in the change or addition of detail to the items listed. The Grantee shall submit to Granter a Status Report within 30 days of the request by Granter. The County submitted Status Reports; however possibly due to the failure of an existing control(s), one out of one (one hundred percent) of Status Reports were submitted seven months late. Reporting errors could adversely affect future grant awards. An additional control(s) and/or procedure(s) should be implemented to help ensure required reports are accurately prepared and submitted in a timely manner.