Finding Number: 2023-017 Prior Year Finding Number: N/A Compliance Requirement: Reporting Program: Government Department/Agency: U.S. Department of Education COVID-19 – Education Stabilization Fund Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund ALN: 84.425D Award #: S425D210034 Award Year: 05/07/2020 – 09/30/2023 COVID-19 – Education Stabilization Fund American Rescue Plan - Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief Fund (ARP-ESSER) ALN: 84.425U Award #: S425U210034-21A Award Year: 03/24/2021 – 09/30/2023 Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) Criteria - The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200.303 requires that non-Federal entities receiving Federal awards (i.e., auditee management) establish and maintain internal control designed to reasonably ensure compliance with Federal statues, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 2 CFR Section 200.302(a), Financial Management, states that each state must expend and account for the federal award in accordance with state laws and procedures for expending and accounting for the state’s own funds. In addition, the state’s and the other non-federal entity’s financial management systems, including records documenting compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award, must be sufficient to permit the preparation of reports required by general and program-specific terms and conditions; and the tracing of funds to a level of expenditures adequate to establish that such funds have been used according to the federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Condition – Certain grant expenditures amounting to approximately $9.7 million, had erroneously been reflected as expenditures under assistance listing number 84.425D, Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund. Subsequently, OSSE adjusted the SEFA to reflect the expenditure to 84.425U, American Rescue Plan - Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief Fund. Further, the amount of subrecipient expenses initially reported is overstated by $269,140. Subsequently, OSSE adjusted the SEFA to reflect the actual amount of subrecipient expenditures incurred for the program. Questioned Costs – None. Context – This is a condition identified per review of OSSE’s compliance with the specified requirements. Effect – OSSE is not in compliance with the stated provisions. Failure to properly review and support expenditures can result in noncompliance with laws and regulations along with loss of funding. Cause – OSSE did not appear to have adequate policies and procedures in place to ensure accuracy of the SEFA. Recommendation – We recommend that OSSE adhere to instituted policies and procedures to ensure the accuracy of the SEFA. Related Noncompliance – Noncompliance. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions – OSSE agrees with the conditions and recommendations of this finding. The District’s corrective action is described in the Management’s Corrective Action Plan included as Appendix B of the attached Management’s Section.
Finding Number: 2023-017 Prior Year Finding Number: N/A Compliance Requirement: Reporting Program: Government Department/Agency: U.S. Department of Education COVID-19 – Education Stabilization Fund Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund ALN: 84.425D Award #: S425D210034 Award Year: 05/07/2020 – 09/30/2023 COVID-19 – Education Stabilization Fund American Rescue Plan - Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief Fund (ARP-ESSER) ALN: 84.425U Award #: S425U210034-21A Award Year: 03/24/2021 – 09/30/2023 Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) Criteria - The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200.303 requires that non-Federal entities receiving Federal awards (i.e., auditee management) establish and maintain internal control designed to reasonably ensure compliance with Federal statues, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 2 CFR Section 200.302(a), Financial Management, states that each state must expend and account for the federal award in accordance with state laws and procedures for expending and accounting for the state’s own funds. In addition, the state’s and the other non-federal entity’s financial management systems, including records documenting compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award, must be sufficient to permit the preparation of reports required by general and program-specific terms and conditions; and the tracing of funds to a level of expenditures adequate to establish that such funds have been used according to the federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Condition – Certain grant expenditures amounting to approximately $9.7 million, had erroneously been reflected as expenditures under assistance listing number 84.425D, Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund. Subsequently, OSSE adjusted the SEFA to reflect the expenditure to 84.425U, American Rescue Plan - Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief Fund. Further, the amount of subrecipient expenses initially reported is overstated by $269,140. Subsequently, OSSE adjusted the SEFA to reflect the actual amount of subrecipient expenditures incurred for the program. Questioned Costs – None. Context – This is a condition identified per review of OSSE’s compliance with the specified requirements. Effect – OSSE is not in compliance with the stated provisions. Failure to properly review and support expenditures can result in noncompliance with laws and regulations along with loss of funding. Cause – OSSE did not appear to have adequate policies and procedures in place to ensure accuracy of the SEFA. Recommendation – We recommend that OSSE adhere to instituted policies and procedures to ensure the accuracy of the SEFA. Related Noncompliance – Noncompliance. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions – OSSE agrees with the conditions and recommendations of this finding. The District’s corrective action is described in the Management’s Corrective Action Plan included as Appendix B of the attached Management’s Section.
Item 2023‐002 Written policies, procedures, and standards of conduct COVID 19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund Assistance Listing Number 21.027 U.S. Department of Treasury Grant period: Year ended September 30, 2023 Questioned Costs – $0 Condition – The City does not have all of the written policies, procedures and standards of conduct required by UG. Criteria – 2 CFR 200.303 requires the non‐Federal entity to “(a) establish and maintain effective internal controls over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non‐Federal entity is managing the Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.” Grantees should have written policies, procedures, and standards of conduct as required by 2 CFR 200, Subparts D & E of the Uniform Guidance. 2 CFR 200, Subparts D & E requires the non‐ Federal entity to establish and maintain written policies, procedures, and standards of conduct including internal controls over the Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the non‐ Federal entity is managing the Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Specific requirements relate to the following: § 200.302 Financial management § 200.305 Payment § 200.319 Competition § 200.320 Methods of procurement to be followed § 200.430 Compensation—personal services § 200.431 Compensation—fringe benefits Cause of Condition – The City has failed to prepare written policies, procedures, and standards of conduct as required by 2 CFR 200, Subparts D & E of the Uniform Guidance. Potential Effect of Condition – Lack of written policies, procedures, and standards of conduct could result in noncompliance related to federal awards. Recommendation – We recommend that the City implement the required written policies and procedures. Management’s Response – Management agrees with the finding and will implement the necessary written policies to comply with the UG. Management anticipates completion by September 30, 2024.
MANAGEMENT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN INTERNAL CONTROL PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING ALLOWABLE COSTS. 2 CFR 200 SUBPART 3, SECTION 200.302(B)(7) REQUIRES WRITTEN PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING THE ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBPART E - COST PRINCIPLES OF THIS PART AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE FEDERAL AWARD. NO QUESTIONED COSTS. CAUSE IS THE LACK OF WRITTEN CONTROLS TO IDENTIFY ALLOWABLE COSTS AND SPECIAL TESTS AND PROVISIONS. THIS WAS A REPEAT FINDING. IT WAS PREVIOUSLY NOTED AS FINDING 2022-002
MANAGEMENT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN INTERNAL CONTROL PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING ALLOWABLE COSTS. 2 CFR 200 SUBPART 3, SECTION 200.302(B)(7) REQUIRES WRITTEN PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING THE ALLOWABILITY OF COSTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBPART E - COST PRINCIPLES OF THIS PART AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE FEDERAL AWARD. NO QUESTIONED COSTS. CAUSE IS THE LACK OF WRITTEN CONTROLS TO IDENTIFY ALLOWABLE COSTS AND SPECIAL TESTS AND PROVISIONS. THIS WAS A REPEAT FINDING. IT WAS PREVIOUSLY NOTED AS FINDING 2022-002
Finding 2023-003 Inadequate Tracking of Federal Expenses (Allowable Costs) Federal Programs: All Criteria: In accordance with CFR 200.302 organizations receiving Federal awards must maintain accurate records that adequately identify the source and application of Federal funds. This includes tracking Federal expenditures separately and distinctly within their accounting system. Additionally, in accordance with CFR 200.303, the non-Federal entity must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Condition: The Organization's use of class codes in QuickBooks to track Federal expenses was found to be inadequate. Although the Organization uses QuickBooks to record financial transactions, there is no systematic method in place to ensure that Federal expenditures are properly classified and tracked using distinct class codes. Cause: The deficiency in tracking Federal expenses within QuickBooks using class codes appears to stem from a lack of understanding or awareness of the requirements outlined in Uniform Guidance. Additionally, there may be insufficient training provided to staff responsible for financial management and accounting practices. Effect or Potential Effect: Without proper tracking of Federal expenses using class codes, the Organization risks commingling Federal funds with other sources of revenue, which could lead to inaccurate reporting and potential non-compliance with Uniform Guidance requirements. This deficiency increases the likelihood of errors in financial reporting and raises concerns about the Organization's ability to demonstrate proper stewardship of Federal funds. Questioned Costs: Indeterminable. Context: The Organization does not currently use its financial management system to leverage the tracking of Federal funds between programs; the tracking is currently manual, based on Excel spreadsheets, and difficult to track/audit. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Organization establish and implement procedures to effectively track Federal expenses within QuickBooks using distinct class codes in accordance with 2 CFR 200.302. This may involve providing training to staff on the proper use of class codes and ensuring that all Federal expenditures are consistently and accurately classified in the accounting system.
Finding 2023-003 Inadequate Tracking of Federal Expenses (Allowable Costs) Federal Programs: All Criteria: In accordance with CFR 200.302 organizations receiving Federal awards must maintain accurate records that adequately identify the source and application of Federal funds. This includes tracking Federal expenditures separately and distinctly within their accounting system. Additionally, in accordance with CFR 200.303, the non-Federal entity must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Condition: The Organization's use of class codes in QuickBooks to track Federal expenses was found to be inadequate. Although the Organization uses QuickBooks to record financial transactions, there is no systematic method in place to ensure that Federal expenditures are properly classified and tracked using distinct class codes. Cause: The deficiency in tracking Federal expenses within QuickBooks using class codes appears to stem from a lack of understanding or awareness of the requirements outlined in Uniform Guidance. Additionally, there may be insufficient training provided to staff responsible for financial management and accounting practices. Effect or Potential Effect: Without proper tracking of Federal expenses using class codes, the Organization risks commingling Federal funds with other sources of revenue, which could lead to inaccurate reporting and potential non-compliance with Uniform Guidance requirements. This deficiency increases the likelihood of errors in financial reporting and raises concerns about the Organization's ability to demonstrate proper stewardship of Federal funds. Questioned Costs: Indeterminable. Context: The Organization does not currently use its financial management system to leverage the tracking of Federal funds between programs; the tracking is currently manual, based on Excel spreadsheets, and difficult to track/audit. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Organization establish and implement procedures to effectively track Federal expenses within QuickBooks using distinct class codes in accordance with 2 CFR 200.302. This may involve providing training to staff on the proper use of class codes and ensuring that all Federal expenditures are consistently and accurately classified in the accounting system.
Finding 2023-003 Inadequate Tracking of Federal Expenses (Allowable Costs) Federal Programs: All Criteria: In accordance with CFR 200.302 organizations receiving Federal awards must maintain accurate records that adequately identify the source and application of Federal funds. This includes tracking Federal expenditures separately and distinctly within their accounting system. Additionally, in accordance with CFR 200.303, the non-Federal entity must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Condition: The Organization's use of class codes in QuickBooks to track Federal expenses was found to be inadequate. Although the Organization uses QuickBooks to record financial transactions, there is no systematic method in place to ensure that Federal expenditures are properly classified and tracked using distinct class codes. Cause: The deficiency in tracking Federal expenses within QuickBooks using class codes appears to stem from a lack of understanding or awareness of the requirements outlined in Uniform Guidance. Additionally, there may be insufficient training provided to staff responsible for financial management and accounting practices. Effect or Potential Effect: Without proper tracking of Federal expenses using class codes, the Organization risks commingling Federal funds with other sources of revenue, which could lead to inaccurate reporting and potential non-compliance with Uniform Guidance requirements. This deficiency increases the likelihood of errors in financial reporting and raises concerns about the Organization's ability to demonstrate proper stewardship of Federal funds. Questioned Costs: Indeterminable. Context: The Organization does not currently use its financial management system to leverage the tracking of Federal funds between programs; the tracking is currently manual, based on Excel spreadsheets, and difficult to track/audit. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Organization establish and implement procedures to effectively track Federal expenses within QuickBooks using distinct class codes in accordance with 2 CFR 200.302. This may involve providing training to staff on the proper use of class codes and ensuring that all Federal expenditures are consistently and accurately classified in the accounting system.
Federal Programs: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Consolidated Health Centers Cluster: Community Health Centers (Assistance Listing #93.224); American Rescue Plan Act Funding for Health Centers (Assistance Listing #93.224); Primary Care HIV Prevention (Assistance Listing #93.527). Finding Type: Significant Deficiency Criteria: The 2 CFR section 200.302 requires that non-federal entities receiving federal awards present accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program. The entity is required to maintain records, supported by source documentation, that identify adequately the source of funds for federally funded programs. Condition and Context: For 3 of the Center’s 50 expense reimbursement request draw-downs for the year ended September 30, 2023, the reimbursement request included more expenses than the amount of respective expenses incurred. Cause: During the year, the Center experienced turnover within the finance department and expense reimbursement requests were inadvertently completed incorrectly using previous or unrelated payroll information reports. Effect: As a result of the incorrect expense reimbursements, the Center received reimbursement payments in excess of related expenses incurred totaling $30,337 for the year ended September 30, 2023. Questioned Costs: $30, 337 Recommendation: The Center should implement a more robust process and related internal controls surrounding the expense reimbursement requests to ensure the submitted requests agree to the respective costs incurred and supported. Views of Responsible Officials: Due to extenuating circumstances, including turnover in the finance department, the reimbursement requests were not properly reviewed and agreed to supporting documentation. However, although the expense reimbursement requests exceeded the respective incurred expenses in the identified requests above, the Center consistently incurs allowable expenses that qualify to be reimbursed in excess of total grant payments received and is working to remediate the issue.
Federal Programs: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Consolidated Health Centers Cluster: Community Health Centers (Assistance Listing #93.224); American Rescue Plan Act Funding for Health Centers (Assistance Listing #93.224); Primary Care HIV Prevention (Assistance Listing #93.527). Finding Type: Significant Deficiency Criteria: The 2 CFR section 200.302 requires that non-federal entities receiving federal awards present accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program. The entity is required to maintain records, supported by source documentation, that identify adequately the source of funds for federally funded programs. Condition and Context: For 3 of the Center’s 50 expense reimbursement request draw-downs for the year ended September 30, 2023, the reimbursement request included more expenses than the amount of respective expenses incurred. Cause: During the year, the Center experienced turnover within the finance department and expense reimbursement requests were inadvertently completed incorrectly using previous or unrelated payroll information reports. Effect: As a result of the incorrect expense reimbursements, the Center received reimbursement payments in excess of related expenses incurred totaling $30,337 for the year ended September 30, 2023. Questioned Costs: $30, 337 Recommendation: The Center should implement a more robust process and related internal controls surrounding the expense reimbursement requests to ensure the submitted requests agree to the respective costs incurred and supported. Views of Responsible Officials: Due to extenuating circumstances, including turnover in the finance department, the reimbursement requests were not properly reviewed and agreed to supporting documentation. However, although the expense reimbursement requests exceeded the respective incurred expenses in the identified requests above, the Center consistently incurs allowable expenses that qualify to be reimbursed in excess of total grant payments received and is working to remediate the issue.
Federal Programs: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Consolidated Health Centers Cluster: Community Health Centers (Assistance Listing #93.224); American Rescue Plan Act Funding for Health Centers (Assistance Listing #93.224); Primary Care HIV Prevention (Assistance Listing #93.527). Finding Type: Significant Deficiency Criteria: The 2 CFR section 200.302 requires that non-federal entities receiving federal awards present accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program. The entity is required to maintain records, supported by source documentation, that identify adequately the source of funds for federally funded programs. Condition and Context: For 3 of the Center’s 50 expense reimbursement request draw-downs for the year ended September 30, 2023, the reimbursement request included more expenses than the amount of respective expenses incurred. Cause: During the year, the Center experienced turnover within the finance department and expense reimbursement requests were inadvertently completed incorrectly using previous or unrelated payroll information reports. Effect: As a result of the incorrect expense reimbursements, the Center received reimbursement payments in excess of related expenses incurred totaling $30,337 for the year ended September 30, 2023. Questioned Costs: $30, 337 Recommendation: The Center should implement a more robust process and related internal controls surrounding the expense reimbursement requests to ensure the submitted requests agree to the respective costs incurred and supported. Views of Responsible Officials: Due to extenuating circumstances, including turnover in the finance department, the reimbursement requests were not properly reviewed and agreed to supporting documentation. However, although the expense reimbursement requests exceeded the respective incurred expenses in the identified requests above, the Center consistently incurs allowable expenses that qualify to be reimbursed in excess of total grant payments received and is working to remediate the issue.
2023-005 Internal Controls over Grant Management (Significant Deficiency and Noncompliance) Criteria: 2 CFR 200.302 establishes the requirements of a financial management system adequate to ensure compliance with federal regulations. This system must include written procedures to implement requirements for payment methods and determine the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E. Statement of Condition: The City has written fiscal policies but they do not meet the financial management system requirements established in the regulations. Cause: The City has processes and procedures in place to administer grant funds but written policies do not contain compliance requirements. Effect: The City is not in compliance with financial management system requirements. Recommendation: The City should develop a grants manual or additional written policies to incorporate all the requirements of 2 CFR 200 and ensure compliance. Views of Management and Planned Corrective Action: See Corrective Action Plan included at the end of the report.
2023-005 Internal Controls over Grant Management (Significant Deficiency and Noncompliance) Criteria: 2 CFR 200.302 establishes the requirements of a financial management system adequate to ensure compliance with federal regulations. This system must include written procedures to implement requirements for payment methods and determine the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E. Statement of Condition: The City has written fiscal policies but they do not meet the financial management system requirements established in the regulations. Cause: The City has processes and procedures in place to administer grant funds but written policies do not contain compliance requirements. Effect: The City is not in compliance with financial management system requirements. Recommendation: The City should develop a grants manual or additional written policies to incorporate all the requirements of 2 CFR 200 and ensure compliance. Views of Management and Planned Corrective Action: See Corrective Action Plan included at the end of the report.
2023-005: Written Policies and Procedures Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name: Assistance Listing Number 93.696, Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic Expansion Grant Federal Award Identification Number and Year: 1H79SM086680-01, Program Grant Period 09/29/2022-09/29/2023 Pass-through Entity: N/A Type: Material weakness in internal control and noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding: No Criteria: As a precondition to receive federal awards, prospective recipients must have effective internal controls over the federal award. As described in 2 CFR, Part 200.303, nonfederal entities must have certain written policies and procedures surrounding the management of their federal awards. Such policies should include procedures for collecting payments of federal funds per 2 CRF 200.305, cash management (i.e., minimizing the time between draws and actual disbursing of federal awards) per 2 CFR 200.302(b)(6), allowable cost per 2 CFR 200.403, and conflict of interest per 2 CFR 200.318. Per 2 CFR 200.319(d), the non-Federal entity must have written procedures for procurement transactions. Condition: The Authority did not have written procedures for cash management and allowable cost. Identification of How Likely Questioned Costs Were Computed: N/A Known Questioned Costs: None Context: N/A Cause/Effect: Although the Authority is aware that they were required to have written policies and procedures for the items noted above, they were using the grant agreement guidelines that provide grantees with guidance for ensuring the existing accounting and personnel policies and procedures include the necessary controls. These guidelines address the compliance areas required by the Uniform Guidance. Recommendation: We recommend the Authority adopt written policies and procedures over cash management and allowable costs required under the Uniform Guidance. View of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action Plan: See attached corrective action plan.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Program: Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program – Part B (ALN 93.917) Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our testing of the Ryan White Service Delivery program (grant period ending March 31, 2023), we noted that STDC initially submitted a final financial report to the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) – Ryan White Division, reporting $491,993 in contractual expenditures and $69,458 in administrative expenditures. Subsequently, STDC submitted an additional reimbursement request via Form B-13, which included $162,433 in additional contractual costs and $12,153 in administrative costs. Upon review of the supporting documentation for this supplemental submission, we were unable to obtain sufficient appropriate evidence that the additional $12,153 in administrative expenditures were actually incurred. Despite the lack of adequate supporting documentation, the full amount was reimbursed by DSHS. Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403(g), to be allowable under a federal award, costs must be adequately documented. Furthermore, §200.302(b)(3) requires recipients of federal funds to maintain records that identify adequately the source and application of funds, and §200.338(a) authorizes federal agencies to disallow costs that are not properly supported or allocable. Cause: STDC did not maintain contemporaneous or sufficient documentation to support administrative costs included in the post-period reimbursement request. Additionally, internal controls over the review and approval of financial reports and supplemental claims (e.g., Form B-13 submissions) were not operating effectively to prevent or detect the inclusion of unsupported expenditures. Effect: As a result, STDC received federal reimbursement for $12,153 in administrative costs without appropriate documentation, constituting noncompliance with federal cost principles. This condition may result in the disallowance of costs and repayment obligations to the funding agency. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC strengthen internal controls related to post-award financial reporting and reimbursement procedures by: • Ensuring that all costs claimed are supported by contemporaneous documentation clearly demonstrating that costs were incurred and allocable; • Establishing a formal review protocol for post-period adjustments, including documentation validation and supervisory sign-off; • Performing reconciliations of claimed expenditures before submission of final or supplemental reports to granting agencies; and • Consulting with DSHS to determine whether corrective action or repayment is necessary regarding the unsupported amount. Questioned Costs: $12,153
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Criteria Per 2 CFR §200.328 and §200.302 of the Uniform Guidance, recipients of federal awards must submit performance and financial reports in a timely manner, ensure reports are accurate and reconcilable to financial records, and maintain documentation of internal controls including review procedures. Condition The Organization was unable to provide adequate documentary evidence that it complied with the reporting requirements of the Uniform Guidance. We noted that some reports were not submitted before the stated deadline. In addition, some adjustments were required to reconcile the amounts reported to the federal awarding agencies with the Organization’s accounting records. Cause The Organization’s system of internal control, including control activities, was inadequate to ensure timely submission of required reports or facilitate a reconciliation of reported amounts to the Organization’s accounting records. Additionally, the Organization was unable to provide documentary evidence that reports were reviewed by the appropriate personnel prior to their submission. Effect The lack of supervisory review of the required reports increases the risk of material noncompliance with the reporting requirements set forth in the Uniform Guidance. Furthermore, certain information reported to federal awarding agencies for the fiscal year under audit may be inaccurate or inconsistent with the Organization’s underlying accounting records. Questioned Costs None Context We performed procedures to test the Organization’s reporting practices related to federal awards. We selected a sample of required financial and performance reports submitted to federal awarding agencies for testing. The objective was to verify whether reports were submitted timely, accurately reflected accounting data, and included evidence of management review. During the testing, we were unable to obtain sufficient and appropriate documentary evidence to corroborate the Organization’s compliance with reporting requirements. Recommendation We recommend that management establishes and implements policies that provide for documentary evidence of review of reports required by federal awards by appropriate individuals to ensure the timely submission of required reports. In addition, we recommend that the Organization establishes controls to reconcile the data reported to federal awarding agencies to the Organization’s underlying accounting records. Views of Responsible Officials See the accompanying Corrective Action Plan.
Finding 2023 – 003: Activities Allowed and Unallowed, Allowable Costs, Period of Performance (Compliance; Internal Controls Over Compliance) (Repeat Finding: 2021-003 and 2022-003) Material Weakness – 93.U01 Title V Criteria: Per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 and 2 CFR § 200.333, entities must maintain records that adequately identify the source and application of federal funds and retain documentation to support compliance with program requirements. Condition: The Organization’s general ledger did not allow for sufficient identification of transactions related to the major program, Title V. Title V expenditures were recorded through journal entries without supporting transaction-level detail. Because of this, the population of expenditures could not be tied to individual transactions, and pulling samples from this population would not provide a reasonable basis for drawing conclusions about the population tested. As a result, we were unable to select transactions for testing or perform the necessary audit procedures to assess compliance with federal requirements. Questioned Costs: Unable to determine due to scope limitation. Cause: Staff turnover and the Organization’s recordkeeping practices did not ensure sufficient documentation was maintained to support federal compliance. Effect: Due to the lack of adequate documentation, we were unable to obtain sufficient, appropriate audit evidence to form an opinion on the Organization’s compliance with these requirements. Consequently, a disclaimed opinion on compliance was issued for this major program. Additionally, these expenditures may be subject to repayment or further review by the granting agency. Recommendation: We recommend that management strengthen documentation and recordkeeping procedures to ensure compliance with federal record retention requirements. The Organization should implement a standardized process for tracking federal grant expenditures, ensuring proper coding within the accounting system, conduct periodic internal reviews to verify completeness and accuracy of financial records, and provide training to finance staff on Uniform Guidance requirements for grant record retention and reporting. Views of Responsible Officials: See the corrective action plan that accompanies the schedule of findings and questioned costs.
Finding 2023 – 004: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment (Compliance; Internal Controls Over Compliance) (Repeat Finding: 2021-004 and 2022-004) Material Weakness – 93.U01 Title V Criteria: Per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 and 2 CFR § 200.333, entities must maintain records that adequately identify the source and application of federal funds and retain documentation to support compliance with program requirements. Additionally, per 2 CFR § 200.213, entities must verify that vendors and contractors receiving federal funds are not suspended or debarred by checking the System for Award Management (SAM) or obtaining vendor certifications. Condition: The Organization was unable to provide sufficient documentation to support compliance with federal procurement and suspension and debarment requirements for purchases made under the Title V program. The general ledger did not allow for sufficient identification of transactions related to the Title V program as all expenditures were recorded through journal entries without supporting transaction-level detail. Due to this limitation, we were unable to select procurement transactions for testing or verify whether vendors had been screened for suspension and debarment before contracts were awarded. Questioned Costs: Unable to determine due to scope limitation. Cause: The Organization did not maintain adequate financial records or procurement documentation to demonstrate compliance with Uniform Guidance requirements. The lack of a complete and detailed general ledger further limited the ability to track and substantiate transactions. Effect: Without sufficient documentation, the Organization was unable to demonstrate compliance with federal procurement regulations, increasing the risk of noncompliance and potential disallowed costs. Additionally, these expenditures may be subject to repayment or further review by the granting agency. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization strengthen its financial recordkeeping and procurement processes by implementing procedures to ensure a complete and accurate general ledger is maintained. This should include appropriate coding to identify federal program expenditures. The Organization should also establish and enforce procurement policies that align with Uniform Guidance, including documentation of procurement methods, price or cost analyses, and vendor selection, implementing a process to verify and document vendor suspension and debarment status before awarding federally funded contracts, and conducting periodic internal reviews to ensure compliance with procurement and recordkeeping requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: See the corrective action plan that accompanies the schedule of findings and questioned costs.
Finding 2023 – 005: Reporting (Compliance; Internal Controls Over Compliance) (Repeat Finding: 2021-005 and 2022-005) Material Weakness – 93.U01 Title V Criteria: Per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 and 2 CFR § 200.333, entities must maintain records that adequately identify the source and application of federal funds and retain documentation to support compliance with program requirements. Condition: The Organization was unable to provide any of the required reports for the Title V program, including the financial report, activity narrative, third-party income report, GPRA/GPRAMA, urban data standards, and property inventory. Without these reports, we were unable to perform the necessary audit procedures to assess compliance with federal requirements. Questioned Costs: None. Cause: The Organization lacked sufficient record retention policies and failed to maintain the required documentation needed for reporting compliance. Effect: The Organization was unable to produce key reports necessary for compliance with grant and audit requirements. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization implement stronger documentation and recordkeeping procedures to ensure compliance with federal reporting requirements. This should include: • ensuring that all required reports (e.g., financial reports, activity narratives, third-party income reports) are generated and retained according to Uniform Guidance, • establishing a process for regular internal reviews to verify the completeness and accuracy of required federal reports, and • providing staff with training on record retention and reporting obligations to ensure timely and accurate submissions. Views of Responsible Officials: See the corrective action plan that accompanies the schedule of findings and questioned costs.
2023-005 – Department of the Interior Federal Program Name: Natural Resource Stewardship - Pass-Through Agency: N/A Assistance Listing Number: 15.944 Federal Award Identification Year: 2023 Award Period: 10/01/2022 – 09/30/2023 Type of Finding: Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance (Modified Opinion) Criteria: 2 CFR 200.414(c) – Federal awards recipients must negotiate an indirect cost rate with the cognizant agency for indirect costs, which is typically the federal agency that provides the most funding to the recipient. 2 CFR 200.403(d) – The negotiated rate must be applied consistently across all federal awards to ensure uniformity in cost allocation. 2 CFR 200.302(b)(3) – Recipients must maintain adequate documentation to support the indirect costs charged to federal awards, ensuring compliance with the cost principles outlined in the regulation Condition: For all invoices submitted to the grantor including those that included indirect cost rate calculations, there was no documented review and approval of the submission by management. Condition: Known: $94,287 Likely: $94,287 Context: Internal controls need to be formally documented as well as have support and authorization. With no authorization or proof that the internal control was completed, we cannot rely on the controls. Effect: Not having internal controls formalized and documented can lead to higher risk of noncompliance and misreporting. Cause: Internal controls are not formalized or documented Repeat Finding: The finding is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that CIES modifies its internal control policies for general review and approval of the reporting requirements set forth by the criteria listed above. Management’s Views: See separate corrective action plan.
Special Tests and Provisions – ERA Funds Reallocation Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Program Title: Emergency Rental Assistance Program ALN: 21.023 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Number and Period: 1505-0270 – 2021 May 5, 2021 – September 30, 2025 Statistically Valid Sample: No, and not intended to be a statistically valid sample Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Noncompliance Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR §200.302, the non-Federal entity's financial management systems, including records documenting compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award, must be sufficient to permit the preparation of reports required by general and program-specific terms and conditions; and the tracing of funds to a level of expenditures adequate to establish that such funds have been used according to the Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Further, the financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements. Per 2 CFR §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). Per Treasury’s ERA2 Reallocation Guidance Updated November 15, 2022, the ERA2 statute requires Treasury to identify funds for reallocation from amounts allocated to eligible Grantees, but not yet paid out to them. Specifically, the statute provides that beginning on March 31, 2022, Treasury must “reallocate funds allocated to eligible grantees … but not yet paid,” according to a procedure established by Treasury. Condition: Audit procedures included a review of the ERA2 Quarter 3 2022 (July-September) and ERA2 Quarter 4 2022 (October-December) Compliance Reports. We noted that $6,777,186 was double counted on the ‘Cumulative Amount of Award Obligated as of the end of the Reporting Period’ amount in the ERA2 Quarter 4 2022 Compliance Report. Questioned costs: None. Context: See "Condition" Cause: Obligated amounts were duplicated when preparing the supporting worksheets due to management oversight. Effect: Inaccurate supporting data when calculating reallocation expenditure ratios may result in an incorrect amount of excess funds subject to recapture by Treasury. Repeat finding: 2022-025 Recommendation: We recommend management enhance its internal controls over the review of supporting reallocation expenditure ratio calculations. Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the finding and recommendation
Health Center Infrastructure Support Financial Reporting Federal Agency: Department of Health and Human Services Program: Health Center Infrastructure Support Assistance Listing #: 93.526 Criteria In accordance with OMB Uniform Guidance 2 CFR 200.302(2), the financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program. Condition The Health Center Infrastructure Support award requires recipients to submit a Federal Financial Report (FFR) on an annual basis. Sunset Park submitted the FFRs due in 2023 and 2024 (for expenses incurred in 2022 and 2023, respectively) in a timely manner, however, the financial information included on the FFRs was reported on a cash basis instead of the accrual basis indicated by Sunset Park on the FFRs. Cause Sunset Park did not select the appropriate basis of accounting on the FFRs that correlated to the financial information being reported. Effect The FFRs submitted for the 2022 and 2023 budget periods underreported cumulative federal expenditures incurred under the program by $1,049,618, which represents the difference between expenditures incurred through the end of the 2023 budget period and cash receipts as of that same date. The Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards in both years, however, accurately reported the accrual basis expenditures. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation Sunset Park should contact the Federal awarding agency to determine appropriate action to correct the previously submitted FFRs. Sunset Park should also enhance its control procedures to ensure that FFRs submitted are reconciled to the underlying accounting records to ensure accurate, current, and complete disclosure.
: Per 2 CFR 200.302, the state's and the other non-Federal entity's financial management systems, including records documenting compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award, must be sufficient to permit the preparation of reports required by general and program-specific terms and conditions; and the tracing of funds to a level of expenditures adequate to establish that such funds have been used according to the Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Further, the financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements. According to §200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the non-Federal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.
Special Tests and Provisions – ERA Funds Reallocation Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Program Title: Emergency Rental Assistance Program ALN: 21.023 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Number and Period: 1505-0270 – 2021 May 5, 2021 – September 30, 2025 Statistically Valid Sample: No, and not intended to be a statistically valid sample Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Noncompliance Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR §200.302, the non-Federal entity's financial management systems, including records documenting compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award, must be sufficient to permit the preparation of reports required by general and program-specific terms and conditions; and the tracing of funds to a level of expenditures adequate to establish that such funds have been used according to the Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Further, the financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements. Per 2 CFR §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). Per Treasury’s ERA2 Reallocation Guidance Updated November 15, 2022, the ERA2 statute requires Treasury to identify funds for reallocation from amounts allocated to eligible Grantees, but not yet paid out to them. Specifically, the statute provides that beginning on March 31, 2022, Treasury must “reallocate funds allocated to eligible grantees … but not yet paid,” according to a procedure established by Treasury. Condition: Audit procedures included a review of the ERA2 Quarter 3 2022 (July-September) and ERA2 Quarter 4 2022 (October-December) Compliance Reports. We noted that $6,777,186 was double counted on the ‘Cumulative Amount of Award Obligated as of the end of the Reporting Period’ amount in the ERA2 Quarter 4 2022 Compliance Report. Questioned costs: None. Context: See "Condition" Cause: Obligated amounts were duplicated when preparing the supporting worksheets due to management oversight. Effect: Inaccurate supporting data when calculating reallocation expenditure ratios may result in an incorrect amount of excess funds subject to recapture by Treasury. Repeat finding: 2022-025 Recommendation: We recommend management enhance its internal controls over the review of supporting reallocation expenditure ratio calculations. Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the finding and recommendation
Health Center Infrastructure Support Financial Reporting Federal Agency: Department of Health and Human Services Program: Health Center Infrastructure Support Assistance Listing #: 93.526 Criteria In accordance with OMB Uniform Guidance 2 CFR 200.302(2), the financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program. Condition The Health Center Infrastructure Support award requires recipients to submit a Federal Financial Report (FFR) on an annual basis. Sunset Park submitted the FFRs due in 2023 and 2024 (for expenses incurred in 2022 and 2023, respectively) in a timely manner, however, the financial information included on the FFRs was reported on a cash basis instead of the accrual basis indicated by Sunset Park on the FFRs. Cause Sunset Park did not select the appropriate basis of accounting on the FFRs that correlated to the financial information being reported. Effect The FFRs submitted for the 2022 and 2023 budget periods underreported cumulative federal expenditures incurred under the program by $1,049,618, which represents the difference between expenditures incurred through the end of the 2023 budget period and cash receipts as of that same date. The Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards in both years, however, accurately reported the accrual basis expenditures. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation Sunset Park should contact the Federal awarding agency to determine appropriate action to correct the previously submitted FFRs. Sunset Park should also enhance its control procedures to ensure that FFRs submitted are reconciled to the underlying accounting records to ensure accurate, current, and complete disclosure.
: Per 2 CFR 200.302, the state's and the other non-Federal entity's financial management systems, including records documenting compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award, must be sufficient to permit the preparation of reports required by general and program-specific terms and conditions; and the tracing of funds to a level of expenditures adequate to establish that such funds have been used according to the Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Further, the financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements. According to §200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the non-Federal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.
Identification: 2 CFR 200.302 Financial Management; 93.498 United States Department of Health and Human Services, Provider Relief Fund (PRF) and American Rescue Plan Rural Distribution (ARPA); Material weaknesses/Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Cost/Cost Principle and Reporting Compliance Requirements There was inadequate internal controls in place over financial reporting related to revenue recognition and reconciling general ledger balances to supporting documentation which caused inadequate controls over compliance related to federal programs. See Financial Statement Findings 2023-001, 2023-002, and 2023-003 for a description of these deficiencies, including the views of responsible officials.
Corporation for National and Community Services Assistance Listing Numbers 94.006 – AmeriCorps State and National Compliance and Significant Deficiency over Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principle (Payroll) Repeat Finding: No Condition: The Organization was unable to provide applicable payroll documentation for the period August 1, 2022 through July 31, 2023 in order to validate compliance and internal controls over Activities Allowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles as it relates to payroll charges to the Federal grant. Management charged payroll to the program based on budget. Criteria: The Uniform Guidance requires that non-Federal entities receiving Federal awards establish and maintain internal controls designed to reasonably ensure compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the Federal award. The characteristics of internal controls are presented in the context of the components of internal controls discussed in Internal Control-Integrated Framework (COSO Report), published by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. The COSO Report provides a framework for organizations to design, implement, and evaluate control that will facilitate compliance with the requirements of Federal laws, regulations, and program compliance requirements. Per AmeriCorps general terms and conditions, the recipient must maintain financial management systems that comply with 2 CFR § 200.302(b). The recipient’s financial management systems must be capable of distinguishing expenditures attributable to this award from expenditures not attributable to this award. The systems must be able to identify costs by program year and by budget category, and to differentiate between direct and indirect costs. For all recipient’s financial management requirements and responsibilities, refer to Subparts D and E of 2 CFR Part 200. Per 2 CFR section 200.430(a)(3)(i): (a) General. Compensation for personal services includes all remuneration, paid currently or accrued, for services of employees rendered during the period of performance under the Federal award, including but not necessarily limited to wages and salaries. Compensation for personal services may also include fringe benefits which are addressed in §200.431 Compensation—fringe benefits. Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity consistently applied to both Federal and non-Federal activities. (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of Federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Standards for Documentation of Personnel Expenses (1) Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal controls which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non-Federal entity, not exceeding 100% of compensated activities; (iv) Encompass both federally assisted and all other activities compensated by the non-Federal entity on an integrated basis, but may include the use of subsidiary records as defined in the non-Federal entity’s written policy; (v) Comply with the established accounting policies and practices of the non-Federal entity; and (vi) Support the distribution of the employee’s salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. Cause: The Organization did not have adequate controls over the time and effort process, therefore recording and retention of supporting documentation was not properly adhered to in accordance with Uniform Guidance. Effect or Potential Effect: Salaries and wages were not properly supported by a system of internal controls which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated. Salary and wage charges were not able to be reconciled to the time distribution records. Questioned Costs: Unknown. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization implement policies and procedures to track, calculate and document adjustments from budget salary charges to actual after-the-fact charges that should be charged to the Federal award based on the employee time distribution records. This needs to be performed at least on an annual basis.
Corporation for National and Community Services Assistance Listing Numbers 94.006 – AmeriCorps State and National Compliance and Significant Deficiency over Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principle (Indirect Costs) Repeat Finding: No Condition: The Organization was unable to provide applicable indirect costs rationale documentation for the period August 1, 2022 through July 31, 2023 in order to validate compliance and internal controls over Activities Allowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles. Management was not able to provide the approved indirect rate for the various locations to support the actual indirect cost rate charged. Criteria: The Uniform Guidance requires that non-Federal entities receiving Federal awards establish and maintain internal controls designed to reasonably ensure compliance with Federal laws, regulations, and program compliance requirements. The characteristics of internal controls are presented in the context of the components of internal controls discussed in Internal Control-Integrated Framework (COSO Report), published by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. The COSO Report provides a framework for organizations to design, implement, and evaluate control that will facilitate compliance with the requirements of Federal laws, regulations, and program compliance requirements. Per AmeriCorps general terms and conditions, the recipient must maintain financial management systems that comply with 2 CFR § 200.302(b). The recipient’s financial management systems must be capable of distinguishing expenditures attributable to this award from expenditures not attributable to this award. The systems must be able to identify costs by program year and by budget category, and to differentiate between direct and indirect costs. For all recipient’s financial management requirements and responsibilities, refer to Subparts D and E of 2 CFR Part 200. Cause: The Organization did not have adequate controls over the rationale of indirect cost process, therefore recording and retention of supporting documentation was not properly adhered to in accordance with Uniform Guidance. Effect or Potential Effect: Indirect costs were not properly supported by a system of internal controls which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated. Questioned Costs: Unknown. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization establish and implement controls to properly document the indirect costs rationale and approved rate determination to charge to the grant.
Corporation for National and Community Services Assistance Listing Numbers 94.006 – AmeriCorps State and National Compliance and Significant Deficiency over Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principle (Payroll) Repeat Finding: No Condition: The Organization was unable to provide applicable payroll documentation for the period August 1, 2022 through July 31, 2023 in order to validate compliance and internal controls over Activities Allowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles as it relates to payroll charges to the Federal grant. Management charged payroll to the program based on budget. Criteria: The Uniform Guidance requires that non-Federal entities receiving Federal awards establish and maintain internal controls designed to reasonably ensure compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the Federal award. The characteristics of internal controls are presented in the context of the components of internal controls discussed in Internal Control-Integrated Framework (COSO Report), published by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. The COSO Report provides a framework for organizations to design, implement, and evaluate control that will facilitate compliance with the requirements of Federal laws, regulations, and program compliance requirements. Per AmeriCorps general terms and conditions, the recipient must maintain financial management systems that comply with 2 CFR § 200.302(b). The recipient’s financial management systems must be capable of distinguishing expenditures attributable to this award from expenditures not attributable to this award. The systems must be able to identify costs by program year and by budget category, and to differentiate between direct and indirect costs. For all recipient’s financial management requirements and responsibilities, refer to Subparts D and E of 2 CFR Part 200. Per 2 CFR section 200.430(a)(3)(i): (a) General. Compensation for personal services includes all remuneration, paid currently or accrued, for services of employees rendered during the period of performance under the Federal award, including but not necessarily limited to wages and salaries. Compensation for personal services may also include fringe benefits which are addressed in §200.431 Compensation—fringe benefits. Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity consistently applied to both Federal and non-Federal activities. (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of Federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Standards for Documentation of Personnel Expenses (1) Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal controls which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non-Federal entity, not exceeding 100% of compensated activities; (iv) Encompass both federally assisted and all other activities compensated by the non-Federal entity on an integrated basis, but may include the use of subsidiary records as defined in the non-Federal entity’s written policy; (v) Comply with the established accounting policies and practices of the non-Federal entity; and (vi) Support the distribution of the employee’s salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. Cause: The Organization did not have adequate controls over the time and effort process, therefore recording and retention of supporting documentation was not properly adhered to in accordance with Uniform Guidance. Effect or Potential Effect: Salaries and wages were not properly supported by a system of internal controls which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated. Salary and wage charges were not able to be reconciled to the time distribution records. Questioned Costs: Unknown. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization implement policies and procedures to track, calculate and document adjustments from budget salary charges to actual after-the-fact charges that should be charged to the Federal award based on the employee time distribution records. This needs to be performed at least on an annual basis.
Corporation for National and Community Services Assistance Listing Numbers 94.006 – AmeriCorps State and National Compliance and Significant Deficiency over Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principle (Indirect Costs) Repeat Finding: No Condition: The Organization was unable to provide applicable indirect costs rationale documentation for the period August 1, 2022 through July 31, 2023 in order to validate compliance and internal controls over Activities Allowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles. Management was not able to provide the approved indirect rate for the various locations to support the actual indirect cost rate charged. Criteria: The Uniform Guidance requires that non-Federal entities receiving Federal awards establish and maintain internal controls designed to reasonably ensure compliance with Federal laws, regulations, and program compliance requirements. The characteristics of internal controls are presented in the context of the components of internal controls discussed in Internal Control-Integrated Framework (COSO Report), published by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. The COSO Report provides a framework for organizations to design, implement, and evaluate control that will facilitate compliance with the requirements of Federal laws, regulations, and program compliance requirements. Per AmeriCorps general terms and conditions, the recipient must maintain financial management systems that comply with 2 CFR § 200.302(b). The recipient’s financial management systems must be capable of distinguishing expenditures attributable to this award from expenditures not attributable to this award. The systems must be able to identify costs by program year and by budget category, and to differentiate between direct and indirect costs. For all recipient’s financial management requirements and responsibilities, refer to Subparts D and E of 2 CFR Part 200. Cause: The Organization did not have adequate controls over the rationale of indirect cost process, therefore recording and retention of supporting documentation was not properly adhered to in accordance with Uniform Guidance. Effect or Potential Effect: Indirect costs were not properly supported by a system of internal controls which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated. Questioned Costs: Unknown. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization establish and implement controls to properly document the indirect costs rationale and approved rate determination to charge to the grant.
Corporation for National and Community Services Assistance Listing Numbers 94.006 – AmeriCorps State and National Compliance and Significant Deficiency over Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principle (Payroll) Repeat Finding: No Condition: The Organization was unable to provide applicable payroll documentation for the period August 1, 2022 through July 31, 2023 in order to validate compliance and internal controls over Activities Allowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles as it relates to payroll charges to the Federal grant. Management charged payroll to the program based on budget. Criteria: The Uniform Guidance requires that non-Federal entities receiving Federal awards establish and maintain internal controls designed to reasonably ensure compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the Federal award. The characteristics of internal controls are presented in the context of the components of internal controls discussed in Internal Control-Integrated Framework (COSO Report), published by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. The COSO Report provides a framework for organizations to design, implement, and evaluate control that will facilitate compliance with the requirements of Federal laws, regulations, and program compliance requirements. Per AmeriCorps general terms and conditions, the recipient must maintain financial management systems that comply with 2 CFR § 200.302(b). The recipient’s financial management systems must be capable of distinguishing expenditures attributable to this award from expenditures not attributable to this award. The systems must be able to identify costs by program year and by budget category, and to differentiate between direct and indirect costs. For all recipient’s financial management requirements and responsibilities, refer to Subparts D and E of 2 CFR Part 200. Per 2 CFR section 200.430(a)(3)(i): (a) General. Compensation for personal services includes all remuneration, paid currently or accrued, for services of employees rendered during the period of performance under the Federal award, including but not necessarily limited to wages and salaries. Compensation for personal services may also include fringe benefits which are addressed in §200.431 Compensation—fringe benefits. Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity consistently applied to both Federal and non-Federal activities. (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of Federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Standards for Documentation of Personnel Expenses (1) Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal controls which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non-Federal entity, not exceeding 100% of compensated activities; (iv) Encompass both federally assisted and all other activities compensated by the non-Federal entity on an integrated basis, but may include the use of subsidiary records as defined in the non-Federal entity’s written policy; (v) Comply with the established accounting policies and practices of the non-Federal entity; and (vi) Support the distribution of the employee’s salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. Cause: The Organization did not have adequate controls over the time and effort process, therefore recording and retention of supporting documentation was not properly adhered to in accordance with Uniform Guidance. Effect or Potential Effect: Salaries and wages were not properly supported by a system of internal controls which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated. Salary and wage charges were not able to be reconciled to the time distribution records. Questioned Costs: Unknown. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization implement policies and procedures to track, calculate and document adjustments from budget salary charges to actual after-the-fact charges that should be charged to the Federal award based on the employee time distribution records. This needs to be performed at least on an annual basis.
Corporation for National and Community Services Assistance Listing Numbers 94.006 – AmeriCorps State and National Compliance and Significant Deficiency over Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principle (Indirect Costs) Repeat Finding: No Condition: The Organization was unable to provide applicable indirect costs rationale documentation for the period August 1, 2022 through July 31, 2023 in order to validate compliance and internal controls over Activities Allowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles. Management was not able to provide the approved indirect rate for the various locations to support the actual indirect cost rate charged. Criteria: The Uniform Guidance requires that non-Federal entities receiving Federal awards establish and maintain internal controls designed to reasonably ensure compliance with Federal laws, regulations, and program compliance requirements. The characteristics of internal controls are presented in the context of the components of internal controls discussed in Internal Control-Integrated Framework (COSO Report), published by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. The COSO Report provides a framework for organizations to design, implement, and evaluate control that will facilitate compliance with the requirements of Federal laws, regulations, and program compliance requirements. Per AmeriCorps general terms and conditions, the recipient must maintain financial management systems that comply with 2 CFR § 200.302(b). The recipient’s financial management systems must be capable of distinguishing expenditures attributable to this award from expenditures not attributable to this award. The systems must be able to identify costs by program year and by budget category, and to differentiate between direct and indirect costs. For all recipient’s financial management requirements and responsibilities, refer to Subparts D and E of 2 CFR Part 200. Cause: The Organization did not have adequate controls over the rationale of indirect cost process, therefore recording and retention of supporting documentation was not properly adhered to in accordance with Uniform Guidance. Effect or Potential Effect: Indirect costs were not properly supported by a system of internal controls which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated. Questioned Costs: Unknown. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization establish and implement controls to properly document the indirect costs rationale and approved rate determination to charge to the grant.
Corporation for National and Community Services Assistance Listing Numbers 94.006 – AmeriCorps State and National Compliance and Significant Deficiency over Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principle (Payroll) Repeat Finding: No Condition: The Organization was unable to provide applicable payroll documentation for the period August 1, 2022 through July 31, 2023 in order to validate compliance and internal controls over Activities Allowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles as it relates to payroll charges to the Federal grant. Management charged payroll to the program based on budget. Criteria: The Uniform Guidance requires that non-Federal entities receiving Federal awards establish and maintain internal controls designed to reasonably ensure compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the Federal award. The characteristics of internal controls are presented in the context of the components of internal controls discussed in Internal Control-Integrated Framework (COSO Report), published by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. The COSO Report provides a framework for organizations to design, implement, and evaluate control that will facilitate compliance with the requirements of Federal laws, regulations, and program compliance requirements. Per AmeriCorps general terms and conditions, the recipient must maintain financial management systems that comply with 2 CFR § 200.302(b). The recipient’s financial management systems must be capable of distinguishing expenditures attributable to this award from expenditures not attributable to this award. The systems must be able to identify costs by program year and by budget category, and to differentiate between direct and indirect costs. For all recipient’s financial management requirements and responsibilities, refer to Subparts D and E of 2 CFR Part 200. Per 2 CFR section 200.430(a)(3)(i): (a) General. Compensation for personal services includes all remuneration, paid currently or accrued, for services of employees rendered during the period of performance under the Federal award, including but not necessarily limited to wages and salaries. Compensation for personal services may also include fringe benefits which are addressed in §200.431 Compensation—fringe benefits. Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity consistently applied to both Federal and non-Federal activities. (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of Federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Standards for Documentation of Personnel Expenses (1) Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal controls which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non-Federal entity, not exceeding 100% of compensated activities; (iv) Encompass both federally assisted and all other activities compensated by the non-Federal entity on an integrated basis, but may include the use of subsidiary records as defined in the non-Federal entity’s written policy; (v) Comply with the established accounting policies and practices of the non-Federal entity; and (vi) Support the distribution of the employee’s salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. Cause: The Organization did not have adequate controls over the time and effort process, therefore recording and retention of supporting documentation was not properly adhered to in accordance with Uniform Guidance. Effect or Potential Effect: Salaries and wages were not properly supported by a system of internal controls which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated. Salary and wage charges were not able to be reconciled to the time distribution records. Questioned Costs: Unknown. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization implement policies and procedures to track, calculate and document adjustments from budget salary charges to actual after-the-fact charges that should be charged to the Federal award based on the employee time distribution records. This needs to be performed at least on an annual basis.
Corporation for National and Community Services Assistance Listing Numbers 94.006 – AmeriCorps State and National Compliance and Significant Deficiency over Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principle (Indirect Costs) Repeat Finding: No Condition: The Organization was unable to provide applicable indirect costs rationale documentation for the period August 1, 2022 through July 31, 2023 in order to validate compliance and internal controls over Activities Allowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles. Management was not able to provide the approved indirect rate for the various locations to support the actual indirect cost rate charged. Criteria: The Uniform Guidance requires that non-Federal entities receiving Federal awards establish and maintain internal controls designed to reasonably ensure compliance with Federal laws, regulations, and program compliance requirements. The characteristics of internal controls are presented in the context of the components of internal controls discussed in Internal Control-Integrated Framework (COSO Report), published by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. The COSO Report provides a framework for organizations to design, implement, and evaluate control that will facilitate compliance with the requirements of Federal laws, regulations, and program compliance requirements. Per AmeriCorps general terms and conditions, the recipient must maintain financial management systems that comply with 2 CFR § 200.302(b). The recipient’s financial management systems must be capable of distinguishing expenditures attributable to this award from expenditures not attributable to this award. The systems must be able to identify costs by program year and by budget category, and to differentiate between direct and indirect costs. For all recipient’s financial management requirements and responsibilities, refer to Subparts D and E of 2 CFR Part 200. Cause: The Organization did not have adequate controls over the rationale of indirect cost process, therefore recording and retention of supporting documentation was not properly adhered to in accordance with Uniform Guidance. Effect or Potential Effect: Indirect costs were not properly supported by a system of internal controls which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated. Questioned Costs: Unknown. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization establish and implement controls to properly document the indirect costs rationale and approved rate determination to charge to the grant.
Corporation for National and Community Services Assistance Listing Numbers 94.006 – AmeriCorps State and National Compliance and Significant Deficiency over Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principle (Payroll) Repeat Finding: No Condition: The Organization was unable to provide applicable payroll documentation for the period August 1, 2022 through July 31, 2023 in order to validate compliance and internal controls over Activities Allowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles as it relates to payroll charges to the Federal grant. Management charged payroll to the program based on budget. Criteria: The Uniform Guidance requires that non-Federal entities receiving Federal awards establish and maintain internal controls designed to reasonably ensure compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the Federal award. The characteristics of internal controls are presented in the context of the components of internal controls discussed in Internal Control-Integrated Framework (COSO Report), published by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. The COSO Report provides a framework for organizations to design, implement, and evaluate control that will facilitate compliance with the requirements of Federal laws, regulations, and program compliance requirements. Per AmeriCorps general terms and conditions, the recipient must maintain financial management systems that comply with 2 CFR § 200.302(b). The recipient’s financial management systems must be capable of distinguishing expenditures attributable to this award from expenditures not attributable to this award. The systems must be able to identify costs by program year and by budget category, and to differentiate between direct and indirect costs. For all recipient’s financial management requirements and responsibilities, refer to Subparts D and E of 2 CFR Part 200. Per 2 CFR section 200.430(a)(3)(i): (a) General. Compensation for personal services includes all remuneration, paid currently or accrued, for services of employees rendered during the period of performance under the Federal award, including but not necessarily limited to wages and salaries. Compensation for personal services may also include fringe benefits which are addressed in §200.431 Compensation—fringe benefits. Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity consistently applied to both Federal and non-Federal activities. (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of Federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Standards for Documentation of Personnel Expenses (1) Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal controls which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non-Federal entity, not exceeding 100% of compensated activities; (iv) Encompass both federally assisted and all other activities compensated by the non-Federal entity on an integrated basis, but may include the use of subsidiary records as defined in the non-Federal entity’s written policy; (v) Comply with the established accounting policies and practices of the non-Federal entity; and (vi) Support the distribution of the employee’s salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. Cause: The Organization did not have adequate controls over the time and effort process, therefore recording and retention of supporting documentation was not properly adhered to in accordance with Uniform Guidance. Effect or Potential Effect: Salaries and wages were not properly supported by a system of internal controls which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated. Salary and wage charges were not able to be reconciled to the time distribution records. Questioned Costs: Unknown. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization implement policies and procedures to track, calculate and document adjustments from budget salary charges to actual after-the-fact charges that should be charged to the Federal award based on the employee time distribution records. This needs to be performed at least on an annual basis.
Corporation for National and Community Services Assistance Listing Numbers 94.006 – AmeriCorps State and National Compliance and Significant Deficiency over Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principle (Indirect Costs) Repeat Finding: No Condition: The Organization was unable to provide applicable indirect costs rationale documentation for the period August 1, 2022 through July 31, 2023 in order to validate compliance and internal controls over Activities Allowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles. Management was not able to provide the approved indirect rate for the various locations to support the actual indirect cost rate charged. Criteria: The Uniform Guidance requires that non-Federal entities receiving Federal awards establish and maintain internal controls designed to reasonably ensure compliance with Federal laws, regulations, and program compliance requirements. The characteristics of internal controls are presented in the context of the components of internal controls discussed in Internal Control-Integrated Framework (COSO Report), published by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. The COSO Report provides a framework for organizations to design, implement, and evaluate control that will facilitate compliance with the requirements of Federal laws, regulations, and program compliance requirements. Per AmeriCorps general terms and conditions, the recipient must maintain financial management systems that comply with 2 CFR § 200.302(b). The recipient’s financial management systems must be capable of distinguishing expenditures attributable to this award from expenditures not attributable to this award. The systems must be able to identify costs by program year and by budget category, and to differentiate between direct and indirect costs. For all recipient’s financial management requirements and responsibilities, refer to Subparts D and E of 2 CFR Part 200. Cause: The Organization did not have adequate controls over the rationale of indirect cost process, therefore recording and retention of supporting documentation was not properly adhered to in accordance with Uniform Guidance. Effect or Potential Effect: Indirect costs were not properly supported by a system of internal controls which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated. Questioned Costs: Unknown. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization establish and implement controls to properly document the indirect costs rationale and approved rate determination to charge to the grant.